"To Protect, and To Serve"

Parkland shooting: Judge says school, cops had no duty to protect kids:

John Bacon, USA TODAYPublished 11:01 a.m. ET Dec. 19, 2018 | Updated 2:52 p.m. ET Dec. 19, 2018

A Florida lawyer representing 15 Marjory Stoneman Douglas High students says he is "exploring all of our options" after a federal judge ruled that law enforcement and school officials had no legal duty to protect students during a Valentine's Day rampage at the school that left 17 people dead.  (emphasis added)

"Legal Duty" isn't necessarily the same as "Moral Duty".

*(H/T: David Codrea)*

All they know is what they read in the papers

The Trace references an independent study which purports to prove ... statistically ... that private individuals who legally carry guns do not reduce crime. (see below the fold for detail)

The thing is, crimes which do not occur because of legally carried guns are rarely reported.

Woman Waiting For Her Commute:
During the bitter winter of the year in which Oregon permitted concealed carry, a lady friend of mine was waiting in the transit station to catch her ride into Portland.  She was approached by a trio of young men who threatened her and demanded her purse.  She slipped her hand into the pocket of her overcoat ... and the thugs backed off.   

They said (words to the effect) "Oh no, you don't gotta pull a gun on us, lady.   We're out of here!"

And they left. 
A few minutes later, her bus arrived and she went to her job.

Did she report the attempted mugging?   No, she did not.   She was cold, worried more about getting to work on time, and the crime (of "Threatening", if nothing else) was never reported.

Man Leaving The Office:
Another friend was threatened in the parking lot of the Corporate Headquarters building where he and I both worked ... this was just after he got off work.    He had stayed late to finish a product, and he was the only employee in the parking lot. 

Again, multiple assailants ... but this time he had a pistol in a concealed carry holster; he pulled the gun just far enough to display it, and the gang ran.

He unlocked his car and went home to dinner.  No report was filed with the police, the incident never appeared in the newspapers. 

Just life in The City.

I worked for several years in an educational institution.  I carried every day.  Even though I had a Concealed Handgun License (CHL) it was not legal for me to bring a firearm into the buildings, although it was legal for me to (concealed) carry on campus.  (NOTE: Oregon does not recognize any other state's handgun license; we are that weird.)

Nobody knew I was armed, and I kept the pistol in a locked desk drawer during the day; I only carried it between the parking lot and my office.   And I was never assaulted during that most dangerous time of the day ... on the way to and from work.

If I HAD been approached by someone who threatened me, I would have lost my job by defending myself with a gun; it was obviously a violation of my "Terms of Employment" for me to possess a firearm in any building on campus.     I wouldn't have reported it, either.

In Oregon, CHL folks are the Red-Headed Stepchild; nobody recognizes us, nobody likes us, so we just keep a low profile ... at least, in our professional life.

I suspect many CHL folks around the country are much the same way.  We don't advertise.
And i wouldn't even be writing this, if I wasn't retired.  Now Oregon laws on CHL have been updated just a little bit, but I still can't carry inside of any building on any campus in Oregon.


BELOW THE FOLD: CHL does not reduce crime

Parkland Pederast Punished?

Somebody is unclear on the concept: "Campus Security".

 It's astonishing that a school guard could sexually harass a female student, and then utterly fail to prevent her death, and still find employment within the district. But that's public schools for you.

School Security Guard Who Didn’t Stop the Parkland Shooter Was Suspended for Sexually Harassing Students - Hit & Run : Reason.com:

This should probably be filed under "Who Shall Guard the Guardians", (Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? )


It's a useful phrase.  One which invites the reader to say: "Hmmmmmm ...."

Just saying,

Santa Fe, Texas: Resource Officer John Barnes!

The reason for "Resource Officers" (eg: "Guards") in schools is to protect the innocents.

It sounds as if there are still "Resource Officers" who know their duty, and they do it.

Absolute accolades to men who are willing to put their lives on the line.  Hope Officer John Barnes gets a great big BONUS with his next paycheck ... but I suspect that knowing he saved dozens of innocent lives will be sufficient reward to such a stalwart man!

Amid the chaos in Santa Fe, teachers' yells sent students scrambling for safety:

 One of the wounded in Friday’s shooting was Santa Fe school district police officer John Barnes, who was in critical but stable condition late Saturday, officials said. The police chief said two officers "engaged him right away," referring to the suspected shooter. "Our officers went in there and did what they could," Santa Fe ISD Police Chief Walter Braun said. For four hours Saturday, school buses with a police escort shuttled students and staff from the junior high school to the high school to retrieve their belongings.

