Schools

Ohio School District OK's Concealed Carry for Teachers

|

Credit: wiz722

A school district in Ohio has opened the opportunity for teachers and staff members to carry a firearm on school grounds. The new policy was announced by the Newcomerstown Exempted Village School District earlier this month and will be implemented beginning with the 2013-2014 academic year.

Previously the school district's bylaws and policies strictly prohibited the presence of any type of weapon on school grounds, but a group of parents rallied to make serious changes, writes the Times Reporter. Paying attention to statistical trends, the Parent Safety Committee pointed to a report which concluded that "with a single exception, every multiple-victim public shooting in the U.S. in which more than three people have been killed since at least 1950 has taken place where citizens are not allowed to carry their own firearms."

The Newcomerstown Board of Education took note.

"This is a discussion we've had for a long time. We've been very transparent. We want to keep our students safe," said Jeff Staggs, the Newcomerstown superintendent. With his approval as well as that of the board, teachers and staff who have a concealed carry permit as well as proper training will be eligible.

According to the Times Reporter, "Active Shooter Training" was coordinated with the Ohio Attorney General. Ensuring that extensive and varied training took place, teachers and staff in the district who opted into the program also received training from the Tuscarawas County sheriff, the Newcomerstown police chief, and the Buckeye Firearm Association.

According to the Newcomerstown Times, the school district began improving its security system following the 2012 school shooting at Sandy Hook. The schools are not making firearms its first or only line of defense, though. In order to protect students and staff, Newcomerstown has set in place several mechanisms:

buzzer systems have been installed in all district buildings and school safety procedures have been revamped; the district is using the NaviGate program, technology that assists first responders dealing with emergencies at area schools.

Board President Jerry Lahmers said that common sense measures have been taken regarding sensitive information about the policy, such as the number of teachers who will be armed. "Our school safety plan is not public record for obvious reasons. We also want to protect the safety of the individuals [carrying guns], so that they don't become targets, if such a situation does occur. We hope that this policy will act as a deterrent. The policy is intended to provide that extra last margin of safety." The school district has approximately 1,300 students spread across two elementary schools, a middle school, and a high school.

NEXT: New Restrictions Drive Boom in Black-Market Abortion Meds

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Well, I just don’t see why they can’t make it a gun-free zone instead. For the children.

    1. As long as it’s not an alt-text free zone.

      1. It was a fantastic opportunity for grade a alt test..

    2. just before I looked at the bank draft which had said $9008, I be certain that my friend woz like truly erning money part time at their computer.. there sisters roommate had bean doing this 4 less than and recently paid the dept on there villa and bought Chrysler. read more at, WEP6.COM

  2. Doesn’t that conflict with federal law?

    1. What doesn’t?

    2. No. CHLs or people acting within school policy are allowed. There’s a discussion here:
      http://www.tasb.org/services/l….._feb13.pdf
      Page 2.

  3. I mentioned this when it happened, but my workplace posted signs saying concealed carry permit holders were on the premises 2-3 years ago. They are probably fifty such signs altogether. I feel pretty damn safe.

    1. That is quite a substantive argument – just the type I expect from you.

      1. This is the Omnigriefer. It fits the profile perfectly. Ignore her.

      2. I don’t even have to click on that to know it’s something retarded about teachers shooting students or something similar.

  4. So, basically the only school in America that’s pretty much guaranteed *not* to get shot up?

    But what about all those whacko students that *want* to shoot it up? EVER THINK ABOUT THEIR NEEDS!?

    1. So, basically the only school in America that’s pretty much guaranteed *not* to get shot up?

      Only if you think teachers are “responsible” gun owners.

      :)))

    2. Utah has no law against CHLs carrying on school campuses. At least three Texas districts allow carry. Kansas just passed a new law, as did Texas.

      It’s the coming thing, at least in the middle of the U.S.

  5. They’ll need to raise their taxes in order to get insured, even if they can get the insurance. EMC has already said they will not insure any school allowing employees with guns (for the survivability of their company). And estimates are that it will cost an additional $7500 per employee with a gun.

    http://www.theatlanticwire.com…..ols/66924/

    1. EMC has already said they will not insure any school allowing employees with guns (for the survivability of their company).

      I take it, then, that EMC’s offices are all GUN-FREE ZONES.

      1. And their competitors will gladly take advantage of their abandonment of part of the market.

        1. Bingo! But free enterprise is bad! Don’t worry Captain Obama is on it and will make sure that won’t happen again! Ta-da!

          /Vaudeville dance.

        2. …..and will probably get lower rates because the school is now safer.

      2. What kind of effed-up analysis do they have showing that concealed carry by teachers employees poses an increased risk?

        1. The intellectual argument for that amounts to “EEEEEEEEeeeeeeek!” (faint)

        2. In some schools, I’d say it’s (obviously not to that extreme) similar to the risk of having armed guards in a prison.

        3. Probably some statistic about how gun owners/carriers are more likely to be injured by a gun or something equally silly.

          Statistics say car drivers are more likely to be injured in an automobile collision. Egads!

    2. And you know this is a political and not actuarial response. From an actuarial standpoint, all they have to do is exclude from coverage any claims that arise from an employee having a concealed weapon.

      But that’s not strident enough, is it?

