Trump

[wufan]

Really great conversation and questions taking place on this thread. Hope to add to the discussion this weekend!

[ShockCrazy]

I think arming teachers is a huge mistake for many of the reasons ShockBand mentioned. I think of myself of being extremely calm and good under stress and I have been a situation where I was on the other end of a loaded gun from someone who wanted to shoot me. I successfully kept my cool was able to resolve the situation, but I don't have much faith that if I were put in the same situation again I wouldn't just piss myself. I do not have and do not intend to get a conceal carry to "protect" myself from another situation, I don't think it's worth the escalation it leads to. No one can know how they will handle those situations until they do, and even then there are no guarantees the next time. Putting untrained people in stressful situations they aren't prepared for is a recipe for disaster. Maybe increased SRO presence solves the problem, I'm skeptical though, most of these people go in with the intention of dying(sometimes they change their minds), heck we have even had an attack at the Navy Yards, why wasn't that a deterrent?

[wufan]

I'm a teacher at the high school level.

• I can put a bullet on a target with a 9 mm.
• Would I be able to train enough (and in the right way beyond just target practice) to be able to maintain my wits and focus in an actual firefight? How often would I have to train in that way to stay sharp?
• If I'm able to get past that, would I actually be able to handle the situation correctly in the fog of a real firefight? I don't think one would know until they actually experienced it. Maybe I would perform well, maybe I would freeze and piss myself.
• If I'm able to get past that, and engage a shooter, who is likely a student (and possibly a minor under 18 in the eyes of the law) and maybe one I know or have even taught, could I pull the trigger and try and kill someone who is not a nameless stranger? What if I kill or injure an innocent person, through error on my part or unintentionally?
• If I'm able to get past that, and fire, and thinking about where I might likely be in my building, what are the chances law enforcement (who most likely will not know me) would encounter me at the time I was firing perhaps in an active firefight? Would I get a "drop your weapon" command first, or would law enforcement fire without warning?
• If I get past that, and live, how much counseling am I going to need?

BTW, our district employs the run-hide-fight system, and we do have SROs (police officers) in our building. Run-hide-fight means I as the teacher am empowered to make decisions on how to best keep my students safe. Trust me, I have thought too many times about as many "what if" situations as I can think of - where to take cover in my room (my door has floor to ceiling windows next to it like many schools are built), how I can try and take a peek outside to see if we have time to flee, what the best escape routes are, what can me and my students carry to shield or defend ourselves, etc.

As with most problems, the potential solutions are full of entangled and messy pros and cons.

If my job allowed carrying a firearm to work, I would. If I worked with children, I don’t know if I would feel the same.

Would open carrying by teachers be a better situation? Cops carry bolstered weapons in schools (and evertwhere else). It seems reasonable that willing and able teachers could carry.

ShockBand, if you were carrying a gun in school, would that somehow limit your ability to still make run-hide-fight decisions in case of emergency? I would think that it would give you additional options, even if firefight wasn’t option A, B, or C.

[Shoxcity]

We have guns to protect ourselves from that psycho!

[ShockTalk]

Here's an interesting story about "shoot first" police mentality that happened on the same day as the Florida school shooting. This incident happened in the morning, school shooting in the afternoon, just in case someone thinks the officer over reacted due to the school shooting. Near the end of the story it mentions how this incident served as a potentially ominous warning for teachers with guns in school.

[wufan]

Here's an interesting story about "shoot first" police mentality that happened on the same day as the Florida school shooting. This incident happened in the morning, school shooting in the afternoon, just in case someone thinks the officer over reacted due to the school shooting. Near the end of the story it mentions how this incident served as a potentially ominous warning for teachers with guns in school.

That’s definitely an issue. When there is “gun play” the officers won’t necessarily know who the good guys are and are not. This story sounds “suspicious” in that the “hero” was holding the gun upside down and was shot, and that he was certain the gun would go off if fired (modern firearms don’t do that).