Ignorance v. Apathy

There's an old joke:  "What's the difference between Ignorance and Apathy?"
The classic response is: "I don't know, and I don't care!"

While the motto of the NY Times is "All the news that's fit to print", the motto of MSNBC should be  "I don't know, and I don't care!"

MSNBC: Handguns Are Too Slow To Stop A School | The Daily Caller:

MSNBC anchors are claiming that teachers armed with handguns would be unable to stop a school shooter because rifles shoot “three times faster.” Anchor Lawrence O’Donnell said on his show Thursday night that “a bullet fired from an AR-15 travels 3x faster than one from a handgun…and yet the president and the NRA think giving teachers guns will stop a school shooter.”

It requires a special level of devotion to become a teacher.

But it takes a total lack of integrity for MSNBC to make such an inane statement which not only undermines the devotion of teachers, but links it to an anti-gun propaganda position which is based on misdirection, rather than veracity

The question of whether teachers should be armed is a quandry, and those educators who choose to undergo the special training, and face the controversy over whether they should be armed to protect their students, is a very personal one.  It requires ... well, a lot of support from school boards, and an acknowledgement that school shootings  have only one viable solution:

Should teachers be armed in the classroom?

I don't have an answer.  But it's apparently very easy to denounce the concept; especially if you're a writer who hasn't had to make such a difficult and very personal decision.

Ultimately, this article is not as much a criticism of that decision as it is a hit-piece against the National Rifle Association ... which has stepped up to offer training of educators who have shown that they are more concerned for the safety of their students than for their own safety.

But those who disagree with this difficult decision owe more than lies if they choose to debate the subject.   It's significant that they opposition is based on mis-direction, rather than solid logic.

Shooting at high school in Parkland, Fla.

Live updates: Shooting at high school in Parkland, Fla.; multiple injuries reported:

America has a gun problem and the blood it on the hands of NRA and GOP.

That's the news, and that's the tenor of accusations flowing across America today.

It's the kind of thing that happens with a Republican controlled congress, and with the active intervention of the National Rifle Association because .... you know, the gun rights thingie.

At least, that's the twist the Democratic sooth-sayers are touting.

No word yet on where he got the gun, what kind of gun etc. 
Best guess: he stole the inadequately secured firearm from his parents.

There's enough blame to go around, though; pundits are bound to blame it on the NRA (that has already started, although there is no evidence that the kid was a member of the NRA) ... but there's enough "wrong" to spread it around to the parents, teachers, legislators, etc.

Nobody has thought to blame the kid for being a total ass-hole.

Yet.

Probably, nobody ever will.

When you look at the historic mass murderers ... channeling that guy who shot Lincoln (I still refuse to name him, or other murderers) ... there is one thing they have in common:

RAGE!

They have a "My Life Sucks!" attitude, and rather than accept their own faults ... they decide to take their rage out on the people around them.  Unfortunately, when the person is a teen-ager, the people around them are other adolescents.

Kids.   Just a bunch of other "Lonely Teen-Agers".

The victims are children who are so wrapped up in their own adolescent crisis that they can't recognize one of their own who has gone "over the top".

Well, nobody who has survived their own teen-age angst can tell the difference between someone who is a 'lonely teenager" and a "mass murderer", either.  They all look, talk, walk and act the same.

All the blame that has been, is and will be spread around is probably just bullshit, anyway.

NOBODY can tell the difference between adolescent angst and the rage to kill.   It all looks the same, from the outside (you and me) and from the inside (the teenager's school-mates). 

And was the kid a loner?  Christ, at that age, half the kids in High School are "Loners".
If you're not one of the "elites", you're an "outsider". 

Hell, I was an outsider in High School.  My nickname was "The Zipper" ... or "The Shadow", because I was so skinny that when I turned sideways to the sun, nobody could see me.   (

I took a little pride in that; at least I had an identity; perhaps this kid didn't even have THAT; he might have benefited if he had a sense of belonging ... and a bunch of people might be alive today)

Hell, maybe the kid just wanted to go home, where he belonged.



Dion: "Lonely Teenager"

PS: No, I'm not going to make any "PRO" or "CON" statements about Gun Control here, other than to observe that in the mood that kid was in, he could as reado;u used a knife, machete, or a club to attack his victims.

