The Guns of Spring [Archive] - Professional Soldiers ®

Richard

04-09-2009, 06:52

No propaganda here - the latest balanced opinion piece on the 2nd Amendment from Pravda on the Hudson. ;)

Richard's $.02 :munchin

The Guns of Spring
Timothy Egan, NYT, 9 Apr 2009

Bam, bam, bam. Three dead in Pittsburgh, cops, all of them, murdered by a man with an AK-47 who thought President Obama was going to take away his guns.

Bam, bam, bam, bam. Four dead in Oakland, also police officers, their lives ended by a convict with an assault rifle.

Bam, bam, bam, bam, bam. Five dead in Washington State, kids mowed down in a trailer park by their own dad, a wife-abusing coward with a gun.

Bam, bam, bam, bam, bam, bam, bam, bam, bam, bam, bam, bam, bam. Thirteen dead in Binghamton, N.Y., immigrants and their teachers slaughtered by a shut-in with a Glock and Beretta. He sent a delusional note, in fractured English but for the sendoff: “And you have a nice day.”

American life in the spring of 2009 is full of hope, peril, and then this: the cancer at the core of our democracy.

In a month of violence gruesome even by our own standards, 57 people have lost their lives in eight mass shootings. The killing grounds include a nursing home, a center for new immigrants, a child’s bedroom. Before that it was a church, a college, a daycare center.

We hear about these sketches of carnage between market updates and basketball scores — and shrug. We’re the frogs slow-boiling in the pot, taking it all in incrementally until we can’t feel a thing. We shrug because that’s the deal, right? That’s the pact we made, the price of Amendment number two to the Constitution, right after freedom of speech.

As a Westerner, I’m sensitive to the argument that when politicians reflexively move to ban guns every after a high-profile slaughter, they often target law-abiding gun owners. Guns in the West are heritage, “a sacred part of being a Montanan and something that we will always fight to protect,” as Senators Jon Tester and Max Baucus, both Democrats from the Big Sky state, wrote in a recent letter to the Justice Department.

But as someone who lost a nephew to gun violence, [!!!] I can only take these arguments so far. They are not abstractions, one side versus the other. I can’t help seeing faces, parents who no longer have a child to hold, hearts broken, lives destroyed when I hear bam, bam, bam.

A mother and her little girl, gunned down along with eight others in Samson, Ala., last month, were buried in each other’s arms — the still life of that second amendment.

In the aftermath of one of these atrocities, nothing is more chilling than a gun advocate racing before a camera to embrace a lunatic’s right to carry and kill.

If it was peanut butter or pistachio nuts taking down people by the dozens every week, we’d be all over it. Witness the recent recalls. But Glocks and AKs — can’t touch ‘em. So we’re awash in guns: 280 million.

Live with it, gun owners say, and if our murder rate is three times that of the United Kingdom and Canada, five times that of Germany, that’s the deal. The price. For consolation, I guess, there is the fact that the homicide rate has been flat for some time, down from the highs of the 1980s. Still, nearly 17,000 Americans are murdered each year — about 70 percent by guns — and 594,276 lost their lives betweens 1976 and 2005.

The recent twists involve Mexican drug cartels, who get their firepower from American retailers, [Guess he doesn't listen to NPR.] and the mass killings this spring by shooters who appear to have acquired their weapons legally. Assault rifles figured prominently in the murders of seven police officers.

The Pittsburgh shooter picked up his AK-47 through an online company that passed the sale through to a licensed firearms dealer, as required. He was apparently legal for these guns despite the fact that he’d been booted from the Marines for assaulting his drill sergeant and had a restraining order from his ex-girlfriend.

All a citizen can do is ask for some common sense around the Second Amendment. The assault weapons ban, outlawing 19 military style guns that no hunter with sense of fair play would ever use, ( :rolleyes: ) should be reinstated. President Bush and Congress let it expire in 2004, even though it was a godsend for police officers and supported by a majority of gun owners.

To the senators who back assault rifles while speaking of the “sacred part of being a Montanan,” you don’t want this kind of heritage. It demeans you as Westerners to allow easy access to weapons that kill innocents, and it does a disservice to history.

Heritage? Old West towns like Dodge City had strict gun control, making people check their weapons at the city doorstep.

And the gun dealers, they should be hammered for selling to drug cartels or through loopholes to convicts. Throw federal racketeering laws at them. Make it as hard for a wife-beater or a felon to get an AK as it is to get a driver’s license.

The rest of us can only mourn and shrug, marking grim anniversaries: Virginia Tech, Columbine, and on, and on, and on.

http://egan.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/04/08/the-guns-of-spring/

HOLLiS

04-09-2009, 07:41

The war on private ownership is escalating.

Surgicalcric

04-09-2009, 07:52

What an asshat...

rltipton

04-09-2009, 08:06

Let us rally to ban pencils so idiots can no longer write shit like this. :p

Team Sergeant

04-09-2009, 08:24

The war on private ownership is escalating.

Bring it....... ;)

I saw a bumper sticker yesterday I liked:

I'll keep my guns, Freedom and money, you can keep the "Change".

Again, bring it......;)

TS

FMF DOC

04-09-2009, 08:45

Excellant bumper sticker, will look for that one...

Maybe if more citizens had their Conceal Carry Permits, the things mention above may have been stopped before the casulties escalated. The media will never print all the of the crimes that lawbiding citizens have stopped by owning a weapon.

Kyobanim

04-09-2009, 09:46

I see that he neglects to say that if the current laws on the books were enforced, none of those incidents would have taken place.

Should have had him fixed instead of my dog.

DinDinA-2

04-09-2009, 10:15

The Guns of Spring
Timothy Egan, NYT, 9 Apr 2009
________________________________________________

What a nit-wit...if you outlaw idiots in the media, only idiots will be in the media. Wait, they already are!!

It is always interesting they always bring up countries with gun bans, however a great deal of those populations...given the chance...would move to this country in a hurry.

Maybe it is time to ban the automobile and enforce public transportation. Afterall, look at the carnage on the highways. And what about those pesky drug dealers using automobiles to transport drugs & guns etc. Eliminate private transportation and the drug problem is solved!

KClapp

04-09-2009, 10:26

I saw a bumper sticker yesterday I liked:

I'll keep my guns, Freedom and money, you can keep the "Change".

I found these on ebay for $2.99 each, shipped. I got several to take to the tea party in Des Moines and share with the folks in IowaCarry. Thanks TS!

swpa19

04-09-2009, 10:35

A few things not reported:

Bam, bam, bam. Three dead in Pittsburgh, cops, all of them, murdered by a man with an AK-47 who thought President Obama was going to take away his guns.

It is true that this pond scum did mention to friends that he was concerned with Obama's stand on firearms. But, the un-reported truth by the MSM is this:

This dick and his mom got into an argument about a dog taking a leak on the carpet. The mom wanted to go back to sleep but the nutcase wouldnt let it go. The mother finally called 911 and asked that her son be removed from the residence. 911 operator asked if there were firearms involved (this is on tape) the mom said yes, but theyre all legal.

911 passed info on to Police Dispatch, but failed to mention the fact that the suspect was heavily armed, and the incident was treated as a domestic disturbance.

The suspect armed himself and donned his tactical vest and waited for police to arrive. He killed these brave officers not because of Obama's stand on gun control but, purely for the sake of killing.

And, as Kyobanim says: New gun legislation is not the answer. We have more than enough gun laws on the books.

greenberetTFS

04-09-2009, 13:05

I found these on ebay for $2.99 each, shipped. I got several to take to the tea party in Des Moines and share with the folks in IowaCarry. Thanks TS!

KClapp,

Please show the URL you used to find this site..................;)

GB TFS :munchin

Kyobanim

04-09-2009, 16:12

http://www.discountbookdistributors.com/illkeepmygunsbumpersticker.aspx

Sigaba

04-09-2009, 16:47

Let us rally to ban pencils so idiots can no longer write shit like this. :p

Maybe someone who has the stomach for such a project could go through the last ten years of the New York Times and find examples of how the Gray Lady contributed to many of today's issues through sloppy reporting, missed stories, and bad editing.

I am beginning to think that the nytimes.com charges such high fees for getting articles out of its digital archives so readers will be discouraged from realizing how far the quality of the paper has fallen.

Richard

04-09-2009, 17:32

I am beginning to think that the nytimes.com charges such high fees for getting articles out of its digital archives so readers will be discouraged from realizing how far the quality of the paper has fallen.

And I'm beginning to think you're right! ;)

Richard's $.02 :munchin

PSM

04-09-2009, 17:39

LET'S ALL SURRENDER OUR WEAPONS -- YOU FIRST!
by Ann Coulter
April 8, 2009

The rash of recent shooting incidents has led people who wouldn't know an AK-47 from a paintball gun to issue demands for more restrictions on guns. To be sure, it's hard to find any factor in these shootings that could be responsible -- other than the gun.

So far, this year's public multiple shootings were committed by:

-- Richard Poplawski, 23, product of a broken family, expelled from high school and dishonorably discharged from the Marines, who killed three policemen in Pittsburgh.

-- Former crack addict Jiverly Wong, 41, who told co-workers "America sucks" yet somehow was not offered a job as a speechwriter for Barack Obama. Wong blockaded his victims in a civic center in Binghamton, N.Y., and shot as many people as he could, before killing himself.

-- Robert Stewart, 45, a three-time divorcee and high school dropout with "violent tendencies" -- according to one of his ex-wives -- who shot up the nursing home in Carthage, N.C., where his newly estranged wife worked.

-- Lovelle Mixon, 26, a paroled felon, struggling to get his life back on track by pimping, who shot four cops in Oakland, Calif. -- before eventually being shot himself.

-- Twenty-eight-year-old Michael McLendon, child of divorce, living with his mother and boycotting family funerals because he hated his relatives, who killed 10 of those relatives and their neighbors in Samson, Ala.

It might make more sense to outlaw men than guns. Or divorce. Or crack. Or to prohibit felons from having guns. Except we already outlaw crack and felons owning guns and yet still, somehow, Wong got crack and Mixon got a gun.

After being pulled over for a routine traffic violation, Lovelle Mixon did exactly what they teach in driver's ed by immediately shooting four cops. Mixon's supporters held a posthumous rally in his honor, claiming he shot the cops only in "self-defense," which I take it includes the cop Mixon shot while the officer was lying on the ground.

I guess Mixon also raped that 12-year-old girl in "self-defense." Clearly, the pimping industry has lost a good man. I wish I'd known him. I tip my green velvet fedora with the dollar signs all over it to him. Why do the good ones always die young? Pimps, I mean.

Liberals tolerate rallies on behalf of cop-killers, but they prohibit law-abiding citizens working at community centers in Binghamton, N.Y., from being armed to defend themselves from disturbed, crack-addicted America-haters like Jiverly Wong.

It's something in liberals' DNA: They think they can pass a law eliminating guns and nuclear weapons, but teenagers having sex is completely beyond our control.

The demand for more gun control in response to any crime involving a gun is exactly like Obama's response to North Korea's openly belligerent act of launching a long-range missile this week: Obama leapt to action by calling for worldwide nuclear disarmament.

If the SAT test were used to determine how stupid a liberal is, one question would be: "The best defense against lawless rogues who possess _______ is for law-abiding individuals to surrender their own _______________."

Correct answer: Guns. We would also have accepted nuclear weapons.

Obama explained that "the United States has a moral responsibility" to lead disarmament efforts because America is "the only nuclear power to have used a nuclear weapon."

So don't go feeling all morally superior to a country whose business model consists of exporting heroin, nuclear bombs and counterfeit U.S. dollars, and of importing Swedish prostitutes, you yahoo Americans with your little flag lapel pins.

On the other hand, the Japanese haven't acted up much in the last, say, 64 years ...

Fortunately, our sailors didn't wait around for Obama to save them when Somali pirates boarded their ship this week. Stop right now or I'll ask the U.N. to remind the "international community" that "the U.S. is not at war with Somali pirates."

Gun-toting Americans are clearly more self-sufficient than the sissy Europeans. This is great news for everyone except Barney Frank, who's always secretly wondered what it would be like to be taken by a Somali pirate.

Police -- whom I gather liberals intend to continue having guns -- and intrepid U.N. resolution drafters can't be everywhere, all the time.

If a single civilian in that Binghamton community center had been armed, instead of 14 dead, there might have only been one or two -- including the shooter. In the end, the cops didn't stop Wong. His killing spree ended only when he decided to stop, and he killed himself.

"The shooter will eventually run out of ammo" strategy may not be the best one for stopping deranged multiple murderers.

But it's highly unlikely that any community center in the entire state would be safe from a disturbed former crack-addict like Wong because New York's restrictive gun laws require a citizen to prove he has a need for a gun to obtain a concealed carry permit.

Instead of having Planned Parenthood distribute condoms in schools, they ought to get the NRA to pass out revolvers. It would save more lives.

COPYRIGHT 2009 ANN COULTER
DISTRIBUTED BY UNIVERSAL PRESS SYNDICATE
1130 Walnut, Kansas City, MO 64106

Link (http://www.anncoulter.com/)

Pat

BigJimCalhoun

04-09-2009, 19:31

I just ordered the two remaining parts for my AR last night and the place shipped them today. (Buttstock kit and rear sight). I really did not want to spend any more money right now, but given recent events, wanted to get the project completed.

My wife and I (both civilians) are new gun owners within the last two years. We each have our carry licenses and have taken classes past the basic CCW class. A number of people at my place of employ (large software company) have made multiple purchases also. My neighbors across the street each just applied for their licences too and bought two handguns.

My point is that though we do not pretend to be of the caliber of those quiet professionals here as it relates to firearm training but the more law abiding citizens that aqcuire firearms, the more citizens there are willing to fight for 2A.

The second ammendment is not about the right to hunt and I am sick of seeing that argument.

6.8SPC_DUMP

04-09-2009, 22:25

Here's a bill I can get behind:

Self-Defense Act of 2009 - Declares that a person not prohibited under the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act from receiving a firearm shall have the right to obtain firearms for security and to use firearms in defense of:

(1) self or family against a reasonably perceived threat of imminent and unlawful infliction of serious bodily injury;

(2) self or family in the course of the commission by another person of a violent felony against the person or a member of the person's family; and

(3) the person's home in the course of the commission of a felony by another person. Authorizes persons whose rights under this Act have been violated to bring an action in U.S. district court against the United States, any state, or any person for damages, injunctive relief, and such other relief as the court deems appropriate.

