there is this one as well - it isn’t a teacher, its a police officer who was carrying:
I half believe that Rump’s latest embrace of gun control is a ruse to gin up sales. The rubes will panic buy now and by the time any legislation is actually on the table, he’ll be against it again. “Can’t pin me down. I’m unpredictable. SMART!”
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Just to add, for the record, I am not in favor of arming school teachers. If the goal is to protect kids, put more trained LEO’s in the schools. Not sure that’s the answer, either, but it would be better than the proposed.
Personally, I think the goal should be fewer gun deaths. Schools, movie theaters, streets, hunting accidents, suicides, police shooting black men, workplaces…
I’ve never been that worried about my kids at school - risk analysis shows me risk isn’t high. And frankly, LEOs or teachers armed with handguns isn’t going to do a lot against a kid who hauls in two AK-47s with bump stocks into school in their hockey bag and pulls them out during passing in a crowded hallway.
The times they are a changing. I was never worried about my kids’ safety, but thankfully they’ve graduated and are out of harms way.
A friend in Nevada recently experienced a school lockdown. The news spread like wildfire over social media for about an hour before the school and police released a statement (armed felon being chased near the school). Nobody was hurt, but weeks later there are kids getting counseling over the event.
Ok, so maybe arming teachers might not work. But what other professions are always out and about in the local area, and likely to be in a position to respond quickly to an active shooter situation? Let’s arm all postal workers with AR-15s!
We could go with the San Francisco Police Motto:
Disingenuous is too kind a word. But they won’t let me use the correct wording outside the Pit.
Oh, my kids have been through lockdowns. There has been a loaded gun in their school brought in by a kid (he apparently wanted to show it to another kid - had no intention of using it - just stupid, not violent). My school has a trap shooting team. But statistically speaking, times will have to change a LOT before I’m more worried about school shootings than I am about them getting hit by a drunk driver or my daughter getting raped (especially because they are non-gender compliant). I’m far more worried about my non-white son getting shot on the street than I ever was (he graduated high school last year - he’s in college now where school shooting still happen) about him getting shot in high school.
I don’t understand why. The argument is that these guns aren’t killing people, people kill people - with the emphasis on criminals and the mentally ill. And that we can arm teachers to stop the mental ill. But teachers are people.
Mental illness isn’t something that you predict. It isn’t like someone who is paranoid wakes up one morning unable to pass an MMPI. It can be very difficult to diagnose. This teacher could, at the beginning of the year, be one who is considered a good candidate for arming - he’s never shown signs of mental instability, he is a user of guns as a private citizen and can pass whatever number of tests they put in place to make sure that the teacher can pull the trigger without some confidence that it will hit an intended target. Buy the middle of the year, his wife is leaving him, but he puts on a good face for the world and seems to be handling it fine. And then one day - snaps.
I’m mentally ill. I ‘passed’ my first four MMPIs. I was holding a job - a good six figure a year job with a multi million dollar budget and twenty people working for me. I was productive. One day I snapped, the next day I was on 72 hour lockdown. I’m not going to lash out, it isn’t my profile, I’m more likely to self harm (or so they tell me, but who knows - statistically, women tend not to go external with these things). But I assure you, before my hospitalization record would show up in a background check, I could have convinced you (and my medical records would have backed me up) that I just had a little dysthymia (chronic, mild depression) that was well managed by really small amounts of medication. The initial trigger for the depression was a rape - so, if you are talking about not arming the mentally ill, are you seriously talking about taking away self protection from someone who has been raped and suffers, perhaps, a little emotional backlash from the event? (Or that is what every psychiatrist and therapist I had thought - a situational trigger for a loop I couldn’t leave, but not a loop that created a risk for me or others). And that was where I was for 20 years, nothing unusually for someone to have a little dysthymia, nothing to worry about, no one saw anything more serious coming (including myself). And now, by the way, my medication profile looks a little more serious, but I’d have no problem looking completely sane on an MMPI - I have some practice taking them.