2nd Amendment at Work: Gun in POV

Should workers be allowed to leave guns in cars at work?:
Dayton Daily News: June 22, 2017

machiavellian

Business groups are fighting an Ohio Senate proposal that will open them up to civil lawsuits by employees and others who bring handguns on to company property. “For us this isn’t a concealed carry issue as much as this is an employer rights issue,” said Chris Kershner, vice president, public policy & economic development for the Dayton Area Chamber of Commerce. “Employers should be able to manage the actions in their private business on their private property, period.” 

I love this.  I hope it goes all the way to the Supreme court.

By depriving this employee of the right to leave his secured gun in his (locked) car at work, he is depriving the employee of the right to carry the gun during the trip to and from work.

Which is a clear infringement of the employee's Second Amendment Rights.   Especially if the employee has a Concealed Carry License.

It's not as if the employee is asking to carry his firearm into the workplace; he only asks that he be able to leave it stored. secured. in his private auto at the terminus of each trip to and from work.

The issue is whether the employer is legally permitted to deny the employee the right to carry during the transition period.

The employer is not.  If the employee is legally empowered to possess a firearm on the public highway, that extends the right to keep it safely stored at the terminus of each transition.

The "personal property" rights of the employer do NOT trump the constitutional rights of the employee.  In fact, the relationship between the employer and the employee are not a factor.

The lawyer is right in one point, though:  this is NOT a "Concealed Carry Issue".

It's a constitutional issue, and this lawyer is being payed WAY too much to fight the issue, if he uses the "Employee Rights" claim to fight the Constitution.

At best, the lawyer should fight to require that the firearm be "safely secured" while on private property.  But then he would have to hire a security consultant to define the term "safely secured".

He MIGHT convince a convivial judge that the employee should fit the bill to have his POV (Privately Owned Vehicle) guarded while at work.  But given the big pockets of any corporation, vs the small salary of an employee, that would also be deemed Unconstitutional in a Supreme Court decision (not that they would touch this case!)

What do you want to bet that this lawyer didn't finish first in his Law School Class?

NOTE" This kind of contretemps has been fought between Colleges and their employees several times over the past few years; the ultimate result has almost universally been found for the employee.

On the other hand, if the Attorney can show a single incident when the care has been 'irresponsibly' left unlocked, it might turn the case.

how much do you think the Lawyer would have to pay to find a petty crook to jimmy the door of the employee's POV?

PS:  Boyd said the business groups hope the provision will be removed in the final version of the state’s two-year budget that is being discussed now in a 6-member conference committee made up of members of the Ohio Senate and House of Representatives. The House version of the state budget does not include the provision.“Looking at this new amendment we think it just exacerbates the problems of 199 by creating a new way to file a lawsuit against employers and private property owners,” Boyd said. “It’s a step backward for Ohio’s legal climate.”

In other words:

  Screw the citizen it's gonna be bad for business. Besides, we got the State on our side .. so screw him twice!!  Who does he think he is?

No guns for you, no guns for you ... go away kid, you bother me1

California Assemblyman Kevin McCarty (D-7) is pushing legislation to take away school administrators’ power to allow teachers with a Carry Concealed Weapon license (CCW) to be armed in classrooms for self-defense.

Sez it makes him nervous.

He doesn't spend a lot of time on high-school grounds (note: "NO GUN ZONE" ... duh!)

Well, it's not as if maniacal gunmen waste their time shooting kid on school campiii ...

What's the worst that could happen?

Dem. Assemblyman Pushes Bill to Guarantee Teachers Cannot Shoot Back if Attackers Strike - Breitbart:

Oregon, and the Right to Keep and Bear Knobkerries

Oregon bans weapons in state workplaces:

Oregon officials have banned state employees from carrying weapons in the workplace unless they're needed for their jobs. The move caused consternation Thursday among Republican leaders in the Legislature. The Oregon Department of Administrative Services said it imposed the ban, which became effective on Jan. 6, in hopes of "providing a safe and secure environment for employees and visitors." Banned are firearms, daggers, slingshots, and a host of other specified weapons. Oddly, even knobkerries were mentioned. Knobkerries are clubs used by indigenous people like the Zulus in southern Africa, and are probably unknown to most Oregonians.

You realize that this would not make for a "safe and secure environment", right?

But if I was still working for The State, I would be a criminal.   Because what I did legally last month, would be illegal today.

For almost 20 years I carried a concealed Knobkerry at work, in a State Office, every day.  Nobody knew because it was ... well ... concealed.  
And I certainly wasn't going to mention it.

It was legal, because of state laws in effect in Oregon at the time, and I had a "CKL" (Concealed Knobkerry License".  But the place where I worked had an administrative rule disallowing the possession of knobkerries ... either open or concealed carry.    They could have fired me for wanting to exercise my God Given Right to Keep and Bear Knobkerries  (RKBK).  

But I would not have been subject to legal action;   I was not breaking any laws.

My thinking was that Knobkerry Free Zones (such as schools) were a prime target of 'mischief makers', and if  'mischief' were to occur at my work place,  I wanted to have options.  

I always felt much more "safe and secure" knowing that I could pull out my trusty knobkerry and pound the living crap out of anyone who decided to use an illegal knobkerry to attack my workplace.

Well, that has all changed now.   Because we are defenseless ... by legal fiat.

I am disgusted ... California Politics are creeping into Oregon.

The Sound Of One Hand Clapping

Judge denies UT-Austin professors' attempt to block campus carry | The Star-Telegram:

A federal judge has denied three University of Texas at Austin professors’ initial attempt to keep guns out of their classrooms under the state’s campus carry law.

University of Texas (AUSTIN) faculty are uncomfortable with a new law which allows students (and staff, and faculty) to carry guns on campus.

College and University faculty have always been an insular bunch: from TA's (Teaching Assistants), to Instructors, to Professors, to "Full" or"Tenured" Professors ("you can't fire my ass ... nana nana boo-boo!") they have become accustomed to the rights and respects due them by their position and experience.

So when someone tells them that they "MUST" allow students to carry arms into the classroom, they are righteously indignant:

 U.S. District Judge Lee Yeakel ruled that the professors, who had sought a preliminary injunction to block implementation of the law, had failed to establish their likelihood for success. UT students resume classes on Wednesday, and the professors' case will continue to work its way through the court while the law remains in effect. ... In the suit, the professors said the possibility of guns on campus could stifle class discussion in their courses, which touch on emotional issues like gay rights and abortion. They argued that was a violation of students' First Amendment right to free speech.

Why am I not convinced that their objections had anything to do with the student rights?
Why do I think they just don't trust their students?
Why do I think they're a bunch of ostriches, with their heads buried in ... the sand?

These Academicians have been insulated for their entire professional career from the cares of  'normal' social interaction.   They have been told and trained to enjoy their prerogatives to control their classrooms as they see fit.

They have ignored, generally, the inconveniences of campus massacres:

From the Enoch Brown massacre of 1764 (attacked by Indians; Brown and nine children were killed. Two scalped children survived their wounds.Four children were taken as prisoners ) to the El Centro College massacre of July 17, 2016 (Dallas, Texas: Five police officers were fatally shot and seven others wounded Thursday on and nearby the campus of El Centro College in downtown Dallas during a protest over recent police shootings in Minnesota and Louisiana) ... students, police and instructors have always been vulnerable to violence. In America ... well over 100 before 1970 alone!

And then it got really bad.

Why is that so?

Why do so many people attack schools, in a country which loves its children and which believes that the road to success leads through education of the masses?

The reason is, of course, because we have never felt it 'appropriate' to protect our children with guns.  Nobody is armed at a school.  It might frighten the little children ... or the collegiates.

But now, today, everyone knows that it's not a question of "if", but "when" some insane agenda-driven madman person (I'm trying to be Politically Correct in my terminology so as to initiate any "Triggers")

[Trigger: U. Alberta definition]
(See what I mean?  You can't talk to these people unless you understand their definitions.)

Unfortunately, the people in your classroom who are likely to be armed are less likely to be those who attack you.   Yes, it's possible that they will be ... see Virginia Tech.   Which only makes the case:  

If Seung-Hui Cho had opened fire in his classroom and a few of his classmates had been armed, then it would not have been possible for him to successfully assault the "... advanced hydrology engineering class taught by Professor G. V. Loganathan in room 206... [where he] first shot and killed the professor, then continued firing, killing nine of the thirteen students in the room and injuring two others."

Do you see the part where he shot the professor first?   Don't you think that Loganathan wished that someone had shot Cho first?

Personally, I think the University of Alberta definition of "Trigger" which I referenced 4 paragraphs before is much less important than the definition that Cho was using.

Thus Endeth The Lesson: Sic Transit Gloria Magister.

UCC Was Not A 'Gun Free Zone'

UCC Was Not A 'Gun Free Zone' Because Public Colleges In Oregon Can't Ban Guns | ThinkProgress:

Yes, it was.
They're liberals, they lie .. but they are so sly and we are so stupid that sometimes we even tempted to believe them!

They say that we CAN carry guns on campus to defend ourselves, but they carefully don't mention the fly in the ointment:   Oregon State Colleges (Universities) can keep you from carrying a weapon on any campus by simply refusing you permission to "carry" inside any building (or all buildings) by simply denying you permission.  And it's legal.

Roseburg, Oregon is in Douglas County, and even the county sheriff  has said that he will not enforce certain Oregon laws which are, in his words, "not enforceable",  But that doesn't mean that the laws are not still in force.

THE PASSIVE/AGGRESSIVE EFFECT OF A NON-COMPLIANT BUREAUCRACY!

Think Progress made an effort to dispute the GUN FREE ZONE issue, which many pro-gun people have cited as the reason why the murderer chose that venue for his massacre,

On Thursday, a shooter reported killed at least 13 people and injured many others at a community college in Oregon. Just minutes after the incident, commentators sought to attribute the incident to the fact that Umpqua Community College was a “gun free zone.” “The gun free zones are the areas that tell licensed gun owners that you are not allowed to carry your weapon in this facility…If you’re going to perpetrate some act, you know that most people are not going to be armed,” CNN “military analyst” Rick Francona said a few minutes after the shooting. A retired Navy Seal, Jonathan Gilliam, also appearing on CNN, went even further. Blaming the “gun free zone” for the scope of the tragedy and adding “the only thing that’s going to stop a gun is another gun.”

Okay so far, but here's the unspoken hitch:  You NEED PERMISSION to carry a gun on campus, and you can get permission; but you have to ask for it.  Oh, like how long is THAT going to take?

Why I Carry ...and why not to say so

From time to time I have held break-room conversations with co-workers.

They knew I'm a "Gun Nut", and some of them know I have a license to carry a concealed firearm.

 But of course, my co-workers are are Academics, who are more concerned with the concept and have no idea that I had been carrying a firearm on my employer premises (a university campus, where concealed carry is illegal) since the first day of my employment .. which lasted for over 15 years.

That's another story, which I shall not visit today.  They never knew; they never asked.

In our conversations over coffee, when the subject came up (rarely), I asked them:
"Do you have a driver's license?"

All did, of course.

I asked them: "Do you carry it at all times?  Do you have it on your person now?"

They said yes.

"Why do you carry it?"

Another School Shooting .. by a student

And the press is trying, once again, to figure out "Why This Happened?"

People Go Crazy.  Go figure!  If it wasn't a gun, it would be a knife.  Or a base ball bat.

Or a hatchet.

You can't understand it; you can only prepare for the crazies.
Or expect the police to save you .. unless they are the first targets of random violence.

Marysville school shooting as student opens fire in cafeteria | Daily Mail Online:

 The shooter who opened fire at a Washington high school this morning was a popular 15-year-old boy who played on the football team and was crowned homecoming prince. Jaylen Fryberg killed one classmate and wounded four more before turning the gun on himself in the cafeteria of Marysville-Pilchuck High School at 10.39am. The horrific attack has left the entire community reeling as friends described Fryberg, a member of the Tulalip Native-American tribe, as a 'well-respected, great guy'. Authorities are now scrambling to determine a possible cause for the shooting as the four survivors fight for their lives in hospital. Pupils have told news stations Fryberg was suspended from the football team in recent weeks after being involved in a fight over 'racist' comments. Others said he had been rejected by a girl,

Gunman in fatal Oregon high school shooting likely killed self, police say | Fox News

Gunman in fatal Oregon high school shooting likely killed self, police say | Fox News:
(June 10, 2014)

A teenage gunman armed with a rifle entered a high school outside of Portland, Oregon Tuesday morning and fatally shot a student and injured a teacher before he likely killed himself, police said. The gunman, whom police have not publicly identified, was found dead in a bathroom at Reynolds High School in Troutdale. It was not clear how he died.

Another school shooting.   Students "locked down" in classrooms.  One brave (or just unlucky) teacher wounded, but continued to chivy students into classrooms.  Teenage boy with a rifle smokes himself in the boys room.

It wasn't quite a "massacre" this time, which leads one to wonder whether the murderer targeted his victim specifically, or just ran out of nerve.  Or ammunition.  At least he saved one bullet for himself, although we could wish he would have used that one first and saved the rest of us a lot of grief.

Follow-up (June 11, 2014)

Obama: Gun Law Inaction My Biggest Frustration
(Politico, June 10, 2014)

President Barack Obama said Tuesday [in reaction the Oregon School shooting - Ed.]  that it was “stunning to me” that Congress did not take real action to tighten gun laws following the late 2012 shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut.
"My biggest frustration so far is that this society has not been willing to take some basic steps to keep guns out of the hands of people who can do just unbelievable damage,” Obama said during a question-and-answer session hosted by microblogging platform Tumblr that came hours after a school shooting in Oregon.
He added that shortcomings in mental health care failed to account for the unusually high number of U.S. mass shootings relative to other nations. “The United States does not have a monopoly on crazy people,” he said.
The president said he supports the Second Amendment but still sees a need for tighter rules. “I respect gun rights but the idea that, for example, we couldn’t get a background check bill in — it makes no sense,” he said.

A New Paradigm: Students Fight Back!

1 dead, 2 wounded in shooting at Seattle Pacific University | Local & Regional | Seattle News, Weather, Sports, Breaking News | KOMO News: SEATTLE
(June 05, 2014 - 3:34pm)

 -- A gunman opened fire at Seattle Pacific University Thursday afternoon, killing one person and wounding two others before being pepper-sprayed and disarmed by students. The wounded were rushed to Harborview Medical Center, where one victim, a man in his 20s, died shortly after arrival. A 20-year-old woman is in serious condition while another man was in satisfactory condition with minor injuries, hospital officials said. A fourth person who was not wounded but traumatized by the incident was also taken to Harborview.

The gunman walked into Otto Miller Hall just after 3 p.m. and opened fire on three people, said Capt. Chris Fowler with Seattle police. The gunman then began reloading when a student building monitor pepper-sprayed the shooter. 

"The shooter began to reload his shotgun and the student building monitor inside the hall confronted the shooter and was able to subdue the individual," Fowler said. "Once on the ground, other students jumped on top of them and they were able to pin the shooter to the ground until police arrived."

[emphasis added!]

[H/T: Guns Save Lives]


FINALLY ---- someone did something to "Stop The Madness"; he dropped the shooter before he could cause more injuries and deaths.


USA Today identified the Man of the Hour:

On Twitter, many Seattle Pacific students identified the student who pepper-sprayed and subdued the suspect as John Meis, an engineering student, and called him a hero.

John Meis is indeed a hero; we need more people who are willing to step forward and DO SOMETHING to stop these madmen.  Running and hiding are responses of little value.   "These People" who do these things will not stop until they run out of targets, ammunition, or time.

Time is the critical factor, for those who want to survive.

Screw the talk about "get rid of the guns"; laws are not the answer.

Guns are not the problem. People are the problem.

And people ... such as the brave and quick-thinking John Meis ... are the answer.

We can only hope that while the other responding students had the shooter down in a dog-pile, they kicked his ass.   That's a fully legal response to an asshole trying to kill people, and as Rahm Emanuel should have said:

"Never let a satisfyingly retributive crisis-response opportunity go to waste".

MANY States Let School Employees Carry Guns

Colorado rejects bill to allow armed teachers
 (February, 2014?)

DENVER (AP) — The targeting of a Colorado schoolteacher by an armed teen last year didn't sway Colorado Democrats on Tuesday to allow teachers to carry concealed weapons on campus.

A Democratic House Judiciary Committee voted 7-4 to reject another Republican bill to expand gun rights. The bill would have allowed school districts to decide if they wanted to let teachers, not just designated school resource officers, carry concealed weapons.

Similar Republican proposals have been made before without success, but the suggestion had additional resonance after last year's shooting at Arapahoe High School, in which a student targeted a teacher.

"I can think of no safer way at this point to address school violence," said Steve Reams, a Weld County Republican running for sheriff there.

Supporters of the idea were far outnumbered by teachers and students who packed the hearing to speak against the idea.

 
A 2013 scholastic article  suggests:

Ever since that shooting [Sandy Hook] has happened there have been five states who have allowed teachers to carry guns on campus grounds. Those five state names are Oklahoma, Missouri, Minnesota, South Dakota, and Oregon. In this small essay I will be stating on why k-12 teachers should be carrying a concealed weapon, which has many advantages. Not only for the victims, also for their family and friends.

So, not EVERYONE in the world is convinced that allowing teachers to arm themselves in school is entirely a bad idea.

Further, the "FINDLAW" website (January 15, 2013) seems to have correlated a more extensive list:

Texas already allows teachers to carry firearms to work, so long as the principal approves it. And Alabama lawmakers have proposed legislation that would give schools the option of letting their teachers or administrators carry guns, reports NBC. One school board in Ohio has even voted to allow school janitors to carry guns, the Toledo Blade reports.
The full list of the 18 states that allow guns in schools with certain restrictions, according to NBC News, are:

• Alabama
• California
• Connecticut
• Hawaii
• Idaho
• Iowa
• Kentucky
• Massachusetts
• Mississippi
• Montana
• New Hampshire
• New Jersey
• New York
• Oregon
• Rhode Island
• Texas
• Utah
• Wyoming

States that are considering whether to allow guns in schools include Alaska, Florida, Indiana, Maine, Minnesota, Missouri, Nevada, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, and Tennessee. To learn more about gun laws in your state, check out FindLaw's page on State Gun Control Laws.

Georgia lawmakers pass controversial 'guns everywhere' bill | MSNBC

Georgia lawmakers pass controversial 'guns everywhere' bill | MSNBC:
(March 21, 2014 .. revised March 23, 2014)

The Georgia House passed a sweeping gun bill late Thursday night that allows firearms in bars, nightclubs, school classrooms and certain government buildings that lack security personnel or devices. Lawmakers moved the bill through the House during the last hour of the night on Thursday, meeting their midnight deadline before the end of the current legislative session. If signed by the state’s governor, the law will give religious leaders the option to “opt-in” to allow guns on their worship premises, where violators cannot be arrested or fined more than $100 each. Additionally, it could grant citizens the right to carry firearms in bars, nightclubs, libraries, sports facilities, senior citizen and youth centers, and on K-12 premises by authorized administrators and teachers.

Not surprisingly, this MSNBC article presents a rather biased interpretation of the new Georgia laws, in order to present a view which accords with the author's anti-gun prejudices.


I intend to present a different interpretation, based on my own personal PRO-gun prejudices.

Now you know the "Full Disclosure", which is more than the MSNBC author allowed you; hopefully, you will evaluate both interpretations and find your own understanding to fall somewhere in the middle ground.

Schools Pervert the Constitution to teach their OWN version

Middle School Assignment: Second Amendment Requires Gun Registration Alex Jones' Infowars: There's a war on for your mind!
"People have the right to certain weapons… providing that they register them"

 Mikael Thalen Infowars.com March 21, 2014

 A workbook handed out to seventh grade students in Springfield, Ill., states that all Americans must register their firearms in order to have a Second Amendment right.

Provided to the Illinois Gun Owners Rights Facebook page by a local parent, the required reading makes several blatantly false statements regarding the right to gun ownership.

“This amendment states that people have the right to certain weapons, providing that they register them and they have not been in prison,” the workbook states.

Along with an open ended statement regarding the right to “certain weapons,”  the assignment also excludes mention that Americans have the right to “keep” and bear arms.

The parent, speaking on the condition of anonymity, confirmed the assignment to Storyleak and detailed their child’s initial reaction.

“My son was given a workbook at school that is a compilation of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. When they covered the 2nd Amendment, he saw that they were stating that only ‘certain guns’ could be owned and that they had to be ‘registered,’ which he knew was false,” the parent said. “He bought this to my attention as he felt it was wrong to teach these things that aren’t true. I’m extremely proud of my son for his actions.”

John Farnham and "LAX"

3 Nov 13

LAX Incident of 31 Oct 13

Last week's shooting incident at LAX blatantly illustrates (once  more):

1) "Gun-free" zones are merely imaginary, symbolic barriers. The suspect in  this case was not deterred in the least.  He was eventually stopped, but only by the liberal application of lethal force (gunfire), not by wishful thinking on the part of naive liberals, nor by "gun-free-zone" signs on glass  doors!

2) The "start-to-harm" time was so short in this case that awareness, decisiveness, and a plan for immediate and dynamic exit will likely represent your only viable options.

3) We Sovereign Citizens are increasingly being involuntarily herded into  "

enforced helplessness."  We are progressively unable to remain legally armed, and therefore we are more and more unable to effectively protect ourselves.  Put another way, we are contemptuously regarded as "disposable"  by self-righteous socialists.

4) It is painfully obvious how much protection "gun-free-zone" signs provide.  Terrorists and lunatics are really impressed, as we see!

/John

John S. Farnam

_______________________________________________

Dtiquips mailing list

Dtiquips@clouds.com

Copyright 2013 by DTI, Inc. All rights reserved.

It's rare that I fully quote John Farnham .. in fact, this is perhaps the first time EVER.

But when he's right (which is "USUALLY"), he's right.

And I think that his take here is entirely correct.  No 'Thinking Person" who is aware of our cultural vulnerability could find much fault in his preposition.

Still, it raises questions that we might consider.

Should Airports be "Gun Free Zones"?  As much as I have proposed that GVZ proliferation encourages madmen to attack us, I'm uncomfortable in this specific instance.