1/6/2009--Introduced.
Sponsor - Rep. Roscoe Bartlett [R, MD-6] :lifter

http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h17/show

grog18b

04-11-2009, 11:16

I've addressed this many times... You cannot legislate human behavior, and you also cannot keep mentally unstable people from killing people. Whether it's a gun, knife, car, or club, humans kill humans. Fact of life. We passed laws against it, but darn it... People STILL keep killing other people. So...

What logic do these people use to even propose that more strict laws, or bans, or confiscation will stop the mentally unstable from killing people?

Rape laws, have never prevented one single rape. There are laws against theft, but people continue to steal. There are laws against murder, but alas... People are still killing each other.

I can only assume that the people coming up with these proposed bans, and anti-gun laws sit around thinking "How can I punish society for these crimes? I have to do something, but I am too stupid to just realize the simple fact that, people kill people, and there's not a damn thing I can do about it."

As horrible as these mass killings are, the writer totally misses the point of what he is writing about, and assumes that, if guns were removed from the equation, no more killings would occur, and these mental defectives would just sit at home, harmless... This is a very stupid assumption on his part.

One has to look no further than human history, at other mass killings before the firearm was even invented, or at other mass murderers that did not use firearms. Jack the ripper for one. Jeffery Dahmer, Ray and Faye Copeland, Dean Corll, Angelo Buono, Jr, Jerry Brudos, Debbie Brown, William Bonin, Jim Jones, Ted Bundy, the 911 terrorists... Here's a link to photos and stories: http://crime.about.com/od/serial/ig/serialkillerphotos/

Note, most all of these killers did NOT use firearms, but media and the writer fails to recognize that fact, and only sees the problem as the gun. Agreed, he is a dumbass. Mental defective murderers will use any means at their disposal in order to kill people. It is their desire to kill people, and that is what this guy fails to understand. To believe that guns are the problem in today's society is the problem. Failure to recognize mental propensity for violence, by whatever means available. Guns are easy, but not the preferred method by most serial killers... Why? Because these people get their jollies from killing up close and personal, and a firearm does not allow them to do that. It takes the "fun" out of their pleasure. Do they sometimes use firearms? Yes, they do. But they have also used their bare hands, cars, jet planes, poisoned kool aid, knives, clubs, and any other weapon they can come up with. Legislating guns will do nothing but prepare a disarmed populace for whatever the Government has in mind, and leave them at the mercy of criminals.

I also firmly believe that Governments, unchecked by an armed populace, have killed more people in human history than all criminals and mental defectives put together. So... Which is more dangerous? The most dangerous thing to freedom and liberty is an unarmed populace. The asshat that wrote that article proves that the pen is more dangerous than the gun. Sheep will read, and believe his writings. That, is dangerous.

Onward

04-11-2009, 18:09

All a citizen can do is ask for some common sense around the Second Amendment. The assault weapons ban, outlawing 19 military style guns that no hunter with sense of fair play would ever use, ( :rolleyes: ) should be reinstated. President Bush and Congress let it expire in 2004, even though it was a godsend for police officers and supported by a majority of gun owners.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Didn't the Second Amendment have more to do with hunting the British at the time? Since when did fair play become an issue here?:confused:

Sorry if I'm out of line posting here. Back to lurking...

The Reaper

04-11-2009, 21:52

Dozer523

04-11-2009, 22:10

The war on private ownership is escalating.

Only against idiots who shouldn't have them in the first place. Nobody is saying take them from people like you. But, does it seem (maybe) a little reasonable to not let these loonies have them?

The Reaper

04-11-2009, 22:12

Only against idiots who shouldn't have them in the first place. Nobody is saying take them from people like you.

Bullshit.

You better reread the proposed legislation.

There ain't any "good guy" exception.

It would apply to all of us.

TR

Dozer523

04-11-2009, 22:37

Bullshit.

You better reread the proposed legislation.

There ain't any "good guy" exception.

It would apply to all of us.

TR

I guess we're going to have to disagree on this one, like allowing weapons on school grounds.

Pete

04-12-2009, 04:33

I guess we're going to have to disagree on this one, like allowing weapons on school grounds.

If I go out to the range for a couple of hours I have to remember to swing by the house to drop the weapons off before I pick up my child at school.

So if no "weapons on school grounds" is such a great law why have there been so many school shootings?

Remember when they were pushing the weapons exclusion zones for around schools? I don't remember the exact distance but it was something like 1/4 mile. Sit down at a county map, set a compass to that distance and draw a circle around every public and private school. That would have impacted a bunch of people.

Blitzzz (RIP)

04-12-2009, 06:55

All of these attempts are "infringements" of the 2nd amendment.
Onward your arguement is typical of fodder used by the anti-s. the second amendment is not for hunting and you right to bear arms is for a militia parity with the central governments military. Written when there was not much disparity between the military and the civilian populace weaponry. the 2nd amemdment really does not regulate the types of weaponry a citizen can own only the governments worries over the citizen's ability to join into a militia and over throw a tyrannical government.
There is all ways a crew who believe they know more than the founders and try to relegate the 2nd amendment to hunting privileges. Blitzzz

nmap

04-12-2009, 10:50

I believe we have an example of gun control legislation that reveals something of the actual goals - and those goals include (at least) restricting acquisition of firearms.

The National Firearms Act of 1934 began the regulation of, among other things, machine guns under title II. Under the law, it was possible for an individual to go to a dealer licensed to sell the particular class of firearms, pay for the weapon, but not take delivery. The dealer prepared papers, which the buyer then took for completion.

The process required the prospective buyer to obtain fingerprint cards and passport photos. The purchaser then went to a specified official - in the local case here, it was the county sheriff. The Sheriff's office then ran a quick check for criminal offenses and warrants and approved (if appropriate) the papers.

The next step required the purchaser (or the dealer on the purchaser's behalf) to send a $200 fee to the BATF. They, in turn, arranged for a background check. The waiting period was at least months, and could extend to as much as a year. At the end of that time, papers with a tax stamp affixed were issued and the purchaser could lawfully take delivery of the firearm.

Notice that we have 2 independent background checks, registration, and a multi-month waiting period.

It is my understanding that for the entire duration of the law, no lawful owner of a registered machine gun ever committed a crime with the registered firearm.

However, the Firearms Owners' Protection Act of 1986 included a last-minute addition that banned the registration of new machine guns to civilians. It is worth noting that the ban has not been repealed, nor has there been any serious discussion of repealing it.

It is worth noting that Vice President Cheney has a substantial collection of such weapons.

So....if registration, background checks, and waiting periods suffice, why was the purchase of newly manufactured machine guns banned? Why has the ban not been repealed? Why have a ban if the purchasers who obeyed the law as it was have not committed crimes with the weapons?

Now, as to firearms on school campuses...

At UTSA in San Antonio, the campus is fairly dispersed. It has nearly 30,000 registered students, with the great majority commuting between home and class, and only a few students in residence.

After the West Virginia shootings, a rather bored-looking officer parked his patrol car where everyone entering the campus could see him.

To get to class, the students drove past him, parked, then took their books and other supplies to class. The supplies were in back packs, rolling luggage, and other such items. There was, and is, no mechanism to discern what is in such packs and luggage.

So....if I were attending a class...or, for that matter, teaching one...and a bad guy shows up with a firearm and starts doing bad things...

1) Will a person intent on mass murder really be deterred by a law that prohibits bringing a weapon on campus?

2) What should I do if faced with such a situation? Use sarcasm? Glare at the perp? Make a last gesture of defiance? Throw chalk?

I pose the second question partly in jest. But the issue is serious. Are the law-abiding people in the University to be sacrificed for someone else's ideal?

The Reaper

04-12-2009, 12:02

I guess we're going to have to disagree on this one, like allowing weapons on school grounds.

We can disagree on our opinions.

We cannot disagree about the facts.

Read the proposed legislation. It is what it is. It does not discriminate. All citizens who own firearms will register. Those who can be denied the right to keep and bear arms will be denied. Eventually, it will be those with PTSD, then those who have been suspected of being disturbed, eventually, it will encompass everyone. See the results of the Lautenberg Amendment. All guns will be registered and taxed. With the new "Assault Weapon Ban", all semi-autos will be restricted, registered, and eventually banned. Then they will outlaw all other types of firearms. First, large, powerful firearms, then small concealable firearms, weapons with scopes, weapons with no scopes, weapons that hold more than ten rounds, weapons that hold more than six rounds, weapons that hold more than two rounds, weapons over .45 caliber. Weapons over .30 caliber. Weapons over .22 caliber. High cap magazines will no longer be allowed. All ammunition sales will be restricted and taxed out of existence.

You will probably live to see the total evisceration of the Second Amendment. A total ban on private firearms ownership in the United States is the eventual goal. They understand that they cannot get it all at once, but they eventually will, due to a thousand new firearms laws, complacence and the oblivious. The situation in Great Britain is the template, and while not yet complete, is the eventual goal.

Those who choose to ignore the facts and who believe that just a few more laws are needed to keep the bad guys from getting guns, are the sheep.

I believe that criminals are responsible for their actions, not the objects they choose to employ. Those who wrongfully harm others should be punished to the maximum extent of the law.

I further believe that there are a lot of people walking the streets who should be locked up, if not executed.

Thoroughly read what is being proposed, and get back to us.

TR

Saoirse

04-12-2009, 12:27

We can disagree on our opinions.

We cannot disagree about the facts.

Read the proposed legislation. It is what it is. It does not discriminate. All citizens who own firearms will register. Those who can be denied the right to keep and bear arms will be denied. Eventually, it will be those with PTSD, then those who have been suspected of being disturbed, eventually, it will encompass everyone. See the results of the Lautenberg Amendment. All guns will be registered and taxed. With the new "Assault Weapon Ban", all semi-autos will be restricted, registered, and eventually banned. Then they will outlaw all other types of firearms. First, large, powerful firearms, then small concealable firearms, weapons with scopes, weapons with no scopes, weapons that hold more than ten rounds, weapons that hold more than six rounds, weapons that hold more than two rounds, weapons over .45 caliber. Weapons over .30 caliber. Weapons over .22 caliber. High cap magazines will no longer be allowed. All ammunition sales will be restricted and taxed out of existence.

You will probably live to see the total evisceration of the Second Amendment. A total ban on private firearms ownership in the United States is the eventual goal. They understand that they cannot get it all at once, but they eventually will, due to a thousand new firearms laws, complacence and the oblivious. The situation in Great Britain is the template, and while not yet complete, is the eventual goal.

Those who choose to ignore the facts and who believe that just a few more laws are needed to keep the bad guys from getting guns, are the sheep.

I believe that criminals are responsible for their actions, not the objects they choose to employ. Those who wrongfully harm others should be punished to the maximum extent of the law.

I further believe that there are a lot of people walking the streets who should be locked up, if not executed.

Thoroughly read what is being proposed, and get back to us.

TR

Well said TR and I completely agree. As seen in Great Britain, citizens that have held back weapons and tried to protect their property and their lives go to prison for much longer than the POS's who threaten them! Self-defense will not longer be "self defense" it will be called out right murder, the victim thus becoming the perpetrator!
A few weeks ago I watched a documentary on the History Channel about Hitlers SS...they spoke to several Germans who recalled what life was like after their right to own weapons was taken away. One old man said that they couldn't fight the Nazis ..."with what? All we had at that point was our fists, what could we fight them with?" If the constant levying of restrictions and taxes upon our 2nd Amendment continue...we too will be asking similar questions.

Paslode

04-12-2009, 13:44

Just my outlandish opinion here, but a reason we have the 2nd Amendment is to curtail the efforts of self absorbed, agenda driven individuals with 'evil' intent like Diane Feinstein.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U3zOUoQpeVk&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Einfowars%2Ecom%2Fdianne%2D feinstein%2Dwill%2Dpick%2Dthe%2Dtime%2Dand%2Dplace %2Dto%2Dgrab%2Dyour%2Dguns%2F&feature=player_embedded

Ms. Fienstein and her fellow ilk will have no issue shoving their wishes down our throats with the barrel of a gun. The only thing preventing them from doing so at present is the 2nd Amendment.

Onward

04-12-2009, 14:18

TR and Blitzzz,

My apologies if my post came across the wrong way. I was trying to quote Richard's original post without inserting the entire thing, but apparently I went about it the wrong way. I am a firm believer in the second amendment. Though deployed right now (I have the privilege of carrying a long gun everywhere I go), I carry concealed on a daily basis at home, and I own multiple evil black guns:lifter.

The point I was trying to make was exactly what you said, Blitzzz, that the second amendment is based on having a militia, and not on the individual's right to hunt. My comment about hunting the British was meant to highlight this point, and the "fair play" comment was meant to relate to the unconstitutionality of regulating the types of guns that citizens can own. I promise you, I am not in any way aligned with the anti-2nd amendment movement. I should have expounded on this, or not posted at all.

My post was poorly thought out, and again, I apologize if I rubbed you gentlemen the wrong way.

Back to lurking in the Weapons Discussion Area...

grog18b

04-12-2009, 14:33

TR and Blitzzz,

My apologies if my post came across the wrong way.

I was going to reply too, but it took me a few reads to figure out you were quoting someone else.

On the topic, I believe any legislation infringes on the right to keep and bear arms. I also believe it's been a long time since we have really enjoyed freedom and liberty here in the US. ( As a matter of fact, I believe the last time we really enjoyed freedom was when one could pick up the Sears catalog and order a Thompson for 200 bucks... now THAT is freedom.)

Onward

04-12-2009, 17:06

On the topic, I believe any legislation infringes on the right to keep and bear arms. I also believe it's been a long time since we have really enjoyed freedom and liberty here in the US. ( As a matter of fact, I believe the last time we really enjoyed freedom was when one could pick up the Sears catalog and order a Thompson for 200 bucks... now THAT is freedom.)