You seem to be so broadly missing the point that I can’t tell whether you are being deliberately obtuse or just aren’t following along very closely. The body of American law—not just federal statute and caselaw, but the laws of the individual states—have long recognized the general principle that prior restraint may be applied in the case of someone whose emotional instability or lack of competence may pose a danger to themselves or others. There is, generally speaking, a high standard to show incompetence although many states have enacted laws in specific scenarios such as the application of a restraining order in a domestic violence case may require police to confiscate firearms and restrict movements. That there is no federal law or integrated system to assure that people who have been demonstrated to pose a danger but have not been convicted of a felony is exactly the point; there is no uniform or reliable way to vet teachers or other school officials who hypothetically might be permitted to bring firearms into the classroom even on the basis of past behavior, notwithstanding the development of future affective disorders or the wide array of concerns of assuring that a weapon kept in the classroom is secure and not a hazard to students. And oh, by the way, the reason there isn’t a robust universal background check system is because the NRA and other “Second Amendment”organizations have vigorously opposed even minor improvements to the current system or sharing of state and municipal data beyond the current scope of convictions.
Arming teachers in the classroom is an objectively terrible idea for the numerous reasons listed above, and for the sake of brevity I’m not going to reiterate them here but of all of the people who are primarily affected—teachers, students, administrators, and police—there does not appear to be anything more than token support voiced for this proposal while there is certainly great opposition by the NEA and teachers and students at large. In fact, the primary support for this notion appears to come from the NRA and its bought-and-paid-for Congressional mouthpieces, which of course it is because their corporate backers want to sell more weapons and ammunition. As a solution to thr problem of falling gin sales it makes perfect sense; as a solution to preventing mass shootings and firearms-related violence it is about as workable as putting out a house fire by spraying cooking oil on it.
Stranger
Oh, and I wonder. I grew up in the duck and cover era (as a young child) as well as the bomb threat era. The amount of time I spent in elementary school hallways in child’s pose prepared me for a lifetime of yoga practice. My high school was evacuated no less than four times when I was in high school due to a bomb threat (it was the best way to get an afternoon off in an era where your chances of getting caught calling in a bomb threat from a payphone where pretty much nil). In other words - times really aren’t changing that much, just what we are afraid of is changing.
Yes and no. Yes, this could happen in any profession, and we think it’s a bad idea to add more guns to any workplace, not just schools. No, you are wrong because this is an example of a gun in the hands of a teacher at school, and so illustrates the particular problem being discussed. No one (due to this incident) is advancing the idea that we need more guns in Starbucks. They are advocating for more guns in schools.
So, to reiterate what I already said: We don’t want more guns in any workplace, including schools. The exception to that general statement is where guns are expressly needed to do the job, like a police station. But they already have enough guns.
Here is your answer to school shootings.
Well, that’s a good deal for the Shelter-in-Place Company, anyway. I’m not sure it is much of a solution in terms of preventing unstable people to gain access to firearms and shoot at unarmed and unsuspecting people in public spaces. But while it consumes classroom space to no otherwise useful purpose and cultivates a sense of fear and paranoia that is normally reserved for the creations of H.P. Lovecraft, at least it does not introduce new potential hazards to the classroom.
Stranger
Has anyone considered evacuating everyone to a different country?
Not the same. We knew that hiding under our desks for a nuke was pretty much a joke, and it never happened for reals. And phoned in bomb threats we also knew were all hoaxes. We maybe even knew who made the call.
Did we? For lockdown practice my kids have always taken that as seriously as I ever took a duck and cover exercise. And the few true lockdowns they have had have proven to them that lockdowns aren’t serious either since no one got hurt and it was the school overreacting. (I think my daughter has been through four true lockdowns, my son three.)
The threat of a nuclear war was also due to external factors. It was another country with whom we agreed that we were enemies that posed that risk. It sucked, but you had to look out across the ocean to find the people that were threatening you.
With the gun crisis, the people threatening you are your fellow citizens.