Group offers weapons training for Utah teachers

@RN1 @Chico Spending money on security doors is stupid? The kids are on the inside and the perp is on the outside I don't see a problem there myself. If we knit pick every solution to pieces then there would be no reason to do anything because what I'm hearing from you is that for every possible solution there is another problem that will cause no solution to work.

 @Jatok  @Chico Outside the box. On of the places I worked at was an office building with a simple layout. They put a guard at the main door (made all of glass), and installed card-readers to unlock the doors. The boss said we'd all be safer. I pointed out that a person could run from the door at one end, by the two in the middle, and out the other, dropping Molotov's at each entrance in slightly less than 40 seconds. She looked at me weird, and I said "basic red-team strategy thinking, because I was thinking how I'D escape in a worst-case-scenario, so I had to figure out what the worst (reasonably possible) case would be."  Spending a lot of money on high-end security doors that are easy to defeat is stupid.

 @Jatok  @RN1  @Darn Kids are resilient - teaching them that they are helpless will do them more harm than teaching them they need to protect themselves *actively* Emotionally they will recover much faster if they had an active role in their defense than if they cowered passively.  See here for an example: http://news.yahoo.com/okla-girl-12-shoots-intruder-during-home-burglary-120453440--abc-news-topstories.html?ugc_c=lI4YXH712QD19_nh840Yg5BdplH7mSWj3fAF2HOIaSoEkZSFO5kPZodZPtQOLtTxFEwTwfL72rThJPCT3Y0KP3iMiUKk1pCktNDUbL3oyE4zfO.uPeoNohL6lAWLCBcSpH.NeWCVOnXFq4r3wyxHrD7xC6MiYrjWb48EAB5GEHF69Lidyu7IYgCKssNvvoB9mo9qcfCIkhN9F6xZkRG8lA39RVLyQ31VSjVl8bk03sa3c2L7LFq7EUnN5K9M&bcnv_s=e&ugc_scnv=1&ll=2

 

Also read the NYT article about "are our playground too safe?" Physical safety taken to extremes causes problems with development, because kids don't learn how to judge risk well, because they are never exposed to it. It's all part of the same puzzle that is childhood development.

@RN1 @Darn it! First off I am not pushing more government, we have to da-- much government already. My thought is before we arm people and send them into our schools perhaps there might be another way to go about protecting the kids. It's not just about protecting our children physically, it's about protecting them emotionally. My idea may not be the only way, but I would much prefer that to having armed people in our schools and possible gun battles. In the heat of things it could get pretty ugly.

 @Darn it!  @Jatok The slant on the artical is that the government schools don't really want it, but have to accept it because that's what UT state law says. It is implicitly about politics and government. Jatok was pushing a "more control, more government, more fear, more locks and security" mentality and hardware, when it is PEOPLE, not walls, that make for a strong defense. That's why we don't use castles any more.

@Jatok, You're right. It was bed time when I posted that. Obviously I was tired.

@SargeMcC If it's humor then it's spelled facetious. Try looking it up.

@Jatok, try looking up the word 'facecious'. Maybe then you'll get it.

 @RN1  @snoopy84  @SargeMcC Another key to this whole thing is these cowards tend to pick soft targets. When they face resistance the often kill themselves because they know the jig is up. Just the threat of having school officials, whether it be teachers or not is likely enough to deter many. Also, anyone at all pointing a gun at them is likely to end the whole thing. Not always but enough to warrant considering the idea.

 @snoopy84  @RN1  @SargeMcC Consider this: in middle/JrHS'HS, most teachers are specialists, and teach several periods a day, and have at least one prep-period. During that time they are not responsible for any particular classroom of kids. If you have enough trained teachers, you could ensure that there is always at least one per prep period who is not tied down protecting their own. In doing so, there are also more of them scattered around, meaning that the bad-guys would be more likely to choose an "unlucky (for them) door" first. Also, even in elementary school, there are specialists (language, music, PE, art, etc) that have the kids for a while to give the main classroom teachers a break. So there won't be a whole army converging on the sound of gunfire, but their might be a handful scattered around with well-defended rooms, and one teacher and an administrator or two able to head for the troubled spot.

 

Arming teachers (or, more precisely, allowing those who choose to do so and are sufficiently competent) would be cheaper, and likely more effective, than rent-a-cops, and WAY cheaper than seasoned cops or highly trained security guards.

