Skip to comments.McDonnell Discussion on Arming School Officials Draws Opposition (VA)
Posted on 12/19/2012 7:45:15 AM PST by marktwain
Not completely unexpected, Governor Bob McDonnell's comment yesterday that maybe it is time for a discussion about arming some school officials is drawing fire from the predictable quarters:
Sen. A. Donald McEachin, D-Henrico, Democratic caucus chairman, said, The governor should know better than to suggest that arming citizens will solve anything.
Maybe the governor should focus on solutions that could actually have an impact, like banning the high-capacity magazines used to inflict horrific violence upon countless American cities.
The Virginia Education Association had a more measured response:
Meg Gruber, president of the Virginia Education Association, the states teachers union, said Tuesday that In the aftermath of last weeks tragic events, we need to give careful consideration to measures to keep students safe.
The Governor for his part made sense when he asked this rhetorical question:
If a person like that was armed and trained could they have stopped the carnage in the classroom? Perhaps.
We don't need their kind in Virginia!
Even at the state level the Democrats can’t help but spew the talking points. They are simply dangerous people who cannot think with any level of rationality.
If we can get competent individuals armed in our schools then our children absolutely become safer. I say let’s go with it.
What's the weasel-phrase that liberals are always so fond of using ...
Oh, yeah: "if it saves just one child's life ..."
The idiots on the left should be forced to publicly develop their collectivist argument into what their plan is for protecting each of us after they have successfully disarmed everyone. Are they seriously thinking we won’t have need for self defense because they will have collected all the guns?!? I would like to hear some people assert that they will sue for protection once they have been stripped of their rights of self defense.
Write a letter to your headmaster, principal, or superintendent.
Ask them the following:
1) During the school day, who, specifically, is responsible for defending my child(ren) from physical violence, including an assault with a deadly weapon?
2) Do you have a policy permitting or requiring the use of force, including all reasonable, legal, and proper tools of force to stop a violent assault?
3) If so, does your policy permit the use of deadly force in a situation where it is permitted under the laws of (state)?
4) if not, what are your plans to develop a policy?
Sandy Hook shooting: What happened?
Twenty-six people — 20 students and six adults — were shot and killed at
the Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut on December 14.
Details continue to emerge about what precisely happened. Below is a
timeline of events that compiles the latest reporting.
At the police station, dispatchers began to take calls from inside the
school. Authorities say the first emergency call about the shooting came in
at “approximately” 9:30 a.m.
“Sandy Hook school. Caller is indicating she thinks someone is shooting in
the building,” a dispatcher told fire and medical personnel, according to
Police and other first responders arrived on scene about 20 minutes after
the first calls.
Police report that no law enforcement officers discharged their weapons at
My comment: Anyone can kill a lot of unarmed adults and helpless small children with a ball bat in 20 minutes, let alone with any of the firearms the murderer carried. I get assaulted twice. Once by the horrible events and the grief I feel, and a second time by liberal politicians hell bent on not letting a good crisis go to waste.
I had a discussion with our church council last night at a routine meeting and brought up security, locking doors during Mass and such...
Stupid me, I had no idea that guns were not allowed in churches and schools in VA.
I’ll be calling my delegate and state senator to propose reversing this...
Call it The Children’s Defense Act...
I did find out that two of our council members (both women) are licensed conceal carry gun owners...I’ll be joining their ranks soon.
Seems like folks that believe that teachers can’t teach now want to arm them to shoot.
I can have a lot of fun with THAT quote. Like, are people beating other people over the head with these "large-capacity magazines"? Well, he didn't say people, apparently these magazines are being used to damage city property. Maybe there are people wandering around the city using these magazines to break into parking meters or something.
On a more serious note, in most stories about shootings, one person has been shot by another, and not many bullets have been fired. The capacity of the magazine has no bearing on those shootings.
Further, when someone says we should limit guns to 10 rounds, the correct response is "So, 10 dead kids is OK with you, it's just 20 is too many?"
In the aftermath of the tragedy, one one local school had some students tweeting things at each other in anger, some feared violence. The school response was to ask for police presence.
In other words, when a more direct threat of violence was perceived, the school’s best course of action was to put armed adults in the school.
So really, all we are arguing over is whether school teachers can be trusted with that responsibility. Oddly, I as a conservative think YES, while the union that represents them, and the liberals who say they are our heroes, do NOT think teachers can be trusted with guns.
To which I reply — if you can’t trust a teacher with a gun, then we should fire them, because I certainly won’t trust them to be alone with my kids if they are so untrustworthy.
when someone says we should limit guns to 10 rounds, the correct response is “So, 10 dead kids is OK with you, it’s just 20 is too many?”
