Why register? ...To Enhance Your Experience
+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 74
  1. #21
    MembersZone Subscriber
    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Flanders, NJ
    Posts
    13,537

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by the1141man View Post
    George--I think anyone "formally trained" in "tactical operations for armed encounters", and who has subsequently been actually involved in said "tactical operation", would agree that the training they received, in comparison to the actual experience itself, would qualify as "minimal". There's an old saying in the Army: after three firefights, you either have a seasoned Soldier, or a dead one.
    Further, why would a teacher be at a "tactical disadvantage"? Most such shootings as schools and the recent mall shooting, are perpetrated by young civilian males, with no "formal training in tactical operations for armed encounters" other than playing Rainbow Six, SOCOM, or Halo3 (which I think we can all--those of us who are rational, anyways--agree provide no realistic value for training) on the XBOX 360.
    Therefore, theoretically at least, the untrained civilian teacher and the untrained civilian psycho-shooter should be on a level playing field.

    I'm certain that, as a trained LEO, you are very much aware that the untrained civilian in an offensive position is at a far greater advantage than the person who is on the defensive. I would argue that is the case regardless of their level of training. That is why the SRO at Columbine could not be effective-he was on the defensive.

    Simple--if you kill him before he can kill others, that deters him, factually, from killing those innocents, right? That is, after all, the rationale behind an officer using deadly force, is it not? To "stop the threat"?

    I am talking about deterence in the context of stopping the bad guy before he gets his guns into the school. If he is intent on committing suicide anyway, the prospect of being killed by a teacher may even make it more attractive. This is what happens in the classic "suicide by cop" situations.

    You can't possibly be arguing that it is better to allow the shooter to get in, begin shooting and then have someone cap him than it is to prevent the shooting in the first place, can you?



    User-friendly society, ya know? Nobody wants to be perceived as "on the offensive", "hostile", or "unwelcoming". After all, you might complain about them if they stopped you to ask what you were doing or to see your credentials....

    I have 4 kids. There is not a chance I would complain. But I get your point

    How bout: Deter. Detect. Defend. Destroy.
    I like my version much better.

    Have you ever shot someone? Have you ever talked to anyone who did? Did they have fun or would they have preferred that the suspect was prevented from putting him in that position in the first place?
    ----------------------------------------------
    PROUD, HONORED AND HUMBLED RECIPIENT OF THE PURPLE HYDRANT AWARD - 10/2007.


  2. #22
    MembersZone Subscriber
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Canuck Expat May be anywhere
    Posts
    2,906

    Default

    Idea!
    All parents attending school board meetings to be issued Tasers

  3. #23
    MembersZone Subscriber
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    Harrington, DE
    Posts
    328

    Cool

    It's unrealistic to think you can stop someone who's intent on doing whatever it is they want to do, including mass murder. There was a recent attempt in a Colorado church where the gunman, with multiple weapons and 1000 rounds, was stopped by an armed citizen. That citizen saved countless other lives.

  4. #24
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    East of the Pecos...South of North Carolina
    Posts
    169

    Default

    I know this analogy is a leap but I am a remnant of Vietnam. This policy if it ever goes anywhere is like getting out the napalm for an ant hill. To the extreme. Public schools are a matter of government. Leave law and order to trained government professionals. Not that 'zero tolerance' is always a good idea. -Nail file gets you expelled- and a record. WTF??
    Teachers have a calling,(we hope) to teach our youngsters. For most it is a lifetime job. Imagine the majority of public school teachers being in the twenty plus age range.(just guessing by looking around my district) We are asking them to carry a pistol? Times are changing yes but put in the protection as a layer so our teachers can teach. Sheesh.
    Requirements for Teaching B.A.- the usual and you must qualify for CWP. Would you prefer a revolver or an automatic?

  5. #25
    MembersZone Subscriber
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    811

    Cool Recent Evidence.....

