BlueOregon: Armed Teachers Can Save Children's Lives

Armed Teachers Can Save Children's Lives
guest column

By JJ Ark of Portland, Oregon. JJ lives in Southeast Portland with his wife, two daughters, and a dog. He works in telecommunications and first got into politics fighting the OCA's measure 8 in 1988.

We have just lived through another horrendous school shooting. Sadly, the residents of Red Lake, Minnesota have found themselves in the same unenviable position as those in Littleton, Springfield, and Erfort, Germany.

But as terrible as the events in Red Lake, Minnesota are, it could have been worse. Far worse. Given the specter of international terrorism, and the post 9-11 awareness of internal targets, we could have faced another Beslan, North Ossetia. That event claimed 207 souls, many of them children.

I would suggest that we do one simple thing: Remove the restrictions that prohibit Concealed Handgun License (CHL) holders from carrying their personal firearms while on school property.

This is a deceptively simple act. Nothing more or less is needed to increase exponentially the safety of our schools.

This session in Salem, Ginny Burdick has proposed several laws that prior to the tragedy in Minnesota would have been considered just another piece of anti-gun legislation from a single-issue politician. In other words: Business as usual. In light of recent events, however, we have a need to re-examine newly proposed Senate Bill 335 and Senate Bill 956. Both have been referred to the judiciary, and SB335 has had one hearing so far.

A bit of background: Current state law allows CHL holders to carry their personal protection anywhere not specifically prohibited. Most of those prohibited locations are commonsense: Don't bring your firearm to court, to visit your buddy in jail or a mental institution, or to the airport. Some are a bit less obvious--state parks, for instance. The last group of places are locations on private property that specifically disallow firearms, or more commonly, weapons of any sort: Lloyd Center, my place of work, and my mom's house are great examples.

The state of the schools' ban on weapons is somewhat in the air. While the schools I checked on don't have any signs specifically posted declaring their schools a weapons free zone, the district has stated that they do not want firearms on campus, so most schools K-12 fall into that last category. At best, the possession of a legally carried firearm will get you kicked off campus, or at worse, a misdemeanor trespassing charge that would cause a CHL holder to lose his or her their right to carry, and thus defend him or her self (and those under his or her care).

SB335 would outlaw firearms not only on school property (eliminating the declared but not posted ambiguity), but, would prohibit CHL holders "from possessing firearms in or on a public building that is a public school or the site or premises of any student program or activity that is sponsored or sanctioned by a public school."

In other words, if the children from my local school were to come to New Seasons to look at how produce is sold on the open market for their field trip in economics, the holder of the CHL "packing" while shopping for eggs and kohlrabi is in violation of the law, and can be fined, arrested or both.

Broken logic has led us to the belief that if we have zero weapons allowed in our schools, we will have safer schools. The reason? While the vast majority of children will follow the rules and leave their knives, nail clippers and aspirins at home, a criminals are not inclined to conduct themselves with the same law abiding nature.

Currently, the only folks with firearms in the schools are those who are intent on creating mayhem and bloodbaths. This of course excludes our Portland Police who do carry firearms in campus. Sadly enough, they are often required on campus, but their numbers are not such that they can stay at all schools at all times. Their numbers and our budget issues will not support such a deployment.

What we have created in removing any and all weapons from schools and the places where large numbers of children congregate is a freefire zone for any murderer with a grudge against our most vulenerable citizens: Our children. With SB335, we are now considering extending that same freefire zone to any place children are present, further reducing the number of defenders for our most vulnerable citizens.

Further, the lack of firearms possession in all of our nations schools that came about post-Columbine has opened up the places where we teach our children as prime targets to those for whom terror and sorrow are stock in trade. Al Qaida would be have to be blind to not see unguarded schools full of unarmed teachers and our children as tempting and perhaps surviveable targets. This was the case in Beslan.

The goal of removing the CHL restrictions in schools is not to bypass the need for law enforcement, but rather to bridge that 3-5 minute gap that allows those deranged individuals a bloody playground to play in before law enforcement with their numbers, body armor and radios are able to arrive. A teacher who wisely locks the door to her room, has the kids get behind tipped over desks, and waits for help with her pistol drawn is the smart teacher.

I see no reason why any competent person should be disallowed the ability to protect themselves and the students under their protection. Indeed the converse is true as well; we cannot expect every teacher to bring a firearm to school along with the grading and next days assignments. In no way am I proposing we forcibly arm teachers, only allow those who wish to carry and protect their charges the opportunity to do so.

The major concerns voiced seem to boil down to one of training. It is important to note that while Portland Police are trained in the use of firearms, they rarely find themselves in this particular type of tactical situation. Police are typically confronting the shooter, not hunkering down and defending a position. We are not asking our children's caretakers to confront the source of the trouble. We are asking them to do their best to protect our children.

Without question, there is a valid fear of stray shots hitting innocent kids in a fire fight. While that would be horrible, it is important to note that we are not planning for a Rose Court event. If the teacher is forced to hunker down behind locked doors, all the "safe schools" plans have been proven worthless, and children are dying. At that point, there is already a probability of stray bullets. Truthfully, a teacher who fires maybe once or twice at someone coming through the classroom door is not making things much worse.

This is not a costly solution. It is a no-cost solution. I see no need to issue any sort of special CHL license. The current holders of a CHL are with our children already. They are already sitting next you, riding the Max; they are at your favorite restaurant, and at your local café. We haven't seen a wave of shootings perpetrated by CHL holders, despite 1 in 20 adults in Multnomah Country possessing this license. We are not asking these teachers to do anything more than they would wisely do at home: hunker down with the family behind, hand off the 911 call to a competent person, and wait, prepared for the worst. By both Oregon law and common sense, using that firearm is the last resort. In both cases.

I can hear the cries of fear for our children's safety now. The gnashing of teeth. The fear for our children's safety. I acknowledge that fear completely. I have to. I have two children of my own. However, we must keep in mind that the CHL provided for in our state offers up a more stringent screening process than most teachers in our state receive. Those that carry their weapons on their person legally have yet to be involved in crime. They have had their fingerprints taken to facilitate the federal, state and local background checks. The police know who they are, and the CHL holder is unlikely, based upon that knowledge, to take up a life of crime.

Our teachers deserve the right to protect themselves and their pupils. Our children deserve the protection afforded by those who we entrust with their safety. It is time for us to seriously consider this idea.