The armed officers seem to have been present, and they acted quickly and aggressively.  The result is that the attacker was  taken down in a short period of time, and from the moment which the counter-attack began, it appears that the only other victims were among the resistors.

If the airport was NOT a "Gun Free Zone", is it likely that the attack would have been curtailed earlier?  Based on the reports, I don't think so.  The attack was actually initiated BEFORE the initial screening area, and so the madman identified, recognized, attacked, and overwhelmed the First Line of Defense quickly and efficiently.

It may have been helpful that he had already researched the defenses, and was prepared for them .. which may not be said for the defenders.

The established defense may have served one  purpose; it identified an attack before the attacker could infiltrate into the "No Defense Zone", where the public was not prepared to defend itself.  Instead, ready reaction forces (policemen) were alerted and promptly reacted to the attack.

We can reasonably be confident that the initial delay, the early alert, and the available of secondary forces lead to the early take-down of the attacker, before he was able to fully attack entirely defenseless citizens.

Essentially .. no private citizens, whatever their state if preparedness, were required to defend themselves or others.  

It's likely that no better solution was available.  We regret the loss of lives in this attack, but we must recognize that we (citizens, not officers) were protected almost as well as possible.  

How could this situation have been resolved more quickly?  We probably are all asking ourselves the same question.  The best answer is ... we WERE protected, if imperfectly.  A surprise attack of this sort is almost impossible to defend against.

My personal understanding (and I'm sure there will be a lot of "Monday Morning Quarterbacks" who will use hind-sight to critique the defenders) is that a lot of rough men put themselves deliberately in the way in order to prevent a greater loss of defenseless citizens.  I salute them all, as should you.

---

So .. what would have been the consequences if this had occurred in a shopping mall, a school, a church?

Chances are that there would have been NO first .. let alone Second .. line of defense.  The attacker would have assaulted defenseless citizens (children?) immediately, and would have run rampant.

He would have run rampant, slaughtering innocent defenseless people until (minutes or hours later) police appeared on the scene ... and then he would have killed himself.

That DOES seem to be the pattern.

The immediate solution seems to have both a first and second line of armed defense in any place of public gathering.

It's not going to happen.

Government at ANY level might semi-efficiently defend a "place" (airport, school, church, mall, etc.) but only at great expense to the tax base.  The American people are not willing, let alone able, to support this level of protection in most public areas.

LAX was fortunate, in a way, that it was so strongly defended.  And yet, still, people died there.

Insane and evil people exist.  We can't identify them until they actually attack us.  And then, it's too late for us.

The ONLY way we can defend ourselves in public areas is if the public is allowed to assume the defensive position.

No more "Gun Free Zones", please.  Allow "The People" to be armed, because we can't have armed TSA people at the front door of every school, church and shopping mall.

Or allow teachers to be voluntarily armed.  But no .. you don't want to allow guns in schools.

Allow preachers to be armed.  But no .. you don't want our spiritual leaders to be armed.

The only realistic solution to mass public murders is to allow the PUBLIC to be armed.

But no, you don't want your neighbors to be armed, either.

Okay. it appears that you are more comfortable with being murdered while shopping for a new leash for Rover, than to defend yourself.

Your choice.

For me?  I'll break the law, violated posted "NO WEAPONS ALLOWED" signs, rather than to go shopping without a firearm closely at hand.

Does that offend you?

Perhaps .. until the first sharp crack of gunshots.  

Then, I imagine you will be hoping that is a shot fired in defense of you, rather than a madman shooting at you, your family, or your neighbors.

Islamic extremists kill 30 in school attack in northeast Nigeria | Fox News

Islamic extremists kill 30 in school attack in northeast Nigeria | Fox News: POTISKUM, Nigeria –

Islamic extremists have killed 29 students and one teacher in an attack on a boarding school in northeast Nigeria. Survivors being treated for burn and gunshots wounds say some students were burned alive in the attack before dawn Saturday on Government Secondary School in Mamudo town in Yobe state. As he wept over the bodies of his two boys, farmer Malam Abdullahi swore he would withdraw three remaining sons from a nearby school. He complained there was no protection for students despite the deployment of thousands of troops since the government declared a state of emergency mid-May in three northeastern states. Dozens of schools have been torched and unknown scores of students killed among more than 1,600 victims slain by extremists since 2010.

Apparently, it's not just Chicago which cannot find a solution to violence in the streets.

When will politicians notice that laws and troops don't bring peace when only the lawless are armed and that a peaceful society is not effected by the application of gutted laws and gutless troops?