Was that with the 50rd drum magazine, or the 30rd stick?:lifter

NoRoadtrippin

04-12-2009, 18:14

Paslode

04-12-2009, 18:31

I highly recommend tonight's 60 Minutes report titled "Gun Rush."

The last few seconds are actually quite encouraging. Feinstein states she will not be looking to press the ban anytime soon, and recommends that Obama puts it off as well.

Additionally, Gallup polls are at their lowest ever (49%) when asking Americans if they are in favor of stricter gun control.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/04/09/60minutes/main4931769.shtml

Feinstein's key words 'anytime soon' which imo equates to they are waiting for just the right moment to press it forward.

As in her own words:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U3zOUoQpeVk&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.infowars.com%2Fdianne-feinstein-will-pick-the-time-and-place-to-grab-your-guns%2F&feature=player_embedded

NoRoadtrippin

04-12-2009, 19:42

Paslode

04-12-2009, 20:35

Yes, she is definitely only saying that it is not a priority at the moment. Surely, she will make it one in the future. I think the more encouraging thing is the Gallup number there at the end. It could show that even when she does find the "time of [her] choosing," maybe the rest of the country won't be so prone to agree with the idea.

Just my take. YMMV.

I would agree on the polls, but as recently demonstrated by our so-called representatives votes in favor of the Stimulus, the GIVE ACT and several other bills, it would appear they do not base their votes on the polls and/or the wishes of the people.

kgoerz

04-13-2009, 06:20

60 Minutes did their quarterly Anti Gun piece last night. Finstien said "now is not the place and time for a new AWB. But I there will be a place and time for one in the future"

The Reaper

04-13-2009, 06:56

Maybe, JUST maybe, if they screw up the next 18 months badly enough, they may not have the votes to pursue their agenda after the 2010 election.

TR

Razor

04-13-2009, 08:05

60 Minutes did their quarterly Anti Gun piece last night.

And 20/20 did its best Michael Moore imitation last week. All was not lost, however; it provided me with an excellent opportunity to show my oldest how the media can and will deliberately slant their reporting to support their stand on an issue.

Dozer523

04-13-2009, 09:53

If I go out to the range for a couple of hours I have to remember to swing by the house to drop the weapons off before I pick up my child at school.

So if no "weapons on school grounds" is such a great law why have there been so many school shootings?

Remember when they were pushing the weapons exclusion zones for around schools? I don't remember the exact distance but it was something like 1/4 mile. Sit down at a county map, set a compass to that distance and draw a circle around every public and private school. That would have impacted a bunch of people. Jeeze! I take four lousy days leave from work and come back to find my E-mail in-box screaming for attention -- apparantly that lady really, really, really want me to participate in the Leave-Share Program. And why do "them's that can" authorize a holiday pass, wait until I've spent a day's leave on it anyway?:mad:

Pete , you asked, "if no "weapons on school grounds" is such a great law why have there been so many school shootings?" Because the ones who do the school shootings aren't like you. They aren't law-abidding folks that take the trouble to comply with the law like you. They are, however, also the ones that the full time weapon carrying LEO is waiting for.
As for the exculsion zone? Cooler, smarter heads prevailed and the 1/4 mi radius (or whatever it was) was scrapped. Because it was stupid. But, having the exclusion zone start at the School Yard Gate? That makes sense.
Pete, you are very experienced with employing weapons correctly (most here are). I'm sure when your kids are around weapons (regardless of style) the only thing safer then the weapon is your kid.
Here is my question: Why are we willing to abandon everyone's safety to protect every individual's access? And no cussin' at other QP's allowed:D

The Reaper

04-13-2009, 10:00

I think Benjamin Franklin summed it up for me back in 1775:

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

I would also add Samuel Adams thoughts:

"If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or your arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen."

TR

Razor

04-13-2009, 10:41

Because the ones who do the school shootings aren't like you. They aren't law-abidding folks that take the trouble to comply with the law like you. They are, however, also the ones that the full time weapon carrying LEO is waiting for.

What's the response time for the "full time weapon carrying LEOs" at your local school? Unless Fortune smiles upon the school my kids go to, response can be measured in 10s of minutes, and they go to a school in the city. The elementary, middle and high school near my house are under county sheriff jurisdiction, and the sheriff himself has stated response could be as long as 45 minutes to an hour, depending on where the closest deputy happens to be at the time of the call. Lots of shooting can be accomplished in that time.

Depend on a overworked and stretched thin LE dept. for my kids' individual safety? No thanks.

The Reaper

04-13-2009, 10:59

dozer:

Do a little research and tell me what happened with the SRO when Columbine was hit, and what happened to the kids who were his responsibility.

TR

Pete

04-13-2009, 11:05

....Here is my question: Why are we willing to abandon everyone's safety to protect every individual's access? ...

You equate gun free zones with safty. It would appear that most nuts open fire in gun free zones.

My question - Why are some so willing to strip everybody of a right for the illusion of safty?

greenberetTFS

04-13-2009, 11:20

TommyGun

04-13-2009, 11:24

Guns kill people just like pencils fail tests...

Adolf Hitler convinced the German population that guns were not needed because the German Government would protect them...we all know how that story ended!

Tommy Gun

Richard

04-13-2009, 12:01

Here's the statute in Texas where CCW is common:

PC §46.03.

PLACES WEAPONS PROHIBITED

(a) A person commits an offense if the person intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly possesses or goes with a firearm, illegal knife, club, or prohibited weapon listed in Section 46.05(a):

(1) on the physical premises of a school or educational institution, any grounds or building on which an activity sponsored by a school or educational institution is being conducted, or a passenger transportation vehicle of a school or educational institution, whether the school or educational institution is public or private, unless pursuant to written regulations or written authorization of the institution;

PC §46.035.

UNLAWFUL CARRYING OF HANDGUN BY LICENSE HOLDER.

(b) A license holder commits an offense if the license holder intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly carries a handgun under the authority of Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, regardless of whether the handgun is concealed, on or about the license holder's person:

(2) on the premises where a high school, collegiate, or professional sporting event or interscholastic event is taking place, unless the license holder is a participant in the event and a handgun is used in the event;

Seems pretty common sensical to me.

Richard's $.02 :munchin

greenberetTFS

04-13-2009, 12:43

Sigaba

04-13-2009, 13:03

The thing I remember about Texas was that the pick-up trucks in a major city like Dallas and Fort Worth had gun racks mounted inside their vehicles and rifles mounted on them.

The joke I remember from my days in Austin was that the shotgun racks in the back of the pick ups had one slot for a shotgun and another for an ax handle.:confused: The ax handle was for when one wanted to make a point without shooting a guy.:eek:

I figured that the reasons why people were so friendly was because:

Texans are friendly.:D
It was so damn hot that anyone could snap at any moment. (I didn't realize until late October that the first cool breeze of fall wasn't coming. Ever.)
That a person who snapped could have a pick up parked at back.
Texans are friendly.;)

Dozer523

04-13-2009, 13:12

What's the response time for the "full time weapon carrying LEOs" at your local school?
Depend on a overworked and stretched thin LE dept. for my kids' individual safety? No thanks.
Razor,
1. Response time is about the time it will take he or she to get past the "why the hell is that emergency signal going off . . . Oh, crap!" emote. Followed by "What classroom, how many kids, how many bad guys. Call 911. Stay here, Lock this place down." and hit the door running. (assuming good police technique, SA etc). Maybe a minute or two.
2. Given a choice of "an overworked and stretched thin LE dept." or Ms Smith who is packing and has a few hours in a gun class (OR EVEN if she is married to a QP for 22 years, is a retired East LA Cop, grew up hunting to put food on the table, spends six hours a week on the range to maintain her skills at the 2000 Olympic Gold Medal level (that she still wears around her neck, today) AND has always hoped, dreamed and rehersed for the day when some POS finally gives her an excuse to . . . ) for my kids' individual safety? I will go with the LE Dept. Because even the heroic and defense capable teacher/admin/staff has specific things they are supposed to do to keep 20-40 (per classroom)children safe. And it does not include initiating or returning fire.

Richard

04-13-2009, 14:47

Response time is about the time it will take he or she to get past the "why the hell is that emergency signal going off . . . Oh, crap!" emote. Followed by "What classroom, how many kids, how many bad guys. Call 911. Stay here, Lock this place down." and hit the door running. (assuming good police technique, SA etc). Maybe a minute or two.

This is pretty much the case for most JHS/SHS here in Texas - both public and private. All the public JHS/SHS in our area have a policeman assigned to them and they are on campus all day long; most private JHS/SHS have on-site private security officers, as do many private ES, too - this is due to their having some very HVT kids (e.g., Ross Perot Jr's 2 boys) in their student bodies. ;)

My school never felt the necessity for full-time security to that extent based on location, circumstances, etc - but we would hire off-duty Dallas PD officers to upgrade when we thought the situation called for it - e.g., special events with > crowds, > $$, > guests on campus, any known threats directed towards our school or students/faculty, etc. ;)

Besides myself, there is one other teacher - a vet and avid hunter - whom I would feel comfortable arming amongst the faculty and staff - the rest are such that I would have a great deal of angst over them being armed and knowing that the safest place to be with these sheeple would then be standing directly in front of their shaking weapons. :eek:

MOO - the rules as they currently exist in Texas are reasonable and fine with me.

Richard's $.02 :munchin

Pete

04-13-2009, 15:11

.......Followed by "What classroom, how many kids, how many bad guys. Call 911. Stay here, Lock this place down." and hit the door running. (assuming good police technique, SA etc). Maybe a minute or two.......

Interesting statement.

We also have County SROs assigned from the sheriff's department.

Is their mission statement to "move to the sound of gun fire" or "contain until back up arrives"?

Right now off the top of my head I'd say in the last couple of years - other than the Carthage shooting - for the most part, the perps dropped in the first few minutes were by off duty cops or civilians with CC licenses.

Razor

04-13-2009, 18:33

Besides myself, there is one other teacher - a vet and avid hunter - whom I would feel comfortable arming amongst the faculty and staff - the rest are such that I would have a great deal of angst over them being armed and knowing that the safest place to be with these sheeple would then be standing directly in front of their shaking weapons.

These sheeple are the same folks we don't think twice about when hurtling down the freeway at 75mph in 3000lb vehicles, and are likely just as inept at driving as they are shooting.

I guess I just don't buy into "for the children" arguments, when its the children that historically have paid dearly for flawed social experiments. How many have died in "gun free" zones in the last couple decades? At what point do we say, "Well, this idea hasn't really panned out like we expected; maybe we should consider another solution"?

nmap

04-13-2009, 18:47

The Reaper

04-13-2009, 19:11

Razor,
1. Response time is about the time it will take he or she to get past the "why the hell is that emergency signal going off . . . Oh, crap!" emote. Followed by "What classroom, how many kids, how many bad guys. Call 911. Stay here, Lock this place down." and hit the door running. (assuming good police technique, SA etc). Maybe a minute or two.
2. Given a choice of "an overworked and stretched thin LE dept." or Ms Smith who is packing and has a few hours in a gun class (OR EVEN if she is married to a QP for 22 years, is a retired East LA Cop, grew up hunting to put food on the table, spends six hours a week on the range to maintain her skills at the 2000 Olympic Gold Medal level (that she still wears around her neck, today) AND has always hoped, dreamed and rehersed for the day when some POS finally gives her an excuse to . . . ) for my kids' individual safety? I will go with the LE Dept. Because even the heroic and defense capable teacher/admin/staff has specific things they are supposed to do to keep 20-40 (per classroom)children safe. And it does not include initiating or returning fire.

Dozer:

You might want to read this and make some notes as to the time line. The first time I read it, I was shocked.

www.state.co.us/columbine/Columbine_20Report_WEB.pdf

Not bashing anyone, especially LEOs, but the responders waited more than an hour to initiate clearing and rescue ops, while the shooters ran amok.

According to the report, they mostly waited behind cars, and fired at figures in windows, until SWAT got there.

The two punks, whose names should never be mentioned again, were armed with shotguns, 9mms, and defective homemade pipe bombs, not assault rifles and frag grenades.

One dedicated defender could have made a difference, and saved a lot of lives, that day, and since. I have two kids, and would rather someone stood up and tried, than let them be slaughtered. If I am there, I will die trying to save my kids, and yours. Note that is currently illegal for me to do so with a weapon. If others do not want to take on that responsibility, they do not have to.

TR

Richard

04-13-2009, 20:14

You might want to read this and make some notes as to the time line. The first time I read it, I was shocked.

Remember - a lot of things have changed on school campuses in the last decade. ;)

Richard's $.02 :munchin

The Reaper

04-13-2009, 20:27

Remember - a lot of things have changed on school campuses in the last decade. ;)

Richard's $.02 :munchin

Roger that.

How long would be too long to wait for armed response if it were your kids trapped in a school with an active shooter?

TR

DinDinA-2

04-13-2009, 22:16

I get the impression that those opposed to on-campus concealed carry regard the potential risks from those carrying firearms in a lawful manner as greater than the risks of having a disarmed population.

But does this imply the corollary, that the individual who might be able to protect himself is expendable in pursuit of an expected greater good?

While I concede I am guilty of selfishness, I find it difficult to embrace a solution that, potentially, sacrifices me to someone else's ideal.

Along this line...I have always thought the original intent of "no firearms on school campus" was to protect...in this order, educators & staff, coaches, referees and last...students. The school setting is constantly ripe for potential highly charged encounters. Parents to teachers, parents to parents, parents to coaches & referees at sporting events, and students toward anyone in educational system on campus. The most revolting events have been the student rampages against teachers and students, however I think the original impetus of the firearm restriction was as described above.

Does this mean, as from quote above, ..."that the individual who might be able to protect himself is expendable in pursuit of an expected greater good?" I guess that is so. This is a case of the law abiding citizen obeying the law to enable the law violator to act at will.

On another note. I too, have been disturbed by the time it takes for law enforcement personnel to enter the buildings during these tragedies. I don't recall reacting to an ambush by forming a command center and committe to decide what to do next. I have a hunch that at these crime scenes there were officers who wanted to "charge", but were given orders to stand down.