April 9, 2005 | guest column | Comments (153 so far)
Permalink: Armed Teachers Can Save Children's Lives

Share on Facebook

Comments

Posted by: Edward | Apr 9, 2005 5:01:53 PM

I am aghast at the idiocy of this plan. The inherent dangers of every teacher packing a gun to school far outweighs the supposed "benefit" of the proposed solution. How many teachers have had personal effects stolen from them while they were at work? Tons. Even from places that were locked, like their desk, closet or even from their locked classroom. Allowing more guns around is just a recipe for more people to get shot.

I can just see the page two story now, "Teacher who shot student cleared of wrongdoing." Mr. Jones, teacher at your kids' school was cleared of wrongdoing for shooting one of his pupils. "The kid was very belligerent and unreasonable and he pulled out something metallic. I thought it was a gun and shot him to prevent a violent rampage. Turns out it was his cell phone, but better safe than sorry."

Now, if you want to talk about allowing a school guard to have some type of weapon(s), maybe pepper spray or a stun-gun, you'll get a much better response out of me. But teachers packing heat? What are you smoking?

Posted by: LT | Apr 9, 2005 7:11:58 PM

Some high school boys are over 6 feet tall and large. Some teachers (esp. young ones) are closer to 5 feet tall and closer to 100 lbs. And yet they could never be physically overpowered if they had a gun?

How could 1 guard, even with a gun, have overpowered the 2 boys who shot up Columbine high school?

Didn't the kid who did the Red Lake shooting steal his relative's gun and bullet proof vest?

I just don't see how allowing concealed weapons in public buildings (churches, schools) solves the problem of anyone willing to shoot up a place.

It would seem to me that Sen. Morrisette should be the authority on this, though, not the author of this guest opinion. After all, he was Mayor of Springfield when the Thurston H.S. shooting happened. Would one armed guard have stopped a kid who had already killed his parents?

Posted by: Tenskwatawa | Apr 9, 2005 7:28:33 PM

I can hear the cries of fear for our ... safety now.

Hear this: You are the one senseless in fear, that is your mental illness talking to you.

Your fear-mongering is Liars Larson on spellcheck, but the lies are still in it and it is still a lie. These are cries for your rehabilitation, in arrested public custody because you no more get to walk around unregistered in your neighhood with your amygdalic mental dysfunction than a predatory psychosexual dysfunctional does.

It is not contagious, your sickness is in your head, and maintained there by the closed logic showing in what you wrote, it is not transmitted to others by your wording of your headbucket of worms.

On the other hand, it could be just a set up, or a empty head on a stick raised up in a space-wasting thread to draw fire and gauge where it's coming from. Here's a shot across your brow: We consider a public safety measure to arrest you, detain you for mental evaluation, profiling and medication if appropriate, and ... you are tagged ineligible to own a gun unless supervised.

Fear-inflating psychology cases are the cancer cells in society, they never stop eating at themselves, never stop doubting their senses and being spooked, (particularly by expressions on ordinary people's faces which they can't decode socially and appropriately, since the pathology of the fear abnormality is in the part of the brain where facial-features decoding and interpretation is processed).

Such cases are out there, (and increasingly prevalent with violence-depicting media saturation -- and sextremes-depicting, that's the other emergent category of mental misapperceivers out there), and this post is a pretty good copy of one but not the real thing. I don't believe it for a minute, it's a set-up, the good fluency of the grammar contradicts the stupidity of the thought in it.

Posted by: doretta | Apr 9, 2005 7:56:06 PM

It would seem to me that Sen. Morrisette should be the authority on this, though, not the author of this guest opinion. After all, he was Mayor of Springfield when the Thurston H.S. shooting happened.

I knew when I saw the subject of this thread it would get weird fast. Being an elected official in an area when an event happens makes you an authority on that sort of event? I guess that makes Christine Gregoire a vulcanologist and George Bush an expert on how to prevent terrorist attacks? (Were it only so!)

It seems entirely possible that if all teachers kept guns on their persons and were trained in using them, you might be able to cut down on the number of casualties in Columbine-type incidents in progress.

Unfortunately, as has been pointed out, it may be even more likely that with so many more guns in schools those guns themselves would end up being available for creating mischief--the most likely kind of mischief involving a gun being people getting shot.

It may even be that there would be more Columbine-type incidents (think of the romance of a shoot out with that hated teacher). We've already got kids on the streets of my fair city who treat real guns like they are the video game versions. A reported 19 empty shell casings were found in front of the local Fred Meyer after one recent incident. I question the wisdom of normalizing carrying guns in schools.

Posted by: Jack Bog | Apr 10, 2005 3:23:16 AM

Wait. April Fool's Day was last weekend.

Posted by: Trey | Apr 10, 2005 4:36:34 AM

When I saw the heading for this post, I thought for sure there MUST be a misprint. Unfortunately, I soon discovered there was no misprint at all.

I agree with all the comments so far. This is an absolutely ludicrous idea. We don't need MORE weapons in schools, we need LESS.

Others have suggested potential bad headlines. Here are two more:

Teacher Shot with Own Weapon
Third grade Teacher Bill Jones was killed today when an angry student wrestled Jones' gun away from him and shot him.

Two Students Die in Gunfight
An armed student entered X High School and was intercepted by math teacher Bill Jones. In an exchange of gunfire between the gunman and the teacher, two students walking down the hall were hit by stray bullets. Both died at the scene.

Do you genuinely want to see headlines like this?

Posted by: Cicolini | Apr 10, 2005 7:50:02 AM

This guy is a dangerous idiot who has perhaps seriously misread J. Swift.

+++

Portland Police Use Taser on 11-Year-Old

On October 4, Portland Police officer Jonathan Hunt (#39646) used a Taser to temporarily paralyze an 11-year old student at Buckman elementary school in Portland. Considering that the weapons have been involved in over 70 cases where suspects have died and more information is coming out questioning their safety, Portlanders should be very concerned.
According to the October 8 Portland Tribune, the boy was "tearing up" a classroom, breaking windows and "lashing out" at teachers with a metal compass (presumably the pointy tool used for drawing circles and not a directional magnetic device). The good news, if it can be called that, is that the first officer on the scene, School Police officer Gene Gillock, backed away when the boy "threatened to stab him," whereas in other circumstances police might have shot at him (see shootings article).
Explaining her decision to authorize the use of the 50,000 volt electroshock device, Capt. Dorothy Elmore told the Tribune, "We couldn't get close enough to use pepper spray, and with the sharp object...we couldn't feel safe tackling him." It is still not clear why the staff of psychiatric hospitals are able to restrain unruly patients without the use of guns, batons and Tasers but the Police are so dependent on these weapons that they will use one on a child.
The Bureau's tentative new policy on Tasers does encourage officers to "give consideration" to other options before using the weapon on the elderly or young people. However, Tasers are considered "less lethal," not "nonlethal," as evidenced by Multnomah County Sheriff's Deputy Paul McRedmond and Portland Police Sgt. Brian Schmautz, both of whom say that civilians brandishing the new "Citizen Taser X26" could be shot by police (KATU-TV, September 16 and Oregonian, September 28).
Along those lines, the New York Times revealed that a study touted by Taser International as proving Tasers safe may actually say the opposite. The November 26 article cites Air Force scientist Dr. James Jauchem's research showing that repeated Taser shocks cause acidosis, a dangerous condition in which the pH of the blood drops, and which could lead to death. The Arizona Republic outlined 71 cases in which suspects died after being hit by Tasers between Sept. 28, 1999 and the article's publication on September 15th of this year (the total was 77 as of December 17). While a few of the deaths were linked to the Tasers by medical examiners, manufacturer Taser International continues to insist they are not responsible and "the deaths resulted from drug overdoses or other factors and would have occurred anyway" (NY Times).