 @RN1  @snoopy84  @SargeMcC That was a very good read, and I totally agree with what he said. Most people don't understand the situation. I have a decent idea. I did armed security for awhile after I left the military, and I have been in a shoot/no shoot situation. In that case I chose not to shoot, even if I was a bit bloody, because I did not fear for my life or that of another person, and the perp was running like a dog with it's tail between it's legs as soon as I reached for my weapon. I think an armed teacher(s), be they x-police, veterans, or a volunteer with proper training would be a great idea.

@SargeMcC Don't work to hard. Thanks for the conversation.

@RN1 @SargeMcC Those are exactly the people that need to take on the mission.

At the same time, you as a teacher know you are confined to one area and responsible for that class. Would it not be more practical to have two roaming security personnel.

Then, if you have an armed teacher, you have a good layer of protection.

 

Overall, I agree with you. Your comment set me to thinking of how to make it armed teachers better used in this plan.

 

 

 

We need to either do it right or risk a worst case scenario.

 @snoopy84  @SargeMcC You seem to think that teachers are a mutually exclusive set with vets or police. Every school I've taught in there were a least a half dozen vets who were reasonably physically competent, as I was, ranging in background from MP to artillery to intel to West Point grad Ranger to engineer. I've met a couple of ex-cop teachers, too. Any of them would likely be good candidates for a modest amount of additional training to be effective.

 

According to http://larrycorreia.wordpress.com/2012/12/20/an-opinion-on-gun-control/ , he's trained several hundred teachers / administrators, and his observation is that every school has at least a couple of competent candidates.

 

Also, humans are pretty good at the lizard-brain level at determining threat / not-threat sorts of people. It's a basic survival thing.

I believe the nurturing nature of teachers would force them to act when a child was threatened. Any training and plan is better than no training or plan, and the ability to actually act and make a difference lends some security. Good day, I must get ready to work tomorrow.

@SargeMcC Good for you Noah Webster!

 

"Train the teachers who feel comfortable carrying a gun in close quarter defense tactics, shoot/ don't shoot situations, and safe gun handling techniques."

This is where I both agree and find troublesome. The role of the teacher has to have compassion then be able to shoot a human being without "HESITATION" or game over.

I assume by your handle you are ex or retired military. So, I also assume you understand the difficulty in finding not only a person qualified to handle a weapon but one whom could actually use it.

 

If we need to arm schools-then we should do it veterans or police.

I don't we are far apart on the issue of schools, just who should be the protector.

 

As for society as a whole, my concern is how people in the past 10 years  bought guns, most likely have not been to a range in years and may not even know where thier gun is located.

 

 

Yes, I do have an answer. Train the teachers who feel comfortable carrying a gun in close quarter defense tactics, shoot/ don't shoot situations, and safe gun handling techniques. These people are responsible for our children every time they go to school, and to think that the teachers would be irresponsible becomes more obscure than the possibility that the teacher might need to defend the child. If the teacher doesn't feel comfortable with carrying a gun, they don't have to, but they may need to live with the realization that they could have stopped the killing of a child if only they had decided to take that training and carry a gun to stop an attacker. And by the way, I don't generally need to use 'spell check' to be clear.

@lakeview   Polly want a cracker.

 @lakeview OK, two cases I'd not heard about (one from 2004) where a teacher did something they are told to never do (leave a gun unattended) because you should have them ON YOU or LOCKED UP.  (Minor edit on my post above - I meant to say legal "in some locations, such as UT") and the other case it was a blank gun (like a starter gun from what I can figure out) which poses no real danger, but obviously the teacher was behaving like an idiot, unless the story was WAY short on correct details (always a possibility). Not exactly a wide-ranging problem, considering no-one was hurt in spite of these three dolts.

 

If you are trying to say that in any sufficiently large group, over a sufficiently long time, there will be some examples of serious lack of brain power, you won't get an argument from me. Flip-side-wise, there will be failure in ANY security system, so the goal should be, as always, is what provides the greatest benefit at the best price. (please note: price is denominated in money, freedom, side-effects, consequences, time, and other effects).

And here is a good one:

 

http://www.ksn.com/content/news/also/story/Teacher-fires-gun-at-students/s-rY_HJcCEqET_svX4vL1g.cspx

Eh, nevermind.