Just my musings...

nmap

04-13-2009, 22:31

I guess what I don't understand is why there can't be some sort of win-win arrangement.

So...in that spirit...why couldn't a school offer those who carry weapons additional training? Some material on weapon retention perhaps, as well as how to deal with various scenarios, and perhaps practice with firearms. There might be opportunities to cross-train with campus police, or with local law enforcement.

Granted, the above is not a perfect solution. I doubt there are any perfect answers. But it might be better than a binary choice that permits no compromise.

DinDinA-2

04-13-2009, 22:41

Perhaps...different levels of carry permits, based on training, education & experience. The highest level permit would have no location restrictions, as now.

Paslode

04-13-2009, 22:42

Defender968

04-14-2009, 06:35

First a little disclaimer I don't know the laws of all states, but in SC the crime you can be charged with if you are caught carrying concealed in a location that is prohibited such as the school or a place that serves alcohol is trespass. As an LEO I've charged lots of young teens and drunks with trespass when they refused to leave a location, I can tell you that in SC in my AO for a charge of trespass you get a slap on the wrists and time served. I bring this up, because there are good laws and bad laws, you don't get to choose which ones they pass, but you can choose to violate bad ones so long as you are willing to pay the consequences. I consider it a bit of civil disobedience, the way I see it is I've been carrying a long time, and I'm well trained, if I get "caught" carrying in a prohibited place, it's because I've drawn my weapon and neutralized an imminent threat to me, my family, or some other innocent person, at that point, I'll be happy to take the trespass charge and go home with my life and/or the satisfaction that I saved the live of an innocent.

Just my .02

NOTE CHECK YOUR LOCAL LAWS BEFORE CARRYING IN PROHIBITED PLACES, your laws may be different than SC's laws.

Richard

04-14-2009, 07:11

And the beat goes on...

The American Way
Bob Herbert, NYT, 13 apr 2009

Late in the afternoon on Good Friday, in a cold, steady rain, a gray-haired 60-year-old woman sat shivering and praying on a stone step outside of 1016 Fairfield St., which is where the terrible shooting had occurred. She read from a prayer book and from time to time would take a drag on a soggy Newport cigarette. A candle flickered beside her as she prayed.

Police officers in a squad car a half-block away were keeping a close eye on the woman and the house with the boarded-up windows behind her.

Reluctant to talk at first, the woman eventually whispered, “I’m the grandmother of the kid that killed those cops.” She said her name was Catherine Scott and that she was praying for her grandson, Richard Poplawski, who is 22 and being held in the Allegheny County Jail, and for the three officers he is accused of gunning down: Stephen Mayhle, who was 29; Paul Sciullo II, 37; and Eric Kelly, 41.

The officers were killed a week and a half ago as they responded to a disturbance at the house. Police said they were met there by Poplawski, who was wearing a bulletproof vest and was armed with a variety of weapons, including an AK-47 assault rifle.

“My grandson did a terrible thing,” said Ms. Scott. “There is no mercy for what he did.”

Mercy or not, there is no end to the trauma and heartbreak caused by these horrifying, blood-drenched eruptions of gun violence, which are as common to the American scene as changes in the weather.

**snip**

This is the American way. Since Sept. 11, 2001, when the country’s attention understandably turned to terrorism, nearly 120,000 Americans have been killed in nonterror homicides, most of them committed with guns. Think about it — 120,000 dead. That’s nearly 25 times the number of Americans killed in Iraq and Afghanistan.

(cont'd) http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/14/opinion/14herbert.html?ref=global

Richard's $.02 :munchin

Dozer523

04-14-2009, 07:40

Dozer:One dedicated defender could have made a difference, and saved a lot of lives, that day, and since. I have two kids, and would rather someone stood up and tried, than let them be slaughtered. If I am there, I will die trying to save my kids, and yours. Note that is currently illegal for me to do so with a weapon. If others do not want to take on that responsibility, they do not have to.

TR
Exactly. And, Sir, ... You could and would take the appropriate action to disarm or destroy the threat in a manner that would limit the danger to the non-combatants in the area. Only because of your training, experience and adaptability to dangerous situations. That is a skill set that is rare.
And if I was teaching your child what would you expect of me? You would demand that I do my duty. Protect the students in a predictable manner, according to the plan, until the plan changes. By locking the door, closing the blinds, pulling the drapes. Securing the students in the safest part of the classroom, moving desks and other pieces of furniture to improve the position. Keeping the children quiet and informed and ready to follow instructions instantly. Opening an outside communication line via cell phone to someone who could relay sitreps without tying up primary communications. Being prepared to evacuate via door, window, kicking out the air conditioner, knocking a hole through the floor (I always seem to be in a portable). Continiously evaluating the situation. And being prepared with the baseball and bat to defend my students if the classroom perimeter is breached. Because I (like you) will die trying to save my kids, and yours. My duty is to operate in an Anti-Terrorism mode not Counter-Terrorism.
Would I like to see you moving in my direction and armed? Yes. Once my classroom has been secured and my students are safe would I be right beside you with my baseball bat? I'm all in. Would I like to see the majority of people acting independently in this situation? no thanks.
We cannot conclude from a specific instance -- what You can do -- that in a general situation -- everyone -- should be permitted to act.

Razor

04-14-2009, 08:11

Only because of your training, experience and adaptability to dangerous situations.

Are we to dismiss the potential training, experience and adaptability of others out of hand? I know a couple teachers that shoot competitively (IDPA, 3-gun, IPSC). Sure, its not "combat" training, but I'd feel comfortable with them being proxy for an armed professional if a thug is bearing down on my kids and their friends. Not all teachers are like these guys, and I'm not advocating that all teacher must carry, but for those that a) have a valid carry license (i.e., passed whatever prerequisites their state requires for everyone else to carry concealed) and b) want to carry, it seems reasonable to me to let them.

By locking the door, closing the blinds, pulling the drapes. Securing the students in the safest part of the classroom, moving desks and other pieces of furniture to improve the position. Keeping the children quiet and informed and ready to follow instructions instantly. Opening an outside communication line via cell phone to someone who could relay sitreps without tying up primary communications. Being prepared to evacuate via door, window, kicking out the air conditioner, knocking a hole through the floor (I always seem to be in a portable). Continiously evaluating the situation. And being prepared with the baseball and bat to defend my students if the classroom perimeter is breached. Because I (like you) will die trying to save my kids, and yours.

Since it seems we can't assume that most other armed adults in a school would have the training and mindset to defend their students with a firearm, I submit that what you've outlined above is a product of your experiences and training, and can not be expected of most other teachers as well. The default plan often appears to be 'lock the door, huddle in a corner and pray that the bad guy passes us by'. There is no baseball bat (oh my God, you brought a weapon into the classroom?), no fall back position, no plan to save the kids while the teacher sacrifices him/herself to maybe delay the bad guy a couple seconds before he kills the teacher then picks off the kids as they try to crawl through a broken window with jagged glass. There is no assess/reasses cycle, no regular "shooter" drills that involve local law enforcement (although they do monthly fire drills), and often no Plan B to the anemic Plan A of huddle and hope. You're projecting your expectations of planning and action onto an organization that relies on order and obedience (a school classroom), and those that live in that environment. I submit that few teachers and schools would react as you've outlined above, beyond the 'lock the door and pray' step.

My duty is to operate in an Anti-Terrorism mode not Counter-Terrorism.

You're assuming that those of us that would like to see willing teachers/administrators/parents be allowed to carry concealed expect those armed to hunt down a shooter. In my mind, anyhow, I picture an armed teacher herding his/her students out of the building through any available "hole" while providing cover. If the students can't get out (3d story window, barred window, locked door), then the teacher posts him/herself in a position to engage the bad guy coming into the room. I'm not advocating that those armed become surrogate CT forces; rather, when the bad guy breaks through the classroom door, I'd like to have him met with high velocity lead and copper instead of a desperate, unarmed teacher on a futile suicide delaying action.

Richard

04-14-2009, 09:01

FWIW - lots of opinions - only a few who actually have experience with this issue...and teachers and weapons of any type.

Locking the door, closing the blinds, pulling the drapes. Securing the students in the safest part of the classroom, moving desks and other pieces of furniture to improve the position. Keeping the children quiet and informed and ready to follow instructions instantly. Opening an outside communication line via cell phone to someone who could relay sitreps without tying up primary communications. Being prepared to evacuate. Continiously evaluating the situation. And being prepared to defend [yourselves] if the classroom is breached.

Some points to consider:

Dozer is correct - and this is, in fact, pretty much the agreed upon standard which is practiced by nearly all schools - public and private - today, something teachers have accepted as a part of their job descriptions, and a reasonable and simple series of defensive actions students/families understand and are agreeable to supporting.

Most schools today have on-site security or LEOs to assist administration in a variety of security/enforcement tasks.

Additionally, one district in rural Texas allows faculty - after training and licensing - to maintain personal CCWs on campus because their personal site security and available faculty evaluations have determined that this would be a viable option for them.

OTOH - secure the campus and the shooter just waits for recess and shoots from across the street. It's happened before.

Based on my years of experiences with these issues - immediate anonymous notification (e.g., broadcasting an innocuous sounding phrase such as "The faculty workroom is closed for maintenance until further notice" over the school's PA/telephonic/computer systems) of all campus and outside emergency security personnel, quickly securing of all occupied areas and removing potential 'targets' from the attacker's visibility, and awaiting a trained security response is reasonable, simple, and works well when practiced and applied correctly.

Richard's $.02 :munchin

The Reaper

04-14-2009, 09:24

And the beat goes on...

This is the American way. Since Sept. 11, 2001, when the country’s attention understandably turned to terrorism, nearly 120,000 Americans have been killed in nonterror homicides, most of them committed with guns. Think about it — 120,000 dead. That’s nearly 25 times the number of Americans killed in Iraq and Afghanistan.

This number is not supported by the FBI UCR homicide statistics, though the justifiable homicides make for interesting reading.

Homicides are disproportionately committed by young male minority members, usually against their peers, by a factor of more than 7 to 1. Would it be ethically and morally correct to pass new laws targeting them, rather then the inanimate tool they are using to commit their crimes?

TR

Saoirse

04-14-2009, 09:55

Pete

04-14-2009, 10:33

...OTOH - secure the campus and the shooter just waits for recess and shoots from across the street. It's happened before.

I seem to recall somewhere in the cobwebs of my mind where a shooter was near the edge of a campus in (IIRC) VA. He was subdued by at least one armed civilian and the press did everything it could so as to not mention the armed citizen.

By the way, don't be standing near my girls when you lock down the classroom after hearing gunshots. Their next reaction is a desk through a window and exiting. I told them I'll pay for the damage.

The Reaper

04-14-2009, 10:44

The shooter in the Pearl, Mississippi school massacre was stopped when the Vice Principal got a .45 from his truck (illegally on school grounds) and used it to subdue him.

Two students retreived personally owned weapons from vehicles on campus to end the Appalachian School of Law shootings.

It seems to work where people have chosen to fight back.

TR

ETA: Pete, I told my kids the same thing.

Dozer523

04-14-2009, 11:10

By the way, don't be standing near my girls when you lock down the classroom after hearing gunshots. Their next reaction is a desk through a window and exiting. I told them I'll pay for the damage.
Good safety tip, knowing that I'll just let them out the door.:)
"Now, sweetie, remember what Daddy taught you. . . 3 second rushes, look before you roll, don't set a pattern when you roll, run in a zig-zag, run to cover but try not to stay up too long. Tell Daddy we're here and there are X of us, we are in the SW corner and Mr Dozer has a bat and will play wack a POS if the password is incorrect. I'm lookig forward to seeing him REALLY soon!":D

Richard

04-14-2009, 12:25

By the way, don't be standing near my girls when you lock down the classroom after hearing gunshots. Their next reaction is a desk through a window and exiting.

Good call. Nothing like a little light, noise, and movement to attract attention to oneself and the group and to go running out in the open when you don't know where the attacker might be, to increase the level of confusion and panic, to help the teacher lose accountability of their pupils, and to add to the confusion of the security forces trying to interpret and handle the situation. Don't forget to have them wear bright clothing, scream, and wave a red bandana as they run past - works every time. ;)

I suggest those who have little/no actual experience with schools and only have whoever's 'authoritative' version of those policies make an appointment to visit with the Principal/Asst-Principal to review and become familiar with their 'actual' emergency action plans - the reasoning behnd them, training, practice, and implementation...and then offer assistance to help fix them since everyone thinks they are broken. :munchin

Richard's $.02 :munchin

Pete

04-14-2009, 12:53

Good call. Nothing like a little light, noise, and movement to attract attention to oneself and the group and to go running out in the open when you don't know where the attacker might be, to increase the level of confusion and panic, to help the teacher lose accountability of their pupils, and to add to the confusion of the security forces trying to interpret and handle the situation. Don't forget to have them wear bright clothing, scream, and wave a red bandana as they run past - works every time. ...

I don't think the SRO will be covering the whole school grounds.

I don't think the local SWAT team will be on station in 30 seconds with fields of fire established and a cordon set up.

And for you two I didn't tell them to go running down the hallway.

And I really don't give a circular area under a rats tail about teacher acountability of students in a classroom at a time like that.

The one thing the same at the shootings at schools, malls, and workplaces is the trapped people are shot down and everybody wonders "Why didn't they run?"

And, yes, Richard I am quite familar with our local "lock down" plans and the SRO working the school my girls went to. I made a point to introduce my self to the SRO and chat with her every now and again.

Richard

04-14-2009, 13:03

The Reaper

04-14-2009, 13:11

"I see," said the blind man to the deaf man. ;)

However...it just might be of interest to know exactly what the school's policies for such situations actually are before advising people to ignore them.

Just a thought.

Richard's $.02 :munchin

Not to add further gasoline to this discussion, but it appears to be pretty much universal to lock the classrooms, get down, call 9/11, and pray that the SWAT team gets there before the shooters do. Based on assembly and drive times, I make that at least 30 minutes at our current schools. That has been the school policies at the five schools my kids have attended.

So far, I'd say that is an iffy proposition, at least for the victims.

I personally think a Beslan scenario is coming, and the school policy plays right into the hands of the bad guys.