Posted by: cc | Apr 10, 2005 7:57:33 AM

The whole idea is.......... I'm not even sure of the word I'm looking for. Horrific. Absurd. Ludicrous. Stupid. A word that encompasses all of those words... that's the word I'm looking for.

Here's the deal... there are an average of four school shootings worldwide per year (most of them in the US of course). Yes, four is far too many - one is too many. But the point is that when you think about how many schools there are - I have no idea how many that'd be. Thousands? The threat is so incredibly minimal. Kids are in more danger on their way to and from school than they are AT school.

And by that account, they're probably in more danger when they go with their parents to the bank. Guns find their way into more banks than they do into schools. Should we arm all of the bank tellers, too?

I'm not saying we should ignore high-risk students or pass off someone's threats or cry for help as teen angst. But the last thing we want to do is arm teachers or allow teachers to arm themselves - that just puts more guns in the hands of these disturbed students. Because when the teacher pulls out her little .22 pistol to defend herself and her students against a crazed student with a semi-automatic weapon, not only is she surely dead, but the shooter has now added another weapon to his/her arsenal.

There's nothing pretty about what happened in Minnesota, Columbine, Jonesboro, Springfield... and I'm sure most of us could name more. But adding more guns to the mix will not prevent the problem. The problem in most cases is a student who has some serious emotional problems who has flown under the radar for far too long. The student usually wants to die. It's suicide. The problem lies with each of these kids and their individual problems that need to be noticed and addressed by parents, teachers, clergy, etc. Then you take suicidal kids and give them access to more weapons? Somehow each of these kids managed to get ahold of guns in the first place! Kids aren't supposed to get guns. THAT's a problem that needs fixing.

Other threats to kids at school - drugs, alcohol, unprotected sex. All of these can and do kill kids. These problems are also waaaaaaaaaay more prevolent than guns/shootings. Unfortunately none of those are newsworthy unless it's a story on 20/20.

This idea is crazy. It's like taking a band-aid and soaking it in salt-water before putting it on a papercut. Not only isn't it going to fix the problem, it's going to make it worse. The more I think about it the more I'm hoping you're just playing devil's advocate... because I just can't see how you'd think this is a good idea.

Posted by: JJ Ark | Apr 10, 2005 8:30:34 AM

First off, I want to thank everyone for responding. I intend to respond to each and every concern in a thoughtful manner. As such that will take time. In order to track the responses, I will be responding to the concerns by the name of the poster.

Edward writes:
>The inherent dangers of every teacher packing a gun to school far outweighs the supposed "benefit" of the proposed solution.

Edward: please go back and read the article again: "In no way am I proposing we forcibly arm teachers. " I don't believe there to be any benefit to arming ALL teachers. Merely letting those with a CHL, who have passed the requisite background checks and CHL safety and concealment training course bring with them the handgun they already carry during their offhours. I know my father and stepmother wouldn't be bringing a firearm into the school. Most teachers wouldn't.

>How many teachers have had personal effects stolen from them while they were at work? Tons.

I am not advocating we place a gun in every room, locked up in a glass case ala "In Case Osama Shows His Ugly Mug, Break Glass". These guns would be 1. on their person, physically, and 2. concealed. Not open carry, with is quasi-legal, but dubious in the intelligence department---kinda like a big "hey, mug me!" sign. If you think that teachers are gonna get jumped because they *might* have a gun, then we don't have a school. What you are describing isn't my local elementary school, but a prison riot in the potential.

>Allowing more guns around is just a recipe for more people to get shot.

eh? How do you figure? When was the last time you heard of a CHL holder getting in a firefight with someone? (insert sound of crickets here). Like it or not, 5% of Multnomah county residents have a CHL permit. By your logic, we should have a lot more folks getting shot.

>Mr. Jones, teacher at your kids' school was cleared of wrongdoing for shooting one of his pupils. "The kid was very belligerent and unreasonable and he pulled out something metallic. I thought it was a gun and shot him to prevent a violent rampage. Turns out it was his cell phone, but better safe than sorry."

No, not better safe than sorry, and that teacher wouldn't be cleared of wrongdoing. Under Oregon State Law, what that teacher did was illegal. He will go to jail, at *least* until the Grand Jury hears the case, and will probably end up in prison. No where in my post was I asking for a change in the way we approach defense and the way Oregon treats that defense. Having a CHL does not give someone a "Licence To Kill"...only being 007 does that. What it does give you is the ability to legally pack an effective tool. Period.

Additionally, if you are seriously concerned that teachers would be doing such things against students you might want to look into your screening process for those who are taking care of our children for 8 hours a day. That doesn't sound like any of the teachers I know, but perhaps you know some I don't.

>Now, if you want to talk about allowing a school guard to have some type of weapon(s), maybe pepper spray or a stun-gun, you'll get a much better response out of me.

No, No, No, and I will tell you why. Oregon law afford our folks the right to defend themselves and the folks under their care as long as certain conditions are met: If you are attacked with deadly force, and cannot get away, you are allowed to meet that deadly force with deadly force of your own. You first have to try to get away...barricade the door, hide, try to leave school (if it is safe). If those courses of action are not fruitful, then you are legally allowed to use deadly force to *remove the threat*. In other words: shooting them, whacking them over the head with a book, etc. If things have gotten to the point that lethal force is being considered, then things are already way out of hand, kids and adults are dying, and putting a bottle of aerosolized hotsauce and a hopped up cattle prod in the mix wouldn't be much of an effective tool. Don't get me wrong: Pepper spray is GREAT, but in a crowded lunchroom, it can have some ugly effect. Stun guns LOOK impressive, but sometimes have to be used 5 or 6 times to really STOP the assailant. Taser weapons (the kind the police use) miss, and have some of the same problems as stun guns.

