Journal Bill Dog's Journal: gun garbage [long] 9
Someone kind of set me off at work on Friday. Gotta work on that. She was apparently reading something about an idea to arm teachers. Or more specifically, offer concealed carry licenses for the classroom. And indicated that she was appalled by the idea.
I said one of the beauties of concealed carry is that not everyone even has to have a gun, to still have the effect of discouraging bad people.
1) First it was the old "argument" that let a person have a gun and they'll turn into a dangerous lunatic. Teachers will be letting bullets fly all over the place, endangering the children and everyone around them.
I asked, should the police be allowed to carry guns? She apparently knew where I was going with that, and needed a minute on that one, so came back to what I had offered right before, and said well:
2) How is a teacher going to conceal it, and
3) How are they going to whip it out in time?
To the first, understand that only having it on their person is not essentially required. And in fact would be a bad idea, as it was seen recently in the news an older male teacher being overpowered by a single large student. I would suggest small gun safes, installed in the walls, in every classroom. And then the teachers having the key to it, among their other keys, on their person at all times.
But then a student or students could overpower the teacher and get the keys? Yes, but beyond the factor of not necessarily knowing which key is the one (only the teachers should know this, in addition to never giving out their key ring, even temporarily for something, to a student), this is where the "concealed" part comes in. I've just added a level of indirection to it. Student(s) still don't know if the gun safe in their classroom has a gun in it or not. Heck, put a gun lock on the gun so a bad guy student has to go through the exercise of finding which key works again; this is even more time for other students to exit the classroom during the altercation and seek help from other classrooms.
To the second, they are, and they aren't. If someone bursts into your classroom and starts shooting, they've simply got the element of surprise in their favor and you aren't going to stop them. It's about discouraging it from spilling over into other classrooms. It's not about some vain attempt to ensure that absolutely no one gets killed evar, it's about limiting the damage of these, albeit rare, incidents.
Adjoining classrooms, having heard shots fired somewhere near, would proceed to open their gun safes. Those teachers who've volunteered to have guns in their classroom safes and to respond to emergencies would take them and try to track down which classroom the incident was taking place in and end it. So why then a policy of everyone opening their safe in an emergency? I would have doing so trigger [unintentional pun] a special alarm throughout the school, so that even those who couldn't hear the shots fired would be given notice. Such as to prepare to defend their classrooms or to move their students to an armed classroom (the teachers should know who's part of the program and who's not).
(But then after a school shooting then the students (while they're at the school/in those grades, that is) will know who's armed and who isn't? True, but these are rare occurrences. And slight imperfections in any plan in general doesn't overcome its overall benefit.)
4) Then it was the old suggestion that more times than not the gun will be taken away and the victim will be victimized by their own weapon.
Well that's like the argument that we shouldn't fight back against terrorism, because it only angers the terrorists and causes more people to join them. You have to fight evil; you can't just refrain from trying to curtail violence by bad guys because of all the possible side effects. The alternative is ridiculous.
5) Finally, after having offered up this usual array of Left-wing criticisms, it's claimed that she only meant that her objection was that there was no mention of them getting proper training.
So now we're back to my prior posed line of questioning. I agreed that training should go along with the policy, if it's actually implemented (yeah, right; in today's America?!). But the police for example get training, and they still panic and empty their guns shooting up the wrong vehicle or into other houses. It's just ignoring human nature to expect all or most people to not freak out when they think their very lives are in danger. But that's not a reason to disarm the police, or the populace for that matter.
Which segues into my main point on this. A distinction between (mere) citizens, and "the authorities" (which the Left wants all (white) people to obey without question), is an artificial one when it comes to this. You're not imbued with some kind of magical extra-human powers when you're deputized. You're still just a person, susceptible to all the fears and failings of a human being.
So a recap and a filling out the remaining of what the Left would have us believe about people and guns:
* In general, no one should be allowed to have a gun except members of the government. Because only they can handle it, somehow.
* Unless you're a racist cop.
* And unless you're a member of military, really, because people only join the military because they want to kill people (and not at all instead because they want the government benefits).
* If you're a celebrity, then it's also okay if you own a gun.
* Even if you're one who vocally advocates for civilians not being allowed to have a gun.
* In general, "gun owner" = "gun nut".
* If you want a gun (aside from needing it for your job, or needing it because of the possibility of crazed fans or Right-wing detractors), you're a nut.
* Even if you don't start out a nut, having a gun will make you one, somehow.
* Defending yourself (and defenseless associates) against lethal force with lethal force only makes the situation worse. [For who?]
On a personal/full disclosure note, I don't own a gun, never have, maybe never will. I grew up (and probably because I've always lived in California) not knowing anyone personally who has guns, and still don't, except for my sis and her hubby who just got one recently. I shot BB guns *once*, in summer camp, I was never in the military or law enforcement or security, guns aren't in any way a part of my life, I may never own a gun in my life, but I want that right, along with all of the others in the Bill of Rights, in case I do someday wish to have one. (I don't need to wait until I personally want to exercise a right, to care about it.)
One solution to air hijackings (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
I was going to say that that's what our Federal Air Marshall Service is for, but I did some Googling on it, and found things like less than one half of a percent of U.S. carrier flights actually have an air marshall on them (and before 9/11 there were all of around 30-something of them for the entire U.S.), and employees complaining about poor training and corrupt, malicious bosses and joke levels of standards and being over-scheduled and tired all the time (that is, those in the service who don't have the
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Interesting; like a mini version of shotgun ammo, for one's pistol. And yet the FAMS eventually abandoned it.
And I generally agree about the door system, except for the one loophole of radicalizing an existing employed airline pilot. He uses the element of suprise and the cockpit pistol to blow away the other(s) in the room, and then can crash it into whatever he pleases. We really could use sufficiently advanced auto-pilot technology, where a signal could be sent from the FAA to a given plane and it wou
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe they figured that a bullet hole in the fuselage wouldn't leak air all that fast, while taking out a couple of windows would lower air pressure enough to cause hijackers problems? Just guessing ...
As for a radicalized airline employee, once they're at the controls, even an ordinary aircraft cabin door is enough to prevent [theguardian.com] pilot suicide [al.com].
Re: (Score:1)
Hmm, yes, that might be a tactic an air marshall would use, to introduce sudden chaos into the situation during which to try to get the upper hand.
Not grokking you on the second part.
Re: (Score:2)
If you're ever in Texas... (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Thank you RG. I'll probably take my sis up on her offer before I end up moving out of California, though; she was/is a recovering Leftie, and as such had a phobia over guns, and so found an ex-Seal dude in town who gives group and private lessons, to ease her into it gently, and she's offered to cover the cost of a session for me. (She and her hubby are very well-to-do, and they pay other people to do things I didn't even know there were people for.)