 

http://www.fox16.com/news/story/Update-Jacksonville-High-student-steals-gun-from/JYUOJohHL065M3KXG5alYQ.cspx

 

http://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/article/Police-Teen-took-gun-from-briefcase-1572998.php

 @Chico  @Jatok Adrenaline is what gets a lot of people killed in a gun fight.

 @SeattleJoe  @RN1  @Jatok  @grmnshepherdess You are assuming that they will be able to calmly fire at someone firing at them...and be able to hit accurately with every shot.

But how many times have we heard of cops who fire multiple rounds at a perp, and only one or two actually hit the target? It's really not that hard to Google "bystanders shot by police" and find many examples of innocents being shot by cops - who (hopefully) will have far more training in such stressful confrontations...if cops can do this with all their training, how can you say that a teacher won't in a very rare situation?

 @OrcasThunder  @RN1  @Jatok  @grmnshepherdess It would be hard. On the other hand when that teacher sees some idiot shooting kids, I don't think it would be so hard.

 @RN1  @Jatok  @grmnshepherdess I was told by a number of combat vets that the first kill is the hardest - and that's assuming the replacement can stop shaking long enough to actually aim at the target - and that is after a lot of training drills designed to teach them how to kill. How do you think a teacher who has never been under fire is going to be able to target and shoot at another human being? A teacher is a teacher because they want to help people become better people (they sure as hell aren't in it for the money!)...to expect a person with that mindset suddenly turn into a stone cold killer is irrational. The "defensive" mindset you look for is not going to take the time to aim and fire in a manner likely to make a killing hit. Remember, most of these guys are wearing some kind of armored clothing...and a head shot is the hardest shot even for a trained shooter.

 @SeattleJoe  @RN1  @nobelprizeme  @SargeMcC 

"Well if that money went to gun safety etc then who cares where it came from."

Here's the view from a former NRA member in Montana:

"1. Many people in this country may think that the National Rifle Association (NRA) protects their right to bear arms. They don’t; our Constitution does that. It’s part of our collective freedoms and it’s been upheld to the highest level of our judicial system. The NRA has steadfastly sought to cloud and co-opt this right. Their shameful response to the Newtown killings has once again exposed who their leadership serves.

2. The NRA is a special-interest group that generates huge dollars in corporate donations to lobby for the interests of the hugely profitable gun and ammo manufacturers. The NRA staff is well paid, and their CEO, Wayne LaPierre, may be the most influential lobbyist in the country not named Grover Norquist. He regularly begins his public comments by reminding his audience that the NRA is 4 million members strong. So what? Other organizations that promote the public good have as many. The AARP, for example, has 47 million.

3. Ironically, the majority of NRA members support sensible gun safety laws. It’s the organization’s leadership that doesn’t.

4. Call your senators and congressmen and express your views in a heartfelt, considerate way. I have done this on many issues in addition to this one and I do believe it can make a difference. It only takes a few minutes of your time.

I gave up my NRA membership almost 20 years ago. The organization does not serve my interests by obstructing reasonable gun legislation, blaming Hollywood and the media for mass shootings, and demanding we pay to station armed guards in every school to protect our children. I suggest if you belong to the NRA, reconsider paying them your hard-earned money. A shrinking membership would diminish their prominence and the NRA’s lobbying would carry less weight with policy makers. Should you quit supporting the NRA, send a letter to the Board of Directors explaining why (with copies to your elected officials).

I say this as a hunter for over 50 years and a Marine Corps combat veteran who knows the only places where assault weapons and high capacity magazines have a place. I don’t need a Bushmaster or a 30-round clip to kill a pheasant or an elk. Neither does anyone else, although the NRA will lobby Congress that you do."

http://mtstandard.com/news/opinion/editorial/guest-editorial-changing-the-gun-culture/article_3a477e8a-5136-11e2-9751-0019bb2963f4.html?comment_form=true

 

As to not caring where the money comes from, do you really not care if the organization that claims to "work for you" actually works for the companies that make and sell the firearms you buy?

Perhaps you should - because the interests of the corporations who make the guns are not always the same as yours...THEY want to make money, THEY could care less about YOUR rights, including the one to pay a fair price for the products. Or did you really think that they always give you the best price?

 @SeattleJoe  @RN1  @nobelprizeme  @SargeMcC "You assume that the money is buying off politicians etc. Some of it may be but..."