If I was expected to stop a Columbine single handed, like THE school guard with a Taser--I have to assume we are talking about 1 per school here since we aren't looking for a prison to house our children in, and we can't afford a police officer in every room. I would want the most effective tool possible. Handgun vs. Taser. Fact: One has a distance of 25 yards or so (accurately), and the other about 12 feet. You tell ME who is going to win that battle. Additionally, if that security guard is armed with *anything*, they will be target #1 by the student shooter intent on a rampage. Kill the guard, and then get on with their business at the school.

Further, we have the issue of Less Lethals and abuse. Bear in mind, they aren't NON Lethals. People die from tasers, they die from pepper spray. But folks forget that these tools are not NON Lethals. They become some sort of punishment in the minds of the folks that carry them. Recently A suspect was taser'd in order to get him to give a urine sample. He gave it. Those things HURT. I *can* see a mentally ill teacher using a taser on a kid that they think might be bringing a gun to bear which turns out to be a cell phone. I can't see a teacher doing the same thing with a gun, and statistics seem to prove out my hunch. Look at the extreme incidents of tasering, and look at the lack of CHL involved shootings. you tell me which is safer.

Lastly, I wanna make a comment on Tools: You don't go to chop firewood wood with a paring knife. You don't go to make scrambled eggs with a toothpick, and you don't bring a knife to a (known) gunfight. You just don't. Do you give the teacher a room with no roof to teach school? Do you give them a mathbook without pages to teach algebra? No, you give them the whole book. You give them access to the tools that are appropriate for the job at hand. These people are are in charge of our CHILDREN. Our future. The mere fact we are having to discuss them bringing a toothpick to make scrambled eggs or a paring knife to chop firewood is ludicrous. You want them to defend YOUR child with a toothpick? A pencil?

Posted by: Kevin Sudbeck | Apr 10, 2005 8:32:44 AM

Talk about crazy. This from the liberal democrats. Will the teacher be required to join the NRA like they have to join the NEA? When I was a kid, we brought guns to school. But they stayed in the truck and we went hunting after school. But I guess southern Oregon is different from the north. Although we were immature, we were taught by our responsible parents that shooting someone was wrong.
As a military officer, who is responsible for an armed security force, what you suggest will result in deaths. In the military, the consequences for just losing a round is an article 15 hearing and revocation of their authorization to carry a weapon (ie they lose their job). There are not strict enough controls in place to accomplish this safely within a school system.
Additionally, just what I need is a liberal teacher indoctrinating my children with a weapon. No thanks. Years ago, I believe the Russians, Japanese and Germans showed the fallacy in this manner of education.

Posted by: afs | Apr 10, 2005 8:48:31 AM

Oh... greaaaaat. Armed gym coaches. They would be the only ones who would actually bring them.

Posted by: JJ Ark | Apr 10, 2005 8:49:14 AM

LT writes:

>And yet they could never be physically overpowered if they had a gun?

Two things, LT:

1. What kinda school is this that we have teachers being *overpowered* by students. If this is the state of education, can we go back to the drawing board.

2. Concealed is just that. Concealed. Hidden. Not open for view. If the kids KNOW you have it, the point is mute.

>How could 1 guard, even with a gun, have overpowered the 2 boys who shot up Columbine high school?

VERY good point. I doubt that one guard could have. But that *isn't* what I am suggesting here. Please reread what I wrote:

"A teacher who wisely locks the door to her room, has the kids get behind tipped over desks, and waits for help with her pistol drawn is the smart teacher."

What I *am* suggesting is that the teachers do the smart thing and bridge the gap between the time the shooting occurs and the time the police arrive in numbers.

and FWIW, Columbine wasn't stopped by the Police, Red Lake wasn't stopped by the Police. Neither was Springfield. Springfield was weird, tho...it was stopped by a bunch of kids that were smart and thought things through. I am asking that we do the same, before bullets start flying.

>Didn't the kid who did the Red Lake shooting steal his relative's gun and bullet proof vest?

Yes. Again, this isn't a 100% cure. I don't have that cure. You don't have that cure. What I am suggesting is that *in this scenario* we protect the maximum numbers of students possible with the most effective tools possible.

>I just don't see how allowing concealed weapons in public buildings (churches, schools) solves the problem of anyone willing to shoot up a place.

Well, how is the opposite working out for us? Shall we continue with our current course of action? How *many* deaths are acceptible to you? 30 a year? how about 5? how about 1? How long shall we sit still, not worrying about the effect this is having on our society? Kids worried about going to school, and their safety when they get there.

Oh, I don't ahve any illusions: this plan will not STOP all school shootings. don't get me wrong, there will undoubtedly be deaths when they occur (and we can all agree that they don't seem to be stopping). But at the moment we aren't doing anything to dissuade them from occuring.

>Would one armed guard have stopped a kid who had already killed his parents?

maybe. maybe not. we have no way of knowing one way or the other. A gun doesn't give someone mystical power. Any more than a hatchet or a machete. Or a pencil. It is a tool. What DID stop the shooters were kids that knew that sooner or later, Kinkel had to reload.

Posted by: JJ Ark | Apr 10, 2005 8:56:38 AM

Tenskwatawa writes:

>Hear this: You are the one senseless in fear, that is your mental illness talking to you

Cicolini writes:

>This guy is a dangerous idiot who has perhaps seriously misread J. Swift.

Please have the decency to respond without personal insults. Belittling folks because they have put forward an idea isn't the type of discourse I am used to seeing from dinezens here.

I have not read J. Swift. But the Taser article is a good example of less-lethal abuse. Thanks for proving my point!

Posted by: afs | Apr 10, 2005 8:57:48 AM

Here's a story for those of you considering arming ex-jocks...

"Ex-NFL Player Saw Siegfried, Roy As Threat

Sunday, April 10, 2005 8:47 a.m. ET

LAS VEGAS (AP) -- A former pro football player accused of shooting at the compound of Siegfried & Roy wanted to "warn the world" of the threat posed by the illusionists, according to a psychiatric report.

The evaluation was performed by psychiatrist Norton Roitman after Cole Ford was charged with firing several shotgun blasts at the Las Vegas home of entertainers Siegfried Fischbacher and Roy Horn.

Ford, 32, a former kicker for the Oakland Raiders, has been ruled incompetent to stand trial and sent to a mental health facility for treatment.