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Right along with the ‘Great’ R Limbaugh statement:
“If you insist we pay 7.50 per hr minimum wage, wouldn’t everyone be better off if we made it 15? 20? 50? etc etc”
Seems like folks who think teachers can be trusted with our children, don’t think they can be trusted to handle a weapon.
Are we afraid that a teacher will go crazy in the middle of a workday and start shooting up a school? Because if the teacher goes crazy over time, there is nothing stopping the teacher from bringing a gun into school, other than the law that says they can’t.
In other words, if there are teachers who we think would shoot kids if they had a gun with them, we should fire them, because they could bring a gun to school. And remember, in a lockdown every room is secured, and the teacher is in charge. So if a teacher wanted to kill a classroom of kids, there is NOTHING stopping them. They pull their illegal gun out, report a gun, the school goes into lockdown, and the kids in their class are trapped and easily murdered.
Of course, maybe some student will do something that makes the teacher so mad they lose it in a moment. On the other hand, the teachers have scissors, and are allowed to have knives, and so could kill a student with or without a gun. We supposedly do some basic screening to make sure our teachers aren’t prone to violence, but you can’t stop every crime.
That’s why every day we read about how some teacher has sexually abused a child.
So, we have to have a “dialogue” on guns, but that “dialogue” can’t include anything that would actually be effective.
BTW, this is an excellent discussion to have.
Suppose we put an armed trained officer in each school. Response times are now 3-5 minutes, instead of 20. Of course, the officer can be identified, and we know where they are. A gunman could try to take out the officer first, whereas if random teachers were armed, the gunman would have no idea which classroom could be his death.
But frankly, most of the time the officer would have nothing to do. So why don’t we train him to do general school stuff. Heck, let’s let him teach classes. Now we have a trained officer who knows how to teach.
What is easier — training an officer how to teach kids, or training a teacher how to handle a weapon? I don’t care which we do. We could train the officer how to do janitorial work, or to be a secretary in the office, or a vice principal, or a counselor.
In other words, we could fire someone at each school, and use the money to pay for a police officer.
I would think the teacher’s union would rather have teachers trained, then to get one of their members fired.
Airplanes are gun-free zones. But we recognized the error of that, and have a marshals program so a would-be attacker knows there is a reasonable chance that someone on the plane is armed and dangerous.
They also have a program to arm the pilots. That program was too limited, because they should have extended that program to all airline personnel. Because I HOPE that the stewards on a plane have gone through as much of a background check as the pilot, since they have an equal capability of smuggling items on board and taking down a plane.
Its often been observed that perception is more important than reality. The observation is often correct. It is never MORE CORRECT than for those weve come to call liberals. I prefer statist but liberal has morphed from its classic meaning to the other end of the spectrum so Ill stay with it.
Since these folks operate almost entirely on EMOTION and FEELING, REALITY seldom allows FACTS to intrude upon the delusional worldview they have constructed and the comfort that provides them. It is that illogical, irrational and delusional mindset that prompts many of them to continue to quest after a Utopian society. The thought that such a society can and will never be achieved in a fallen world populated with failed sinners never penetrates whatever remains of their cognitive consciousness. Its a DANGEROUS WORLD and, as the liberals continue to define deviancy down, it becomes more dangerous daily.
There is another, far more sinister, level of the liberal call for gun control.
It was Mencken who offered that The urge to save humanity is most often a false front for the URGE TO RULE. He clearly had been a student of the liberal politicians of his day. Were he alive today and able to observe the likes of Chuck Schumer, Diane Feinstein, Obama and the rest, hed almost certainly have used far stronger language to frame his sage observation.
To conclude, dozens of studies reveal the FACTS concerning gun control. Those FACTS are that where firearms are widely and READILY available to law-abiding citizens, CRIME GOES DOWN! The liberals who willfully ignore the FACTUAL EVIDENCE and continue to call for gun control (i.e. the DISARMING of DECENT CITIZENS, thereby denying them the ability to exercise their God-given right to self-defense) are those about whom Mencken wrote: Their goal is NOT about preserving life. It is about the hell-bent pursuit of the impossible to achieve Utopian world where all are equal but some (thatd be THEM) are MORE equal than others (thatd be US).
There are many PRO-RTKABA videos on You Tube that your often busy lives dont allow you to find on your own. Search there for Gun Control, watch them and, more importantly SHARE THEM with the folks in your orbit.
Were in a fight. And losing will ultimately cost us much more than our right to our guns.
Not really. They want to allow volunteer teachers who are interested to have the ability to defend their students.
As a firearms instructor, it is my experience that those who go to the trouble of obtaining a permit are some of the most responsible people in society.
My experience indicates that most teachers who have CCW permits are in the top 10 percent of teachers, even though I cannot prove it.