OTOH, we have the right to disagree, and ultimately bear the responsibility for our decisions.

TR

Richard

04-14-2009, 13:12

Now here's a good reason to carry a gun in the glove box! :D

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RPVw4nfESz0

Richard's $.02 :munchin

Dozer523

04-14-2009, 13:51

Are we to dismiss the potential training, experience and adaptability of others out of hand?
Yes. Because there is no way to tell if they are trained, equipped and of the temperment to function in this situation. And they don't know the plan. In this situation a guy showing up with a gun is not the same as a guy in a National Ski Partol parka showing up at a car wreck. What are you going to show me? Your Life Membership NRA card?

Not all teachers are like these guys, and I'm not advocating that all teacher must carry, but for those that a) have a valid carry license (i.e., passed whatever prerequisites their state requires for everyone else to carry concealed) and b) want to carry, it seems reasonable to me to let them.Well, maybe . . . but the Principal had better remember to tell the arriving LEO's that "Mr. Razor in room 12 is armed." I bet the response to that from the LE will be "awww f. . . . ! skip that room."

I submit that what you've outlined above is a product of your experiences and training, and can not be expected of most other teachers as well. You are wrong there. There is an industry out there that will be more then happy to go to any school district and conduct a site survey, target analysis and write an OPLAN . . . for a fee.

There is no baseball bat (oh my God, you brought a weapon into the classroom?) HUH? Baseball is still a Sport. ;)

I submit that few teachers and schools would react as you've outlined above, beyond the 'lock the door and pray' step. In general, I disagree. Although there are some teachers that don't belong here most are professional and will do the right thing and follow the plan.

I picture an armed teacher herding his/her students out of the building through any available "hole" while providing cover. And to me that brings to my mind a terribly confusing situation for LEO and a target rich scenario for the POS.
If the students can't get out (3d story window, barred window, locked door), then the teacher posts him/herself in a position to engage the bad guy coming into the room. I can do some serious damage with a baseball and a bat. POS has worn himself down penetrating the perimeter, I know what to expect when the door or window opens he is not expecting me:p He is for that moment in a confined space and I have lots of room to manuever. I am significantly more committed to my plan of action then he is...

6.8SPC_DUMP

04-14-2009, 14:53

The shooter in the Pearl, Mississippi school massacre was stopped when the Vice Principal got a .45 from his truck (illegally on school grounds) and used it to subdue him.

It's not easy to accomplish "happy medium" gun legislation. Registering staff members to keep a handgun locked in the trunk of their sedan/ glove compartment of their truck, on school grounds, is what crossed my mind.

I went to an all male boarding school for most of my HS education and had instructors who were capable in dealing with most student violence. When they had to subdue a student with an xacto blade, or baseball bat, using front kicks and small joint manipulation on the upper body worked for them.

Genetics played a big role in the outcome and shooting is an entirely different scenario, but if you look at the total sum of incidents of school violence , I think you will see that having CCP teachers won't save more lives. Not only is pulling a gun unnecessary in nearly all cases, aside from school shootings; it gives students the opportunity to plan an attack to relieve the instructor's CCW.

This line of reasoning is easy to hate when applied to citizen's private residencies - but schools are not about having the same personal liberties as you do in your home. Just my .02

Razor

04-14-2009, 15:19

Dozer is correct - and this is, in fact, pretty much the agreed upon standard which is practiced by nearly all schools - public and private - today, something teachers have accepted as a part of their job descriptions, and a reasonable and simple series of defensive actions students/families understand and are agreeable to supporting.

So what you're saying is that lock-down is an compromise-driven, easy to implement, feel-good solution catering to the lowest common denominator, sort of like the TSA?

Most schools today have on-site security or LEOs to assist administration in a variety of security/enforcement tasks.

Perhaps in TX, but I can say with a good degree of certainty that this is not universally true, especially in many smaller schools (< 500 students) in at least...4 states I know of.

immediate anonymous notification (e.g., broadcasting an innocuous sounding phrase such as "The faculty workroom is closed for maintenance until further notice" over the school's PA/telephonic/computer systems) of all campus and outside emergency security personnel, quickly securing of all occupied areas and removing potential 'targets' from the attacker's visibility, and awaiting a trained security response is reasonable, simple, and works well when practiced and applied correctly.

Has this worked well when practiced against an actual shooter, or just in drills?

kgoerz

04-14-2009, 16:12

Not to add further gasoline to this discussion, but it appears to be pretty much universal to lock the classrooms, get down, call 9/11, and pray that the SWAT team gets there before the shooters do. Based on assembly and drive times, I make that at least 30 minutes at our current schools. That has been the school policies at the five schools my kids have attended.

So far, I'd say that is an iffy proposition, at least for the victims.

I personally think a Beslan scenario is coming, and the school policy plays right into the hands of the bad guys.

OTOH, we have the right to disagree, and ultimately bear the responsibility for our decisions.

TR

Waiting on a SWAT Team is no longer even an option. Every LEO on the beat these days that I have spent time with. Has been thru some type of Active Shooter training. It's pretty much SOP. First responder on the scene grabs his Bag of extra Mags and moves to the sound of the Shooting.
Of course we will never be able to protect everyone everywhere when it comes to Active/Suicide Shooters. The biggest deterrent we have is the Armed Citizen. Lets hope new Laws are not enacted to where the Armed Citizen is no longer what these Cowards fear the most.

Richard

04-14-2009, 16:34

"OK - I hear you," said the deaf man to the mute.

I'll go along with the general consensus of what I'm hearing in this thread - that since we cannot depend upon anybody but ourselves to protect us from somebody else, we'll just arm everyone (as is our right) and give them the sole responsibility for protecting themselves (or whomever they think needs protecting). Sounds like a reasonable solution to me. ;)

Richard's $.02 :munchin

Pete

04-14-2009, 17:24

"OK - I hear you," said the deaf man to the mute.

Richard, you and Dozer are telling us we have nothing to worry about. The schools, SROs, local police and SWAT elements all have a plan, it's all worked out, no problem. Our schools are safe.

Any nut that comes on campus and pulls a gun will immediately be taken out by the SRO and before the body can hit the ground the local SWAT Team is on site, out of the vehicle and riddling it with thousands of rounds. Splat - body hits the ground DRT.

But "lock down" seems to be the plan most schools are comfortable with so thats the way it's going to be.

At least until the next time...........

Richard

04-14-2009, 17:31

Richard, you and Dozer are telling us we have nothing to worry about. The schools, SROs, local police and SWAT elements all have a plan, it's all worked out, no problem. Our schools are safe.

Actually, we're not saying that at all. We think the problem is a very complex one - more so than many realize - with so many variants that any simple solution cannot possibly cover them all. Although the current community acceptable compromise has its flaws, we just don't think arming everybody is any better a solution - and could even make things worse. :confused:

But push come to shove - openly debating it like this makes us all think a bit harder and may give us the impetus to actually come up with that better idea we're all looking for here. ;)

We actually are listening...

Richard's $.02 :munchin

Dozer523

04-14-2009, 18:03

Richard, you and Dozer are telling us we have nothing to worry about.
HUH? Whut makes you think I'm with him? :D

The schools, SROs, local police and SWAT elements all have a plan, it's all worked out, no problem. Our schools are safe.
Safe is a relative term. Nowhere has the "absence of danger". But, schools are pretty damn close. Don't do it, I hear the gyros spinning You can't argue from a particular instance to a general case -- it's in the Rules of Logic. It might be about the most prepared place there is because it has happened and it is so terrible; because the victims are so unacceptable to our society. (TR was not going all "Harry Potter" when he called the Columbine murderer those who shall not be named ever again.) What makes it safer is the preparation. The schools,have a plan; SROs, have a plan; local police, have a plan and SWAT elements all have a plan. What does the guy with just a gun have? He has just a gun. Even if it is you, Pete.

Any nut that comes on campus and pulls a gun will immediately be taken out by the SRO and before the body can hit the ground the local SWAT Team is on site, out of the vehicle and riddling it with thousands of rounds. Splat - body hits the ground DRT. Wouldn't that be sweet? Wouldn't it be really sweet if every weapon (except magic LEO ones) that came on to school grounds all the ammunition suddenly exploded? But it's not going to happen. So there is a plan. 1. You make it very hard for the POS to get near the children. 2. The REO goes after the POS. 3. Once the word is out (and it will get out) every LEO is there. And if / when #1 works the POS will be wandering the halls like a lost Freshman. All those LEOs will watch the POS on the gazillion monitors -- have you noticed that modern schools and modern prisons have a lot in common?
But "lock down" seems to be the plan most schools are comfortable with so thats the way it's going to be. It is a plan that is designed for the ones being protected. So Yup, now if we were designing a plan for say the SFA Convention. . . might be a tad different.

At least until the next time........Sadly, The Personnel assigned to the school will be changed. New suudies and intelligence will be gathered, and processed, Training will be improved or modified or added. New Equipment designed and procurred. But the Mission of schoolls will not change. Sort of like a Systems Programmed Review.

But if your kid is in MY classroom or Richard's school i bet he comes home with a cool story. .

perdurabo

04-14-2009, 18:51

Having been present at a well-known school shooting (PM for details, if you care) some notes:

- LEOs selected for SRO duty seem to be... less than cream of the crop. Plus, they are often overworked and bouncing between campus and the PD.

- Shooter entered from rear entrance.

- 1 student was dead before anyone knew what was going on. An AAR documented that many students thought someone was setting firecrackers off.

- The shooter then entered a cafeteria full of students and opened fire.

- Classroom lockdowns are great, for classrooms. This shooter went for maximum damage in a commons area.

- The SRO was on campus and didn't make it to the scene on time, the shooting was over in minutes, due to the brave actions of a couple students, at least one was shot in the process, but survived.

- If the SRO was there, I don't think he'd have the training to deal with the pandemonium in the cafeteria (or any commons area), infilt, and neutralize the shooter.

- I and many others, once we heard there was a shooter didn't even know where the shooter was, exactly. At first, we heard that he was in the library. In reality, the library was being used as an informal triage point.

- While the incident seemed to go on for an hour, it was really just a few minutes... hardly any time for anyone not on the scene to help. If a good guy was there and armed at the time, it probably would've been over a lot more quickly and with less innocent blood.

Dozer, with all due respect (and there's a lot of it there), I have to take issue with your words concerning police response. I think you may be overestimating the response time, training, and mobility of an SRO and the PD.

We should be responsible and allowed to do for ourselves and our own. Having our constitutional rights infringed and being forced to rely on the police response is a losing battle.

Respectfully,
Per

Disclaimer: This is a rather emotional issue and I get a bit heated when someone advocates taking away my right to have the tools necessary to survive wherever I might need them, God forbid.

Defender968

04-14-2009, 20:41

LEOs selected for SRO duty seem to be... less than cream of the crop. Plus, they are often overworked and bouncing between campus and the PD.

I would agree with your assessment from my personal experience, of the several dozen we had in my AO I can only think of one that I would want in a real fight, let alone a gun fight, the rest were a little to round, and not nearly tactically proficient enough. As a matter of fact I'm not even sure many of them went through the active shooter class we had, I can't remember ever seeing them at the classes, though maybe they had their own. Of course the tactics we were taught required a bare min of 3 officers to execute properly, with 5 being the optimal number.

In reality even if our SRO's got the active shooter course those tactics wouldn't be useful for a lone officer, especially considering most of the SRO's I knew were not the hard core LEO's who go to open range every month, and really take their shooting skills seriously.

Also for those who argue SWAT, our team generally took over an hour to mobilize and get on scene, and that was on a quick day, most times it was 2 or more hours. We don't have a full time team, but that's pretty normal for most departments outside huge cities.

An SRO is better than nothing, but they are far from the answer for an active shooter situation in a school.

At least not IMO.

Dozer523

04-15-2009, 07:04

- LEOs selected for SRO duty seem to be... less than cream of the crop. Plus, they are often overworked and bouncing between campus and the PD. Don't confuse these REOs with the DARE officers. In my experience the REOs go massively "Sheepdog" fast.

If the SRO was there, I don't think he'd have the training to deal with the pandemonium in the cafeteria (or any commons area), infilt, and neutralize the shooter. Don't confuse these REOs with the DARE officers. In my experience the REOs go massively "Sheepdog" fast. Oh yeah, that confusion thing, fog of war etc. . . And you think a non-professional guy with a gun is going to have the whatever it is (since training doesn't seem to count) to do all this. What exactly happens when you pull your Glock from your ankle holster? Is it sort of like when the Green Lantern turns his ring?

- I and many others, once we heard there was a shooter didn't even know where the shooter was, exactly. At first, we heard that he was in the library. In reality, the library was being used as an informal triage point. Thank goodness all the CC dudes didn't head to the Library! Imagine some untrained dude crashing the door and seeing someone kneeling over a bloody body. EU! Sorry. . .

- While the incident seemed to go on for an hour, it was really just a few minutes... hardly any time for anyone not on the scene to help. If a good guy was there and armed at the time, it probably would've been over a lot more quickly and with less innocent blood. What if there was some better controlled access to the campus or some better controlled access to weapons? (Here we GO!:eek:) From your description, good guys were there and were effective with a bum rush. Why do you think cops like dogs? Now there is an idea I can support give the REO's dogs. Kids love dogs! Dog love kids.l

Dozer, with all due respect (and there's a lot of it there), I have to take issue with your words concerning police response. I think you may be overestimating the response time, training, and mobility of an SRO and the PD.
Per, thank you for that and please don't take my response as disrespect. It is not -- . All the arguements against the present system point to particular cases, Where the plan was unable to work be cause the POS defeated the defense. Everyone here has to know that there is no static defense that cannot be overcome with good planning, prep, equipment. That's why Target Analysis is so much fun! If the defense plan has time to work (don't do it. . . keep reading.) it will. If the POS gains the initiative and there is not time then we have an entirely different situation and we fall back on the old Infantry Center's School solution, "DOTS, Depends On The Situation".

We should be responsible and allowed to do for ourselves and our own. Wrong. Once YOUR kids show up on campus they are MY kids. If you do not like that you can try to find a private school that agrees with your position on weapons on campus -- good luck. Home Schooling might be another option.