Ford maintained he never intended to harm anyone and his actions were intended to "warn the world of the illusionists' unhealthy danger to them and to animals," according to the report published in the Las Vegas Review-Journal.

"While watching Siegfried and Roy, he had a sudden realization that what was wrong with the world was linked to the illusionists' treatment, dominance and unhealthy intimacy he saw them having with their animals," Roitman wrote.

Ford told Roitman that he thought the entertainers' contact with their animals was sexual and related to the development of viruses such as AIDS.

"He felt they threatened (the) world, and he began to figure out how he could stop them," Roitman said.

No one was hurt in the Sept. 21 drive-by shooting, but police said shotgun pellets shattered windows and left a hole in an outside wall at the magicians' home.

Roitman said Ford was not paranoid schizophrenic but had shown symptoms of the illness...."

http://wireservice.wired.com/wired/story.asp?section=Breaking&storyId=1016788&tw=wn_wire_story

Posted by: JJ Ark | Apr 10, 2005 9:05:43 AM

doretta writes:

>Unfortunately, as has been pointed out, it may be even more likely that with so many more guns in schools those guns themselves would end up being available for creating mischief--the most likely kind of mischief involving a gun being people getting shot.

I know it seems counter intuitive, but that just doesn't seem to be the case, Doretta. Comb through news reports and see if you see the RASH of shootings caused by the folks with CHL's. It just doesn't pan out number wise.

And we have to consider that there are ALREADY guns in schools. Cleveland has at least one police officer onsite most days when I drive by. so the guns are already there, but no mischief. Unfortunately, tho, we can't keep cops onsite 100% of the time.

While I would LOVE to disarm schools forever. I would personally love a magic machine that removes all firearms when everyone walks in the building. I am willing to fork over a months salary to anyone willing to invent that machine...any takers? Safe School rules only work when EVERYONE pays attention to those rules. Unfortunately, kids like Kinkel don't. When that happens they are the only ones with guns. No one else has the tools to defend themselves against them.

Posted by: afs | Apr 10, 2005 9:21:31 AM

New Harvard University Study Shows Direct Link Between Gun Availability And Gun Death Among Children

Most Comprehensive Study Ever Conducted on Impact of Gun Availability Sends Simple Message: IT'S THE GUNS, STUPID

Louisiana Among Top Five in Nation in Gun Ownership—Louisiana Children More Likely to Die by Firearms Than Children in Low Gun Ownership States

WASHINGTON, DC—A new study from the Harvard School of Public Health (HSPH) shows that children, five to 14 years old, are dying at dramatically higher rates in states with more guns. The article, "Firearm Availability and Unintentional Firearm Deaths, Suicide, and Homicide among 5-14 Year Olds," appears in the current February 2002 issue of The Journal of Trauma.

Read the rest of this story.

[Editor's note: Remainder of copyrighted story deleted, and link inserted.]

Posted by: Trey | Apr 10, 2005 9:41:20 AM

Almost EVERY school shooting incident I've read about involves one or more students who were bullied and/or ostracized by other students. For me, THIS is the area that needs to be addressed -- adding more weapons to the mix doesn't mitigate this situation at all.

The point of any type of preventative action is to PREVENT the action BEFORE it has the opportunity to transpire. I think teachers should receive more specific training that will help them identify students who are being ostracized by their classmates and to work with these students on more appropriate ways to deal with their anger and feelings of rejection.

Allowing teachers to be armed addresses the situation too far along in the process. It's a strategy that points to the failure of educational staff toward addressing the situation BEFORE it becomes an unmanageable problem.

Posted by: Steve Bucknum | Apr 10, 2005 10:29:17 AM

My son recently became a teacher. It is still a recent enough event that I remember the classes he took, and have seen his transcript. There is no class in gun safety on that transcript.

I would hope that teachers carry around respect, regard, and caring for their students - not guns.

Our schools, forced by the Federal Government, put into place an anti-weapon policy in the 1990's. Students were not allowed to carry even the smallest pocket knife, or nail clippers with that tiny 1.5 inch blade. Thurston / Kip Kinkle happened after that policy.

If making more and more and more rules in our society actually solved a problem, then the problems would have been solved long ago. That paradigm is worn out, tired, and pretty much pointless. Another rule can't solve this problem, in fact I fear teachers packing guns will make the problem of student deaths from fire arms worse not better.

What we have here is a complete buy into the Republican frame of reference on this problem. Ironically, their frame of reference is that this is a "gun" debate. The more accurate "frame of reference" is that this is a social services debate. What has happened in each one of these student outbursts with weapons in schools is that mentally unbalanced youth, who were in each case already known to the authorities as having problems, were given inadequate services. Kip had a juvenile record, but his probation officer had little time or resources for him. At least one of the boys in Colorado was known to the under staffed and overworked authorities. The boy in Minnesota was known to mental health folks - who only had time to throw medications at him. These events involving guns have underlying social system delivery issues that the Republicans would rather divert into a debate on guns.

And we fell into that trap.

Posted by: doretta | Apr 10, 2005 11:07:03 AM

JJ,

Have you seen anyone here ranting about the danger of CHLs in general? No, much to my surprise, you haven't.

Apparently it surprised you so much you decided to refute that argument anyway. Well, don't change the subject.

The statistics about CHLs in general are irrelevant. NO school-aged kid is the holder of a CHL. For good reasons, they don't give CHLs to anyone under 21. What you are talking about is introducing more guns into environments filled with school-aged kids.

Some of your arguments are simply ludicrous. Do you really think that over time it wouldn't be common knowledge among students who was packing and who wasn't? Some of their information might be wrong but it would be right often enough.

I've already granted you your central contention, Yes, when a mentally ill kid like Kip Kinkel gets a gun fixation and a death wish and takes firearms to school people are probably more likely to die in that school on that day if he has the only guns than would if the teachers were armed.

However, as has been pointed out, that ignores all the schools and all the other days of the year when that doesn't happen and ignores what introducing a lot more guns into them might cause. Those other days and other schools are many orders of magnitude more numerous.

Please don't presume you know more about the politics and the facts and figures of the CHL in Oregon than I do. Not only have I followed all that fairly closely for years, I have twice taken firearms training that meets the competency requirements for qualifying for a CHL in Oregon. There's been a CHL in my wallet since the early 90's.

Posted by: doretta | Apr 10, 2005 11:18:05 AM

Somehow I lost the last paragraph of my previous post.

It was:

I nevertheless question the wisdom of introducing more guns into the school environment.