    Originally added by davjohnson:
    It's unrealistic to think you can stop someone who's intent on doing whatever it is they want to do, including mass murder. There was a recent attempt in a Colorado church where the gunman, with multiple weapons and 1000 rounds, was stopped by an armed citizen. That citizen saved countless other lives.
    This would be recent evidence of 1 individual that was armed, at the right spot at the right time and willing to act. Honestly, just because you are carrying doesn't necessarily mean that you will act... I've personally been on calls where somebody was carrying legally and never pulled the weapon.

    Along with carrying, I'd also like to see teachers get hand-to-hand combat or some type of self defense training.....

    I've heard there are 2 towns or cities in America that have an ordinance that all residences and persons will have firearms and carry. I've been told they have the lowest crime rate. Can anybody confirm this? The names of the towns or cities would be great. I seem to remember 1 was in Texas and the other was either in Utah or Florida.....

    Originally added by the1141man:
    Oh, but it gets better: discipline starts at home, right? Not in America. If you spank your kid once on the backside, next thing you know, the police and a Child Protective Service agent are banging down your door, carting you off to jail for "child abuse", and the kid off to a foster home. Hah.
    How many of our elders here even had to consider this while they were raising their kids? It's unacceptable, we need to take our Country back..... I'm gettin' tired of the vocal minority (not gonna mention the Liberals, because not all of them feel this way) deciding what the majority has to do. What will it take for the majority to finally stand-up and say "We're takin' our Country back....." and if you don't like it, then leave or remain silent and realize you are the minority. This great Country operates on the majority vote..... Oh yeah, down with the Electoral College Voting System also..... LMAO
    "Be LOUD, Be PROUD..... It just might save your can someday when goin' through an intersection!!!!!"

    Life on the Truck (Quint) is good.....

    Eat til you're sleepy..... Sleep til you're hungry..... And repeat.....

  6. #26
    MembersZone Subscriber
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    Harrington, DE
    Posts
    328

    Cool

    Originally added by mikeyboy:

    Quote:
    This would be recent evidence of 1 individual that was armed, at the right spot at the right time and willing to act. Honestly, just because you are carrying doesn't necessarily mean that you will act... I've personally been on calls where somebody was carrying legally and never pulled the weapon.
    Why did they have a weapon???

  7. #27
    MembersZone Subscriber
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    811

    Cool I Know......

    Originally added by davjohnson:
    Why did they have a weapon???
    I agree..... but when I asked 'em that, the answer I was given was "I knew we'd be able to handle the situation without me pulling my firearm." His idea was that his pistol was a tool to be used as a last resort. Not a way to intimidate; Showed me that he truly respected what he was being trusted with.
    To be honest, I figured he must not have had the balls to pull it..... Glad I cleared that up..... LMAO
    "Be LOUD, Be PROUD..... It just might save your can someday when goin' through an intersection!!!!!"

    Life on the Truck (Quint) is good.....

    Eat til you're sleepy..... Sleep til you're hungry..... And repeat.....

  8. #28
    Forum Member KEEPBACK200FEET's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    East Carolina University
    Posts
    1,176

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by the1141man View Post
    Well, that same argument goes against you getting your CCW. After all, if a lot of people have CCWs without "good cause", you'll see fender-benders becoming street-corner shootouts, right?
    Oh wait, "Right to Carry" states haven't had that problem...yet...it's only a matter of time, right? Yep...it's been years, decades even in the cases of some states, but it's there, just waiting to happen.

    Of course, the same argument goes against allowing pilots to carry on their aircraft...

    And as I was taught in the police academy: there's always at least one gun present at every call--yours.
    So obviously, if the call is a nonviolent one, a "cold" report, say, you should lock your sidearm in the trunk, right? Safety first... you can carry this to as ridiculous an extreme as you like...

    Although I don't really follow your logic, isn't the whole reason of carrying concealed your perception that you need protection? Even if it were legal to CCW on campus, I doubt I'd ever do that. I feel like if I had to go to school everyday feeling like I needed to be packing, then I'd transfer somewhere where I felt safe. If the problem arose then, I'd have to Improvise, Adapt, and Overcome.
    Just know, I chose my own fate. I drove by the fork in the road and went straight.