Having our constitutional rights infringed and being forced to rely on the police response is a losing battle. The Constitution is a much bigger document then you might imagine.Respectfully,Per Backatchoo, Dozer

Disclaimer: This is a rather emotional issue and I get a bit heated when someone advocates taking away my right to have the tools necessary to survive wherever I might need them, God forbid. KKHH Man I wish I could do that cool multi-post thingie you google-fu-ians do:cool:

perdurabo

04-15-2009, 11:01

Don't confuse these REOs with the DARE officers. In my experience the REOs go massively "Sheepdog" fast.

Yeah, they weren't a DARE officer. We have SROs. And I don't want to knock them, they're good guys and professionals. In my discussions with them, it's apparent they don't receive the proper training for school shootings. I'd be surprised if they even fire their firearms with any regularity.

It seems to be a job where the chubbies and other considered-below-the-bar officers are assigned.

Oh yeah, that confusion thing, fog of war etc. . . And you think a non-professional guy with a gun is going to have the whatever it is (since training doesn't seem to count) to do all this. What exactly happens when you pull your Glock from your ankle holster? Is it sort of like when the Green Lantern turns his ring?

I think that training (especially gradually-increased stress-inducing scenarios) does count. And I think anyone carrying a gun has a personal responsibility to get as much training as they can afford. And assuming a clean record, they should have the right to carry a gun, until they prove themselves criminal or incompetent.

In the "commons area" scenario outlined, it's not going to be pretty, but if there's a good guy with a gun, it's a fighting chance against the "shooting fish in a barrel" scenario you've got when none of the good guys have guns.

I don't advocate Rambo-ism or civilians acting like SWAT guys, but I do advocate them doing what they need to do to survive. Maybe instead of working to ban firearms for law-abiding citizens, the government should offer more avenues for gun safety and real-world civilian tactical training.

What if there was some better controlled access to the campus or some better controlled access to weapons? (Here we GO!) From your description, good guys were there and were effective with a bum rush. Why do you think cops like dogs? Now there is an idea I can support give the REO's dogs. Kids love dogs! Dog love kids.l

There was rudimentary controlled access in the form of chain-linked fences. After the attack, some hefty, reinforced fences were put in that lined the entire perimeter. Unfortunately, the student parking lot is still out back and the gate is left unsecured and that's where the driving students enter.

The problem is that people get lazy and annoyed by the inconveniences of security, so gates are left ajar, etc etc. In my civilian experiences, lax security and lack of real enforcement (and punishment for violations) seems to be a never-ending problem (in the military, it wasn't, you'd just get UCMJ'd ;)

Another key area was lack of information flow. As I said before, most folks on campus didn't really knew where the shooter was. And it appears, that for quite some time AFTER the shooter was subdued, staff and students were unaware and under the impression he was still running around loose. Complete pandemonium, tunnel vision, confusion, panic, etc, and all the psychological traits and sensory deception that go along with it.

They got lucky with a bum rush. One rusher was shot in the core area of his body and had life threatening injuries. It just happened to turn out good and he survived.

Wrong. Once YOUR kids show up on campus they are MY kids. If you do not like that you can try to find a private school that agrees with your position on weapons on campus -- good luck. Home Schooling might be another option.

Sorry, by "me and my own" I meant children under my charge. I agree with you, here.

It should be said that my stance is not for allowing armed minors. The problem with gun restriction policies and laws (for adults) is that you only hurt the good guys. The bad guy coming with killing on his mind, isn't going to be concerned about gun laws (and this oversimplifies it in some ways, I know).

Thank you (Dozer & all) for your input and opinions, good discussion with some vastly different but respectful opinions.

The Reaper

04-15-2009, 12:13

Don't confuse these REOs with the DARE officers. In my experience the REOs go massively "Sheepdog" fast.

I have no idea what a REO is. I would agree with the previous comments that the School Resource Officers I have interacted with (five of them) seem to be about one step above an armed security guard. In some active shooter cases, the SROs have not engaged, but have called in the incident and held positions outside. That strikes me as pretty much the definition of sheep.

Oh yeah, that confusion thing, fog of war etc. . . And you think a non-professional guy with a gun is going to have the whatever it is (since training doesn't seem to count) to do all this. What exactly happens when you pull your Glock from your ankle holster? Is it sort of like when the Green Lantern turns his ring?

Your continued characterizations and ad hominem attacks on those who would choose to protect themselves reflect a weak argument and prejudice. I have opted to take responsibility for protecting my family. To do that legally, I have complied with the law and received a permit. I am resentful of being lumped in with Barney Fife as you seem to believe all CCW holders are. I do not flash my gun, threaten people, keep my one bullet in my pocket, have NDs, leave my weapon in the restroom, drop it on the floor, shoot innocents,or any of the other cartoonish stereotypes you are attempting to portray. The vast majority of other CCW holders are likewise competent, especially in this area. The argument and attacks that you are making are right out of the anti-gunners' playbooks, attempting to make gun owners and CCW holders look like some sort of clownish buffoons. You seem to be opposed to the idea of citizens defending themselves. Did you also hop on the bandwagon when CCW was passed, concerned about shootouts at traffic lights and "Dodge City" incidents? What happened to those arguments? Those willing and able to be trained and licensed to safely carry a firearm should not be prevented from carrying it anywhere, as far as I am concerned. Those who cannot or who will not do so should not be permitted to. Simple.

A large part of the advantage of a viable licensing and CCW program is that like the FFDO, you never know when the door your force open may be your last. Not everyone has to be carrying. Those unwilling or unable to carry the burden do not have to. Those who are willing could serve as a deterrent to those who would invade our schools with ill-intent. I think you are overconfident in the ability of a teacher armed with a bat to defeat a determined individual with a firearm. Should you wish to try that out, I have a wiffle bat and some Sims we can test your theory with. My experience leads me to believe that you will lose. I also believe that the average teacher would do even more poorly against a shooter, even with a bat. OTOH, I suspect that my wife could probably hold a door against an armed intruder for an hour or two with a firearm.

Thank goodness all the CC dudes didn't head to the Library! Imagine some untrained dude crashing the door and seeing someone kneeling over a bloody body. EU! Sorry. . .

Again, you attempt to paint CCW holders with a broad brush as incompetent, uneducated slobs. I think that most of us who have gotten a CCW understand that when LE arrives, you need to be identifying yourself, non-threatening, and the weapon needs to be secured. Is this this constant mischaracterization the sole basis for your arguments?

What if there was some better controlled access to the campus or some better controlled access to weapons? (Here we GO!:eek:) From your description, good guys were there and were effective with a bum rush. Why do you think cops like dogs? Now there is an idea I can support give the REO's dogs. Kids love dogs! Dog love kids.l

Well, I guess we could make school access look more like the airport, but I do not think most people will go for that. Controlled access to my weapon is in my holster. Bum rush? By a bunch of kids against an armed intruder? Certainly an option, if no other recourse exists. I prefer that an armed adult intervene before it comes to that. BTW, a police working dog is not a good choice in a school environment.

Per, thank you for that and please don't take my response as disrespect. It is not -- . All the arguements against the present system point to particular cases, Where the plan was unable to work be cause the POS defeated the defense. Everyone here has to know that there is no static defense that cannot be overcome with good planning, prep, equipment. That's why Target Analysis is so much fun! If the defense plan has time to work (don't do it. . . keep reading.) it will. If the POS gains the initiative and there is not time then we have an entirely different situation and we fall back on the old Infantry Center's School solution, "DOTS, Depends On The Situation".

Hide, lock the door, and wait a half hour or more for armed response or or for the shooter to run out of ammo is no real plan, as far as I am concerned. Do we advocate that for fires as well? Hide, lockdown, and wait for the firemen? The odds of running into an armed teacher, administrator, or parent with a CCW presents another risk to any nutjob planning a hit at his school. That is currently the policy on airplanes, BTW, and it seems to be working.

Wrong. Once YOUR kids show up on campus they are MY kids. If you do not like that you can try to find a private school that agrees with your position on weapons on campus -- good luck. Home Schooling might be another option.

I disagree. My kids do not lose their identy because you are their teacher, and I do not abrogate my parental responsibility either. Ultimately, I am responsible for the security of my kids, regardless of where they are or what your title might be. And I guess I will be illegal when I visit the campus, because I care about them, and your counterparts, and don't believe a radio, or a baseball bat against a gun are fair fights. I believe that I am responsible for my actions, that I can be trusted to know when and where an armed response is appropriate, that the police cannot be everywhere at once, or guarantee anyone's security, that there are bad people out there in this world who mean to harm the innocent, that there are other good people carrying of the same mindset and skills as I, and that ultimately, we have to do what we can to protect the sheep. If they want to initiate a training and licensing program, fine. If not, some will do what they believe is right, regardless.

OT, amigo, but if I could get a voucher to cover the taxes that I pay to educate my kids (and the kids of those who do not pay taxes), they would be in a private school already, and out of the warehouse for their kids that many people seem to use the public schools for.

The Constitution is a much bigger document then you might imagine.Respectfully,Per Backatchoo, Dozer

I agree on that one. Please, show me where the Constitution prohibits armed adults from protecting innocnets and children, wherever they might be. You might want to refresh your Constitutional knowledge with a reread focusing on the 2nd and 10th Amendments, as well as the writings of the Founding Fathers (many of whom carried a weapon on a daily basis) and the Federalist Papers. Take a look at "More Guns, Less Crime", by John Lott, while you are at it.

Man I wish I could do that cool multi-post thingie you google-fu-ians do:cool:

Should be easy for a man with your skills and knowledge.

Have a nice day.

TR

Richard

04-15-2009, 12:44

Something to consider:

Back when I was teaching in The Grove - a pretty good percentage of our student's parents were gang-bangers and the only place they seemed to respect as being a 'neutral' NO WEAPONS turf in their area was on the school grounds. Maybe it was for the kids - don't know, but it was just that way. :confused:

Richard's $.02 :munchin

Sigaba

04-15-2009, 13:29

I have several questions. These questions assume a solution that reconciles the differing views between TR and Pete on the one hand and Richard and Dozer on the other.

Would the members of a school's faculty and staff with CCW permits be a matter of public record? Or would the public record simply indicate that Ivanhoe Elementary was a certified campus on which some faculty and staff members might have fire arms?
How would school districts mitigate the potential risks of a faculty member shooting a student accidentally? Would municipalities need to raise taxes to pay for increased insurance premiums?
Would stakeholders, including parents, teachers' unions, students, area residents, and school boards ever sign off on allowing faculty members to have weapons on campus?

Dozer523

04-15-2009, 14:07

At "group session" this would be when someone would say, "Thank you for sharing.":rolleyes:

perdurabo

04-15-2009, 14:13

Would the members of a school's faculty and staff with CCW permits be a matter of public record? Or would the public record simply indicate that Ivanhoe Elementary was a certified campus on which some faculty and staff members

The debate on making CCW permits public record is taking place now. Luckily, the idea appears to be getting shot down in each locale.

In my eyes, making these stupid permits we're forced to get public record is just another slap in the face. It hurts the personal security of the law-abiding individual while also giving criminals a shopping list of which residences to loot for guns.

How would school districts mitigate the potential risks of a faculty member shooting a student accidentally? Would municipalities need to raise taxes to pay for increased insurance premiums?

Good question! Especially in today's lawsuit-happy environment. I'd be interested in hearing Dozer's (and any other EDU folks') opinions on this.

Would stakeholders, including parents, teachers' unions, students, area residents, and school boards ever sign off on allowing faculty members to have weapons on campus?

For what it's worth, in many states its legal for CCW permit holders to CCW on a school campus and the schools can't do a damned thing about it other than "recommend" CCW holders don't CCW. Predictably, this is a highly-controversial topic and there are some differing legal opinions even between districts within a state.

This is a great topic and excellent food for (my) work-related thought. Keep em coming, if the powers-that-be are okay with it.

Richard

04-15-2009, 14:18

At "group session" this would be when someone would say, "Thank you for sharing."

"De nada." ;)

Richard's $.02 :munchin

ZonieDiver

04-15-2009, 14:30

At "group session" this would be when someone would say, "Thank you for sharing.":rolleyes:

Are our desks in a circle? :D

greenberetTFS

04-15-2009, 14:36

GratefulCitizen

04-15-2009, 20:41

Increasing the actual rate of armed citizens is the best way to have someone available to counter a nihilistic rampage killer.
The fact that they seek out groups can be used against them.

If the actual armed rate were a mere 3%:
-In a random group of 23 people, it is more likely than not that at least 1 person is armed.
-In a random group of 100 people, there is a 95% probability that at least 1 person is armed.
-In a random group of 10 people, there is still a 1 in 4 chance that at least 1 person will be armed.

Finding an able and willing 3% is not a problem.
The problem is "defenseless victim" zones.

Richard

04-16-2009, 03:59

Finding an able and willing 3% is not a problem.
The problem is "defenseless victim" zones.

And I'm thinking the problem is best posited in your aptly chosen avatar. ;)

Richard's $.02 :munchin

Dozer523

04-16-2009, 06:57

Are our desks in a circle? :D
The Wagons are!:p:D

Razor

04-16-2009, 09:14

I just don't know, but from what I've been reading so far I have to agree with Dozer and Richard. Their arguments make a lot of sense to me...

Then by extension, it would make sense to outlaw CCW permits altogether for similar reasons. The danger presented to innocent bystanders by an "untrained, non-professional" armed citizen as characterized by some in this thread, combined with the potential for confusion over who is the actual criminal by other armed citizens looking to help or law enforcement response units makes supporting a person's right to carry a concealed weapon, or any weapon for that matter, far too dangerous to the general public. What makes a school any different? If we're concerned about public safety due to the reasons listed in this thread regarding concealed weapons carry, then that concern shouldn't stop at the edge of the playground.

Defender968

04-16-2009, 12:24

perdurabo

04-16-2009, 15:13

Then by extension, it would make sense to outlaw CCW permits altogether for similar reasons. The danger presented to innocent bystanders by an "untrained, non-professional" armed citizen as characterized by some in this thread, combined with the potential for confusion over who is the actual criminal by other armed citizens looking to help or law enforcement response units makes supporting a person's right to carry a concealed weapon, or any weapon for that matter, far too dangerous to the general public. What makes a school any different? If we're concerned about public safety due to the reasons listed in this thread regarding concealed weapons carry, then that concern shouldn't stop at the edge of the playground.

Might as well take the rest of our God-given rights away as well. The 4th hinders the government from arresting criminals. The 5th hinders the government from prosecuting criminals. Speech can be quite dangerous, see Hitler, Stalin... Obama :D

People have to learn to think about, and be held responsible for their actions. This shouldn't even be up to the government, it's not one of their rights.

Respectfully,
Per

Dozer523

04-16-2009, 15:31

keep it up. . . :D
don't make me come back there:rolleyes:

nmap

04-16-2009, 15:52

keep it up. . . :D
don't make me come back there:rolleyes:

In all seriousness...let's suppose, purely for the sake of discussion, that the law is enacted and CCW holders can carry firearms on school campuses.

Have you any thoughts on what additional training (at a practical level) might somewhat reduce your concerns?

Sigaba

04-16-2009, 16:33

Then by extension, it would make sense to outlaw CCW permits altogether for similar reasons. The danger presented to innocent bystanders by an "untrained, non-professional" armed citizen as characterized by some in this thread, combined with the potential for confusion over who is the actual criminal by other armed citizens looking to help or law enforcement response units makes supporting a person's right to carry a concealed weapon, or any weapon for that matter, far too dangerous to the general public. What makes a school any different? If we're concerned about public safety due to the reasons listed in this thread regarding concealed weapons carry, then that concern shouldn't stop at the edge of the playground.

Razor, with respect, I disagree with this 'by extension' argument.

Just because a municipality will not allow an establishment offering various forms of adult entertainment, gas stations, parking structures, liquor stores or other land uses near schools doesn't mean that the city in question is against free speech, favors prohibition, or opposes commercial enterprises.

Penn

04-16-2009, 16:41

Richard

04-16-2009, 16:47

In all seriousness...let's suppose, purely for the sake of discussion, that the law is enacted and CCW holders can carry firearms on school campuses.

Have you any thoughts on what additional training (at a practical level) might somewhat reduce your concerns?

One district in North Texas does allow that. Harrold's lone campus, a 30-minute drive from the nearest Sheriff's Office and next to a highway, was worried about leaving students and teachers without adequate protection so the trustees approved a CCW policy change for district employees last year.

To carry a pistol, they must have a Texas license to carry a concealed handgun; must be authorized to carry by the district; must receive training in crisis management and hostile situations; and must use approved ammunition designed to minimize the risk of ricocheting bullets.

Officials researched the policy and considered other options for about a year before approving the policy change, and they also have other measures in place to prevent a school shooting.

Texas law outlaws firearms at schools unless specific institutions allow them.

The district does not disclose how many of the 50 or so teachers and staff members are armed to keep it from students or potential attackers. ;)

Common sense lives in Texas. What a concept. :lifter

Richard's $.02 :munchin

Sigaba

04-16-2009, 16:50

As I write this, the argument on second amendment rights is being rolled out on PBS Ch.21. I think what you will be treated to it what is being presented on this show.
Pro Gun control person: very articulate, well dressed, with reasoned responses.
The representative of 2nd amendment: the complete opposite
The show begins with a documentary style presentation of gun violence since columbine ten years ago. It escalates and the questions start with the NRA guy to defend his/our second amendment rights, it was embarrassing to watch.

I'm a big believer in taking on all comers when it comes to discussing differing viewpoints. Yet, I don't understand the logic of participating in discussions where you can pretty much realize you're being set up from the get go.

Penn

04-16-2009, 17:00

The link to the show: All I can say is wow they are ready for this fight...

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/politics/jan-june09/guntimeline_04-16.html

Razor

04-17-2009, 16:33

Razor, with respect, I disagree with this 'by extension' argument.

Just because a municipality will not allow an establishment offering various forms of adult entertainment, gas stations, parking structures, liquor stores or other land uses near schools doesn't mean that the city in question is against free speech, favors prohibition, or opposes commercial enterprises.

What if the same city council were to outlaw public demonstrations in the city park because of the increased likelihood of car/pedestrian accidents, or that Wiccans were not allowed to hold outdoor religious ceremonies within city limits "for their own safety", in case their Christian neighbors took offense and decided to violently break up the ceremony? I find none of the above, nor the potential danger to school children from adults legally carrying a concealed weapon to even begin to approach the standard of yelling 'fire' in a theater.

Paslode

04-17-2009, 16:45

The link to the show: All I can say is wow they are ready for this fight...

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/politics/jan-june09/guntimeline_04-16.html

Looks like they took a page from the Brady Campaign......

nmap

04-17-2009, 16:56

To carry a pistol, they must have a Texas license to carry a concealed handgun; must be authorized to carry by the district; must receive training in crisis management and hostile situations; and must use approved ammunition designed to minimize the risk of ricocheting bullets.

Thank you, Sir.

Truth be told, additional training is something I think is almost always worthwhile. If anything, I would think that weapon retention should be taught. Also, I would be inclined to believe that weapon holders should learn to never, ever give their weapon to a bad guy - even in a hostage situation.

All IMHO, and recognizing that my knowledge about weapons and the handling thereof is meager among the good people of this forum.

Sigaba

04-17-2009, 18:21

What if the same city council were to outlaw public demonstrations in the city park because of the increased likelihood of car/pedestrian accidents, or that Wiccans were not allowed to hold outdoor religious ceremonies within city limits "for their own safety", in case their Christian neighbors took offense and decided to violently break up the ceremony? I find none of the above, nor the potential danger to school children from adults legally carrying a concealed weapon to even begin to approach the standard of yelling 'fire' in a theater.

Razor--

For better or worse, the City of Los Angeles requires demonstrators to obtain permits from the LAPD before having public events <<LINK (http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&ct=res&cd=1&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.lapdonline.org%2Fhome%2Fpdf_v iew%2F5900&ei=sRnpSdraApfqtQOB1_HxAQ&usg=AFQjCNGrqZSZ0JVdrcIKvalqQS7pofpwjQ)>>. The LAPD has used the absence of required permits to shut down counter-demonstrations for their own safety.

At this point in time, should advocates of a civil right risk the political and cultural fall out that might ensue from advocating such a controversial public policy option?

Razor

04-17-2009, 19:33

Razor--

For better or worse, the City of Los Angeles requires demonstrators to obtain permits from the LAPD before having public events <<LINK (http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&ct=res&cd=1&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.lapdonline.org%2Fhome%2Fpdf_v iew%2F5900&ei=sRnpSdraApfqtQOB1_HxAQ&usg=AFQjCNGrqZSZ0JVdrcIKvalqQS7pofpwjQ)>>. The LAPD has used the absence of required permits to shut down counter-demonstrations for their own safety.

I'm no lawyer, but reading the attached municipal ordinances, it appears that if a group is not using a powered amplification device (bullhorn, speaker system, etc.), it would not be breaking any laws if it decided to assemble off a street or thoroughfare. I would be interested to see the result of a legal challenge to the police breaking up or arresting a group assembling in a city park, off any road or street, and not using a powered sound amplifier. I'd say the permit requirement is probably balancing a very fine line between civil rights and public safety, and could fall under intense legal scrutiny if enforced too rigorously. What do you believe would happen if the city were to not approve a GLAD demonstration simply because of the potential for violence?

Sigaba

04-17-2009, 20:44

I'm no lawyer, but reading the attached municipal ordinances, it appears that if a group is not using a powered amplification device (bullhorn, speaker system, etc.), it would not be breaking any laws if it decided to assemble off a street or thoroughfare. I would be interested to see the result of a legal challenge to the police breaking up or arresting a group assembling in a city park, off any road or street, and not using a powered sound amplifier. I'd say the permit requirement is probably balancing a very fine line between civil rights and public safety, and could fall under intense legal scrutiny if enforced too rigorously. What do you believe would happen if the city were to not approve a GLAD demonstration simply because of the potential for violence?

Razor--

The anti- Proposition 8 crowd has had numerous demonstrations and the LAPD and other interested law enforcement agencies let them do their thing, without permits.

IMHO, the LAPD and the L.A. County Sheriff's Department do good work when balancing public safety and civil rights. So much so that when things got out of hand on 1 May 2007, there was a lot of confidence that the police department would figure out what went wrong and fix it.

We've all learned and grown from the Rodney King incident and the Rampart Division scandal. The North Hollywood shoot-out greatly accelerated the reconciliation process. NBC's Life is popular in L.A. for more reasons than just Sarah Shahi.:cool:

Just my two cents (and back on topic). I want a re-boot of the Second Amendment movement that steps away temporarily from arguments based on the Constitution and statistical evidence and instead focuses on the diversity of Americans who own firearms.

I think the gun control crowd tries to demonize all gun owners. That practice will be harder for them when they realize that American gun owners come from all walks of life--including those who oppose Proposition 8 for very personal reasons and those who voted for the current president.

Richard

04-17-2009, 20:57

I think the gun control crowd tries to demonize all gun owners. That practice will be harder for them when they realize that American gun owners come from all walks of life--including those who oppose Proposition 8 for very personal reasons and those who voted for the current president.

I think you're right about that one. ;)

Richard's $.02 :munchin

Claemore

04-18-2009, 16:23

The argument that there are too many whack jobs that carry guns and are more likely to cause problems than to end a problem ignores the many, many incidents in which an armed citizen does end bad situations before it gets worse. To say that only extremely trained people- like cops:rolleyes: - should carry guns, is silly.

I was a cop in the small town of Granger, Wyoming where the nearest l.e. help was twenty minutes away. I was grateful for the armed populace that I knew would back me up if I needed it.

A lady in Texas was in a "gun free" zone. A restaurant when a nut with a gun entered and killed her parents. Her legally owned firearm was in the car. Could she have ended the situation? Quite possibly. A distracted gunman trying to focus on a large group of people while one of those people decide to take an aimed practiced shot from behind concealment? At the very worst, if she'd been shot by the badguy, at least she would have died trying to do the right thing.

Pete

04-19-2009, 05:57

A few have mentioned "Active Shooter".

For the others

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30283811/

Richard

04-19-2009, 06:14

Interesting material. ;)

Richard's $.02 :munchin

10 years later, the real story behind Columbine
Greg Toppo, USA Today, 17 Apr 2009

They weren't goths or loners.

The two teenagers who killed 13 people and themselves at suburban Denver's Columbine High School 10 years ago next week weren't in the "Trenchcoat Mafia," disaffected videogamers who wore cowboy dusters. The killings ignited a national debate over bullying, but the record now shows Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold hadn't been bullied — in fact, they had bragged in diaries about picking on freshmen and "fags."

Their rampage put schools on alert for "enemies lists" made by troubled students, but the enemies on their list had graduated from Columbine a year earlier. Contrary to early reports, Harris and Klebold weren't on antidepressant medication and didn't target jocks, blacks or Christians, police now say, citing the killers' journals and witness accounts. That story about a student being shot in the head after she said she believed in God? Never happened, the FBI says now.

A decade after Harris and Klebold made Columbine a synonym for rage, new information — including several books that analyze the tragedy through diaries, e-mails, appointment books, videotape, police affidavits and interviews with witnesses, friends and survivors — indicate that much of what the public has been told about the shootings is wrong.

"He was so bad at wiring those bombs, apparently they weren't even close to working," says Dave Cullen, author of Columbine, a new account of the attack.

So whom did they hope to kill?

Everyone — including friends.

What's left, after peeling away a decade of myths, is perhaps more comforting than the "good kids harassed into retaliation" narrative — or perhaps not.

It's a portrait of Harris and Klebold as a sort of In Cold Blood criminal duo — a deeply disturbed, suicidal pair who over more than a year psyched each other up for an Oklahoma City-style terrorist bombing, an apolitical, over-the-top revenge fantasy against years of snubs, slights and cruelties, real and imagined.

Along the way, they saved money from after-school jobs, took Advanced Placement classes, assembled a small arsenal and fooled everyone — friends, parents, teachers, psychologists, cops and judges.

"These are not ordinary kids who were bullied into retaliation," psychologist Peter Langman writes in his new book, Why Kids Kill: Inside the Minds of School Shooters. "These are not ordinary kids who played too many video games. These are not ordinary kids who just wanted to be famous. These are simply not ordinary kids. These are kids with serious psychological problems."

Harris, who conceived the attacks, was more than just troubled. He was, psychologists now say, a cold-blooded, predatory psychopath — a smart, charming liar with "a preposterously grand superiority complex, a revulsion for authority and an excruciating need for control," Cullen writes.

Harris, a senior, read voraciously and got good grades when he tried, pleasing his teachers with dazzling prose — then writing in his journal about killing thousands.

"I referred to him — and I'm dating myself — as the Eddie Haskel of Columbine High School," says Principal Frank DeAngelis, referring to the deceptively polite teen on the 1950s and '60s sitcom Leave it to Beaver. "He was the type of kid who, when he was in front of adults, he'd tell you what you wanted to hear."

When he wasn't, he mixed napalm in the kitchen.

According to Cullen, one of Harris' last journal entries read: "I hate you people for leaving me out of so many fun things. And no don't … say, 'Well that's your fault,' because it isn't, you people had my phone #, and I asked and all, but no. No no no don't let the weird-looking Eric KID come along."

As he walked into the school the morning of April 20, Harris' T-shirt read: Natural Selection.

Klebold, on the other hand, was anxious and lovelorn, summing up his life at one point in his journal as "the most miserable existence in the history of time," Langman notes.

Harris drew swastikas in his journal; Klebold drew hearts.

As laid out in their writings, the contrast was stark.

Harris seemed to feel superior to everyone — he once wrote, "I feel like God and I wish I was, having everyone being OFFICIALLY lower than me" — while Klebold was suicidally depressed and getting angrier all the time. "Me is a god, a god of sadness," he wrote in September 1997, around his 16th birthday.

Klebold also was paranoid. "I have always been hated, by everyone and everything," he wrote.

On the day of the attacks, his T-shirt read: Wrath.