Even more dangerous than the guns themselves is the idea that the way to solve the school shooting problem is to be able to shoot back. As Steve pointed out, that only leads us to paying even less attention to the solutions that should be our first choice. Armed teachers wouldn't have saved Kip's parents, more attention to the real issues might have.

Posted by: torridjoe | Apr 10, 2005 11:31:25 AM

Interesting that you bring up Beslan as an object lesson. One of the most tragic parts of that story is that it's believed armed civilians--ie, parents of the children--casued the final killings of the hostages--ie, their children.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/3634114.stm

This report doesn't mention it, but I have read others that attributed deaths of both children and law enforcement directly to armed civilians.

Fighting violence in schools with more guns is like fighting pregnancy in schools with porn.

Posted by: bungalowbill | Apr 10, 2005 11:35:15 AM

Finally someone with the courage- against overwhelming popular opinion, and in the face of logic- to argue for MORE GUNS IN THE CLASSROOM.

Posted by: JJ Ark | Apr 10, 2005 1:49:30 PM

Trey writes:

>I agree with all the comments so far. This is an absolutely ludicrous idea. We don't need MORE weapons in schools, we need LESS.

And how do you proppose we accomplish this? We already have metal detectors at some schools, random locker searches, or in some cases, no lockers at all. We have zero tolerance policies that disallow nail clippers, asprin and handguns.

Again, if ya gots the magic machine that I want to see installed, the one that automagically disappears the firearms from everyone when the step in the door, pony up. Until then, we have open targets for any psychopath who wants to take out their grudge.

>Do you genuinely want to see headlines like this?

Do you really believe that those headlines are somehow *worse* than the ones we already see 3 or 4 times a year?

Do YOU want to be the person writing a headline that a CHL carrying teacher might have been able to stop the death of even one kid, but could do nothing cuz they didn't have their firearm on their person? Does that make a child any safer?

We can wring our hands and continue our present course, or do a radical change, give our teachers the tools to mitigate or stop the damage, and go from there. I am betting on the intelligence of our teachers.

Posted by: JJ Ark | Apr 10, 2005 1:49:30 PM

Trey writes:

>I agree with all the comments so far. This is an absolutely ludicrous idea. We don't need MORE weapons in schools, we need LESS.

>Do you genuinely want to see headlines like this?

Do you really believe that those headlines are somehow *worse* than the ones we already see 3 or 4 times a year?

Posted by: JJ Ark | Apr 10, 2005 2:10:39 PM

CC writes:

>The whole idea is.......... I'm not even sure of the word I'm looking for. Horrific. Absurd. Ludicrous. Stupid. A word that encompasses all of those words... that's the word I'm looking for.

Ok...so my idea is bad...what is yours?

>The threat is so incredibly minimal. Kids are in more danger on their way to and from school than they are AT school.

The problem we have with school schootings is that they get a lot more press than they should, right? I think we both agree as to the statistical improbability of a school shooting at the schools in our area. However, that does not absolve us of a responsibility to protect our young. We aren't doing that now.

> Should we arm all of the bank tellers, too?

Having never worked at a bank, I don't know if they do or don't. I *DO* know that most big banks have armed guards. Why is it that we protect our money more than we protect our children? (side note: this isn't germain to the topic at hand, but it *is* something I marvel at whenever I see armored cars and school buses side by side at a stop light).

>I'm not saying we should ignore high-risk students or pass off someone's threats or cry for help as teen angst.

We are LUCKY if someone even notices their cries for help. folks, we don't have the money in our schools to apply a solution like this. It just isn't there. We can pie in the sky all we want, but unless we start taking kids and putting them all on drugs, we can't anticipate every child's actions.

>Because when the teacher pulls out her little .22 pistol to defend herself and her students against a crazed student with a semi-automatic weapon...

What makes you think that the person who is carrying that mouse gun can't hit a penny at 10 yards? And is that teacher better off *NOT* having a gun and getting killed the same?

>There's nothing pretty about what happened in Minnesota, Columbine, Jonesboro, Springfield... and I'm sure most of us could name more. But adding more guns to the mix will not prevent the problem.

I agree 100%. I don't think it would prevent the problem. Not realistically. It might dissuade some kids from starting something, but the truth is:

>The student usually wants to die. It's suicide.

Perhaps we can shortcircuit some of the suffering of some of the parents. Or maybe even large-scale suffering. One can hope. It is clean *now*, however, that we are doing none of the above. plates of suffering all around due to inaction on our part.

>Somehow each of these kids managed to get ahold of guns in the first place! Kids aren't supposed to get guns. THAT's a problem that needs fixing.

When you figure out how to stuff 1/2 the households in the USA back into the stone age, gimme a call. there are enough firearms out there that we won't be doing that in the next 200 years at the inside. Short of a constitutional rewrite (and we can see how THAT would leave us), we are stuck with guns, and most likely with children having access to guns. We would be foolish to not plan for that eventuality.

>These problems are also waaaaaaaaaay more prevolent than guns/shootings.

Hey, you are talking to the youngest ever safer sex education from Willamette AIDS Council. I was teaching kids about condom use and how to clean their "works" back when I was 15 years old. But that isn't germaine to the SB's in the mix this legislative session.

>The more I think about it the more I'm hoping you're just playing devil's advocate... because I just can't see how you'd think this is a good idea.

I am waiting for you good idea. Keep in mind it has to be free (or very, very cheap), can't trample the rights of our students, and must be consistently applicable for both rural and urban environments.

Posted by: David Wright | Apr 10, 2005 2:18:47 PM

Seems to me that people here are missing the point that JJ Ark has been making. What I take as the argument in favor is:

School shootings happen
In the event of a school shooting, a person with a gun has a better chance of defending him or herself than a person without a gun
Some teachers have permits to carry concealed weapons
Those teachers who have qualified to carry a concealed weapon, if allowed to do so on school grounds, could help save students' lives

This does not sound to me like it was offered as a solution to school shootings, simply that it was offered as a way to improve the odds of survival for those who are fortunate enough to have a weapon available for defense in the event of a school shooting.

Those who complain that this wouldn't prevent school shootings might just as well complain about aspirin since it doesn't prevent headaches. The point in this case is not to prevent it from happening, but to deal with it effectively once it does happen.

There would seem to be some deterrent effect as well, knowing that any teacher might be packing could cause a malicious student to think harder about his decision than the current situation where he would know that nobody in school is supposed to be packing. Take out your frustrations against people who can't shoot back, or against people who might shoot back? It seems to me that the common link between all of these shootings, apart from mentally unbalanced kids of course, is that these are punitive measures the kids take to "get back" at perceived wrongs. It's about the power of having a gun and the power to take someone's life. It's about control. But if the other person also has a gun, then you lose some of your control.