    Quote Originally Posted by FlyingKiwi View Post
    Go put your pussy 2 1/2" lines away kiddies.

    Quote Originally Posted by Explorer343

    By the way KEEPBACK200FEET, you're so dramatic!

  9. #29
    MembersZone Subscriber
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    Harrington, DE
    Posts
    328

    Cool

    Quote Originally Posted by mikeyboy View Post
    Originally added by davjohnson:


    I agree..... but when I asked 'em that, the answer I was given was "I knew we'd be able to handle the situation without me pulling my firearm." His idea was that his pistol was a tool to be used as a last resort. Not a way to intimidate; Showed me that he truly respected what he was being trusted with.
    To be honest, I figured he must not have had the balls to pull it..... Glad I cleared that up..... LMAO
    Assuming no one else had a weapon, I can understand that logic.

  10. #30
    MembersZone Subscriber
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Posts
    138

    Default

    A Rifle in Every Pot


    By GLENN REYNOLDS
    Published: January 16, 2007
    Knoxville, Tenn.

    IT’S a phenomenon that gives the term “gun control” a whole new meaning: community ordinances that encourage citizens to own guns.

    Last month, Greenleaf, Idaho, adopted Ordinance 208, calling for its citizens to own guns and keep them ready in their homes in case of emergency. It’s not a response to high crime rates. As The Associated Press reported, “Greenleaf doesn’t really have crime ... the most violent offense reported in the past two years was a fist fight.” Rather, it’s a statement about preparedness in the event of an emergency, and an effort to promote a culture of self-reliance.

    And it may not be a bad idea. While pro-gun laws like the one in Greenleaf are mostly symbolic, to the extent that they actually make a difference, it is likely to be a positive one.

    Greenleaf is following in the footsteps of Kennesaw, Ga., which in 1982 passed a mandatory gun ownership law in response to a handgun ban passed in Morton Grove, Ill. Kennesaw’s crime dropped sharply, while Morton Grove’s did not.

    To some degree, this is rational. Criminals, unsurprisingly, would rather break into a house where they aren’t at risk of being shot. As David Kopel noted in a 2001 article in The Arizona Law Review, burglars report that they try to avoid homes where armed residents are likely to be present. We see this phenomenon internationally, too, with the United States having a lower proportion of “hot” burglaries — break-ins where the burglars know the home to be occupied — than countries with restrictive gun laws.

    Likewise, in the event of disasters that leave law enforcement overwhelmed, armed citizens can play an important role in stanching crime. Armed neighborhood watches deterred looting in parts of Houston and New Orleans in the aftermath of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita.

    Precisely because an armed populace can serve as an effective backup for law enforcement, the ownership of firearms was widely mandated during Colonial times, and the second Congress passed a statute in 1792 requiring adult male citizens to own guns.

    The twin purposes of self and community defense may very well lie behind the Second Amendment’s language encompassing both the importance of a well-regulated militia and the right of citizens to keep and bear arms. As the constitutional and criminal law scholar Don Kates has noted in the journal Constitutional Commentary, thinkers at the time when the Constitution was written drew no real distinction between resisting burglars, foreign invaders or domestic tyrants: All were wrongdoers that good citizens had the right, and the duty, to oppose with force.

    Greenleaf’s ordinance is consistent with this approach. But it may also serve another purpose.

    Experts don’t think the Kennesaw ordinance, which has never actually been enforced, did much to change gun ownership rates among Kennesaw residents. And, given that Greenleaf’s mayor has estimated that 80 percent of the town’s residents already own guns, the new ordinance can’t make all that much of a difference. But criminals are likely to suspect that towns with laws like these on the books will be unsympathetic to malefactors in general, and to conclude that they will do better elsewhere.

    To the extent that’s true, we’re likely to see other communities adopting similar laws so that criminals won’t see them as attractive alternatives. The result may be a different kind of “gun control.”