[ShockCrazy]

That’s definitely an issue. When there is “gun play” the officers won’t necessarily know who the good guys are and are not. This story sounds “suspicious” in that the “hero” was holding the gun upside down and was shot, and that he was certain the gun would go off if fired (modern firearms don’t do that).

Why is that suspicious? That makes it all the more plausible to me, he clearly has no experience with firearms and didn't know what to do with it.

[ShockTalk]

That’s definitely an issue. When there is “gun play” the officers won’t necessarily know who the good guys are and are not. This story sounds “suspicious” in that the “hero” was holding the gun upside down and was shot, and that he was certain the gun would go off if fired (modern firearms don’t do that).

To be clear for others, he didn't want to drop the gun on the floor. I'm not experienced about "modern" hand guns, so I don't know where the line on that is as to which could and which would not go off if dropped. He was shot as he was laying the gun down, facing the officer. However, bending over to lay it down is how he was shot twice in the upper back. Suspicious or not, he was NOT the potential shooter, and in fact, was the hero who took away the gun as several rushed the individual who did shoot, but the shot went over the ones rushing him.

[ShockTalk]

Another article today about Dick's and Field & Stream.

[wufan]

Another article today about Dick's and Field & Stream.

You can buy semi-automatic rifles with 20 round capacity using the .223 caliber at Wal-Mart and at Dick’s. These weapons do not have pistol grips or retractable stocks, but...yeah.

[wufan]

Why is that suspicious? That makes it all the more plausible to me, he clearly has no experience with firearms and didn't know what to do with it.

It’s suspicious that he would be holding upside down and would still get shot (assuming the muzzle is pointed away from the officer). Either that’s not what happened, or the officer made a huge mistake. Both are equally plausible, this is why it is suspicious.

[wufan]

To be clear for others, he didn't want to drop the gun on the floor. I'm not experienced about "modern" hand guns, so I don't know where the line on that is as to which could and which would not go off if dropped. He was shot as he was laying the gun down, facing the officer. However, bending over to lay it down is how he was shot twice in the upper back. Suspicious or not, he was NOT the potential shooter, and in fact, was the hero who took away the gun as several rushed the individual who did shoot, but the shot went over the ones rushing him.

Thanks for clarifying for me! I obviously made an error with my sentance. No disagreements with anything stated; either the “hero” is not telling the whole story, or the officer screwed up royally.

This gentleman may not have known the safety of a modern firearm as evidence of him holding it upside down. Basically, these guns are rigorously tested to insure they won’t go off unless the trigger is pulled. Occasionally a new gun is developed and released that does not meet these standards, but that is extremely rare. I certainly would advise against challenging this with live ammo, but I would have no issue dropping a pistol manufactured in the last 40 years if requested to do so by the police.

[wufan]

Not real happy with what is going on in the Whitehouse these days. I’m ideologically opposed to tariffs and massive staff turnover is “problematic.”

I’m also a constitutionalist that believes in the 2nd amendment. I’m open to additional regulations that are ACTUALLY common sense (as in they address the actual issues through data analysis), but Trump proposed some level of a ban, which does not follow logical reasoning.

[Play Angry]

Gary Cohn wasn't great, but Peter Navarro definitely is not somebody you want as the President's lead advisor on fiscal and trade policy unless your views are lockstep with the AFL-CIO. It is a critical plank to the Breitbart/Bannon wing's platform though, so I expect many of those views are here to stay.

[jdshock]

Democrats are proposing an infrastructure plan that I think is really an incredibly strategic proposal. https://www.washingtonpost.com/busin...=.567777870cb9

Generally, they're saying get rid of the tax cuts on the highest earners, get rid of the corporate tax cut, and leave the middle class tax cuts. Use the revenue to fund a trillion dollar infrastructure plan. Trump has been talking non-stop about infrastructure, and when Republicans oppose the plan it makes them look like (1) they're only interested in tax cuts for the wealthiest individuals and (2) they're not serious about curbing the deficit.