Of course, as I said, these kids are obviously unbalanced in the first place, so expecting them to consider their actions rationally may be a bit much. In which case, we get back to the point that it's going to happen anyway, what can we do when it does happen?

I've seen many complaints in this thread about putting more guns in the classroom, putting guns in the hands of unqualified teachers, etc. All of which seem to miss the point that this is not about putting guns in the hands of unqualified teachers. It's about allowing teachers who already have guns and are qualified to use them to carry those guns in school.

The article about gun deaths among children was frankly irrelevant. Places with more guns have more gun-related [insert anything you'd like right here]? Well, duh. Add more of anything, you'll get more of whatever's related to that thing. But I'd be curious to see what, if anything, that study had to say about the environment in which the gun was kept. The classic tragedy is the kid finding his parents' gun when they're not at home, and accidentally shooting himself or another kid. That's one scenario. How many kids are involved in accidental shooting deaths or homicides with "dad's gun", when dad is home and has the gun on his person?

The cry of "oh no, more guns in the classroom!" sounds a bit like we'd be tossing a couple of pistols in the middle of each room, just to see what would happen. We're talking about responsible adults, who have already proven themselves qualified, keeping a weapon on their person.

Now, having said all of that... I'm not advocating for this idea. I'm not sure exactly how I feel about it. But I just saw a whole lot of arguments against the idea that weren't really relevant and just went to the emotional GUNS ARE BAD theme without really addressing the specifics of this plan.

I do agree that more should be done to try to prevent these school shootings from happening in the first place. But until we eliminate them entirely, it does make sense to me to also address effective measures for dealing with them when they do occur.

Posted by: JJ Ark | Apr 10, 2005 2:24:23 PM

Kevin Sudbeck writes:

>Talk about crazy. This from the liberal democrats.

I pride myself on being a left libertarian, actually.

>Will the teacher be required to join the NRA like they have to join the NEA?

Good lord, I hope not. I don't like the NRA. I am not actually asking that we *require* anything. That seems to be misinterpreted here. I am not asking for a seperate review panel, nor a membership, nor anything other than what the teacher already has. If they have a CHL, they are permitted to bring it to school. End of story.

>But I guess southern Oregon is different from the north.

You know, southern Oregon *is* different, but that isn't what we are talking about here. We aren't talking about a massive takedown, we are talking about a teacher bridging the gap between indident and police response.

>Although we were immature, we were taught by our responsible parents that shooting someone was wrong.

Same here. I don't wanna shoot nobody. No how. I don't wanna go to jail, I don't wanna have the nightmares, and I don't wanna see the effects. Plain and simple. Now, can we figure out a way to bottle that feeling and make it pervasive...sort of put it in the air conditioning or something? It would be nice for a change.

>As a military officer, who is responsible for an armed security force, what you suggest will result in deaths.

With all due respect to you service to our country, I am not suggesting an armed security force. We can't afford it, sad to say. We are not willing to spend the money, and frankly, I don't wanna see our kids go to school in a prison behind locked doors and windows, with 15 foot high fences. I am suggesting we let the folks who go about the daily activities legally carrying a firearm for personal defense carry that same firearm at work. In this case, the work is with our children. I don't want to see fireteams and room clearing exercises. That is for professionals such as yourself. I want to see teachers given access to a tool that may save lives.

>There are not strict enough controls in place to accomplish this safely within a school system.

Dude! These folks carry EVERY DAY. I don't see reports flooding in of folks losing their firearm in the grocery store, or leaving them on the max. Indeed, in my years of living, I have "made" one person with a firearm, and that is only because his fanny pack broke, and the barrel was peaking out.

>Additionally, just what I need is a liberal teacher indoctrinating my children with a weapon. No thanks. Years ago, I believe the Russians, Japanese and Germans showed the fallacy in this manner of education.

Do you honestly believe that we would have teachers instructing down the barrel of a gun? Are you serious? If you think that is the case, you might need to look at your teacher selection process my friend.

Posted by: Tenskwatawa | Apr 10, 2005 2:32:19 PM

...respond without personal insults. Belittling folks because they have put forward an idea isn't the type of discourse I am used to seeing from dinezens here.

You're right in your faith that good denizens speak to you as a friend, and when that faith is rewarded you need to heed what friends have to say, just in respect for yourself as being worthy of trusting in your sensibility. The thoughtlessness that tosses away anything contradicting you, is thoughtlessness for your better self.

The 'idea' is nonsense, a non-starter, dead on announcement. It's like someone saying hey there's a cash shortage around here, let's go rob a bank. Ain't even going to get a discussion on it, but there is to discuss how serious you are, and how often you 'think' such things -- we should talk about it: your mental rocks, not the dust cloud emitted when they collide in your head.

It is not a personal insult when you're broken and somebody points out that you're broken. It's a diagnosis. Really, there are knowledgeable professionals trained to spot such aberrations and call them like they are. Not that I am so professional at it, but I have cred enough on the easy calls that I can play one on the blog. Seriously, there is medication for psychopathological, dissociated, paralyzing fear; and you should have your degree of it checked.

Posted by: JJ Ark | Apr 10, 2005 2:32:59 PM

afs writes in multiple posts:

>Oh... greaaaaat. Armed gym coaches. They would be the only ones who would actually bring them.

actually, I don't see many coaches being armed. working out with a weapon *concealed* isn't very easy to do. gets in the way when you are doing situps.

Of course, I don't *have* a CHL. I am just guessing that that small of back holster wouldn't be comfy in the pool.

>Here's a story for those of you considering arming ex-jocks...
"Ex-NFL Player Saw Siegfried, Roy As Threat

Ummm...is that a new proposed law? No arming ex jocks? Well, at least I don't have to worry about that one.

>New Harvard University Study Shows Direct Link Between Gun Availability And Gun Death Among Children

I am sorry if you got the impression that we were going to be creating armories in the schools. That isn't the case. I don't think that would be very useful. The state can't afford to, and isn't about to accept that liability. The guns are NOT going to be available for use "hmmm...its time for math class! I think I will be the 30.06 hunting rifle!".

Posted by: jj Ark | Apr 10, 2005 2:42:17 PM

Trey writes:

>For me, THIS is the area that needs to be addressed -- adding more weapons to the mix doesn't mitigate this situation at all.

An ounce of prevention? I like that thinking. I am not seeing it take place, but I wouldn't object to seeing more prevention. I am worried tho, that prevention seems to be a disposable cost center: We don't have money for intervention, so we will just give the kids some speed (ritalin) and hope for the best. It was trending that way when I graduated high school and got much much worse when my brother and sister graduated 8 years after me.