    Glenn Reynolds, a law professor at the University of Tennessee, is the author of the blog Instapundit and of “An Army of Davids: How Markets and Technology are Empowering Ordinary People to Take on Big Government, Big Media and Other Goliaths.”
    "In Tempore"

  11. #31
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Foggy California
    Posts
    968

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KEEPBACK200FEET View Post
    Although I don't really follow your logic, isn't the whole reason of carrying concealed your perception that you need protection? Even if it were legal to CCW on campus, I doubt I'd ever do that. I feel like if I had to go to school everyday feeling like I needed to be packing, then I'd transfer somewhere where I felt safe. If the problem arose then, I'd have to Improvise, Adapt, and Overcome.
    My logic was merely your logic taken to the next step... if you don't follow your own logic, that's because in retrospect, you realize what you said wasn't logical nor did it have any basis in fact... ergo, you are on the first step to enlightenment, young Paddleone.
    If you need a review: you made a remark that you feared "what would happen" during a "classroom argument" if students and teachers were allowed to carry concealed. I responded by pointing out that that same line of logic was used against Right to Carry legislation in every state wherein a bill for RTC has been sponsored... that allowing any non-felonious citizen to carry concealed if they so desired, would result in fender-bender TAs turning into street corner shootouts, or bar brawls turning into WWIII. As of yet, several states have passed RTC, and many more have very accomodating laws regarding concealed carry, and of those states, none have seen the rash of "street-corner/saloon shootouts" that everyone "logically" predicted would happen.
    It seems the NRA's old adage of "An armed citizenry is a polite citizenry," has held out...

    George--absolutely deterring a potential shooting situation is paramount, hence why I left it as #1 in my little version.
    I agree that according to traditional tactical doctrine, being "on the defense" puts one at a disadvantage. However, in this case, the "defense" has the element of surprise, which as countless histories will show, has been key to more than many major battles. Meaning, essentially, that most school/mall/other public place shooters go into the situation expecting little if any resistance for some time, and most certainly not from the "civilians"--if anything, they expect to face possibly an armed security guard, or peace officer on random patrol in the area who "stumbles into" the situation. Therefore, the armed citizen in this case has surprise completely in his favor.

    Just my thoughts, and for the most part, I'm just throwing monkey wrenches in your conveyor belt... we can debate strategy and tactics endlessly, to the point of quoting Sun Tzu, Von Clausewitz, and Musashi at each other, but the reality is that every such situation is a fluid thing and subject to so many variables it's impossible to even halfway guess what the outcome would be.

    Let's just say that if I was a citizen caught in a school/mall shooting situation, I would much rather have my .40 with me than not, and call it good, k?
    My opinions might coincide with someone of importance's POV... I wouldn't know, since I never bothered to ask. My policy is: "Don't ask, don't care."

    IACOJ--West Coast PITA

  12. #32
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    411

    Default

    Name:  gunfreezonecartoon.jpg
Views: 90
Size:  68.9 KB

    I don't think anyone should be forced to own a gun. It's a right; you don't have to personally accept it, just like you have the right to vote, yet more than half of Americans don't go to the polls. But if someone (a sound-minded private citizen, perhaps) wants to carry, that's their right. It's kind of hard to "bear" arms if you have to leave them at home. Most of these suicidal mass shootings don't occur in a private home, they occur in public, "gun-free" zones.
    "Yeah, but as I've always said, this country has A.D.D." - Denis Leary

    http://www.lettertogop.com/

  13. #33
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Foggy California
    Posts
    968

    Default

    PS, George:
    I have not ever fired a shot "in anger". But many fellow Guardsmen I know and talk to have engaged in battle, and several senior officers in one of the local PDs with whom I am well-acquainted have been in officer-involved shooting incidents. Nobody's saying it's "fun"--whether from the military perspective, or the LE one, and I think we can all agree if we could just set aside the guns for plinking soda cans and beer bottles, and join hands and sing kumbayah, the world would be just peachy.
    The reality, though, is that there are people in this world hellbent on doing harm to you and yours, whether you've done them a wrong or not, and they're going to try to do it whether you fight back or not. They just have a much better chance of success if you don't fight back.
    My opinions might coincide with someone of importance's POV... I wouldn't know, since I never bothered to ask. My policy is: "Don't ask, don't care."