  6. This is good and all, but the amount of money, time, handwringing, and pants-shitting that goes on over incredibly rare events is stupid beyond comprehension. It is exactly like the government’s reaction to 9/11. Totally, completely overblown.

    1. TEH CHILDRUNZ!!!!11one

      /argument

    2. What are morons going to fret about if not incredibly unlikely events? Important shit? Fuck off.

      1. Seriously. Lets talk moar about TORNADOEZ!!!

        1. SHARKNADO!

      2. I don’t know that it rises to the level of fretting, but it takes some effort, time, and money to carry concealed in Texas even though the likelihood of ever using the gun in self-defense is incredibly unlikely. And, yet, I do.

        1. Effort, time, and money? You mean in terms of the regulations you have to navigate?

          1. Regulations to navigate, class to take, weapons suitable for concealed carry to be bought, holsters, etc.

            1. I didn’t know a CCW in Texas required training. Shit.

              1. Yeah, I think it’s like Texas, Vermont and Minnesota that don’t require permits at all. Not sure about that though; I know the southeastern US states all require like an 8 hr class.

                1. Er, not Texas, Arizona. woops.

                  1. Wyoming, Arizona, Vermont, and Alaska are the only four states that have abolished permitting requirements for carrying firearms, unfortunately.

                    I hope more progress is made in pursuit if constitutional carry policies soon, though.

                    1. Fuck! I knew it was one of those midwestern states.

                2. GA does not require a class.

                  1. Nor does NH. You just have to fill in the form and wait a week and unless you fail the background check you get it.

              2. Eight hours, including the proficiency test, I think. Probably eight hours longer than I’ll ever have the gun in my hand in public, though.

                1. An eligible person wishing to obtain a CHL must take a State-set instruction course taught by a licensed instructor, covering topics such as applicable laws, conflict resolution, criminal/civil liability, and handgun safety, and pass a practical qualification at a firing range with a weapon of the type they wish to use (revolver or semi-automatic) and of a caliber greater than .32″. Such courses vary in cost, but are typically around $100?$125 for new applicants (usually not including the cost of ammunition and other shooting supplies; the practical qualification requires firing 50 rounds of ammunition). They may then apply, providing a picture, fingerprints, other documentation, and a $140 application fee ($70 for renewals, and active and discharged military are eligible for discounts) to the DPS, which processes the application, runs a federal background check, and if all is well, issues the permit. Permits are valid for five years, and allow resident holders to carry in 29 other states (nonresidents may carry in all but 3 of those), due to reciprocity agreements.[4] Discounted CHL fees vary from $0 for active duty military (through one year after discharge), to $70 ($35 renewal) for military veterans.

                  1. The combination of the application fee and the instruction/qualification make the cost of initially obtaining a CHL for a civilian roughly $250, which is among the highest such costs among “shall-issue” states.

                    ———

                    Exceptionally draconian, when you consider Texas’ reputation. I hope you guys can abolish this regime soon enough.

                    Also, please, Almighty God — don’t let Texas turn blue.

                    1. Then add in the cost for a spouse, at least two good carry weapons, holsters, etc. and it’s not a cheap proposition. All to be prepared for a situation that will almost certainly never happen.

                      Is concealed carry an irrational overreaction to the threat, even apart from the right to keep and bear arms? Is it a kind of herd immunity so that it isn’t as irrational?

                    2. Nice. I literally just got email notification that a new holster has shipped. Sweet.

                  2. Accurate except Texas CHLs can carry in 34 other states.
                    http://www.txchia.org/recip.htm
                    The Legislature just shortened the original license class, eliminated the renewal class, and eliminated the semiauto/revolver nonsense.
                    http://www.txchia.org/legistex13.htm

                    1. Thanks for that. I didn’t know. If that trend continues, the whole regime of licensure in the state should be gone in a few years. Hopefully.

        2. And, yet, I do.

          My respect to you, sir. Not only for taking responsibility for your own safety, and for the safety of those around you.
          As someone who has carried for many years, it can be a pain in the ass on several levels. Not the least being when someone spots it and asks, “That thing’s not loaded, is it?” Answer: “Would you carry around an empty fire extinguisher?”

  7. One recent study in the Journal of Police Crisis Negotiations found that the introduction of police officers in schools helps lower overall violence and gang problems. At the same time, the study found that schools with armed guards tend to experience more violent crime than those without.

    “The evidence about more guns suggests that more guns lead to more problems,” said Aaron Kupchik, associate professor of sociology and criminal justice at the University of Delaware and author of the 2010 book “Homeroom Security: School Discipline in an Age of Fear.”

    “More guns in schools is particularly problematic,” he added.

    1. I’d disagree, and say that maybe the presence of officers was a response to and not a cause of the violence.

      1. I’d like to think that they have accounted for that as a matter of course – but experience tells me otherwise.

        1. I’d like to think that they have accounted for that as a matter of course – but experience tells me otherwise.

          I never realized just how bad studies could be until I started reading full texts of dietary studies and ran the data for myself.
          Because of them I have recently begun looking at old gun studies like the one used to claim you’re much more likely to be shot with your own gun than to use it in self defense. Turns out they assumed the gun in the home was the one used against the resident in all but four cases.