You seem to ignore the well known fact that the NRA is one of the most feared organizations that influences Congress. That clout, that power, comes from large amounts of money - in donations to campaigns, and in donations to opponents of those politicians willing to, or foolish enough to, go against NRA supported legislation.  And that doesn't address the lobbying money the NRA hands out.

But, you say, this goes to support the 2nd Amendment rights of Americans...but does it really? It seems that a large amount of it is really supporting the gum industry.:

"If you stand up for the second amendment, the NRA will stand up for you—that's what the gun rights juggernaut claims, at least. But, increasingly, the lobby's incestuous relationship with the gun manufacturers begs the question: Is the the NRA advocating for people who own guns? Or the lucrative companies that make them? 

Highlighting this dynamic, the Center for Public Integrity's Peter Stone writes about MidwayUSA, a gun manufacturer that sells high-capacity magazines similar to the one used in the Arizona shooting spree, and its close ties to the NRA's lobbying wing. In 1992, Midway developed a lucrative fundraising tactic to curry favor with NRA, known as "round up": Midway asks customers to round up the total of each order they place to the nearest dollar or higher, then donates the difference to the NRA's lobbying shop, known as the Institute for Legislative Action. But the relationship between Midway and the NRA doesn't end there. Brenda Potterfield, the wife of Midway's CEO, is the vice president of the NRA Foundation's board of trustees.

A number of other gun manufacturers have adopted the technique, reports Stone. Together with Midway, they've funneled $7.5 million to the NRA, $5.7 million of that coming just from MidwayUSA. As Stone reports:

Further, some of these vendors of high-capacity magazines also boast executives who are board members of the NRA. Ronnie Barrett, the CEO of Tennessee-based Barrett Firearms Manufacturing, which makes a military-style rifle sold with high-capacity magazines, was elected to the NRA board in 2009. And Pete Brownell, who runs Iowa-based Brownells Inc., which also makes high-capacity magazines, joined the NRA board in 2010. The strong financial and corporate ties to the NRA underscore how the gun rights goliath has become increasingly intertwined with some of the nation’s leading accessory vendors that sell high-capacity magazines. All have big stakes in fighting a pending gun control measure in Washington."

http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2011/01/nra-advocates-midway-gun-lobby-second-amendment

 

 @OrcasThunder  @RN1  @nobelprizeme  @SargeMcC Well if that money went to gun safety etc then who cares where it came from. You assume that the money is buying off politicians etc. Some of it may be but this report only looks at where the money comes from not where it goes.

 @RN1  @nobelprizeme  @SargeMcC "Now THERE'S an unbiased source."

And the NRA isn't?

Can you disprove any of the statements I quoted?

 @OrcasThunder  @nobelprizeme  @SargeMcC The Violence Policy Center... Now THERE'S an unbiased source.

@nobelprizeme@SargeMcC "

National Rifle Association Receives Millions of Dollars From Gun Industry "Corporate Partners" New VPC Report Reveals

ShareThis Organized Corporate Solicitation Program Disproves Longstanding NRA Claim That It's Independent of Gun Industry

Washington, DC--The National Rifle Association (NRA) receives millions of dollars directly from domestic and foreign gun manufacturers and other members of the firearms industry through an organized corporate outreach program according to a new report issued today by the Violence Policy Center (VPC).

The report, Blood Money: How the Gun Industry Bankrolls the NRA, reveals that since 2005 contributions from gun industry "corporate partners" to the NRA total between $14.7 million and $38.9 million. Total donations to the NRA from all "corporate partners"--both gun industry and non-gun industry--for the same time period total between $19.8 million and $52.6 million. The vast majority of funds--74 percent--contributed to the NRA from “corporate partners” come from members of the firearms industry: companies involved in the manufacture or sale of firearms or shooting-related products.

Despite the NRA's historical claims that it is not financially allied with the gun industry, including the current disclaimer on its website that it “is not affiliated with any firearm or ammunition manufacturers or with any businesses that deal in guns and ammunition,” NRA "corporate partners" include many of the world's best known gunmakers as well as such companies as Xe, the new name of the now infamous Blackwater Worldwide--known for its abuses in the Iraq war--which alone contributed between $500,000 and $999,999 to the NRA since 2005.

In a recent promotional brochure, NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre promises that the “National Rifle Association’s newly expanded Corporate Partners Program is an opportunity for corporations to partner with the NRA....This program is geared toward your company’s corporate interests.”