    IACOJ--West Coast PITA

  14. #34
    MembersZone Subscriber
    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Flanders, NJ
    Posts
    13,537

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by davjohnson View Post
    It's unrealistic to think you can stop someone who's intent on doing whatever it is they want to do, including mass murder. There was a recent attempt in a Colorado church where the gunman, with multiple weapons and 1000 rounds, was stopped by an armed citizen. That citizen saved countless other lives.
    He was stopped by an armed Security Officer.
    PROUD, HONORED AND HUMBLED RECIPIENT OF THE PURPLE HYDRANT AWARD - 10/2007.

  15. #35
    MembersZone Subscriber
    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Flanders, NJ
    Posts
    13,537

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by the1141man View Post
    PS, George:
    I have not ever fired a shot "in anger". But many fellow Guardsmen I know and talk to have engaged in battle, and several senior officers in one of the local PDs with whom I am well-acquainted have been in officer-involved shooting incidents. Nobody's saying it's "fun"--whether from the military perspective, or the LE one, and I think we can all agree if we could just set aside the guns for plinking soda cans and beer bottles, and join hands and sing kumbayah, the world would be just peachy.
    The reality, though, is that there are people in this world hellbent on doing harm to you and yours, whether you've done them a wrong or not, and they're going to try to do it whether you fight back or not. They just have a much better chance of success if you don't fight back.
    I completely disagree with your thoughts about this, but respect your opinion.

    However, no officer should ever use deadly force "in anger". It should be used consistent with training in the appropriate situation.

    The world is not a kumbayah place and I never said it was. I also fully realize, maybe more than you know, that there are bad people in this world who will hurt somebidy. But there are an awful lot of things that should be done to harden our schools before we resort to armed teachers.
    PROUD, HONORED AND HUMBLED RECIPIENT OF THE PURPLE HYDRANT AWARD - 10/2007.

  16. #36
    MembersZone Subscriber
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    Harrington, DE
    Posts
    328

    Cool

    Quote Originally Posted by GeorgeWendtCFI View Post
    He was stopped by an armed Security Officer.
    Armed security guard or armed citizen...it's a matter of semantics. The girl was a security volunteer with the church. Yes, trained, licensed, and former law enforcement, but not employed by any agency. ...definitely her calling, but that's not the issue here.

    Is there any comparison between this incident and the probability of a school shooting???

  17. #37
    MembersZone Subscriber
    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Flanders, NJ
    Posts
    13,537

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by davjohnson View Post
    Armed security guard or armed citizen...it's a matter of semantics. The girl was a security volunteer with the church. Yes, trained, licensed, and former law enforcement, but not employed by any agency. ...definitely her calling, but that's not the issue here.

    Is there any comparison between this incident and the probability of a school shooting???
    Yes. Both are extremely remote. Other than that, none at all.

    You would also find out that the security was in place due to an earlier shooting at a Christian camp/school that was loosely affiliated with the church. The church does not regularly provide armed security.
    PROUD, HONORED AND HUMBLED RECIPIENT OF THE PURPLE HYDRANT AWARD - 10/2007.

  18. #38
    MembersZone Subscriber
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    SW MO
    Posts
    4,249

    Default

    I tend to agree with George on this one. Even though my wife is a teacher and I substitute, I don't feel like gun toting teachers are the answer. I don't konw that our schools are representative of what is the norm across the nation, but it's what I have to compare to and what I have experience with. Our teachers are predominately women in their 40's and 50's, none of which can I think of that could effectively stop an armed rat from an attack. Perhaps two or three men in the school would I even consider to have the ability, and they have combat experience in the military.