Columbine wasn't the first K-12 school shooting. But at the time it was by far the worst, and the first to play out largely on live television.

The U.S. Secret Service and U.S. Education Department soon began studying school shooters. In 2002, researchers presented their first findings: School shooters, they said, followed no set profile, but most were depressed and felt persecuted.

Princeton sociologist Katherine Newman, co-author of the 2004 book Rampage: The Social Roots of School Shootings, says young people such as Harris and Klebold are not loners — they're just not accepted by the kids who count. "Getting attention by becoming notorious is better than being a failure."

The Secret Service found that school shooters usually tell other kids about their plans.

"Other students often even egg them on," says Newman, who led a congressionally mandated study on school shootings. "Then they end up with this escalating commitment. It's not a sudden snapping."

Langman, whose book profiles 10 shooters, including Harris and Klebold, found that nine suffered from depression and suicidal thoughts, a "potentially dangerous" combination, he says. "It is hard to prevent murder when killers do not care if they live or die. It is like trying to stop a suicide bomber."

At the time, Columbine became a kind of giant national Rorschach test. Observers saw its genesis in just about everything: lax parenting, lax gun laws, progressive schooling, repressive school culture, violent video games, antidepressant drugs and rock 'n' roll, for starters.

Many of the Columbine myths emerged before the shooting stopped, as rumors, misunderstandings and wishful thinking swirled in an echo chamber among witnesses, survivors, officials and the news media.

Police contributed to the mess by talking to reporters before they knew facts — a hastily called news conference by the Jefferson County sheriff that afternoon produced the first headline: "Twenty-five dead in Colorado."

A few inaccuracies took hours to clear up, but others took weeks or months — sometimes years — as authorities reluctantly set the record straight.

Former Rocky Mountain News reporter Jeff Kass, author of a new book, Columbine: A True Crime Story, says police played a game of "Open Records charades."

In one case, county officials took five years just to acknowledge that they had met in secret after the attacks to discuss a 1998 affidavit for a search warrant on Harris' home — it was the result of a complaint against him by the mother of a former friend. Harris had threatened her son on his website and bragged that he had been building bombs.

Police already had found a small bomb matching Harris' description near his home — but investigators never presented the affidavit to a judge.

They also apparently didn't know that Harris and Klebold were on probation after having been arrested in January 1998 for breaking into a van and stealing electronics.

The search finally took place, but only after the shootings.

What's now beyond dispute — largely from the killers' journals, which have been released over the past few years, is this: Harris and Klebold killed 13 and wounded 24, but they had hoped to kill thousands.

The pair planned the attacks for more than a year, building 100 bombs and persuading friends to buy them guns. Just after 11 a.m. on April 20, they lugged a pair of duffel bags containing propane-tank bombs into Columbine's crowded cafeteria and another into the kitchen, then stepped outside and waited.

Had the bombs exploded, they'd have killed virtually everyone eating lunch and brought the school's second-story library down atop the cafeteria, police say. Armed with a pistol, a rifle and two sawed-off shotguns, the pair planned to pick off survivors fleeing the carnage.

As a last terrorist act, a pair of gasoline bombs planted in Harris' Honda and Klebold's BMW had been rigged apparently to kill police, rescue teams, journalists and parents who rushed to the school — long after the pair expected they would be dead.

The pair had parked the cars about 100 yards apart in the student lot. The bombs didn't go off.

Since 1999, many people have looked to the boys' parents for answers, but a transcript of their 2003 court-ordered deposition to the victims' parents remains sealed until 2027.

The Klebolds spoke to New York Times columnist David Brooks in 2004 and impressed Brooks as "a well-educated, reflective, highly intelligent couple" who spent plenty of time with their son. They said they had no clues about Dylan's mental state and regretted not seeing that he was suicidal.

Could the parents have prevented the massacre? The FBI special agent in charge of the investigation has gone on record as having "the utmost sympathy" for the Harris and Klebold families.

"They have been vilified without information," retired supervisory special agent Dwayne Fuselier tells Cullen.

For one thing, he notes, Harris' parents "knew they had a problem — they thought they were dealing with it. What kind of parent is going to think, 'Well, maybe Eric's a mass murderer.' You just don't go there."

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2009-04-13-columbine-myths_N.htm

Richard

04-19-2009, 06:22

Some current trends information which I know a lot of schools practice in this area with a great deal of success. ;)

Richad's $.02 :munchin

Post-Columbine programs help prevent rampages
Marilyn Elias, USA Today, 17 Apr 2009

Even as experts agree there's no certain way to prevent another Columbine, researchers are discovering how schools can minimize violence, and a rising number have launched programs to head off shootings.

Jeff Daniels, a counseling psychologist at West Virginia University, has studied schools that foiled rampage killings. They share a few key qualities:

•There was a lot of informal, respectful contact between staff and students. "You'd go into the school cafeteria, and almost every table had a teacher interacting with kids, really visiting with them," Daniels says.

•The schools assured students they could turn to an adult if danger surfaced, without being a traitor. Assemblies emphasized the difference between snitching and getting help in a crisis.

•Staff took rumors seriously.

•There were anti-bullying programs with staff training.

School shooters almost always tell classmates of their plans, so schools should provide "confidential avenues for reporting what they hear," says Princeton sociologist Katherine Newman, who co-authored Rampage: The Social Roots of School Shootings. It's tough to get teenagers to "tell," since creating a social culture apart from adults is so important to adolescent development, Newman says. But if adults guarantee confidentiality, results can be dramatic. Examples:

•Colorado has a Safe2Tell anonymous tipline that covers any potential threat to safety. The program also includes anonymous and encrypted Web-tipping, says Susan Payne, special agent in charge of school safety and homeland security for the state. In the past 4½ years, the line has prevented 28 planned school attacks, she says. In one incident, there were 33 weapons found. About two-thirds of the calls come from kids, Payne says. "All of us have seen these unspeakable tragedies. I can't think of one that could not have been prevented."

•Safe School Ambassadors is a program created by the non-profit Community Matters in 2000. It has trained staff at more than 650 schools in 23 states on how to set up so-called ambassadors — influential student leaders of varied cliques who learn how to squelch minor fires of bullying and other behaviors, and to report potential rampages.

Kevin Crider, 58, was a counselor at Gardena High School in Los Angeles three years ago, when he saw potential violence averted because of the action of an ambassador. There had been racially based brawls just before the incident. Then a student ambassador told a police officer early one morning that he had seen a boy put a gun in his locker. Police arrested the boy.

"Things started to calm down a lot more after that. It was like, 'We're not going to tolerate it on this campus,' " Crider says.

Since the Columbine incident, many schools have set up anonymous methods to report potential rampages, says Jim Larson, school psychology professor at the University of Wisconsin-Whitewater. There's also more staff training on how to spot possible shooters.

And school-based health clinics are popping up rapidly, with mental health the fastest growing service. There were 1,709 centers in 2004-05, more than triple the number in the early '90s. Almost half of the centers do violence-prevention activities, says Laura Hurwitz of the National Assembly on School-Based Health Care.

Despite heightened awareness and preventive actions, few veterans in the field doubt another rampage could occur tomorrow. "Relatively few schools still are putting into action the strategies we know are important for preventing violence," says Shane Jimerson, school psychology professor at the University of California-Santa Barbara.

Says Linda Kanan, director of the Colorado School Safety Resource Center, "I'm feeling encouraged by the positive steps, but I think we still have a long way to go."

Margaret Bledsoe, science teacher at Heath High in Paducah, Ky., is a realist about the future. In 1997, Michael Carneal, 14, killed three classmates and injured five. Newman interviewed Bledsoe for her study and quotes her in Rampage: "I think getting inside their heart and heads is the only chance you have. … But it only takes one kid. … I know full well that this can happen here again. Even with all the things that we've tried to do … a kid can still slip through the cracks."

http://www.usatoday.com/news/education/2009-04-13-columbine-effects-schools_N.htm

Richard

04-19-2009, 06:31

Parental and community responsibility - what a concept. Some practical tips. ;)

Richard's $.02 :munchin

TIPS FOR MOM AND DAD

Parents and even private citizens with no link to a child can help prevent school shootings, says Peter Langman, a psychologist and the author of Why Kids Kill: Inside the Minds of School Shooters (Palgrave Macmillan). Here are some of his suggestions:

Set limits on your child's privacy. Keep open communication. Know your child's friends, what he does, what websites he visits. If there is a preoccupation with weapons or violent scenarios in journals, he may need help from a counselor.

Pay attention to school warnings. If the school contacts you with concerns about your child's violent stories or class presentations, he may be depressed or enraged and need help. These "red flags" have been noticed by teachers before school shootings, but parents rebuffed school officials.

Eliminate easy access to guns at home.

Recognize possible rehearsals of attacks. Some school shooters have done drawings, animations and videos or written stories in advance that depicted brutal acts.

Stay alert to possible signs of future trouble. Private citizens have foiled rampage killings by youths. Among them: a clerk in a photo shop who noticed photos of a teenager with an arsenal of guns and someone who found a notebook with plans for a high school shooting in a parking lot. If you notice a possible threat, promptly notify the police.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/education/2009-04-13-columbine-effects-schools_N.htm

Surf n Turf

04-19-2009, 18:28

Parental and community responsibility - what a concept. Some practical tips. ;)

Richard's $.02 :munchin

Richard,
Your two recent posts (Post-Columbine programs / Parental and community responsibility) have made me feel a lot more comfortable about the safety of where my grandkids go to school.
I had not read the follow-up material on Columbine, but it sure does not square with what has become “urban legend”, and this insight and the “active shooter” proposition are good steps taken by a system that I thought was to bureaucratic to change anything.
SnT

6.8SPC_DUMP

04-22-2009, 15:35

Legislation allowing state university students and employees to carry their concealed handguns on campus appears to have enough pledged support from lawmakers to pass the full Texas House.

The bill would prohibit public universities across Texas from creating rules that forbid concealed handgun license holders from carrying their pistols into a classroom, but it would allow private institutions to exempt themselves.

Chances for passage in the House — if it gets there — look strong, as 76 members have signed on to support the bill, authored by Rep. Joe Driver, R-Garland.

The House Public Safety Committee already has signed off on the measure. Now, it needs to get scheduled for debate in the full House.
-Houston Chronicle (http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/6367187.html) 4/10/09

Richard

04-23-2009, 09:43

And so it goes...;)

Notice how one of the first places reporters and LEOs go is to check for someone's Facebook/MySpace etc web-page.

SFA = Stephen F. Austin State University in Nacogdoches, TX.

Richard's $.02 :munchin

SFA student charged with making felony threat
Trent Jacobs and Matthew Stoff, The Daily Sentinel, 22 Apr 2009

SFA police arrested 20-year-old student Jennifer Grant Wednesday afternoon as result of a week-long investigation into threatening letters posted on and off campus early last Thursday morning, warning that a mass shooting was to take place that day. Grant is being charged with a felony terroristic threat.

According to an alert posted Wednesday on the university's Web site, Grant is a sophomore at SFA and originally from Palestine.

SFA police also confirmed that Grant is a resident of The Grove, which is the off-campus housing complex where many of the photo-copied messages were found taped to walls and doors.

Grant was booked into Nacogdoches County Jail late Wednesday and may be eligible for bail after her arraignment on Thursday.

University Police Chief Marc Cossich said he did not anticipate any further arrests. "It's still an active investigation, but no, we're not looking at anybody else at this time," he said.

The photocopied signs found on campus last week said "a shooting will occur today and students will die," and copies of another message found at The Grove student apartment complex said, "10 people will be shot and killed today at grove."

"It's heartbreaking to all of us when this kind of thing happens to any member of our university family. However, we are very proud of the job done by our university police who have continued to keep all of us safe," Bob Wright, the university's director of public affairs, said following the arrest.

On its Web site, the university also thanked area law enforcement agencies for their help in the investigation, specifically the FBI and special agents, Terry Lane and David Goodson, along with Texas Ranger Tom Davis. Special mention was also given to the community for the information provided regarding the case. The university set up a special call center last week to give and receive information, along with ordinary channels such as 911 and Crime Stoppers tips.

Cossich said information leading to Wednesday's arrest came from a wide variety of sources. "It was a lot of different information. It wasn't one certain thing. She came into the light from several different ways," Cossich said.

The threats found on and off campus last week were hand written, then photocopied and plastered in numerous locations on the second anniversary of the Virginia Tech shooting massacre of 32 people by a student there.

Though it was too early for officials to comment on Grant's possible motives for making the threats, comments on Grant's online social network profiles shed some light on her state of mind. Within the last few days, Grant had left at least two posts on her MySpace and Facebook pages complaining about not wanting to go to school. At 9:15 a.m. on the day that her alleged messages were first discovered, Grant posted a message saying, "Read your SFA alerts! Not going to class." Her last post to the publicly accessible portion of her MySpace page said, "Ready to be through with this semester but not ready for finals :("

At least one SFA student who knows Grant was surprised about the arrest. "She has always been nice to me whenever I have talked to her and really seems like a nice person all around. For her to make those drastic threats like that, all of a sudden, is highly doubtful to me," David Bruce Smith, 19, of Palestine, said.

According to information obtained from her Facebook page, Grant moved to Nacogdoches last August after transferring from the Tyler Junior College, and she is a 2007 graduate of Westwood High School in Palestine. After the threats were first analyzed by university officials, state and federal law enforcement agencies, SFA decided not to cancel classes or put the school on lock-down. Instead, the university advised faculty to be lenient with students who decided to stay home that day. On the day of the incident, several students told The Daily Sentinel that they believed the messages were a hoax perpetrated to get out of an exam. By late afternoon on the day of the incident, university police said that they were receiving "a lot" of leads on the case, but it is still not yet clear if those leads led to Wednesday's arrest.

Cossich praised the university police department for their hard work during the week-long investigation. "Our officers that investigated it here just did an outstanding job. ... It was very time-consuming because of the severity of the threat that was made, so there was a lot of people on it on our department," Cossich said. "I wish it never would have all happened, but I'm glad we did put somebody in jail," he said.

http://www.dailysentinel.com/news/content/news/stories/2009/04/22/crime_sfa_threats_arrest.html