      2. I’d have guessed it was the officers causing the violence, as their guns discharge all of the guns’ own accord.

    2. Do armed guards cause violence or does violence cause armed guards? Correlation does not imply causation and it certainly doesn’t tell you which way the causation goes.

      1. Neighborhoods where stores have bars on their windows experience more crime than neighborhoods where stores don’t do this.

        1. Make bars on windows illegal!

          1. Make bars on windows illegal!

            That’s your answer to everything.

            1. Make answers illegal!

              1. Working on it!

                /the administration

                1. It’s broken windows all the way down.

                  1. Profit!

      2. Do armed guards cause violence or does violence cause armed guards? Correlation does not imply causation and it certainly doesn’t tell you which way the causation goes.

        High school basketball players are taller than average kids, college players are taller yet, and NBA players are much taller yet. Clearly, the longer you play basketball the more you grow!

    3. Horseshit. Go grief somewhere else.

    4. Interesting, because police officers and armed guards are not at all the same thing.

    5. The violence was probably all from the police.

      1. Depends. Was it an obedience school?

  8. “with a single exception, every multiple-victim public shooting in the U.S. in which more than three people have been killed since at least 1950 has taken place where citizens are not allowed to carry their own firearms.”

    Only one of those shootings were done by someone using their own gun?

  9. Why not give the kids the guns?

    1. You try sooo hard Mary.

    2. Why not give the kids the guns?

      I got my first Red Ryder BB gun when I was strong enough to cock it (and later replaced the brass spring with steel), first .22 rifle at 10, first 12 ga. at 12, and a .30-30 at 16. Lots of kids around me got them too. Nobody even threatened anyone else with them, much less anyone getting hurt.

      We did have a freak accident in gym class when a guy managed to make his own arrow stick in his leg. I didn’t see him do it, but I did help him to the nurse’s office.

  10. I can practically smell Paul “Pants-Shitting Batshit Motherfucking Insane Pants-Shitter” Helmke suffering multiple aneurysms as soon as he reads this.

  11. “with a single exception, every multiple-victim public shooting in the U.S. in which more than three people have been killed since at least 1950 has taken place where citizens are not allowed to carry their own firearms.”

    I have a fantasy about men in black driving in a van, pulling up to Dianne Feinstein on the street, abducting her and dragging her into a fan, and reading this statement to her 24/7 for sixteen weeks in a dank, dimly lit basement, then quietly release her back into society.

    1. After dragging her thru a fan? You sick fuck.

    2. Yall seem to be under the impression that gun grabbers dont know any of this and that they actually believe the things they say.

      “I dont care about crime, I just want to get the guns.”

    3. “then quietly release her back into society.”

      I was with you up to that point.

      1. i was with him until he changed fan to van.

  12. Despite evidence-free NRA gun fetish bullshit Rambo rhetoric, the presence of guns, in any sphere, increases the risk of death for the people in the vicinity. Guns are not magical safety & liberty talismans, they are machines that fire projectiles at high speeds. It goes without saying that the NRA–with gun ownership continuing to fall–would be all for an arms race between teachers and students. Or Taco Bell managers and clerks. They sell guns. Apparently even more successfully, they turn people into stark raving morons. If you people didn’t masturbate to this particular inanimate machine your heads might be clear enough to see that among the stupidest ideas in the history of the earth, this one probably respectably ranks.

    1. Despite evidence-free NRA gun fetish bullshit Rambo rhetoric, the presence of guns, in any sphere, increases the risk of death for the people in the vicinity.

      What you miss is it’s usually the bad guy that has the higher risk of death. What you also miss is nobody gives a fuck if the bad guy dies.

      1. Or spouses in the middle of a domestic dispute. Or people contemplating suicide. Or innocent bystanders in the path of said bad guys.

        1. You have that all backwards, Tony. Guns don’t make people commit suicide; Guns don’t make people beat their wives to death, and Guns don’t create bad guys to hurt innocent bystanders.

          1. No, the presence of guns only make domestic disputes, suicide attempts, and crimes more likely to result in people dying.

            1. No, the presence of guns only make domestic disputes, suicide attempts, and crimes more likely to result in people dying.

              You use the suicide thing like it’s bad. If you wanna off yourself, go ahead; please succeed so I don’t have to pay the hospital bill.

              As far as domestic dispute; whether it’s by a gun or by a knife, dead is dead. The willingness to commit murder is not caused by access to a gun.

              As far as crimes, yes: Armed criminals are more likely to be shot and killed. Which is a good thing, asshole.

              1. Many would-be suicides who survive the attempt regret doing it. Guns only make the first attempt more likely to succeed than other methods.

                You’re not listening. Domestic disputes happen. The presence of a gun increases the risk of someone dying in them. Increases it over the presence of a knife or blunt object or whatever. Guns are efficient killing machines. That’s why you like them so much, remember?

                1. Grant that stuff as true. So?

                  1. Yeah, even if Tony is right, so what? Ordinary citizens being able to own and use firearms is a very important thing for the maintenance of a free-ish society..

                    1. Yeah, even if Tony is right, so what? Ordinary citizens being able to own and use firearms is a very important thing for the maintenance of a free-ish society..

                      This… Tony’s greater good argument is irrelevant, even if it is fundamentally flawed.

                  2. So reasonable people can disagree about how far the freedom to own guns should extend, since there is a dire public cost to that freedom.

                    1. “dire public cost”

                      COLLECTIVISM RADAR OVERLOAD

                2. Many would-be suicides who survive the attempt regret doing it.

                  Of course. They fucking failed at killing their self. They’re the dumbest of dumb shits.

                  You’re not listening. Domestic disputes happen. The presence of a gun increases the risk of someone dying in them.

                  Citation needed, so that I can rip your “argument” to shreds because it’s a load of bullshit. When there’s intent to kill, people die. When someone comes home to find his wife fucking his best friend, chances are they’re both going to die; not because a gun was there, but because dude lost his shit.

                  1. The wife is more likely to survive if all he has are his fists or a knife.

                    If guns were no more deadly than any other type of weapon, then what’s the point of defending them so much?

                    1. Right, so where’s your citation?

                    2. The wife is more likely to survive if she has a gun.

                    3. Shhhh. That gets in the way of his narrative!

                    4. No, she doesn’t count. Women with guns have betrayed their basic responsibility to serve as useful victims, so they deserve whatever they get.

                    5. Tony, I can design and create things far more dangerous than guns, thanks to this handy physics degree.

            2. what I’m hearing is that guns turn losers into winners for one breif moment in their pathetic lives. Why would you want to take that brief moment of success away from them?

            3. This argument has been disproven for over 20 years of repeated research by the Brady bunch themselves. Just give it up. The truth is here.

        2. I don’t think you understand what “usually” means.

    2. Also, I prefer to masturbate to gingers.

      1. “Also, I prefer to masturbate to gingers.”

        There. You’re welcome.

        1. BrettLed.

          1. ? If anything, this is a FIFY. Doubles as an homage to lost, but not forgotten, Reason commenter FIFY.

    3. As a moral and upstanding individual, then, it is your civic duty to personally visit gun owners and confiscate their firearms — for the public good.

      Come and take them, Tony. I dare you.

      1. The more stridently gun owners defend their rights, the more of an argument they make against their own position. Go on, keep acting like a paranoid hillbilly, I dare you.

        1. Paranoid hillbilly? Huh? I’d defend any of my property, not just my guns, as any normal human being would, so I’m not sure where you’re getting this bullshit.

          Is it because I’m white? Is that it? Are you racist? Why do you hate white people, Tony?

        2. Tony would have excelled as Diocletian’s gimp. Or tax collector.

        3. C’mon guys! He wouldn’t need to keep hurting you if you’d just stop resisting.

    4. “with a single exception, every multiple-victim public shooting in the U.S. in which more than three people have been killed since at least 1950 has taken place where citizens are not allowed to carry their own firearms.”

      Perhaps you didn’t read the above carefully. Read it again, slowly.

      1. And I’m saying adding more guns to the situation only increases the risk. As you guys have constantly reminded us, mass shootings play a minor role in gun deaths in this country.

        1. Increases the risk of what?

          Someone dying? Probably.

          Bad guy dying? Definitely.

          Innocent lives being saved? Probably.

          Innocents being hurt? Quite the opposite.

          1. Of people dying.

            Guns are machines for killing people. Surely you understand that, because otherwise there would be no point. The presence of machines designed for killing people increases the risk of people being killed.

            1. And the use of a machine for its intended purpose by law-abiding citizens usually means the people that need killing are killed, shithead.

              1. Nobody “needs” being killed. As you guys have so consistently said, mass shootings in schools are so rare that we need not worry too much about them with respect to social policy. So what we’re doing is putting untold numbers of guns in schools where they weren’t before, thus increasing everyone’s risk, because of the very small likelihood that there will be a kid shooting up the place some day. And there’s certainly no guarantee that a teacher would be able to mount a defense. Why wouldn’t the school shooter just shoot the teacher first? Even trained guards at Columbine couldn’t prevent that. In two years’ time, will the NRA be arguing for arming students as well–just in case–and will you continue to lap up their ridiculous bullshit then too?

                1. Nobody “needs” being killed.

                  Concentrated bullshit.

                2. Nobody “needs” being killed.

                  Wrong.

                  1. Nobody “needs” being killed
                    How about the guy pointing the gun at you, Tony?

                3. As you guys have so consistently said, mass shootings in schools are so rare that we need not worry too much about them with respect to social policy.

                  I agree. But I would support this law even if we knew with 100% certainty there would never be another school shooting again. People should be allowed to arm themselves. Period.

                  And there’s certainly no guarantee that a teacher would be able to mount a defense.

                  It’s a lot more likely that they’ll be able to mount an effective defense than a “gun free zone” sign magically coming to life and beating down the perp.

                  1. People should be allowed to arm themselves. Period.

                    What about the students then? Violent felons? Don’t fucking tell me “period.” There is a line to be drawn. Mine’s well before fucking schoolteachers, you ridiculous lunatic.

                    Teachers are not hired for their marksmanship or for their ability to uphold the solemn responsibility to lock their gun drawer. This is insane and you’d know that if you weren’t radical by default.

                    1. People should be allowed to arm themselves. Period.

                      There is a line to be drawn. Mine’s well before fucking schoolteachers, you ridiculous lunatic.

                      So, you think we should trust people with our children we would not trust with a firearm?

                    2. You leave a bad teacher’s class at year end. A child can only die once.

                4. Fuck off. Lots of people need killing. People who break into occupied residences need killing. People who attack other people with the intent to kill or cause serious injury need killing. Fuck those people. Hearing about people getting shot while doing such things brings a smile to my face. And is a much better deterrent than prison.

        2. One would think that gun control proponents would get tired of invoking their Wild West doomsday scenario every time a gun law somewhere is relaxed, since it always fails to materialize.

          1. If by fails to materialize you mean we are still the country with by far the most gun deaths of any country that’s not a narco-state or war zone.

            1. Which has nothing to do with liberalized carry laws and everything to do with the Drug War.

            2. Are these non-suicide deaths the result of legal or illegal gun owners?

            3. If you’re interested in reducing that, end the War on Drugs. Beyond that, put on your +5 Greaves of Logic and grab your +10 Blade of Reading Comprehension, and re-read what Jordan posted.

            4. Until you take out suicides, which are people intent on killing themselves anyways you disingenuous fuck.

              1. Then take out suicides of the other countries’ metrics too and compare. It’s one thing to support psychopathic laws, it’s quite another not to have the balls to defend their consequences. Pussy. Say “I’m OK with being the worst place in the civilized world with respect to gun death, because that’s the price of what I [stupidly] refer to as freedom.”

                As I said, suicide success risk is increased by the presence of a gun, which should be trivially true to you, who are defending a right to guns precisely because of their special efficiency with respect to killing people. Write off all suicides if you want, but personally I consider that something to discourage.

                1. You know what be a good way to discourage suicides, Tony? Not telling suicidal people that if they get professional help, they’ll be put in a database and stripped of their self-defense rights for life.

                2. “Then take out suicides of the other countries’ metrics too and compare.”

                  Canada has slightly higher suicide rates than the United States, but they have stricter gun control.

                  Don’t believe me? How about facts and figures with sources?

                  U.S. vs Canada: Suicide Edition

                  This is the closest comparison you’re going to find since Canadians share the same culture and media as we do.

            5. that’s not a narco-state

              Uh…. maybe not the country as a whole, but it’s not exactly like the gun deaths are evenly spread out in the population.

            6. If by fails to materialize you mean we are still the country with by far the most gun deaths of any country that’s not a narco-state or war zone.

              Looked up Brazil? South Africa? Thailand?

              I notice this hard-on for gun deaths, but not total deaths. It’s an improvement to you that they be stabbed? Clubbed? Tossed out a window?

          2. LOL, when Virginia changed its concealed-carry law from “may issue” to “shall issue” the crazy wankers at the Washington Post not only invoked the “Wild West”; they actually said Virginia would be “like Beirut”.

            Since that obviously didn’t happen, it is considered impolite in progressive circles to bring it up.

            1. Yep! I have a friend who still rants that “no one should be able to carry a gun in public.”
              “Great, let the police set the example, then.”
              “Oh, I don’t mean the police.”
              “Let the military lead then.”

          3. The ‘wild west’ homicide rate was only 1 in 100000.

        3. Tony, gun deaths are actually decreasing, in counties and cities where CCW is allowed. There is a distinct correlation between increased CCW permits and decreased violent crime (FBI’s own statistics).
          Blaming the gun just doesn’t work anymore.

          Even the current administration has been unable to prove your gun theories. The public knows the truth, Tony. Just relax and accept it, you’ll be OK.

    5. the presence of guns, in any sphere, increases the risk of death for the people in the vicinity.

      The presence of automobiles, in any sphere, increases the risk of death for the people in the vicinity.

      The presence of propane, in any sphere, increases the risk of death for the people in the vicinity.

      The presence of water, in any sphere, increases the risk of death for the people in the vicinity.

      ….

      1. Tony: “Lets ban that too!”

      2. Well, I wouldn’t say that in Death Valley or in Saudi Arabia’s “Empty Quarter”.

        1. Yeah, I waffled a bit about that one. 😎

    6. the presence of guns, in any sphere, increases the risk of death for the people in the vicinity.

      [Citation needed]

      It goes without saying that the NRA–with gun ownership continuing to fall–would be all for an arms race between teachers and students

      [Paranoid fantasy noted]

      They sell guns.

      [Cluelessness about where the NRA gets its money noted].

      Apparently even more successfully, they turn people into stark raving morons

      I need others to weigh in: is Tony’s self-referential claim a case of
      a) projection,
      b) proof that the claim is true
      c) paranoid fantasy

      If you people didn’t masturbate to this particular inanimate machine

      [Tony’s weird sexual fetish noted and projection regarding the same noted]

      your heads might be clear enough to see that among the stupidest ideas in the history of the earth, this one probably respectably ranks.

      Somebody call Tony’s mommy! We broke him!

        1. OMG I just finished reading the summary and I am amazed that it even made it past peer review! What’s even more funny is that it doesn’t even say what you say it does!

          First of all, the entire sample that study looked at were people who died. If 100% of your sample died of something, then what you are analyzing causes of death, not mortality rates:

          Those persons with guns in the home were at significantly greater risk than those without guns in the home of dying from a suicide in the home relative to other causes of death. This finding was particularly the case for males, who in general have higher rates of completed suicide than females do. The findings showing an increased risk of homicide in homes with guns are also consistent with previous research (14, 20, 23, 24), although, when compared with suicide, are not as strong.

          Of course, this study made no attempt to delve into why people have guns. People who perceive they are at a high risk of being violently attacked will buy fire-arms. Unsurprisingly the people that perceive they are at a high risk of being the victim of a violent crime tend to be more likely to be an actual victim of a violent crime!

          It was a nice try, though. Take a few minutes to spit the dirt you ingested in your mouth when you fell flat on your face and try again. 😀

          1. I doubt Tony even reads the rebuttals longer than three sentences. He has a Huffington Post level of concentration.

        2. Quote “To produce more reliable estimates, Blacks, persons less than 35 years of age or older than age 100 years, and persons who died from external causes of homicide, suicide, and unintentional injury were oversampled in this survey.”

          This 2004 “study” has been discarded by even the Obammy people.

      1. I need others to weigh in: is Tony’s self-referential claim a case of
        a) projection,
        b) proof that the claim is true
        c) paranoid fantasy

        Tony doesn’t HAVE projection, Tony IS projection.

    7. By the way, anyone who fights for a gun free zone where children can be massacred has blood on their hands.

    8. You are a straight up fascist Tony. Of course you want us disarmed. You want all industry under the control of your hollow chocolate savior, so you will tell any lie to those ends.

      “I dont care about crime, I just want to get the guns.” ?Senator Howard Metzenbaum.

      There is gun control with the mask off.

      1. I want teachers to be disarmed and for guns not to be allowed in fucking schools. That is not a fascist position. That is a sane position.

        1. I want teachers to be disarmed and for guns not to be allowed in fucking schools.

          So, you want the status quo which obviously doesn’t work out quite as planned? Good job, fucking shithead.

          1. As opposed to an obviously insane maximum gun proliferation method, yes.

            1. How is allowing someone to protect their self “maximum proliferation?”

              1. When guns permeate society so much that the next step is to arm teachers in schools, we’re well into maximum proliferation.

                You don’t have to buy every bullshit NRA argument that comes down the pike, you know. Sometimes sanity is called for.

                1. Like Jordan just said, who’s forcing you to go out and buy a gun?

                  1. Children should have a right not to be around guns. So should I for that matter.

                    1. Children should have a right not to be around guns. So should I for that matter.

                      Wrong.

                    2. And I should have a right to get a blowjob whenever I want one.

                    3. Unsurprisingly, in libertopia you can get just that with legalized prostitution.

                      Thought, it will be unregulated, so good luck on the old wheel o’ STDs.

                    4. Unsurprisingly, in libertopia you can get just that with legalized prostitution.

                      Not if you’re poor.

                    5. That’s so bat-shit irrational it can’t be debated. I guess if the people around you are socio-paths or gangstas, you may have a point. I guess. But around law-abiding citizens? You’re mental.

                    6. No you shouldn’t. When your demand for an illusory feeling of security puts other peoples’ lives in danger, then you need to fucking sack up.

                      And anyway, I agree — children should have a right not to go to schools with guns. Tell you what, after the GOP arms public school teachers, then you can start up a line of private schools that ban guns, and we’ll all work together, hand-in-hand, libertarian, Republican, and hoplophobic Democrat, to give terrified parents vouchers so they can go to your schools. Of course, after the first massacre you might not have much business left, but c’est la vie. Or mort.

                2. didn’t you just say that gun ownership is decreasing? How exactly is that maximum proliferation?

            2. Maximum gun proliferation? Who’s being forced to arm themselves?

        2. And how are the guns magically going to be kept out of schools Tonykins?

          I would think the corpses of all those massacred children in Newtown despite the law telling Adam lanza he wasn’t allowed to take guns onto school property might give you pause.

          1. So logically we should have armed those kindergarteners.

            1. Yes, if by “logically” you mean “not logically at all”.

            2. Or, you know, teachers and principals, like we’re discussing. A couple did try to intervene, but they were at a wee bit of a disadvantage.

        3. You are a lying motherfucker. That is not what you want at all.

        4. And I want you to think logically.

          Neither one of us is going to get our wish.

    9. So what your saying is that there was no crime/murder/suicide before guns were invented. I see okay I have a bridge for sale are you interested.

      1. No that’s actually not what I’m saying.

        1. Wait, but you’re still interested in the bridge, right?

    10. They sell guns.

      No, they sell influence. Influence with Congress for their members through collective action and solidarity, influence with their members for Congressmen who play ball.

      They’re basically like a union, except that their members can bail at any time and take their dues with them, so they actually have to give a shit what their members think.

    11. Despite evidence-free NRA gun fetish bullshit Rambo rhetoric, the presence of guns, in any sphere, increases the risk of death for the people in the vicinity.

      Then please explain why places with lots of guns don’t have lots of deaths? Cross the Potomac River between Virginia and DC. It’s urban on both sides. A black man on the Virginia side is far safer.

    12. Speaking of evidence free…

  13. I’m actually somewhat concerned over this kind of thing.

    As a kid I used to go play at a friends house until my father went hunting with his father. My father returned from that trip with the firm belief that my friend’s father was an irresponsible gun owner. My father btw was a NRA member, and this was before it was ‘cool’ to be so. He forbade me to play at my friend’s house because he knew his father had guns there and seemed unaware of gun safety.

    Did I mention that my friend’s father was a 7th grade science teacher?

    So I have to admit I’d be concerned if I had a kid in that guy’s class under such a policy.

    1. Ever consider your dad might be a moron?

      1. I can’t really speak for anyone else here, but for as long as I remember anything at all, I’ve always treated guns with the care and caution they require, even as a small kid, probably because it was all explained to me in full exposure to the subject, not hidden away and made to seem alien.

        1. Yeah, same here; same with anyone I know that’s ever touched a gun in their life before the age of 10.

          Come to think of it, the only people I know that I don’t trust with a gun are people that’ve been sheltered from them their entire life.

        2. My father lived this, and I own responsibly today. Of course sheltering kids from guns is silly. But I don’t think my father was wrong to shelter me from an irresponsible owner.

        3. As a small kid, I saw what a .22 does to varmints. I maintain that, um, proper exposure to wound ballistics may very well inspire more care and caution among gun enthusiasts.

          OTOH, apparently not everyone is capable of making certain analogical leaps; and some people would use “the horror” as yet another excuse to ban weapons.

        4. RPA, my uncle taught me to handle a side-by-side, 12 gauge small game rifle. Taught me all the basic safety rules. I, responsible. But Tony believes we’re all become whacked out nut jobs bum fucking each other with a gun.

          The left hates when we generalize about them but all they do all day long is generalize against things they don’t understand or agree with.

          1. Oh. I was 14. It should be mentioned I’m an urban Canadian in a land where socialism finds a lotta love. Am I a hillbilly?

            1. Yeah, and you probably hate minorities, too. And pickup trucks are a passion for you. And tractor. Just like me. YEE-HAW.

              Seriously, fuck Tony. The guy knows less about firearms than Hitler did about Hebrew.

              1. I bet Hitler actually knew a lot about Hebrew.

        5. So, what, that means that other people aren’t morons?

          Look, consider the dumbest, laziest, shit-for-brains who stays employed solely due to the beneficence of the NEA; or the vicious, authoritarian bully who despises and mistreats any student smarter than them (which would be most of them, even in a class of 4th graders). Now, give that fucking simian a gun.

      2. When I was a kid I thought so at times, but he seems to get smarter as I get older.

        I find your comment odd: you can’t conceive of an irresponsible gun owner? I know I’ve met some (though they are a minority for sure).

        1. I find your comment odd: you can’t conceive of an irresponsible gun owner? I know I’ve met some (though they are a minority for sure).

          Not that I can’t conceive of such, just that I think natural selection takes care of most of them before I have the opportunity to meet them.

          1. I think that’s remarkably silly. Guns are dangerous, but lots of people handle them irresponsibly and live.

            1. Guns are dangerous, but lots of people handle them irresponsibly and live.

              Unfortunately.

            2. “…I experienced a negligent discharge…”

              It is hard to type while laughing my ass off, but I want to point out that from what he says, it totally wasnt his fault. Yep, like the drunk who was overserved by the bartender.

              https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zYvAxLX6OzE

              1. Nah, in fairness he does admit his mistake.

    2. I give people the benefit of the doubt. In Teach we trust.

    3. Not sure what your point is here. Someone, somewhere was unsafe with a firearm, therefore we should continue to expose children to the possibility of a mass shooting and deny any staff member within that space to save their lives with reasonable means.

      There are lots of unsafe gun owners. There are lots of safe gun owners. Gun free zones only allow unsafe gun owners access. You get that, right?

      1. I can’t see this guy risking his job by bringing his gun to work absent such a policy.

        I can see him bringing his gun to school with the blessing of such a policy, and can see him be a danger to kids and such.

        I don’t put much stock in arming people to combat mass shootings. They’re rare. To me the response to Newtown is to do nothing. We can’t ‘respond’ to every super rare tragedy.

        1. I can see him bringing his gun to school with the blessing of such a policy, and can see him be a danger to kids and such.

          This is certainly true. But I’m not sure what makes the presence of kids in a school a magical danger zone that him going to a block party with a concealed weapon doesn’t provide.

          These mass shootings are super rare, but it seems pretty safe to say that Gun Free zones do invite these rare events. To deny human beings the right of self-protection is a moral failing– a moral flaw.

          I do believe that Schools should allow conceal carry (if the district the school is in allows it, of course) and I also believe that schools could and should provide extra rules. Ie, the school can deny any individuals right or privilege of carrying a weapon if they don’t follow certain safety rules. Perhaps they could require teachers to receive specialized training to carry on campus. I would have no problem with these things.

          But the idea that a shooter (no matter how rare) can walk, unfettered and unopposed, slowly executing children and staffers with no reasonable means of the victims defending themselves beyond cowering in a locked room or crawling out of windows– that’s the tragedy.

          1. Seriously. ONE person with ONE gun could have had a chance to limit or perhaps even prevented the carnage.

            Newtown still haunts me. Rare as it is, I can’t believe anyone would dispute the right for self-protection. I just don’t get how retarded the left is on this issue.

            1. Newtown still haunts me. Rare as it is, I can’t believe anyone would dispute the right for self-protection. I just don’t get how retarded the left is on this issue.

              to stare across a sea of dead bodies and then when someone raises the question, “Should we give these people the means to defend themselves between the time police are called and the SWAT team is able to arrive?” and then answer that with “No” is a character flaw.

              1. It IS a character flaw.

            2. “I just don’t get how retarded the left is on this issue.”

              Allow me to suggest that the arguments they put forward are not the actual reasons they want a disarmed populace.

              1. I’ve detected that too.

                “Who needs a machine gun?” can easily make the jump to “who needs a hand gun?”

                The end game is pretty clear.

              2. “Allow me to suggest that the arguments they put forward are not the actual reasons they want a disarmed populace.”

                yes,. yes, yes, yes, yes.

                Exactly.

                Major point I think many miss.

        2. We can’t ‘respond’ to every super rare tragedy.

          You mean by doing things like making schools a “gun free zone.”

          You have it backwards. You do realize that, right?

          1. I’m sure he doesn’t. On Earth-Tony, society is run on the Mother-May-I principle. Everything not explicitly permitted is forbidden.

        3. We can’t ‘respond’ to every super rare tragedy.

          Which was the attitude of everyone here when the policy response was gun control.

          Now that the proposed response is selling more guns, it’s time to do something.

          1. Allowing individuals the choice to exercise the right of self defense or taking gun rights away from people are not even in the ballpark of the same thing.

            1. Leave Tony alone. He was never very good at distinctions. Or nuance. Or logic. Or finance. Or common sense.

              1. You do realize what you’re calling common sense is arming schoolteachers.

                Make your lame, psychotic nonsense BS NRS fellating argument if you will, but it doesn’t qualify as common sense.

                1. You do realize what you’re calling common sense is arming schoolteachers.

                  Damn near every teacher has a car, as do many students. You do realize an automobile is far deadlier than a handgun, right? Hell, a few years ago I saw three people get killed by a guy with a Kawasaki Ninja. You want to keep automobiles off school property?

                  1. I’d like to have self-driving cars or better yet dense population centers with public transport.

                    We accept the level of risk for cars because they are extremely useful and necessary for our daily lives. Guns are not, and they serve no other function but to kill people and as objects of fetishization.

                2. Wait, so we’ve gone from loner white separatist rednecks to schoolteachers as the bete noire of gun ownership? If you think schoolteachers are that much of a threat, surely they shouldn’t be allowed around children for 6-8 hours a day!

      2. Yes, he does. He got it before you explained it.

        He is using the same old tired tactic of ” I am all for the second amendment BUT…..”.

    4. My father btw was a NRA member, and this was before it was ‘cool’ to be so.

      I’m guessing this troll-poster, Bo Cara Esq., is 14 years old, give or take a few months.

      1. Never realized being an NRA member was about being cool or uncool.

        1. I gave up on the NRA. http://www.vcdl.org

    5. It’s a legitimate point. Cops might be irresponsible, violent, roided-up ape-men just looking for an excuse to put a bullet in someone, but at least we mostly keep them interacting with the lumpenproletariat, not schoolchildren.

  14. This is very cool. Btw, “active shooter training” is good stuff. It’s largely been developed ex-post columbine, an incident that imo was a huge black eye for LEO’s at the time, and specifically their training which said “wait for SWAT”. You don’t wait for SWAT when you have an active shooter. You man the fuck up and go in and if it’s dAngerous, tough shit. It’s your job! Anyway, SINCE Columbine, the training has changed drastically to reflect that common sense attitude and we are left with ASAP (Active Shooter) training. I’ve been on a detail where we used ASAP protocols and it works like a chahm. It’s kind of like a flying wedge, if I can make a football analogy.

    As far as I have seen, teachers are level headed and teachers with concealed weapons will only make the campuses safer imnsho. Here in WA btw, guns are allowed on college campuses (cool!) and on elementary etc. campuses it is legal for parents to carry when picking up their kids as they drive on campus as long as they stay in their car and don’t wander around.

    B00ya! Concealed carry. Good news on the freedom front

    1. You are such a sycophantic load of shit it’s impossible to respond.

      1. smoooches!

        1. i/10

          hth

    2. When did teachers stop becoming incompetent union suckling parasites?

      1. They didn’t. But when were incompetent union suckling parasites Constitutionally enjoined from protecting themselves?

  15. If a progressive’s head explodes in a forest, does it make a sound?

    1. They have heads?

  16. Shooters choose gun free zones because they can be certain that no one can shoot back.

    Taking away the certainty that everyone is disarmed is all it will take for the shooter to choose a different target.

    Someplace like, I dunno, a gun free zone?

    1. We could do this like they used to do smoking at restaurants. “Thank you for flying American Airlines, Mr. Sarcasmic. Would you prefer to fly Armed, or Disarmed?”

      I know what plane I want on!

  17. I should think the easy way to address this issue is….vouchers.

    1. Think we can force people to buy them? It would probably qualify as a tax.

  18. with a single exception, every multiple-victim public shooting in the U.S. in which more than three people have been killed since at least 1950 has taken place where citizens are not allowed to carry their own firearms.

    That seems almost impossible, considering the fact that there are many states where it’s legal to carry almost everywhere. I guess there aren’t too many quadruple-or-more homicides, though.

    1. Or maybe the shootings just don’t take place in those states. Hmmm…

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.