Among the NRA’s “corporate partners” who gave $25,000 or more to the organization are 22 that manufacture firearms, including such well-known gunmakers as: Arsenal, Inc.; Benelli; Beretta USA Corporation; Browning; DPMS Panther Arms; FNH USA; Glock, Inc.; H&R 1871, LLC; Marlin Firearms; Remington Arms Co., Inc.; SIGARMS, Inc.; Smith & Wesson Corporation; Springfield Armory; and, Sturm, Ruger & Co., Inc. Of the 22 gunmakers, 12 manufacture assault weapons. Also among the NRA’s “corporate partners” are numerous high-capacity ammunition magazine manufacturers or vendors.

One manufacturer, Beretta, donated one million dollars to the NRA to work to overturn gun control laws in the wake of the 2008 U.S. Supreme Court decision in "District of Columbia v. Heller" (which for the first time ever recognized an individual right to possess a handgun in the home for self-defense).

VPC Executive Director Josh Sugarmann states, "Today's NRA is a virtual subsidiary of the gun industry. While the NRA portrays itself as protecting the 'freedom' of individual gun owners, it's actually working to protect the freedom of the gun industry to manufacture and sell virtually any weapon or accessory."

The NRA's top corporate benefactor is MidwayUSA, the "Official Sponsor of the NRA Annual Meeting and Exhibits...” being held in Pittsburgh, PA, later this month. MidwayUSA sells ammunition, high-capacity ammunition magazines, and other shooting accessories and has contributed between five and 10 million dollars to the NRA via its NRA Round-Up Program (which rounds up customer purchases to the nearest dollar with the difference going to the NRA) and other contributions. One Pittsburgh resident who apparently took part in the NRA’s Round-Up Program through MidwayUSA was concealed carry permit holder George Sodini, who in August 2009 opened fire at an LA Fitness Center in Collier, PA, killing three women and wounding nine others before turning the gun on himself and taking his own life. A copy of the e-mail receipt sent to Sodini from MidwayUSA for his purchase of 9mm and .45 ammunition includes a donation of 74 cents from the mass shooter to the NRA via the Round-Up Program.

The study concludes, "The mutually dependent nature of the National Rifle Association and the gun industry explains the NRA’s unwillingness to compromise on even the most limited controls over firearms or related products (such as restrictions on high-capacity ammunition magazines)....The NRA claims that its positions are driven solely by a concern for the interests of gun owners, never mentioning its own financial stake in protecting the profits of its gun industry patrons. At the 2009 Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC), NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre told a cheering crowd that 'the guys with the guns make the rules.' The information contained in this report raises the question as to what degree it is the guys who make the guns who make the rules.""

http://www.vpc.org/press/1104blood.htm

 @OrcasThunder  @SargeMcC um, they have 4.3 million members, shelling out between $35-$1000 each.  the gun manufacturers ARE members.  i also didn't know a group that stood for gun safety and the defense of our rights was a bad thing either.

 @SargeMcC  @Orcas No, the problem with the NRA is that it is bought and paid for by the gun manufactures.

Look at the money they hand out - there is no way that is coming from the members. You guys gripe about the unions using dues to pay for candidates, take a hard look at the amount of money the NRA is funneling...

 @OrcasThunder  @grmnshepherdess okay, i get it now... the connecticut school shooting would have been worse if a teacher had a firearm. and you're right, i am looking at the situation from a sane and rational point of view to form a solution to someone who is acting irrational. btw, the clackamas shooter wasn't a punk, he was a murderer.

 @nobelprizeme  @grmnshepherdess "wait-- help me out with this."

If you insist...

Your problem is that you are trying to look at the situation from a sane and rational POV. The guys who do these things are NOT sane OR rational. In most cases they are suicidal. And they are looking for the most dramatic way to got out - with as high a hit count as they can get - it's their one chance to be noticed and remembered in the history books, and it's "better" (in their minds) to be the one with the highest kill count. And if that includes some cops, even better.

It's the same mentality of the people who play the war games on the web, only it's a far more select group, and it's for real - except, to them, "real" is just another level of "game".

It's like when someone brags about how secure their system is - there are certain mentalities who will take that as a challenge, even more so if it is a secret government agency. The Portland mall shooter was just a punk, these guys see themselves as secret agents on a mission...

 @nobelprizeme  @OrcasThunder  @grmnshepherdess Nobel, don't try to make sense out of it. Orcas is spouting bull muffins and he/she/it knows it.