The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
The Colorado and Ohio Model Programs That Train Teachers to Defeat Active Shooters
Faculty/Administrator Safety Training & Emergency Response (FASTER)
For many years there has been debate about allowing teachers to be armed to protect students. This post describes an established training program for teachers who choose to do so in compliance with school rules. The program is FASTER—short for Faculty/Administrator Safety Training & Emergency Response. Introduced in Ohio, FASTER could be adopted by every state and school, at no cost to taxpayers, and at considerable saving of lives.
FASTER was created in Ohio in December 2012, following the murders at Sandy Hook Elementary School. FASTER Ohio's website, FASTER Saves Lives, is the best resource for information about the program. FASTER Colorado was founded by Laura Carno; it has been adopted as a supported program of the Independence Institute, the Denver think tank where I work. Pilot programs for FASTER have begun in Utah and Arizona.
In the last decade, FASTER has trained thousands of teachers and other school staff in emergency medicine and emergency armed defense.
FASTER training is voluntary. No teacher or staffer should be forced to carry a firearm. For teachers and staff who want training, FASTER offers 26 hours over three days.
Almost all FASTER participants already have been issued a concealed handgun carry permit. The permits authorize concealed carry almost everywhere in one's home state; they also authorize concealed handgun carry in many other states (because of interstate reciprocity, like with drivers' licenses).
FASTER teaches specific skills for school protection. Legally, schools are said to act in loco parentis—in place of parents. Parents defend their children. Therefore, teachers defend their students. That's what FASTER participants think, and FASTER prepares them to do so.
FASTER graduates learn the medical and defensive skills relevant to stopping a school shooter from taking lives. FASTER instructors are law enforcement trainers. They teach FASTER classes two of the skills they teach law enforcement officers: treating gunshot wounds and defeating active shooters.
Part of FASTER training is a very specific subset of emergency medicine: how to keep a gunshot wound victim alive while waiting for an ambulance to arrive.
The other major component of FASTER is close-quarters combat against active shooters. FASTER teaches the same skills and techniques that law enforcement officers are taught.
To graduate from FASTER, one must exceed the marksmanship criteria required in one's state for certified law enforcement officers—such as Colorado's Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST). The three days of FASTER training make graduates well-prepared against school shooters; the classes do not prepare graduates to perform unrelated medical or law enforcement functions, such as dealing with heart attacks or conducting traffic stops.
FASTER charges tuition to cover expenses, but scholarships are available for employees of any school district that cannot afford tuition.
A school shooting you probably haven't heard about, unless you live in Colorado, took place on May 7, 2019, at the STEM High School in Highlands Ranch. When two armed criminals invaded a classroom, student Kendrick Castillo rushed them. His heroism allowed all other students to escape, but Kendrick was fatally shot. Kendrick's parents, John and Maria Castillo, speak to FASTER classes and explain the necessity of armed staff. This May, they held a fundraiser for FASTER Colorado, in honor of Kendrick.
There has never been a problem of any FASTER teacher causing an accidental discharge, or having a gun taken by student. FASTER training rigorously teaches weapons safety and retention.
FASTER Colorado executive director Laura Carno explained FASTER on the Jesse Watters show last week. More information about FASTER is available in Lauro Carno's article for The Hill, and in a New York Daily News article she coauthored with me, Arming teachers can protect kids.
FASTER is not the only good idea about preventing or thwarting school shootings. Implementing FASTER does not prevent consideration of any other school safety idea.
According to a recent poll of likely general election voters by The Trafalgar Group, 57.5% believe that preventing trained teachers from carrying firearms in schools makes schools more dangerous; 30.8% disagreed. Democrats felt the same way as the general public, although by a smaller margin: 48.2% to 41.3%. People aged 18-24 were the most supportive of armed teachers, with 62% for and 21% against.
So far, FASTER has a perfect record of prevention and a zero record of negative side-effects. School officials, politicians, or anti-gun activists who prevent willing, well-trained staff from protecting students are refusing to prioritize student safety.
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. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
But you’re not supposed to have agency to defend yourself or others. Only the police can properly protect you - if they decide to show up.
The police are the agents of the worthelss make work prosecutor. The vile renting scumbag lawyer profession will crush anyone hurting their client, the violent criminal. Filthy traitor scumbag will put the defender through the wringer. If people at the scene defend themselves and kill criminals, they will lose employment. That is the sole reason they try to destroy defenders. These sick fucks must be crushed themselves.
Result? 15 million common law crimes a year, 5 million being violent. Cities are unlivable thanks to the lawyer scumbag. 100 million internet crimes. Only 2% are prosecuted. When they have a guy, 20% of the time, it is the wrong guy. Then they force a false confession to save themselves some work. Hey, lawyers, you stink. We should get rid of you,
The lawyer scumbag has totally feminized the American male to generate lawyer employment. The only people who put up any resistance at Virginia Tech, like holding the door shut at the cost of one's life, were immigrants. That one survived the Nazi holocaust, but not the lawyer protection of the deranged killer.
Does this training program cover the horrible legal consequences of defending a school with a gun? David needs to address that. Defenders have been totally deterred by the scumbag lawyer profession.
"When two armed criminals invaded a classroom, student Kendrick Castillo rushed them. His heroism allowed all other students to escape, but Kendrick was fatally shot."
100% the fault of the scumbag lawyer profession. Those criminals should have been dead after 14. We knew what they were at 3. How? They were committing violent crimes every day, and everywhere they went. They did not change.
Why is the lawyer so stupid? It is not stupid. When a violent criminal starts the career at age 3, he gets their total protection, privileging, and empowerment. Why? He will generate many government jobs. Kill him early. No government jobs in rent seeking. The criminal law is a lucrative lawyer scam.
Why do you say that? Where is that the law?
I try to remind people that their kids are many, many, many times more likely to die in a traffic accident on the way to school than to be shot there. Or to suffer a debilitating or life threatening injury while playing school sports or in gym class. But if they are so worried, then go private or homeschool. Unfortunately, rationality is out of vogue and harebrained, unhinged emotionalism is in, especially on social media.
I’m guessing you don’t have many friends.
Don’t make a statistically factual statement or you’ll earn a mindless insult from LTG.
Trying to tell people that they shouldn’t worried about their kids being shot (despite the fact that gun deaths are beginning to out pace other kinds of deaths for kids) because they could be killed or maimed in any other manner of activities isn’t going to endear yourself to people! Particularly if you frame it as being nobly
“rational” compared to the “emotionalism” of being worried about your kids.
re: "despite the fact that gun deaths are beginning to out pace other kinds of deaths for kids"
You're going to have to provide your source for that claim. It is contradicted by every other source I know of with reputable "cause of death" statistics. This is especially true when you exclude suicides and "gang" violence.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/guns-now-kill-more-children-and-young-adults-than-car-crashes/?amp=true
Also if “I take out data I don’t like it becomes more true” is a terrible argument. Kids don’t stop being kids because they shoot themselves or get shot due to “gang” stuff.
Your blithering was in response to "more likely to die in a traffic accident on the way to school than to be shot there." If there's something in the Woke Science article to back your disagreement up feel free to quote it.
Gang violence counts. Suicide isn't "be[ing] shot" (misidentified agency), so it doesn't.
I agree that "I take out data I don't like" is a terrible argument.
"I exclude data that's irrelevant to the issue at hand", on the other hand, is proper data analysis.
When we're debating the risks of random shootings in schools, drug-related gang violence is entirely unrelated. Now, if we were debating the consequences of our disastrously self-destructive "war" on drugs, that would data would be highly relevant. But that's not what we were discussing.
I'd also suggest that the source does not demonstrate what you (or the authors) claim. For example, they defined "kids" as everyone up through 24 years old.
And again, they included suicides despite compelling evidence that access to guns affects the rate of suicide by gun but NOT the rate of total suicides. Suicides are tragic and relevant to debates about mental health policy. They are utterly irrelevant to debates about gun policy.
The FBI is fond of publishing numbers like those. First hint at agenda is in defining kids as 0-24. The numbers do not work when you make the cut-off at a grade school age like 17 or 18.
Also, of course you take out data you don't believe matters. That is fundamentally key to understanding any sort statistics.
While YOU may be talking about a "national problem of kids dying from guns", the OP was specifically talking about parents worrying about kids dying in car accidents on the way to school vs. being shot AT the school.
What percentage of suicide-by-gun actually happens while a kid is at school? Not saying it doesn't happen, but I am also very doubtful that it is statistically relevant. Gang shootings too rarely happen AT schools and they are much more conducive to lifestyle outside of the school.
Most FBI reporting has shown that a kid who is either in a gang/criminal organization or is living with someone who is in a gang/criminal organization, are many more times more likely to get killed by a gunfire than a child who is not.
If you live in an intercity and one of your kids is running with the wrong crowd or if you or someone you are seeing is making bad life choices, gang related child death statistics might concern you. If you live in a small college town that is for the most part gang free, this is not something you are likely to loose much sleep over.
Only if you consider the 19 year old gang bangers, shooting each other and a few bystanders on Chicago's West and South sides every weekend as "Kids". But that makes for a better meme and bumper sticker for your Prius.
I raised four kids and them being shot was never on the long list of things to worry about.
Cool. But a lot of people do, especially after a tragic school shooting where they’re making custom made caskets. Soooo maybe don’t UM ACKSHUALLY people on this?
Your comfort with leaving bizarre fantasy fears un-dispelled is unsurprising to us.
Which one of your four kids would you want to take on the responsibility of rushing an "active shooter," in order to save the rest?
The odds of me having to make that choice are roughly the odds of me (a non-catholic) being named pope.
But, as Reason's front page now declares, it is up to you (and your kids) to protect yourselves. It's a relevant hypothetical scenario that every parent is supposed to keep in mind, apparently.
The relevance of your question eludes me. Explain.
How long ago was that? And I dare say if it was more than 20 years, the teachers were more willing to actually defend their charges..
LawTalkingGuy,
No, but a mother who expresses that she is now terrified about sending her kids to school because of the news of this event, and who is apolitical and not remotely trying to make some backhanded political point in any way, may well be comforted by putting things in perspective.
But if she achieved any grasp on reality an interview with her might be less useful to the gun grabbers.
Nothing enforces that perspective more than saying teachers need to carry guns and children need to learn active shooter self defense in school. Locking down schools like prisons to keep guns out sends a stronger message to parents than news reports of real mass shootings in schools.
I agree. That was my point. Generally, it doesn't seem to me that schools need to be doing things like hiring armed guards, putting in metal detectors and security check-ins, locking down schools like prisons as you say, or making a push to suddenly put lots of guns in teachers' hands. This seems like catering to the mindless "DO SOMETHING!" tendency, when there is nothing that needs to be done - other than things that should be done anyway, like supporting mental health and intact families in your community and making your community a better place. But I would add that ultimately the decision should be up to local school boards and the local community of parents. If there were something to be "done," arming teachers is better than counterproductive gun grabbing. And there's certainly nothing wrong with voluntary training programs that help educate and train people in the use of firearms. I think the population in general should be so educated and trained. They should bring back shooting sports in the schools like they used to have. I know some small rural private schools that are doing this and I think places in south still do.
Well to round out the story, by "I try to remind people" I really meant "I've been tempted to say something along these lines in a very empathetic and diplomatic way, but ended up not saying anything." That's on social media. In person is much different and easier to communicate, I'd mention this in person if I thought it would help someone.
This is all quite apart from any political partisan sniping or using tragedies to deploy political barbs. People doing that sort of thing generally aren't looking for a comforting perspective or genuine discussion.
Humans, including you, are not utilitarians. Taking a stand on rationality is the last refuge of the self-deluded.
You're ignoring the millions of people who ARE rational about this and AREN'T scared to send their kids to school because we know that the odds of a school shooting there are miniscule and far far lower than other risks that also don't worry us. Helping people to think logically about these things can make a difference.
Think of all the people who don't want to change anything to stop school shootings?
Is that what you're going with?
Nothing that's been proposed will do much of anything to stop school shootings.
Not much that's been proposed is intended to stop school shootings. Until guns are totally banned, stopping school shootings would be counterproductive.
According to SarcastrO you're not human.
According to me SarcastrO is a worthless excuse for a human being, and we should encourage others to be better than that. But HE is a hopeless case.
Yeah that’s what I said. Great reading!
Also the idea that the pro-gun side of this debate isn’t emotional is hilarious in a dark kind of way. Those people are some of the emotional snowflakes in existence. I mean…look at Kopel’s blood libel post. Pure emotion. But I guess it’s somehow better because they don’t get “emotional” over such mundane topics as: not wanting kids to be killed in mass shootings.
Which is also pro 2A, pro constitution, seems worthy of emotion
On this side we have dead kids.
On this side we have a pretty sweet buncha text.
You maybe want to try your appeal again?
So you're saying 2A= dead kids? Yea super convincing.
Wow an amendment to repeal should be super easy then. When do we start that.
No need. All we need is to remember the first half of the 2A that talks about a well regulated militia. The whole "regulation" thing is already in the amendment. No textual changes required.
Should we expect a group of disaffected, antisocial, on-the-spectrum gun-huggers to understand the point you are attempting to establish, SarcastrO? You might as well be speaking Martian with these misfits.
This "normal human interaction" stuff eludes and maybe even bothers them. But guns, fairy tales, rigid and simple rules, and racial purity they can relate to.
Your defense of fairy tales is projection of gullibility about fairy tales onto others? Damn, you'd have to improve greatly to reach "stupid".
“Don’t want to do anything”
What’s your plan, man? Let’s hear it.
Oh I’ve got nothing, but that doesn’t mean I’m giving up or acting like kids getting shot is just fine because car accidents are also a thing.
I’m pointing out a shit argument. That is all I am doing. And watching people reflexively circle the wagons around the shit argument because all is tribe.
Gun safety regulation, for starters. It's working in Australia, New Zealand, and other western countries. Nothing in the Constitution forbids it and, as I posted up-thread, the 2A specifically calls for it to be "well regulated."
Sure. But it’s obviously very emotional. Pretending the emotion behind having a hardline interpretation of a sentence written 200+ years ago is somehow more rational than the emotional reactions to shootings today is deeply silly.
And that hard line writing can be amended no? So go for it.
K. Just saying. The people most wedded to it are very emotional to a point they aren’t even rational about it. Like nothing could be more the product of emotion than demanding you be allowed to carry an AR-15 anywhere and everywhere and then doing so.
LTG. Are you a lawyer?
On the contrary, demanding that AR-15s be called "assault weapons" is much more irrational than making a point about what your rights are.
"demanding that AR-15s be called "assault weapons" is much more irrational"
Semi-auto AR15 rifles are in that category of rifles defined as assault weapons so there is nothing irrational about labeling them as such.
They are only defined that way by those looking to create a scary scapegoat.
Non-disingenuous arguments do not call them such, as the laundry-list of supposed 'assault' features which define that Venn diagram are ever-expanding to fit political purpose.
"Also the idea that the pro-gun side of this debate isn’t emotional is hilarious in a dark kind of way."
It's also an idea that I did not remotely state or imply, nor would I. Actually, I was responding to this post which seems to be about packing more guns in school, not less. But great point, I guess?
Were you trying to be rational there?
I suppose. Just an observation that people who use “Um ackshually be rational!” when they’re clearly very emotionally invested in gun rights to devalue the emotions of other people regarding their kids’ future and safety tend not to be very endearing people. So I wouldn’t be surprised if they have difficulty making and keeping friendships! (At least friendships with most adults)
You project yourself onto your enemies so hard I’m surprised you don’t sprain something.
I’ll just speak for myself though. I’ve never owned a gun, so try as you might you can’t dismiss me as a gun nut although you’ll probably try. I’m invested in civil rights - all of them. Gun rights among them.
Emotionalism gets us nowhere. Hell, it backs us up. Yelling DO SOMETHING FOR THE CHILDREN doesn’t accomplish jack shit. Whatever SOMETHING turns out to be, if anything, it needs to be specific and targeted and consistent with the constitution. And something that will work. If that thing exists, and I personally doubt it does, calm rational thought will figure it out. That’s what those of us not directly affected should be doing. Bellowing at strangers because they aren’t sufficiently emotional to suit you is less than worthless.
Dude. You’re being really emotional. That’s the point. You’re not any more rational than gun control people, you’re just as emotional. But trying to pretend you’re “Mr Rational” when difficult and emotional subjects come up doesn’t make you endearing to people. It often makes you an asshole who has a hard time maintaining friendships.
You’re so full of shit people can smell you two counties over.
Are you trying to convince me you’re not emotional about this subject? Cause you’re failing.
No, he's just telling you that you are full of shit, but you are fixated on imaginary claims that no one has made.
It's perfectly OK to be enraged (emotional) about overweening government, which is a real and active threat. Emotionally ignoring reality "for the sake of the children" is not. Things which are different are not the same, despite your inability to make distinctions.
Confront someone who is asking simple questions about a subject. Accuse them of something that is false to the point that you piss them off, then point and say “See! See! Emotional!”
I’m not emotional about guns. I’m aggravated by your lightweight silliness.
Like the other day - do you post stuff to try to persuade anyone of anything? Or to at least get someone to consider a thought? Or do you just like to argue and aggravate?
It’s a rhetorical question, I already know the answer.
I'm widely regarded as a "gun nut", and have been a 2nd amendment activist since the late 70's. Guess what: I didn't own my first gun until the mid 90's, when I decided to start deer hunting. Nearly 20 years of being a gunless 2nd amendment activist. I have literally gone years at a time without so much as looking at my guns, especially since I no longer live in the country, and neither hunting nor target shooting is convenient.
I'm a 2nd amendment activist out of political conviction. I'm convinced that gun ownership contributed to liberty in America, and gun control in America is the canary in the coal mine, telling us that tyranny impends.
Sorry, but there are millions of people out there that Myers-Briggs would classify as xNTx personality types. There are other tests that use different terminology and scoring but it still boils down to the same thing. Yes, we have emotions, we are not robots, we simply do not use them to make critical decisions because we consider them irrational and a generally lousy standard to decide things on. I am an INTP, my wife is an ENTJ. We tend to be coldly rational even in crisis situations as evidenced by the methodical way we emptied as many important items from our home as it burned before the fire department threw us out.
You'll never see us worrying or demanding action on something more statistically unlikely than hitting the Powerball.
Exactly, always admired Mr. Spock and his logicalness
Although a fictional character, he always served as a role model growing up.
So in this advertisement of yours, your lone example of the need for armed school staff and sole evidence that “FASTER has a perfect record of prevention and a zero record of negative side-effects” is an incident where a student was shot after going after two gunmen? Cool, cool.
On a related note, I’d like to take some time to tell you all about Otis Brand Cthulu Repellant, the number one Cthulu Repellant sold today. Since hitting the market in 2014, there have been exactly zero Cthulu risings in the United States and R’lyeh is as quiet as ever. Just a few drops of Otis Brand Cthulu Repellant every day keeps Cthulu at bay.
Both you and Cthulu can continue to enjoy a long night’s rest when you use Otis Brand Cthulu Repellant. For all your Cthulu repelling needs, choose Otis Brand Cthulu Repellant.
You see, the point is that we sacrifice fewer teachers and children, so that we can all own as many guns as we like.
Unless David has decided that constitutes a "blood libel."
Yes the only thing we can even try is something that can’t legally be done. Nothing else is even worth thinking about.
There's a lot that we can do within the bounds of Heller. I am not sure how effective they can be, but a lot of the options aren't even being suggested. Neither side really wants to devise a solution.
Personally, I think we should treat guns and ammunition like we treat cars - as useful, even beneficial, instrumentalities that can cause deaths and injuries when misused. Accordingly, we should regulate gun ownership and usage the same way we regulate car ownership and usage. Including: registering of firearms; licensing for ownership/use; differentiating in the licensing regime between different types of firearms; restricting where certain kinds of firearms and ammunition may go; require safety training for licensing; insurance requirements for ownership/use; background checks and "red flag" laws to limit access for certifiably dangerous users; and so on.
Let's start there and see where it gets us.
Summary
Lets start with stuff that wouldn't have prevented the shooting pretending it does when our real goal is to make exercising your 2A rights really hard.
Quite to the contrary, I suspect that the Buffalo and Uvalde shooters (among many others) may have had a harder time acquiring the weapons they used if obtaining those weapons required jumping through the bureaucratic hoops that I've outlined - to say nothing of how it may impact the broader number of gun deaths. Which (as gun nuts are usually so keen on reminding us, except when shooting down proposals) is where the real problem lies.
In other words you DO believe that making it really hard and expensive for everyone to exercise their right to bear arms would give would-be school shooters a harder task. But Salvador Ramos DID wait until he was 18 and passed his background tests, so doing that to the current level didn't work. Next, ban buying rifles until you reach 21. Which won't work in every case either, so what will be next? There's no limiting principle that I can see.
Go fuck yourself.
Unless bigoted, superstitious right-wingers persuade Americans to make bigotry and religion more (rather that less) popular in America, their political preferences — such as gun nuttery and anti-abortion absolutism — are destined to be trampled into irrelevance as the culture war continues along it’s settled course.
This seems to make you cranky. Good. I like conservative bigots to be unhappy, desperate, disaffected . . . The delusional part is a nice bonus..
Sure. My Idaho driver's license lets me drive any car in any state.
I can buy a car in any state. There is not even a background check or waiting period to buy a car. (Financing may require ID.)
I can rent a car at any airport with ID, proof of insurance, and a credit card.
I do not need a license or even registration to drive a car on private property.
I can buy almost any passenger vehicle in any state--even a car capable of driving 200 mph. A car legal in Idaho is legal in California.
Gun banners make this analogy to cars all the time with no awareness of how strictly we regulate guns which cause about the same number of deaths as cars.
Starting there gets us a great deal more government involvement in gun ownership. It will get us more cost, delay, bureaucracy and, most importantly, puts government in a position to circumvent the 'last line of defense' against that same government declining into tyranny.
It's also worth noting that none of those proposals are likely to have a significant effect on gun violence because murder and assault are already illegal. If someone is already willing to break those laws, what plausible reason do you have to believe that they will be deterred by having to also break some licensing laws?
It's no worse than what we tolerate when it comes to cars and trucks. Which, as I've said, we treat as an essentially good thing to have access to. So what's the problem?
"Let's start one step short of confiscation and see where it gets us."
You are going to have to win a lot more elections to accomplish 10% of that.
Do we register cars as a precursor to confiscation?
Like, I realize that delusionally paranoiac gun nuts oppose registration of firearms as a means to confiscation. But that's a slippery slope that never even gets started. As I've said, no one in the world thinks that car registration and licensing meaningfully inhibits one to buy as many cars as they can possibly afford. It just means that we do some basic minimum diligence to ensure that they're used safely. Why isn't that the bare minimum we can do, when it comes to guns, which are in the first place designed to kill?
How many people want to confiscate cars?
Millions of people want to ban all guns and millions more want an Australia style confiscation regime.
The President of the US just called for a ban on the most popular handgun type:
"They said a .22-caliber bullet will lodge in the lung, and we can probably get it out — may be able to get it and save the life. A 9mm bullet blows the lung out of the body," Biden said. "
"So, the idea of these high-caliber weapons is, uh, there’s simply no rational basis for it in terms of self-protection, hunting," Biden added. "Remember, the constitution was never absolute."
Any similar comments about cars?
When it comes to gas-guzzling, child-killing SUVs, sure.
But that's besides the point. I am advocating a gun registration/licensing regime, which I am specifically proposing because I believe that simple confiscatory policies are a non-starter, from a constitutional perspective. So the high-blown public rhetoric of a president who has little interest in this issue, apart from distracting voters from their inflation woes, and which will in any event result in a fat lot of nothing in Congress, is not relevant.
Do you grasp that you're talking out of both sides of your mouth, here? We can't confiscate guns. So I propose that we register and license them, instead. But you don't like that either, because people want to confiscate them. Even though they can't. So why is it a problem?
The power to license is the power to refuse to license. And that's already much exercised.
Go fuck yourself.
Never heard of a shall issue regime, eh?
You gotta stop coming in so hot if you're going to be so ignorant.
No one, particularly anyone in government gets to know what I own. Non-negotiable.
So....taxes, selective service...driver's license...?
Blustering, compliant hayseeds are among my favorite culture war casualties.
How much is a 'guzzle'?
What does the president say about a couple of shotgun blasts through the door? Does he have any idea what THAT will do to a lung?
I do.
BTW, President Reagan almost died, despite the most advanced, immediate medical care possible, when he was shot by Hinckley. With a .22LR. The .22LR has killed everything that walks, crawls, slithers, flies or swims on earth...
{ How many people want to confiscate cars? }
Let's ask Greta Thunberg.
Both New York City and California have used gun registration records to confiscate guns. NYC used the 1967 gun registration law to order registered owners of some rifles to turn them in or remove them from the city.
Some California registered SKSs were ordered turned over with compensation using the 1989 registration records.
This is not paranoia in America. Registration in Weimar Republic Germany and in occupied France were also used for confiscation. (The French mostly took the risk of summary execution. )
I see your point, but like it or not guns are different than cars in that they’re an enumerated right. That means you’ll need to be very careful and limited in the reasons you use to deny that right.
"Guns" are not an enumerated right. The right to bear arms is. And the point of that right is rooted in a more fundamental right to act in our self-defense. Guns are just a highly effective means to that end.
That aside, the fact that it's an "enumerated right" doesn't really mean anything, in and of itself. Sure, it's in the Second Amendment. Does the Second Amendment prevent us from registering guns, licensing their use, even limiting what firearms, which people have access to, and where? Not according to Scalia, it doesn't. So you need to do more work in explaining why a sensible registration/licensing regime - and this is important - for so long as it isn't designed to actually restrict the right to bear arms - would run afoul of this "enumerated right."
Personally, that's the only real limitation I see. With cars, you can decide that some vehicles just shouldn't be registered to certain people without worrying about violating the Constitution. With guns, you wouldn't be able to use the registration/licensing regime to backdoor restrictions.
Then we’re actually fairly close to agreement. The SC approved exceptions to the 1A are limited in number and specifically targeted. Any exceptions to any of the others need to be the same.
The requirement to register them is an infringement. The requirement to have a CCW is an infringement. The limitations on certain calibers (anything over .50 cal) is an infringement. Safe-storage regulations are an infringement (no matter how much I may agree with them). In fact, despite their utility and sanity, restricting certain people (the mentally ill, former felons) from having them is an infringement. Special requirements to own a fully automatic weapon are an infringement. And the government taking 11 months to approve an ATF Form 4 for a stamp is not only an infringement, it's an insult that they also charged me $200 for it.
The requirement to register them is an infringement.
This is like pointing out that abortion ends a life. Literally nothing follows from it. So what?
Every law that limits what we do is just as much an "infringement," and we live subject to several such "infringements," including on our constitutionally-protected rights. More is needed here than a bare semantic assertion.
So, the Second Amendment either means something, or the Constitution doesn't.
Your choice.
But, the only reason a large number of Americans tolerate police, laws, and criminals is because we have a notional Constitution that defines limits on government. When that notion is dissolved, we will have anarchy.
The entirety of the US Military (active and reserve) and the number of sworn law enforcement officers in the US is fewer than 3 million people. That includes federal law enforcement, prison guards, the Uvalde CISD (and we all know how competent THEY are), all of them.
There are well in excess of 40 million peaceful and law abiding (so far) firearms owners in the US, with more than 100-million firearms in their hands, and a couple of trillion rounds of ammunition yet to fire, you may not like the results.
“And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family? Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand? After all, you knew ahead of time that those bluecaps were out at night for no good purpose. And you could be sure ahead of time that you’d be cracking the skull of a cutthroat.”
Make your bigoted, superstitious, backward right-wing ideas more popular in modern America, or prepare to continue to comply with the preferences of better Americans.
You will get to continue to whine about it as much as you like.
But you will continue to comply. Until replacement. Thank you for that.
"With guns, you wouldn't be able to use the registration/licensing regime to backdoor restrictions."
Such regimes already are so used, of course. As you know.
In a rare flash of honesty you've already admitted that the purpose of your proposed regime is to make the right to bear harder for everyone to exercise.
Go fuck yourself.
Gandy, I have already decided that your comments do not really merit a meaningful response. Signing off every one with "go fuck yourself" is not going to help change my mind.
I don't think you thought that one through.
Not all cars have to be registered, or insured - if you don't drive on public roads, you're good to go. You don't even need a driver's license for that. Are you ready for that with guns that are only kept in the home?
Once you get a license and/or register your car, you're good to drive in any state - no such recognition exists today for various gun permits, so I guess you're ok with states being forced to recognize any other states' CCW, just like cars or driving licenses?
Driver's licenses are generally obtainable at 16, with learner's permits available as young as 14 in some places - good for guns?
Once you pass your driving test, you're good to go - you don't need to show any need to drive- so I guess you're in favor of making all states "Shall issue"?
Buying a car from either a dealer or a private owner requires no "background check" of any kind - that ok with you for guns?
In fact, treating guns like cars would likely result in less regulation, nor more. The only addiotnal regulation you'd add (for carrying outside your private property) is the need for a license.
In most US states, gettign a driver's license requires passing a written test that you can take as often as you need to get a passing grade, and then pass a 10-15 driving test, which often doesn't even require basic stuff like parking, driving on the highway, driving at night, etc...
Anyway, the idea that someone about to commit mass-murder will be deterred by the fact that he has no license, or insurance, or hasn't gotten the requisite safety training is ridiculous beyond belief
I'm happy to concede the zone of private property in this fashion, sure. Do you think many gun owners would choose to own guns they can only carry/use while on their own private property?
Once you get a license and/or register your car, you're good to drive in any state - no such recognition exists today for various gun permits, so I guess you're ok with states being forced to recognize any other states' CCW, just like cars or driving licenses?
I am not familiar with how this interstate licensing works, for driving - that is, whether the federal government mandates it or if it's done via voluntary reciprocity among the states - but I would think that I'd have to say so, yes, assuming that gun registration/licensing is done in a fairly uniform way across the country.
It's an interesting comparison, because one of the things we're dealing with in NYC right now is a large number of people with "fake" plates and committing insurance and toll fraud. Since getting a car insured in NYC is so expensive and since our tolling is automated, what these people do is they print off fake NJ "in transit" plates, or register their cars in Texas or Florida, etc., and these fake plates/fraudulent registrations are used to avoid paying the right insurance rates and tolls. Part of what makes that such a problem for us New Yorkers is that those other states don't play nice, when it comes to trying to crack down on this fraudulent behavior.
So - we wouldn't want that. I'd want it to be a registration/licensing regime that is uniform, where states cooperate with one another in good faith. Not conspire to undermine one another.
And there are higher age minimums in other areas. I think it's a fair question to ask, though. We generally license teens to drive because they have places to go, and we (perhaps unwisely in some cases) have judged that they can do so safely. Do you think the average 16 year old has as much need for a firearm, and the maturity to use it safely, as he does for driving? Would you view 18 year olds slaughtering elementary school kids as kind of the equivalent to teens dying in drunk driving crashes on prom night?
I would think so, sure. NYC's "may issue" regime has been a fantastic failure and opportunity for corruption. Get rid of it. If a person proves they can safely and legally use a firearm, there would be no objection, in my view, to their being licensed to own and use a registered firearm.
Well, what we do do is try to make sure that drivers who have proven they can't be trusted to safely or legally drive don't drive on public streets. If we had a way of doing that without restricting at the point of sale, for guns, then maybe we could offload that requirement to a suitable government agency. But in principle, that'd be the point of retaining a "background check" at some point in the system. Make sure that we don't have any reason to believe that the person is buying a gun to shoot their wife.
I am not proposing a one-to-one correspondence in how we regulate cars and trucks, and driving, to how we might conceivably regulate gun ownership and usage. We have gaps in the former, and the latter would need to be conformed to the realities of gun ownership and usage, which would in various ways be distinct from car ownership. All that I am trying to describe, in broad strokes, is the idea of a gun registration/licensing regime that does not treat them as presumptively banned, but does try to make sure that they're being used safely and legally - the same way we do with cars and trucks.
Drivers licenses are handled through a 50-state and the DC compact.
The ability to carry concealed should not require such: It should not require a state issued permit to enjoy an enumerated right in any way. We don't require special permits to have soap boxes to voice our opinions, nor do we require a license to attend a worship service.
And there are already more than 25,000 unique federal, state and local laws about firearms. None of which seem to work
Again, confusing the right with the instrumentality. I am not proposing a licensing regime for the right to use force in one's self-defense. I am talking about a licensing regime commensurate to the risks posed by various firearms.
I am talking about a licensing regime commensurate to the risks posed by various firearms.
We already have that - automatic weapons - no license for you (with some exceptions). Hand guns? higher age limits. Long guns- have at it. You know the % of long guns involved in crime is small, right?
What do you propose we add, that would make a meaningful impact on mass school shootings?
And you are missing the fact that the 2nd says "...the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed'."
It is not specifically the right to defend oneself: It is the right to have them, for any reason at all, or no reason other than someone wants them. Just as no one needs a license in the US to have a printing press or computer, nobody needs a license to have a firearm, except the Constitution SPECIFICALLY says that.
"Do you think many gun owners would choose to own guns they can only carry/use while on their own private property?"
Absolutely. Home defense is a primary reason many gun owners buy guns. They want the right to carry them elsewhere, but every improvement in the situation is an improvement in the situation.
I wasn't remotely motivated to read the rest of that wall of text.
Do you think many gun owners would choose to own guns they can only carry/use while on their own private property?
Absolutely. Self defense is the #1 reason for ownership named by gun owners, by a wide margin, and only around a quarter of them regularly carry outside the home (https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/06/22/key-takeaways-on-americans-views-of-guns-and-gun-ownership/)
Do you think the average 16 year old has as much need for a firearm, and the maturity to use it safely, as he does for driving?
I think anyone mature enough to drive safely is mature enough to handle a gun safely. Guns are actually much simpler to operate
than a vehicle, and under normal use) (guns holstered or safely stored, car actively driven in busy streets and on highways), cars are by for more dangerous when handled by teenagers than guns, and death and injury statistics easily bear that out.
This is a side point, though. The point I was trying to make is that the age for driving is lower, and whether or not a 16 year-old needs to drive, he doesn't need to demonstrate such need, so if your proposal to treat guns like cars was implemented we'd get more and younger people with guns and no background checks, not less.
The bottom line, if you reread through what I wrote and your responses to them, it is clear that adopting a literal 'treat guns like cars' scheme would result in far more guns in the hands of potentially bad hands: For use in the home , there would be NO regulations (unlike today, where buying a gun for use in the home requires a background check, sometimes a waiting period, and a minimum age) for use outside the home, any 16 year old would be eligible (wheres today the age limit is 18 or 21, depending on the firearm) if they could pass the equivalent of a 15 minute driver's test - maybe putting a few shots on target at the range, plus knowing how to load/unload the gun?; All states would allow CCW; etc...
And all this, for what gain? Making someone pass the relatively easy task of passing a test for a firearm license? Do you think the Uvalde killer would have had any difficulty doing that?
I am not talking about a teenager having to demonstrate a need to acquire a gun. I am talking about making a policy decision on whether teenagers should be permitted to acquire/carry guns, in the same way that we have done for cars and driving. We have judged, from a policy perspective, that we'd rather permit 16 year olds to drive than force them to rely on alternatives. What factors went into that judgment? How would those considerations play out, when it comes to guns?
Personally, as far as I can tell, no one "needs" a gun. Setting aside recreational uses, they make a personal judgment about how best to defend themselves from real and imagined harms, and seek to arm themselves accordingly. The state shouldn't be deciding whether those judgments are valid and correct. But certainly we can make a judgment about whether teenagers are in a good position to reasonably evaluate those risks for themselves. Does it make sense to ask a 16 year old whether he/she needs a gun for his/her self-protection?
Again, you're assuming that my comparison is more literal and exact than intended. Again, I was referring to car ownership/usage only to describe a registration/licensing regime that we seem to view as broadly permissive and protective, despite the risks inherent in driving. A similar system for guns would need to work differently.
I am not talking about a teenager having to demonstrate a need to acquire a gun. I am talking about making a policy decision on whether teenagers should be permitted to acquire/carry guns, in the same way that we have done for cars and driving
But we already do that, with stricter regulation on guns than on cars - the age limit is higher for guns, you need to pass a background check etc...
It seems to me that when you wrote "I think we should treat guns and ammunition like we treat cars" what you actually meant was "I think we should ADD the current regulations we have for cars and driving to this what we already have in place for guns".
And if this is what you have in mind, think through what real-life impact such added regulation would have. Would the need to get a license and/or register the gun prevent something like the Uvlade shooting? I don't think so. It would just make it harder and more expensive for law abiding citizens to get guns.
Many Americans never carry a gun outside their home. I almost never do except when going to a range analogous to putting a race car on a trailer and going to a track.
Not proposing a 1 to 1 correspondence? Then why did you suggest it as a model?
You gun banners have made your long-term goals clear so many times (license ownership so that bribes are required; criminalize self-defense) that you will always be recognized as fascists.
A gun causing a death is a "misuse" like a car driving to Costco.
I agree that gun safety regulation is necessary and good. But let's not pretend that an AR-15 was built for any other purpose than as an anti-personnel weapon with the highest rate of fire allowable for sale to the general public given current US law.
What is the highest lawful rate of fire? An AR15 fires at best three poorly aimed shots per second. Carefully aimed, about one every two seconds. Every semiautomatic firearm has the same rate of fire. The limiting factor is your trigger finger.
"Personally, I think we should treat guns and ammunition like we treat cars "
IOW, you think we should treat guns and ammunition as though there wasn't a 2nd amendment. Because, you know, we can treat cars that way on account of nobody having a constitutional right to own one or drive.
Why do gun controllers always think that gun owners should agree to pretend the 2nd amendment wasn't in the Constitution?
Why do gun nuts think that the Second Amendment means whatever they think it does?
I don't know about 'gun nuts', but I think the Second Amendment means EXACTLY what it says, and not a thing more or less.
The USSC at least, seems to agree with me in large part.
Because for a couple hundred years, state supreme courts agreed about what it meant. Most argued it was not a limitation on state laws but what it limited the federal government was not in dispute.
The only thing deserving of mockery here is the people demanding gun free zones for schools precisely so they can crawl up on the bodies of dead children to proclaim the need for gun control.
Unlike the NRA and Trump rallies which are also gun-free zones?
The NRA annual meeting is not a gun free zone, unless the President is speaking. An hour out of three days.
I attended the meeting in Dallas a couple of years ago, and with 80k people there, and thousands of firearms on display, there were no shootings.
I was there as well. The hotel made a deal with NRA; no open carry. Lots were concealed carry.
" For all your Cthulu repelling needs, choose Otis Brand Cthulu Repellant. "
You can mock Mr. Kopel as much as you like, but his approach has been vindicated by a highly reliable source.
"Me. President, we cannot afford a mine-shaft gap!"
Gee, I wish we had one of those FASTER programs,
I only disagree with the Acronym, how about????
H- elpful
E- ducators
A-iming
D-irectly
S-hooting
H-appily
O-n
T-arget
Frank "Got a million of em" (acronyms, not guns, after 40 or so, had everything I wanted (but a sweet MP40 would be nice....)
LOL
The Texas Commission on Law Enforcement Standards and Training (no, they have to be different and not use POST) sets the standard for a policeman with a handgun at 70% of 50 shots from point blank to 50 meters into a B29 target, in the 5 or better rings (IIRC). Basically a solid CoM or head shot.
A few years ago when I took the Texas CHL class (again, have to be different: Concealed handgun license) I shot a 49/50, I have to admit I had one flier when a person shooting next to me fired early, while I was positioning my ear pro.
So shooting better than cops is not much of a challenge. Not hard, for an average shooter.
The requirements for shotgun, patrol carbine (AR-15 semiauto) and precision rifle (100 yard?) are equally ... modest.
https://texreg.sos.state.tx.us/public/readtac$ext.TacPage?sl=R&app=9&p_dir=&p_rloc=&p_tloc=&p_ploc=&pg=1&p_tac=&ti=37&pt=7&ch=218&rl=9
The medical training sounds much like 'stop the bleed', which is something anyone can sign up for, for free https://www.stopthebleed.org/
So this training is quite achievable.
Problem is B29 targets rarely attack anyone, and real targets move, wear body armor, and tend to shoot back. With more and more bad guys wearing the body armor, the FMJ are looking better all the time, (especially the old steel core 7.62x39mm that got me kicked off a few ranges)
The kid in Uvalde was not wearing armor, just a plate carrier (the nylon vest thing that the armor goes in).
And B29 targets are the standard for law enforcement. Good or bad.
yeah, the border guys ventilated him pretty well, once they finally got in there.
Whoa, you've got a serious typo/transcription error there: the distance for handgun qualification is 15 yards, not 50.
The former is, indeed, not much of a challenge for the average shooter. Increase the distance by 3.3 times.... yeah that's starting to get difficult.
Right you are. 15 yards or 45 feet. I tend to worry more about long-range shooting. Not what the police call 'precision rifle' but long range - in excess of 1000 meters.
Shooting better than cops? Sure, plenty of people can do that, in a controlled setting. How many can shoot better than cops in a situation like the situations in which cops have to shoot?
Having seen (personally) cops shooting, and the results of cops shooting (and cops, and other people getting shot), nobody knows what they're going to do in that situation, until they are in that situation. All the reality simulations in the world won't change that. And the vast majority of cops involved in a shooting are in that situation once in their career, if that. The vast majority of cops are NEVER in that situation.
Why not have US Marines teach kindergarten and cut out the middle man?
Well, they would have the Crayons part down.
Frank "Yesterday I wanted to be a Marine, Now I are one"
So far, FASTER has a perfect record of prevention . . .
FASTER has zero record of prevention, and will not have until some FASTER-trained nimrod actually kills an active shooter in a school.
Kopel, Satan, and gun fantasy.
A FASTER-trained teacher, properly armed, probably with a Glock, is conducting a class, when an active shooter with an AR-15 style rifle enters her classroom by surprise. In the next instant, either the shooter or the teacher will die. Which party enjoys the initiative? What odds say the shooter will be killed instead of the teacher?
Meanwhile, for that moment of vain hope of prowess and heroism, everyone in the school is exposed for days, months, and years to the cumulative mischance which attends abiding presence of firearms, probably throughout the school. Firearms which are not kept under lock and key, as they would be on any military base.
To see what that risk of mischance looks like (Hint: surprisingly often it looks like a loaded gun left in a restroom, to be found by students):
https://giffords.org/lawcenter/report/every-incident-of-mishandled-guns-in-schools/
The teacher in the classroom may get shot, if the shooter targets him first. Being armed will not affect that, one way or another.
The shooter could have died if the first target was a kid, and the teacher was trained.
And even if the teacher gets shot, the teacher next door can finish the shooter.
Finally, nobody is saying the teachers must be forced to actually BE RESPONSIBLE for the physical safety of the students. They sure like to claim they're responsible for everything else, though
Parents and principles make them responsible for everything else... right up to and including having to maintain medications and provide them to their students on the prescribed schedule. All for an underwhelming amount of pay. Why anyone would choose to become a teacher today boggles the mind.
The laws, specifically the doctrine of in loco parentis, make teachers responsible - except when they fail in their responsibility to the children.
If parents don't want to have their kids in the responsibility of such as the education cabal, their choice is to home school, or perhaps a private school (where they will be double-paying for education since they still have to pay the state for a service that is useless to them).
Nationwide, the average teacher makes 1.5x as much as the US median salary. If that's "an underwhelming amount of pay", I guess they can choose to do some other kind of work, no one is forcing them to teach.
Unlike with FASTER training there are actual cases where keeping all firearms on military bases under lock and key has proven unhelpful in stopping mass shooters.
Unwillingness to accept avoidable risk.
A school shooter is very much an unavoidable risk: Whatever one does to harden a school, there is still a risk that a shooter will get in.
An avoidable risk is military members on base with private firearms and ammo, doing stupid stuff. Yes, it would happen. The correct solution is for anyone who does such is prosecuted to the fullest possible extent including the death penalty. While most everything in the UCMJ may include the death penalty, it hasn't happened since 1961, when a rape and attempted murderer (of an 11 year old girl) was executed.
"An avoidable risk is military members on base with private firearms and ammo, doing stupid stuff."
Funny thing: The military didn't start locking up guns on base until the 90's, and there wasn't some epidemic of mass shootings on base prior to that. There was afterwards, though.
We just got a President who happened to distrust soldiers. Bush the Elder, the same President who undid Reagan's reforms of the BATF and promoted the people responsible for Ruby Ridge, during whose administration the attack on Waco was planned. He was so anti-gun he didn't even trust his own soldiers to be armed at any time they didn't absolutely have to be. The first President who would order soldiers disarmed when he reviewed the troops, too, IIRC.
Not at all true: The military was locking up firearms after WWII. Until WWII, soldiers on leave or furlough often took their rifles with them. After: Locked up, either in the squad bay or later in the arms room.
Because commanders were leery of avoidable risk.
When I was on active duty (late 70's, US Air Force) I had to have permission from my commanding officer to have my privately owned firearms at home, off base. I was allowed because of the risk of the Red Brigade terrorist organization in Germany. I would not have been given permission to have them at home on base: My backseater had to keep his at the security police armory, where they were 'borrowed' by persons unknown (He had a Smith and Wesson 29, 8", polished blue, in the walnut case...and it was damaged at the armory.)
Until '92 was optional at the base commander's discretion.
Few of these incidents start with the first shot as a surprise. Uvalde shooter fired several shots outside the school. Newtown shooter fired through the window to gain access. That is enough warning to draw and take up a position with a clear view of the door.
FASTER simply admits that schools have become a high-risk health and safety environment, with demonstrably higher levels of physical morbidity and mortality and significant levels of mental health consequences. That is a standard definition of a public health problem. In any other country, local, state and federal governments would take necessary steps to reduce public health consequences. But in the case of the US, that cannot and will not happen. It did not happen as 1 million people died of COVID, it will not happen as ten of thousands or are injured or killed by gunshot. We privilege our personal liberties and enshrine them with high minded discussions on the law or constitutional processes. But in the end, all we have to show for it are dead bodies and a gun industry whose marketing stokes and utilizes the fear its own products create to sell more product. It is time that the entire second amendment be considered. "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." What does the killing of children have to do with a well regulated militia and the security of a free state?
"FASTER simply admits that schools have become a high-risk health and safety environment,"
Technically, can you "admit" something that isn't factually true? I think the word is "claim", not "admit".
We should also point out that FASTER does not claim anything like what that comment alleges.
This is most emphatically not a public health problem (though it is likely exacerbated by a failure in our society's approach to mental health). We privilege our personal liberties because we have ample historical evidence that governments which do not enshrine those privileges do far, far greater harm in the long term.
Rossami — Combination of rationalistic politics and enshrined privileges strikes me as suspect.
Are you saying the CDC is wrong when they look at gun violence as if it were a public health risk?
Technically, Inability2Think&aLiar, is a cretin.
Privileged ideas about individual liberties. Gee, what bunch spent 40 years striking down state laws because they interfered with individual liberties? Now you are upset that we took you at your word?
You protect things that are important with guns. It's not like Biden and the congress critters would ever submit themselves to unarmed security.
Neither should schools.
In the latest school massacre, the armed security guard was shot. Maybe the solution is not more guns but fewer guns with most of them in the hands of well-trained people who's primary function is to protect lives?
A teacher, besides teaching, is also a baby-sitter, psychologist, school nurse, referee, and probably several other things all at the same time. They're probably not the best person to have a sidearm in the classroom.
OTOH... an armed group of picketing teachers might have a better chance at getting a raise. Who's going to say "no" if they've got a Glock on their hip? And think of all the women and minorities that will now be going around their normal day armed and ready to respond to any threat, sexual advance, or racist remark.
I don’t think that’s right. Early reports said that but the most recent thing I’ve seen says the school cop never “confronted” the killer. Whatever that means.
The BP guy who led the effort to take the shooter out was shot twice and survived. The shooter was shot eight times and did not.
Side question - why isn’t that guy being touted as a hero? Border Patrol taint?
So the guy hired to protect the kids didn't? That's actually worse than the reports saying he was shot because at least then he tried. So "good guy with a gun" and with training and a badge, no less, failed in either case.
Apparently it means he wasn't initially there, and when he arrived to enter the school, the killer successfully hid from him.
Unlike the campus policeman who was not there, the teacher is always there. Why is giving the person at closest range with a strong personal interest in surviving a chance so controversial? Because the gunbanners dance in blood.
Who is going to celebrate his heroism? The Uvalde CISD police? The Uvalde city police? The Uvalde county Sheriff?
There was an Uvalde badged cop standing around outside with their thumb lodged firmly in them for every single child who was killed.
And the border patrol? An organization run by a criminal cartel.
"In the latest school massacre, the armed security guard was shot." First that I have heard of an armed security guard who was shot.
The only way to stop abortions is with MORE ABORTIONS!
Well, assuming a number of aborted Feti would go on to be Abortionists, you're right! Now just a way to determine which ones.
Well, in theory I suppose if you aborted every single pregnancy for about 50 years, the rate of abortion would eventually drop to zero.
If they're wanting teachers to act as cops, they're also paying teachers as cops on top of their teaching salary, right?
Missed the part about "voluntary", did you?
Which jobs aren't voluntary? Generally, non-voluntary jobs are the ones that don't get paid.
On the one hand, yes, all jobs in a free society are "voluntary".
On the other hand, the ones that don't get paid (like teaching Sunday School, coaching Little League or as relevant here, providing first aid) are more "voluntary" - that's why we call the people who do those things "volunteers".
Your concept of "act as cops" is retarded.
You guys want to arm all the pedo groomer teachers? Have you really thought this through?
It's the "Third Arm" you have to worry about with those creeps.
Who is "you guys"? I prefer to keep progs unarmed against the time we have to round them up.
Keep dreaming, huckleberry
Open wider, you bigoted hayseed. Your betters are not nearly done shoving even more progress — reason, tolerance, education, modernity, inclusiveness, science — down right-wingers’ powerless, whiny throats.
You can whimper more about it, but you will continue to comply. Until replacement.
Or you could start being competitive in the culture war. (just kidding)
Why are you assuming this about all teachers?
For those who claim armed security doesn't work I guess there is the secret service and a whole industry of private security that would exist in defiance of this claim.
In the countries that ban personal ownership of weapons, like some of the EU and now Canada, do their leaders have armed security? If so why? All it takes is common sense gun laws to end this
Canada does not yet ban personal ownership of weapons. When I lived there for 12 years I qualified to have some, under the onerous requirements they demanded: This included semiauto handguns and rifles.
I also had such firearms in Germany, and England. Perfectly legal, at the time.
And the reason the EU and Canada can just decide to ban firearms is they have no Constitution that stops government from deciding one day to deny the basic human right of self-defense to it's people. The US has such. And if you want to change that, refer to Article V of the Constitution.
Our Constitution provides for weapons as part of a well regulated militia. It says nothing about personal defense. But that aside, the reason Canada, New Zealand, Australia, and the EU nations can allow these weapons is that their citizens don't seem to abuse them at the same rate we Americans do. Also, you insult their democratic processes which are likely far more responsive to their voters given the nature of the parliamentary system than our own democracy.
Oh, please: Read the history and facts before you humiliate yourself any further.
Start with WHO is the militia in 1790, and what well-regulated means.
And the reason the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed is not limited by the declarative clause that precedes it.
Your rudeness and other ipse dixit aside, well regulated is founder-speak for, "under military discipline." That, of course, is my ipse dixit, but I base it on context learned from years of reading documents from the founding era, and the historical interval preceding it.
Americans do not misuse firearms at particularly high rates. The murder problem is highly concentrated in a few zipcodes. In any given year, most counties have no murders.
Americans misuse firearms about as often as they misuse practically every other kind of equipment they encounter. That is true regardless of zip codes. Concentrating on murder obscures that reality. A great deal of firearms misuse does not result in murder, but instead results in other kinds of socially damaging activity.
Question for all you shit eating anti gun turds who have bozo ideas about new gun laws.
What is the difference between an AR-15 rifle and an AR-15 style rifle?
Good comment. Needs more rage.
Who cares? No civilian should be allowed to own either.
And neither did the Uvalde Shooter, he used a
https://danieldefense.com/ddm4-v7.html
Repeal 2A then is the solution?
I believe that's what "45" (HT Maxine Walters) called "Second Amendment Solutions"
Forget it, Jake, he's European.
What is the difference between an AR-15 and a Ruger Mini-14?
One looks all meany
They are almost functionally identical. If Mini-14 is meant to imply .308 NATO, then it will kick a lot harder than an AR-15 using .223. Of course the Mini-14 is chambered variously. My brother's Mini-14 chambered for .243 Winchester seemed to have a semi-automatic action that took so long to operate it was disconcerting. Felt like operating factory machinery. The AR-15 does not feel like that.
"My brother's Mini-14 chambered for .243 Winchester "
That's a valuable one, since Ruger never offered them commercially.
Abasaroka, could you be mistaken? I shot the gun. I know what it was. My brother was hardly the type to pick up anything but standard merchandise sold through regular channels.
Well, Ruger never sold them in that caliber. .243 is a 308 class cartridge, so much too long to fit in a Mini-14 action (the magwell is too short, the bolt travel is less than the .243 cartridge length, etc, etc). Ruger was thinking about a 308 version called the XGI with the various dimensions enlarged. Depending on the source, they made as many as a couple hundred, but never got them to work (cracked receivers, etc). They were listed in the catalog, but never made it to commercial sales. I think physical copies exist, so they might have sold off the XGI prototypes to employees when they dropped the project or something like that.
But a Mini-14 in 243, nope. Just hold a .243 cartridge up to an actual production Mini-14 and it's really obvious why that just can't possibly work.
Perhaps I misremembered. I shot whatever it was prior to 1983, a long memory reach by now. I looked up the XGI you linked to, and it looks just right, just what I remembered, but the date makes it impossible. Know of any other .243 semi-autos available before 1983 that might look like that? I have no doubt about the cartridge, because I had never encountered it before, and was especially interested to shoot it.
The dimensions would work to rebarrel a Garand or M1A. Different gas system from the Mini, of course. Looking at a picture they'd be similar, but in hand no one is going to mistake a Garand or M1A for a Mini; the sizes are very different.
Care to explain why, when you lack information upon which to make a decision?
What is the difference between an AR-15 rifle and an AR-15 style rifle?
Whether or not there is some gun pedant around to insist on it?
In terms of in-classroom lethality, not much difference. Either one will be more efficiently lethal in a classroom than any other firearm. A combination of features both share makes the difference:
1. Automatic or semi-automatic operation;
2. Interchangeable magazines of whatever size;
3. Powerful, light-recoil ammunition which is neither expensive, nor bulky to transport.
The bigger lethality factor is not to be found in the difference between semi-automatic and fully automatic operation. The telling factor is the difference between fast-operating, low-recoil fire which delivers notably more ballistic power per shot than a .44 magnum pistol, and really any other available combination of gun features.
It is a relative problem (and a public menace) that few shooters will ever be comfortable firing a .44 magnum pistol, but almost any wimp can do rapid, accurate, sustained fire with a more-powerful AR-15 style rifle.
"Either one will be more efficiently lethal in a classroom than any other firearm. "
So says the photographer.
"Automatic or semi-automatic operation;"
No AR variant has a fully auto fire option. Stick to photography.
Good catch what a dope. Stevie fully automatic weapons are not for sale to the public.
Really helps when you know what you're talking about.
https://dealernfa.com/
Well the M-16 was designed because the South Vietnamese (and a good number of Amuricans) couldn't handle the recoil or the weight of the M-14,
Not quite. The AR-10 was 7.62 NATO. It was designed as a lighter weight version of what became the M14. The AR-15 was a lighter weight version originally for the Air Force. That the recoil was less severe was a nice feature.
Stephen Lathrop your answer is a perfect example of why I asked the question. I am not sure where to start pointing all the errors in your post.
While the original AR-15 was capable of semi-automatic or fully automatic fire I am unaware of any fully automatic AR-15 (or for that matter any fully automatic weapon) that has ever been used in a school shooting or for that matter any mass shooting since the 1920s. I do recall some fully automatic weapons used in a bank robbery a few years back but not sure that was a mass shooting. In any case the number of crimes, mass shooting or not, where fully automatic weapons have been used is tiny. Point is that owning a fully automatic weapon is so much trouble they are so rare as to be a non factor in crime.
Almost all modern weapons have an interchangeable magazines (except revolvers). I would note that there is an inverse relationship between magazine size and reliability; so much so that a lot of serious marksmen shun any magazine larger than 20 rounds and some even choose a 10 round magazine. In many NRA sanctioned competitions the standard is a 5 round magazine since there is usually a 5 round session and then a break of a couple of minutes to assess accuracy and reload and another 5 round session then rinse and repeat. So by your definition I would bet the huge majority of rifles sold would be defined as an AR-15 or an AR-15 style weapon.
So far we have your first definition and second definition including almost all weapons.
I have to laugh at your third requirement that included "ammunition which is neither expensive" since Biden being elected the price of all ammunition has exploded and made even worse by what is commonly described as supply chain issues. I would point out that the cheapest commonly available ammunition is the .22lr (and the round responsible for the most gun death is also the .22lr) which is easier to carry than almost any other round except the .22 short. While the .22lr may not meet your "powerful" requirement the fact that that round is involved in so many deaths speaks for itself.
Maybe the silliest thing you wrote is in the last two paragraphs. I am forced to point out that while the Parkland shooter used an AR-15 styled weapon that seems to meet all your requirements in spades he hit one of his victims three times and that victim survived. Guess the Parkland shooter was not "almost any wimp can do rapid, accurate, sustained fire with a more-powerful AR-15 style rifle"
I will wait a while before I post the definition what I think an AR-15 style rifle is as I hope to see others respond.
Ragebot — Apparently you are so used to pouring pedantry onto naive gun critics that you just do it by reflex. You wasted your first paragraph on a distinction I had already dismissed. That much-loved automatic/semi-automatic pedant's distinction matters almost not at all in a classroom. You will not have to switch to fully automatic to suppress counter fire from fourth graders.
I said nothing about magazine sizes, because I consider that point less relevant, so long as magazines are interchangeable. It is the interchangeability which increases lethality, more-so than the magazine size. And I am fine with interchangeable magazines, so long as they do not feed automatic or semi-automatic actions. That combination has to go.
If you want to make the case for the .22lr as the deadliest threat anywhere, please cite at least a few mass shootings, schools or otherwise, where it figured in mass death. I am fine with ruling it out if it turns out to be as threatening as you seem to think.
Please note this next bit carefully, because it is a point I have made many times before, but made mainly by implication in my comment above. I am not saying outlaw the features you mentioned, not any of them. I am saying outlaw a few particular choices in combining them.
Leave automatic or semi-automatic operation available. Just do not provide interchangeable magazines in the same gun. Leave interchangeable magazines available. Just do not put them on semi-automatic rifles. Leave .223 Remington ammunition available, but shoot it single shot, from bolt action rifles, or from rifles with 4-shot-capacity internal box magazines.
You can even leave .22lr available, and use it to kill yourself with a revolver.
What I am doing with my advocacy is answering substantively the challenge from pro-gun advocates who say nothing can be done to stop mass shootings. I am giving you a chance to notice that something can be done, even though you will not like it a bit. The measure of your resistance will also be, to a rough first approximation, the measure of the likelihood that the changes I propose would work.
After that sinks in, you get your chance to say, "I hate it. I think mass shootings are the price the nation must pay for my choice of a particular combination of features on one gun. I want the most efficiently lethal mass killing machine, I want it, I want it, I want it."
I know that you enjoy writing endless comments almost as much as Blackman, but in this instance Stephen, you're embarrassing yourself.
Your ideas are not constitutional, and your conclusions are based on literally nothing.
"The measure of your resistance will also be, to a rough first approximation, the measure of the likelihood that the changes I propose would work."
That's some extreme arrogance for someone so ignorant about firearms.
Jason Cavanaugh — What makes you think I am ignorant about firearms? That cheap taunt is one gun nuts use on anyone. Did you convince yourself with it? Advocate gun control, and gun nuts will call you ignorant about firearms. Newsstand gun pedants call people ignorant about firearms. Gun range pistol mavens call people ignorant about firearms.
You have no idea what you are talking about.
I could challenge you on your absurd 'standard' of evaluating firearms. I could challenge you on your claim that the AR-15 or similar would be more effective at your absurd standard of measurement. I did challenge you on the legality of your novel notions. I did challenge you on your baseless assumptions.
What did you respond with? Absolutely nothing of substance whatsoever.
You aren't qualified to soapbox on this subject. Blackman would be proud of you.
You called me ignorant about firearms. What do you think you know about me to supply basis for that? That you disagree with some things I say? To disagree with you is to be ignorant, or inexperienced? Try to think that through.
Stephen Lathrop your ignorance is shocking.
For reasons no one can understand you pretend to know something about firearms yet continue to post things that prove you don't. I have a long history with the AR-15 dating back to training in 1967 and 1968 when I was on active duty. Truth be told there was lots of disagreement about the AR-15 being the best choice for the US military. In the end McNamara resolved the dispute between Lemay and Taylor in favor of Lemay and the AR-15. Even so the first AR-15 designs were modified significantly in terms of the charging handle, forward assist, and metals and coatings used internally. Still many troops complained about problems with them. The biggest problem was due to Stoner's direct impingement design which resulted in fouling in areas causing problems. In the troops vernacular the rifle was 'shitting where it was eating'. In todays world the best AR-15 style weapons have replaced the direct impingement design with a long or short piston design; but some cheaper (and expensive as well) still use direct impingement.
Maybe more to the point while you seem hung up on .223 there are some differences between a .223 round and a 5.56 round. While how significant they are may depend on who you talk to it is generally agreed that the 5.56 is the more powerful round and care should be taken if you try and fire a 5.56 round in a weapon designed for a .223 round. In more extreme analysis some folks say anyone who would shoot a 5.56 round in a .223 designed weapon has 'shit for brains'.
Which brings me to the 'shit for brains' section of this post. In an earlier post I noted the Texas shooter shot his grandmother in the face (which she survived from what I know so far), stole a truck he seems incapable of driving and crashes it into a culvert, exits the truck leaving a backpack with weapons and ammo on the ground, farts around till he finds an unlocked door and enters the school; something that meets my definition of 'shit for brains' planning for a school shooting. Not to mention as others have noted simply driving the truck through a crowd of students as they left the school to return home could have well resulted in a higher body count.
Just my two cents but I think anyone who would shoot up a school does have shit for brains. Even if all your (questionable) solutions were put into place I am not sure it would do anything but change the approach of how peeps with shit for brains would plan how they did things.
There is a youtube video of a civilian firing 24 rounds from a .303 Enfield rifle, in 60 seconds. That's faster than most people are actually able to shoot an (for example) AR-15, with a cartridge FAR more powerful than the 5.56.
There are people who can reload a revolver faster than most people can reload a semiauto pistol.
And when people cannot get firearms, they will find molotov cocktails, or improvised explosives, or whatever.
Ted Kennedy was pretty deadly with an Oldsmobile
Moreso than I am with my AR-15's
Flight-ER-Doc — The baffling part is why you think any of that endlessly repeated stuff is worth repeating again. Do you suppose you are telling me anything I had not heard previously, or that I have not reckoned into my own advocacy? Do you even understand that your Enfield story is an illustration why my points ought to be taken seriously?
I will explain that for you. Someone shooting that rifle, that fast, accurately, is remarkable. So remarkable that the story gets repeated by pro-gun advocates everywhere. The feat is akin to an especially good circus act.
And what do you conclude? You conclude that doing that circus act successfully is kind of like what most people can do while shooting an AR-15 (without reference to what Enfield-man could do with an AR-15). Which means you concede the AR-15 puts lethal powers into the hands of almost everyone which were previously freakishly rare to the point of notoriety.
And then, before you put that little tale away, you point out one more feature of it, which pleases you—that the cartridge is, "FAR more powerful." Which ignores completely the point I repeated, which the U.S. military discovered by research, which is the point about increased lethality obtained by reducing ballistic power, compared to previous military ammunition.
Maybe you do not believe that, or disapprove of it, but I do not think you should advocate as if that point had not been made. Nor do I think anyone reasonably attentive to this discussion ought to try to minimize the AR-15 design, which fires a bullet with about 30% more ballistic energy than a .44 magnum pistol can deliver.
Whether or not the manufacturer is ArmaLite?
The Armalite AR-15 and every one of it's 5.56/.223 Remington offspring are not especially powerful. Certainly not as powerful as the standard rifle before the M-16 (the M14) and not as powerful as the new standard rifle (the M5 in 6.8 whatever)
Right, Doc. Nothing compared to something more powerful is especially powerful. But things compared to less powerful others are more powerful. So tell me the answer, according to reliable ballistics information: the .44 magnum pistol round, or the .223 Remington fired from an AR-15, which one is especially powerful? And by the way, is dead a lethal outcome? (I ask because some of your comments suggest you disregard the answer.)
Stephen Lathrop once again you show your ignorance of fire arms. You fail to identify how you define ballistics information. Not to mention making what seems to be a silly comparison between a rifle and a pistol.
Weapons are designed for different uses. A .44 magnum excels at what is called stopping power. While it is common for someone hit center mass with a .44 magnum to die for a self defense situation it may be more important to stop that person to from any aggressive action even if death is delayed. On the other hand a .223 round has less stopping power but will do lots of damage with a center mass hit but also may allow the person hit to get off a shot or two before they are stopped.
It is important to remember the two components of ballistics are velocity and mass. While I was under the impression there would be no math here is the formula:
KE = 0.5 • m • v2
where m = mass of object
v = speed of object
While a .44 may have a small advantage in terms of mass the velocity of any fire arm is greatly affected by the barrel length. So a six or eight inch barrel on a .44 pistol is at huge disadvantage compared to a sixteen or twenty inch barrel on an AR15 when it comes to velocity.
In comparing a pistol to a rifle it is really a question of horses for courses.
Soon schools will look exactly like prisons, and the feelings of many a child will be at last made manifest.
It's interesting that we've spent the past two years with conservatives telling us that mask and vaccine mandates were just a way of acclimating the population to creeping authoritarianism.
Meanwhile, in our schools, we're talking about making them limited-access prisons, overseen by armed guards (and/or teachers) conducting "active shooter" drills, while limiting what kids can read or learn about and banning wrongthink among teachers and kids alike.
Bang-up job you're doing on fighting authoritarianism, conservatives.
You're confused on the subject of who is banning WrongThink in the schools.
Schools pretty much already seem to be limited access prisons: External access controlled, classroom door (one only) locked during class.....Lots of procedures that make little sense except to the screws and warden
Lock the doors, have armed security. Done, wouldn't have happened.
Versus
Background checks- wouldn't have stopped it, he was never convicted of anything
Ban AR's- pick another semi-automatic , he had all the time in the world.
Age limits- just was declared unconstitutional, 18 year olds are either adults with rights or they are not.
None of that works
Lock the doors, have armed security. Done, wouldn't have happened.
Can I borrow that counterfactual crystal ball of yours?
Then counter it. You just went ad hominem
Pointing out you are sure if things you cannot be sure of is not ad hominem.
Silly.
You can’t counter
'Done, wouldn't have happened' is not an argument, it's an unsupported counterfactual statement.
You just said things. You didn't make an argument.
Your solution- lock these kids in a prison and call it a school.
Do you realize how fucking awful you sound?
Fucking goddamn idiots in here.
Moreover, weren't all you fucks the one complaining how masks were abusive to kids?
Yet somehow armed teachers and locked doors and other shit isn't?
You guys have truly lost your fucking minds.
Not seeing how armed teachers are particularly abusive of kids, though other shit can be. But FASTER has nothing to do with locking doors.
And your solution is?
FASTER teaches the same skills and techniques that law enforcement officers are taught.
So they have a module on cowering outside ?
What happened to the 'Satan, I renounce thee and all your evil godless ways part?
Does Mr. Kopel no longer renounce Satan? Has he stopped fighting Satan?
Ye of little faith! What is right-wing nuttery coming to?
Their nuttery has nothing on yours.
Does it hurt to get your ass kicked in the culture war, for decades, by guys like me, clinger?
Anyone see the Sweet Truck the Uvalde Shooter had? He could have killed more kids driving through the Playground at Recess and just claim whatever defense that (Redacted) in Waukesha is using...
Just saying, Santos doesn't look like the guy who could afford a $50,000 Truck (riding in the bed maybe)
He didn't own it, I believe. I think the grandmother he shot owned it.
If only we had a law against grand theft, auto. And reckless driving.
"FASTER has a perfect record of prevention" -- what record? You don't cite any cases of a trainee preventing a school shooting.
"School officials, politicians, or anti-gun activists who prevent willing, well-trained staff from protecting students are refusing to prioritize student safety."
This is literally blood libel. By suggesting that people who oppose your preferred program are contributing to students being harmed, you've shown yourself to be a hater, and also Satan.
Go read some of the off hand comments from the schools official and anti-gun activists on social media and then tell me if you still think it is "blood libel". They are saying some pretty disgusting stuff.
Obviously it is not actually blood libel - this comment is merely making light of Kopel's recent diatribe using (and abusing) that term.
Hey jimmy did you know on any given weekend in big cities across the US 19 children are born, groomed, forcibly transitioned and then aborted? It’s an easily verifiable fact if you would just look— the problem is that you’re blinded by your privilege! Shame.
Insane fucking country where this is earnestly discussed.
How about fixing the root cause? JFC. Only country where this shit happens and we think arming teachers is a good idea.
The root cause. LOL.
The left does not really care about actually saving children's lives. If they did then they would be most staunch anti-abortion, pro-marriage party that ever existed. What they really desire are more dead kids because they make great political props for things like gun confiscation. Don't think for a second that all the sickos on the left are not secretly pining away for a few more school shootings to happen before summer break.
It's thinking like this by conservatives that has enabled the liberal-libertarian mainstream to win the culture war and drive these clingers toward political and cultural irrelevance in modern America (which does not include West Virginia, Idaho, Wyoming, the Dakotas, and most southeastern states).
You are everything the bad faith straw liberals you constantly complain about are. Unable to handle dissent. Making over the top accusations. living in constant anger and misery,
Yet you acknowledge through your strawman objection that I am 100% absolutely correct.
Jesus Christ Jimmy. Think shit like that accomplishes anything?
Yes it does accomplish something. Transparency and truth. Someone needs to call leftists out on their sick and depraved political tactics.
Hey, Satan! Over here!
Kopel has let his guard down. No renouncing or nothin'. Now's your chance!
This whole series of threads is encapsulated perfectly by this huckleberry at the NRA convention claiming more people are killed by hammers than guns in any given year:
https://mobile.twitter.com/TheGoodLiars/status/1531651480180121603
Is there any problem that won’t be solved by more guns???
How does the saying go? When your only tool is a gun, every nail looks like a elementary school kid?
There is no reasonable way to have gun control impact the number of gun related incidents without repealing 2A. It's that simple. All this other "do something" talk is simply emotive nonsense that has moved the needle exactly nowhere in 40 years.
So...whatever. Let 'em cry their tears and write their checks to the Brady Campaign. They're not serious until they start and push for an actual Repeal 2A movement.
Which has zero point zero chance of succeeding because requires a super majority which they are no where near having
So they wish to pass unconstitutional laws and then hope they can find 5 out of 9 robes to agree. Easier than 2/3 of Congress and 3/4 of state legislatures.
It’s also why mostly the same crowd is upset about Roe. They assure you that abortion is super popular but know there is not a snowballs chance in hell they could pass an amendment establishing a right to abortion
How about amending the 2A into a right to effective self-defense from criminals? Guns are a means to that, not an end in themselves. E.g. if effective non-lethal arms were developed, the right would morph into having those. If the type of gun (and amount of ammo) used by the TX school shooter is actually used in practice for self-defense from criminals, then it's protected -- but let courts examine that.
So far, FASTER has a perfect record of prevention
So, on the one hand school shootings are rare, unpredictable, events, while on the other Kopel brags about FASTER's record.
What is predictable is hanging gun free zone signs in places does nothing.
What is also predictable is having armed security is the best defense a violent attack.
It may not be perfect but it sure beats the alternative
"hanging gun free zone signs in places does nothing" -- _if_ the country is awash with guns. But does it have to be? Many others aren't, and have fewer school shootings.
Kopel writes "Introduced in Ohio, FASTER could be adopted by every state and school, at no cost to taxpayers, and at considerable saving of lives."
This phrasing suggests that in the absence of something like FASTER, considerable loss of life is taking place as a result of school shootings. Given the infrequency of such events, I'd dispute that implication. Kopel seems to be conceding a significant point to the advocates of increased restrictions on gun possession, who promote the narrative that students today are subject to a high risk of death or injury in such a shooting.
Oh, hi, Queenie. Where to you teach, honey? You would look cute packing heat.
I worry about a shooter coming after, my favorite, Queenie. It is the only one stupid enough to actually respond to my Comments.
All Otis Brand Old God repellants consist of a proprietary blend of herbs, grains, tiger tranqs, and anti-psychotics specifically formulated to each Old God. You’ll be needing Otis Brand Yog-B-Gone for that particular entity.
"same skills and techniques that law enforcement officers are taught"
They are not being trained to be "law abiding "
Having accurate aim isn't correlated with being "law abiding".
You could perhaps read the article and find the answer there? Many different training subjects were mentioned.
Because the Secret Service said so.
Rest of the convention was open. Lame, cliched "gotcha".
It was the price of getting Trump to show up, I assume. Your point is...?
They do - in protection of themselves. The additional training is to be more effective when protecting others.
They do. See http://gunselfdefense.blogspot.com/?m=1
The training is so you nervous Nellies will allow teachers the right to self-defense at work.
More like: why suspend the licenses of dangerous drivers, if they'll just drive without a license anyway?
Why require drivers to get liability insurance, if many of them will just go uninsured anyway?
Why require registration of vehicles, if drivers will just fake plates from Texas anyway?
Law-abiding citizens have nothing to fear from a fairly-administered system of registering and licensing firearm ownership and usage. Criminals ignoring the laws face steeper potential punishments when/if they are caught. Guns are not special, in this regard.
Hi, Queenie. Traffic laws add nothing to public safety. They are just ways for the government to penalize middle class people to bloat their coffers. Why bloat their coffers? To enrich tax sucking parasites.
Hi, Honey, what race do you identify with?
Medical misadventure? Which is more than misdiagnosis or treatment by a physician?
So car accidents are caused by pathogens now? Learn new depths of stupidity every day.
They are not trusted to protect others. They simply provide an opportunity by which others might be protected. But it's not their job.
Maybe we just make all schools "gun free" zones. That ought to work.
Oh wait......
Let's try "super, really serious gun free zones" this time. That will really work....
One incompetent, the other a coward.
Those predisposed to murder find a way. For example China, or Japan, or Venezuela or likely North Korea.
The idea is to make it more difficult for potential murderers to get guns by making it as difficult as possible for anyone to get a gun.
If you support that, go fuck yourself.
How would that work? Someone who decided he wants to kill his grandmother, 19 schoolchildren (and himself) is gonna say - wow - to do that I actually need to pay an extra $200 for a license and go to the range to prove I know how to shoot my gun? that's just too much hassle, I'm going to forget about it and go back to flipping burgers?
Typically bogus stat. It's excessively hard to buy a gun in Canada.
No. Next question?
You imply that that is a logical conclusion, but recognizing logical conclusions is an act of which you are incapable, and it doesn't follow from anything that was said.
Actually, it probably is, simply by excluding those high on illegal drugs and other marginal considerations. The correlation presumably isn't high (and may run in the opposite direction, overall), but my guess is that it's not nonexistent.
Nor is it correlated with a three day course.
My wife teaches at a K-12 school. She needs no more pay; she wants to come at the end of the day and see her students do likewise.
Huh. So people with the training and years of expertise in protecting valuable people say guns at a gun rally aren't safe?
I suppose the reference is to the Black nut who ran down the dancing grandmothers. Wasn't that in Waukesha? But, no, it's not apparent that referring to "(Redacted) in Waukesha" is "bigoted" any more than noting that Salvador Ramos was not a "white supremacist". Pay less attention to the voices in your head and you won't make it so obvious that you are a nutter.
Or was "(Redacted)" done by a mod after you saw the sentence? In which case you might merely be engaging in unwarranted generalization.
Thank you, Captain Obvious. Misses the point, though.
Are you two the same person?
Which account for far more fatalities yearly than firearms of any sort, and WAY more than AR-15's
Public health is generally defined as "the science and practice of protecting and improving the health of a community, as by preventive medicine, health education, control of communicable diseases, application of sanitary measures, and monitoring of environmental hazards". Common examples of environmental hazards include tobacco, swampland and other things that contribute to or lead to disease. Car accidents and drownings are not commonly considered part of "public health".
When you're talking about National Security, and quite literally the Head of State?
Do you really need it explained to you why that might be considered slightly different than most other circumstances?
Actually many traffic laws do enhance public safety. Even speed limits do so.