    The biggest problem I see in my area is denial. I have met with the school where my wife teaches and I sub on a number of occassions. The last was shortly after a kid walked into a middle school in Joplin, MO (where I was working at the station that is second-in to that particular school the day it happened). Even after an incident where a student had walked in with an assault rifle, fired a round, and thank God the gun jammed and he didn't know how to clear it, our school is of the opinion "it won't happen here." They are more concerned with "intruders" who aren't students.

    I did much like George that same day. I had walked in, walked by the office where we're supposed to check in, and roamed the halls. I got met by one teacher who asked "can I help you?" I told her no and proceded, not once stopped and asked for an ID or anything.

    Until the schools are willing to take the steps to recognize there's a problem, find ways to mitigate and preven the problem from occurring, and plan for it to happen, there's no reason to even consider guns. Now, if they plan for an incident, take the steps to prevent it from happening or mitigate the cause of these kids "going postal" (which seems to be contributed to bullying most times), and take the steps to protect the kids and there's still a problem, that's the time to consider if, who, when, and where guns should be involved, an not until the point all other means are exhausted.

    I also saw George cite the National Schools Safety Center. While these incidents are isolated, there's a lot of interesing information that they have available. While we hear all about the Columbine, Red Lake, and VT incidents, you'd be astonished to find out how much these things really happen where only one or two kids are killed and it doesn't make the major media. I think this is one of the biggest reasons our school system refuses to take any action toward prevention; they don't realize how often this happens beyond what the national media reports.

  19. #39
    MembersZone Subscriber ChiefReason's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Location
    Illinois-where pertnear is close enough!
    Posts
    5,636

    Default

    Just a few days ago, not far from here, a person was on a high school campus with weapons. He was there to confront a student. Get it? This person with the gun was NOT a student of the high school.
    My point is; is the safe zone around the school actually the killing field for a gunman?
    How do you control non-essential personnel from gaining access to the campus, once the school bell rings?
    How can you hire security guards and install monitoring devices when every last dime in a school budget is spent?
    How do we make public places such as schools and shopping malls less attractive to nutjobs and more secure for you and me?
    Just today, a Canadian MUSLIM is charged with murdering his daughter for "honor". Because she wanted to be a "normal" high school student. OTHER students knew this girl was being physically abused by her father, but no one could confirm today that anyone had come forward previously with this information.
    Apathy is why there is so much killing going on. Or in the case of the youtube generation, they might miss getting it on video if they have to actually call 911 to report suspicious behavior.
    It's a very sick, sick society that we live in.
    CR
    Visit www.iacoj.com
    Remember Bradley Golden (9/25/01)
    RIP HOF Robert J. Compton(ENG6511)

  20. #40
    MembersZone Subscriber
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    Harrington, DE
    Posts
    328

    Cool

    Quote Originally Posted by GeorgeWendtCFI View Post
    Yes. Both are extremely remote. Other than that, none at all.

    You would also find out that the security was in place due to an earlier shooting at a Christian camp/school that was loosely affiliated with the church. The church does not regularly provide armed security.
    It was her suggestion to beef up security at the church that morning. She must have been an outstanding cop in her day.

    With all these random shootings in the past year or so, where does the real problem lie??? Is it gun control, general public apathy, failed mental health systems, government fear of civil litigation, inneffective criminal justice system, or something none of us even realize yet???

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. And they wonder why they can't get good teachers to stay.....
    By DaSharkie in forum The Off Duty Forums
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 03-31-2007, 12:10 PM
  2. Armed teachers? Maybe ... maybe not...
    By Jasper 45 in forum The Off Duty Forums
    Replies: 61
    Last Post: 10-16-2006, 02:05 PM
  3. Teachers should be BAT
    By firekid1234 in forum Firefighters Forum
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 09-28-2004, 11:08 AM
  4. Good Grief...Touchy Feely Teachers...
    By Dalmatian90 in forum The Off Duty Forums
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 08-27-2004, 09:40 AM
  5. nail guns
    By billy in forum Specialized Rescue
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 02-17-1999, 02:09 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts