No, Really....It's Not Guns:

[PoliticalChic]

I'm slowly coming to the conclusion that the best, last defense is training and arming voluntary school staff:

An opinion on gun control « Monster Hunter Nation

An opinion on gun control

Posted on December 20, 2012 by correia45

...

I am now a professional novelist. However, before that I owned a gun store. We were a Title 7 SOT, which means we worked with legal machineguns, suppresors, and pretty much everything except for explosives. We did law enforcement sales and worked with equipment that is unavailable from most dealers, but that means lots and lots of government inspections and compliance paperwork. This means that I had to be exceedingly familiar with federal gun laws, and there are a lot of them. I worked with many companies in the gun industry and still have many friends and contacts at various manufacturers. When I hear people tell me the gun industry is unregulated, I have to resist the urge to laugh in their face.


I was also a Utah Concealed Weapons instructor, and was one of the busiest instructors in the state. That required me to learn a lot about self-defense laws, and because I took my job very seriously, I sought out every bit of information that I could. My classes were longer than the standard Utah class, and all of that extra time was spent on Use of Force, shoot/no shoot scenarios, and role playing through violent encounters. I have certified thousands of people to carry guns.

...


Armed Teachers



So now that there is a new tragedy the president wants to have a “national conversation on guns”. Here’s the thing. Until this national conversation is willing to entertain allowing teachers to carry concealed weapons, then it isn’t a conversation at all, it is a lecture.

...


No. Hear me out. The single best way to respond to a mass shooter is with an immediate, violent response. The vast majority of the time, as soon as a mass shooter meets serious resistance, it bursts their fantasy world bubble. Then they kill themselves or surrender. This has happened over and over again.


Police are awesome. I love working with cops. However any honest cop will tell you that when seconds count they are only minutes away. After Columbine law enforcement changed their methods in dealing with active shooters. It used to be that you took up a perimeter and waited for overwhelming force before going in. Now usually as soon as you have two officers on scene you go in to confront the shooter (often one in rural areas or if help is going to take another minute, because there are a lot of very sound tactical reasons for using two, mostly because your success/survival rates jump dramatically when you put two guys through a door at once. The shooter’s brain takes a moment to decide between targets). The reason they go fast is because they know that every second counts. The longer the shooter has to operate, the more innocents die.

(It still took the first responders 20 minutes to enter the CT school. When seconds count, the police are minutes away.)

However, cops can’t be everywhere. There are at best only a couple hundred thousand on duty at any given time patrolling the entire country. Excellent response time is in the three-five minute range. We’ve seen what bad guys can do in three minutes, but sometimes it is far worse. They simply can’t teleport. So in some cases that means the bad guys can have ten, fifteen, even twenty minutes to do horrible things with nobody effectively fighting back.


So if we can’t have cops there, what can we do?


The average number of people shot in a mass shooting event when the shooter is stopped by law enforcement: 14. The average number of people shot in a mass shooting event when the shooter is stopped by civilians: 2.5. The reason is simple. The armed civilians are there when it started.

The teachers are there already. The school staff is there already. Their reaction time is measured in seconds, not minutes. They can serve as your immediate violent response. Best case scenario, they engage and stop the attacker, or it bursts his fantasy bubble and he commits suicide. Worst case scenario, the armed staff provides a distraction, and while he’s concentrating on killing them, he’s not killing more children.



...


When I was a CCW instructor, I decided that I wanted more teachers with skin in the game, so I started a program where I would teach anybody who worked at a school for free. No charge. Zip. They still had to pay the state for their background check and fingerprints, but all the instruction was free. I wanted more armed teachers in my state.


I personally taught several hundred teachers. I quickly discovered that pretty much every single school in my state had at least one competent, capable, smart, willing individual. Some schools had more. I had one high school where the principal, three teachers, and a janitor showed up for class. They had just had an event where there had been a threat against the school and their resource officer had turned up AWOL. This had been a wake up call for this principal that they were on their own, and he had taken it upon himself to talk to his teachers to find the willing and capable. Good for them.


After Virginia Tech, I started teaching college students for free as well. They were 21 year old adults who could pass a background check. Why should they have to be defenseless? None of these students ever needed to stop a mass shooting, but I’m happy to say that a couple of rapists and muggers weren’t so lucky, so I consider my time well spent.


Over the course of a couple years I taught well over $20,000 worth of free CCW classes. I met hundreds and hundreds of teachers, students, and staff. All of them were responsible adults who understood that they were stuck in target rich environments filled with defenseless innocents. Whether they liked it or not, they were the first line of defense. It was the least I could do.


Permit holders are not cops. The mistake many people make is that they think permit holders are supposed to be cops or junior danger rangers. Not at all. Their only responsibility is simple. If someone is threatening to cause them or a third person serious bodily harm, and that someone has the ability, opportunity, and is acting in a manner which suggest they are a legitimate threat, then that permit holder is allowed to use lethal force against them.


...


Gun Free Zones

Gun Free Zones are hunting preserves for innocent people. Period.


Think about it. You are a violent, homicidal madman, looking to make a statement and hoping to go from disaffected loser to most famous person in the world. The best way to accomplish your goals is to kill a whole bunch of people. So where’s the best place to go shoot all these people?

Obviously, it is someplace where nobody can shoot back.



...

There were four mass killing attempts this week. Only one made the news because it helped the agreed upon media narrative.



1. Oregon. NOT a gun free zone. Shooter confronted by permit holder. Shooter commits suicide. Only a few casualties.
2. Texas. NOT a gun free zone. Shooter killed immediately by off duty cop. Only a few casualties.
3. Connecticut. GUN FREE ZONE. Shooters kills until the police arrive. Suicide. 26 dead.
4. China. GUN FREE COUNTRY. A guy with a KNIFE stabs 22 children.



And here is the nail in the coffin for Gun Free Zones. Over the last fifty years, with only one single exception (Gabby Giffords), every single mass shooting event with more than four casualties has taken place in a place where guns were supposedly not allowed.

...

There actually seemed to be little panic going on in that school, the adults in charge did all they could with what had been deemed possible at that point. It seems to me that the Sandy Hook school had all the security they could: video monitoring, double door entering, office only enter. They did not allow the shooter through the first set of doors, he blasted his way in.

He shot in the administrative area and kept going. The principal, psychologist, and vice principal tried to rush him in a hall, probably diverting him for precious seconds or minutes. Two of them died. One was injured.

Inadvertently or not, the PA system forewarned teachers that something terrible was underway and procedures were followed. They kept the children from being in visual site through doors and windows. In the first grade classrooms this wasn't enough. The class that was totally eliminated was led by a 'permanent short-term sub' for a maternity leave. Was she given the same training as regular staff? Don't know. The second classroom hit was by the 'hero' teacher that used her body as a shield. 6 children still died, but by this time, 20 minutes after first call, first responders were through the doors and the shooter killed himself.

What more could be done? Adults had rushed a shooting man. Teachers did all they could to protect their kids.

What if the administrators were trained and had guns available? From all accounts he wore body armor, but a head or limb shot may have stopped some or all? What if when he busted into a room, the teacher was armed and fired?

"April 26--At a press conference by "Stop Handgun Violence" in Newton the media received a list of school shootings that occurred in 1997-98. But the media weren't told that two of these shootings were stopped by law-abiding citizens using guns long before the police arrived on the scene.

An assistant principal in Mississippi, for example, used his own handgun to stop a student from shooting other students. The principal then, with his gun, held the shooter to the ground for five minutes until the police arrived."
Mass Gun Control Group Misleads Media About School Shootings

 

[PoliticalChic]

"Thursday, 200 Utah education employees accepted an offer for free weapons training that will qualify them for a concealed weapons permit. The motivation for Shock was the answer to her own question: What could have been done to stop the gunman in Connecticut?

The training was provided by the Utah Shooting Sports Council and OPSGEAR, a weapons and tactical gear company based in North Salt Lake. The typical $50 course fee was waived for teachers, bus drivers, janitors or anyone who works in a school.

She estimated that at least 100 people called about the course after it was full.

Participants in the six-hour course left with all the documentation and training necessary to submit their applications to the state for a concealed weapons permit.

Utah and Kansas are the only states that allow permit holders to carry a concealed weapon on school property, according to the Associated Press."
Teacher training day: 200 educators take weapons course | Deseret News

 

[JiminNebraska]

I am 60 years old, and I have been hunting since I was 9 years old. I spent time in the military and I have been a responsible gun owner and competitive shooter. I have also taught young people how to shoot.
The Tragedy at Sandy Hook is terrible. Since it happened I have looked at a lot of issues concerning gun control.
I have to say this and it will probably raise a lot of hackles, but the need arises, so here goes:
No one needs an AR-15 look alike. They are not sporting weapons by any sense of the word! They can be fun to shoot I will admit to that. But no one should hunt big game with a .223.
I see no problem with banning these weapons. I don't own one and I have no desire to.
I hunt with a bolt action rifle that holds 5 rounds for big game. I am proficient out to about 400 yds. with it. My last 5 deer have been bagged well within 100 yds and closer.
I think people have lost their hunting skills, they rely on long shots and plenty of ammo.
The AR 15 platform lends itself to poor shot placement, it's only good for one thing and that is wasting ammo.
No one needs a weapon capable of holding more than 5 rounds for any purpose.
I hunt to eat, I hunt my own property, I butcher to eat everything I shoot. I practice ethical hunting and I am quite proficient as a rifle and shotgun shot.
I hope some form of regulation can take place whereas the AR-15 type weapon platform is banned for public use. No one but law enforcement or the military needs it.
I hope magazine capacities can be reduced down to no more than 10 rounds and preferably 5.
I was a member of the NRA, but I dropped my membership because I feel they are too radical.
We need to get back to basics in the shooting sports, we need to re-learn the old skills involved with hunting and we need to start being responsible to our children. If banning the "assault type" weapons is the answer to prevent this kind of needless killing that happened at Sandy Hook, I personally will vote for it and raise my opinion elsewhere.
Thank you for this opportunity.
Jim

 

[PoliticalChic]

I am 60 years old, and I have been hunting since I was 9 years old. I spent time in the military and I have been a responsible gun owner and competitive shooter. I have also taught young people how to shoot.
The Tragedy at Sandy Hook is terrible. Since it happened I have looked at a lot of issues concerning gun control.
I have to say this and it will probably raise a lot of hackles, but the need arises, so here goes:
No one needs an AR-15 look alike. They are not sporting weapons by any sense of the word! They can be fun to shoot I will admit to that. But no one should hunt big game with a .223.
I see no problem with banning these weapons. I don't own one and I have no desire to.
I hunt with a bolt action rifle that holds 5 rounds for big game. I am proficient out to about 400 yds. with it. My last 5 deer have been bagged well within 100 yds and closer.
I think people have lost their hunting skills, they rely on long shots and plenty of ammo.
The AR 15 platform lends itself to poor shot placement, it's only good for one thing and that is wasting ammo.
No one needs a weapon capable of holding more than 5 rounds for any purpose.
I hunt to eat, I hunt my own property, I butcher to eat everything I shoot. I practice ethical hunting and I am quite proficient as a rifle and shotgun shot.
I hope some form of regulation can take place whereas the AR-15 type weapon platform is banned for public use. No one but law enforcement or the military needs it.
I hope magazine capacities can be reduced down to no more than 10 rounds and preferably 5.
I was a member of the NRA, but I dropped my membership because I feel they are too radical.
We need to get back to basics in the shooting sports, we need to re-learn the old skills involved with hunting and we need to start being responsible to our children. If banning the "assault type" weapons is the answer to prevent this kind of needless killing that happened at Sandy Hook, I personally will vote for it and raise my opinion elsewhere.
Thank you for this opportunity.
Jim

1. Welcome to the board, Jim


2. "No one needs an AR-15 look alike. They are not sporting weapons by any sense of the word! They can be fun to shoot I will admit to that. But no one should hunt big game with a .223."
How about you stick to deciding what you need, and let free folks decide what they need.


3. "If banning the "assault type" weapons is the answer to prevent this kind of needless killing that happened at Sandy Hook, I personally will vote for it and raise my opinion elsewhere."
That's called 'begging the question.'
If it were the case...everyone would agree.
It isn't.

BTW..."“In mass shootings involving guns and mind-altering medications, politicians immediately seek to blame guns but never the medication. Nearly every mass shooting that has taken place in America over the last two decades has a link to psychiatric medication, and it appears today's tragic event is headed in the same direction...."
Gun control? We need medication control! Newton elementary school shooter Adam Lanza likely on meds; labeled as having 'personality disorder'


So....how about we ban the psychotropic drugs, which are known to cause both violent outbursts and suicidal thoughts.



4. "I see no problem with banning these weapons."
Well, then.....you're not a very deep thinker, are you?
Banning means passing a law.
Do you know why some folks are called 'criminals'?

That's right: they don't obey laws.

Need I go further?




5. Jim....try not to let other folks do your thinking for you.