Yes it would be a discussion to have because a next time could be a nutty school bus driver or other employee, maybe even a parent.
When the left says, "have a dialogue" they mean, "Shut up and do what we say!"
In April 2011, Virginias Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli ruled that carrying a firearm for self-protection in a church or place of worship is permissible under Virginia law. He was responding to a state legislators request to explain a state law which bars firearms in places of worship without good and sufficient reason Cuccinelli ruled that carrying a weapon for personal protection constitutes a good and sufficient reason.
So I believe you can have a gun in church.
I always was uncomfortable with the state setting a hard-and-fast rule about a church. I would have preferred the law provide that each individual church was ALLOWED to ban guns if they so chose, rather than telling them.
But that is moot with the interpretation of the Attorney General.
BTW, Ken (the Attorney General) in that ruling also said that churches could ban weapons. I forgot to mention that in my first post.
His ruling is about where I thought the law should have been anyway.
Every nutty person can get a weapon.
The issue is whether having the gun present within the school property would increase the chance of the nutty person showing up at work with a weapon.
Since it would be likely that those teachers trained to carry weapons would be teachers who owned weapons already, those teachers, should they become “nutty”, would have already had access to weapons, so the only difference is whether they have to smuggle their weapon into school, or whether they could openly have their weapon in the school. Given that it is trivial for a teacher to carry anything they want into a school, I argue there is no increased risk if they have the weapons already. This assumes training included how to properly store the weapon in a safe and secure manner.
There is of course the increased risk that the gun will be improperly stored, and therefore accessible by someone who immediately goes crazy while at school, but who would otherwise not have access to a gun. That risk seems extremely low. It might not be lower than the risk of a shooting — but the risk of a shooting is extremely low, and by that standard we should do NOTHING.
Our problem is that, regardless of the extremely low risk of your child being shot at school, the masses feel compelled to act to do SOMETHING to mitigate the risk. None of the gun control suggestions would do anything to lower the risk, certainly not in any measurable way.
BTW, part of the reason for that is you can’t really MEASURE the risk, because it is so low that it is in the noise. I can give you a percentage each year of mass murders in schools, but if you plot it yearly, the graph is random; it’s not a statistical event, it is an extraordinary event. You could ban every gun, confiscate all but 1000 of them, and you’d still have more guns not confiscated than there have been guns used in mass murders.
And of course, nobody is proposing a law to confiscate all weapons; nor would such a law be useful. If you banned the manufacture and sale of every gun, it would be decades before it made an appreciable dent in the number of weapons, since they last forever.
Banning bullets would be more effective, but there are still more than enough bullets manufactured to kill every person in our country multiple times over. And since the police would still need bullets, there would be an easy supply for criminals.
I don’t think we should allow every school employee to bring guns. I would envision a special program, like what the airline pilots had, to train and test people for the job.
But if we had such a program, I would feel confident in saying that the chances of one of our armed teachers going nutty is less than the chance of one of our armed police officers going nutty.
(I speak of schools like all the ones where mass killings have taken place — I understand a small number of schools have metal detectors and such).
Thank you so much for the better info...clears things up...my approach is if you don’t ask, they can’t say no!
I do agree there should be thorough discussions about mass killings. Knowing that there is a gun inside the school could be deterrent to some but it really goes to the motivation of the perpetrator. There are the ‘death by cop’ mindset types.
But it’s not only guns. School bus drivers could run off the cliff. Food employees could poison. It’s what do we do about those who find some vindication or pleasure in killing others. What the sane would call abnormal.
Your point on the statistical rarity is a good one. It invites a choice of what society can ‘live with’ or what society much ‘deal with’.
“Anyone can kill a lot of unarmed adults and helpless small children with a ball bat in 20 minutes”
CNN misreporting again. Actual response time was closer to 7-8 minutes or less.
Here is a transcript of the 911 calls of the Connecticut shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary school.
0935 Sandy Hook School. Caller is indicating she thinks there’s someone shooting in the building.
0936 Units responding at Sandy Hook School. The front glass has been broken. We’re unsure why.
0937 All units, the individual I have on the phone is continuing to hear what he believes to be gunfire.
0938 All units responding to Sandy Hook School at this time. The shooting appears to have stopped. The school is in lockdown.
0940 I will need two ambulances at this time.
0940 The shooter is apparently still shooting in the office area.
0941 Take exit 10... continue on Riverside Road, Dickerson Drive. Make sure you have your vest on.
0942 Last known shots were in the front of the (inaudible)
0943 We have one fatal in room one... (inaudible) received a wound to the foot...
0946 I got bodies here.
post 17 at the link:
Correction noted. At 30 seconds of beating per helpless victim, that gives us “only” about 14 dead in 7 minutes. Still horrible.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.