>Allowing teachers to be armed addresses the situation too far along in the process. It's a strategy that points to the failure of educational staff toward addressing the situation BEFORE it becomes an unmanageable problem.

I agree 100%. WAY too far in the process. But by the time that teacher is forced to hide out with children in a classroom from a shooter, that very process is irrevocably broken. We must consider how best to get the maximum number of children out safely from that situation. Discussing only Prevention is 1 part of the solution. We also must discuss Response. I am sorry, but if the Response we have selected is a bunch of handwritten letters to parents expressing our sorrow at their loss, that is simply not good enough. We owe it to our next generation to do better than that. I am open to ideas.

Posted by: JJ Ark | Apr 10, 2005 3:08:44 PM

Steve Bucknum writes:

>My son recently became a teacher.

My Dad too. So is my StepMother and my SisterinLaw.

>There is no class in gun safety on that transcript.

Well, I am not sure how many universities require it in order to graduate. But in order to carry a concealed handgun in the State of Oregon (in a school or out of a school), he has to take a class in just that. I am sure he can find one. Call the Sherriff's office. They are usually quite happy to help.

>I would hope that teachers carry around respect, regard, and caring for their students - not guns.

Me too, actually. I don't envision everyone toting guns on their hips like an old western (or firefly for the sci fi fans among us). Won't work, too confrontational, and frankly, inciteful. I have a feeling that only 1 or two teachers per school would *EVER* avail themselves of this failure of SB's. But that is potentially 30-60 students (or 35-70 students given modern class sizes) that would be protected if the systems broke down and the unthinkeable happened.

>Our schools, forced by the Federal Government,

I didn't hear anyone complaining at that time. Indeed, the NRA was weirdly silent, if memory serves (and I don't like the NRA, so I tend to ignore them, so I may be wrong.)

>If making more and more and more rules in our society actually solved a problem, then the problems would have been solved long ago. That paradigm is worn out, tired, and pretty much pointless. Another rule can't solve this problem, in fact I fear teachers packing guns will make the problem of student deaths from fire arms worse not better.

Please reread what I wrote. I am NOT asking for another rule. Quite the opposite: remove a rule. Let the folks who are already given more stringent background checks than most teachers (and have passed the legal requirements *already in place*) carry their firearms *concealed* if they so choose. Not mandate one way or the other. We trust these folks with our kids, we trust them to fill their minds with information, we trust their safety to them. Why don't we give them the sharpest tools to do the job?

>What we have here is a complete buy into the Republican frame of reference on this problem. Ironically, their frame of reference is that this is a "gun" debate.

Nope. Wrongo. This isn't a debate about "guns". It is a debate about people and tools. We could change the name of the tool to reflect Rwanda and call them machetes. Or the cutlass. You want the only people to have that cutlass in school to be the bad guy. Becuase you find that cutlass to be an instrument of evil, only those who are evil have them. Ironically, you have no problem relying on other men to bear your cutlass, but you wouldn't have mere instructors weild that cutlass to defend your children against those who would hack them bits.

>The more accurate "frame of reference" is that this is a social services debate. What has happened in each one of these student outbursts with weapons in schools is that mentally unbalanced youth, who were in each case already known to the authorities as having problems, were given inadequate services.

And will continue to do so. Again: we aren't devoting the resources to solving these problems, we won't be any time soon, and as such, we have to consider both prevention and response. You would respond with a shrug of shoulders and handwritten letters. I want to respond with tools in (judged by the state already) competent hands.

>These events involving guns have underlying social system delivery issues that the Republicans would rather divert into a debate on guns.

I am not a republican. I haven't voted republican since...er...er...I think I voted for hatfield the first year I voted. I voted for kerry, wrote in dean, and so on. calling into question my political history is an interesting tactic, but frankly, I would expect a bit better of a smear. If you don't *like* what I have to say, fair enough, but if you are gonna smear me, you gotta do better than shouting "Republican" in a crowded Country Fair.

Posted by: Tenskwatawa | Apr 10, 2005 3:10:38 PM

And, in the end, the bullets you take is equal to the bullets you make.

If you want to go backwards that way. Long long way. Short dock. Just leave our children behind, they're aiming to the future.

Posted by: Edward | Apr 10, 2005 3:16:13 PM

This whole proposal strikes me as a back door method to change the rules for CHL holders. Currently, a person licensed to carry a concealed weapon can do just that -- carry a concealed weapon anywhere s/he goes -- except where specifically prohibited. That means: schools, courts, and the peace-nick vegetarian restaurant down on the corner that have rules against carrying can expect Concealed Handgun Licensees to not carry their weapons in those places.

I like the current rule.

JJ Ark's proposal would create a fundamental change to CHL rules, allowing a person to carry a weapon anywhere and, ... dare I say it, contemplates infringing on private property rights.

If you want for your local school to allow its CHL teachers and other CHL visitors to the school to carry their weapons, go ahead and propose it to your local school board and have the debate. My understanding is that they currently have that power. What I really disagree with is taking away the decision making power of local schools.

And, by the way, just where are these CHL teachers and school administrators? Can we get one of them to speak up and go on record as either for or against this proposal?

This is clearly a solution in search of a problem, a rhetorical trick to give CHL holders more rights than they currently have based on the fear of school violence.

And JJ, I did read your article. And you're right, I overstepped. My bad. Let me rephrase what I said initially: The inherent dangers of ANY teacher (even a CHL teacher) packing a gun to school far outweighs the supposed "benefit" of the proposed solution.

And lastly, please, everyone who reads these posts and feels strongly about the issue, continue the discussion by contacting your elected representatives in state government and tell them how you feel about the issue.

Posted by: JJ Ark | Apr 10, 2005 3:19:38 PM

Steve Bucknum writes:

>My son recently became a teacher.

My Dad too. So is my StepMother and my SisterinLaw.

>There is no class in gun safety on that transcript.

>I would hope that teachers carry around respect, regard, and caring for their students - not guns.

>Our schools, forced by the Federal Government,

I didn't hear anyone complaining at that time. Indeed, the NRA was weirdly silent, if memory serves (and I don't like the NRA, so I tend to ignore them, so I may be wrong.)

>What we have here is a complete buy into the Republican frame of reference on this problem. Ironically, their frame of reference is that this is a "gun" debate.

>These events involving guns have underlying social system delivery issues that the Republicans would rather divert into a debate on guns.

Posted by: cc | Apr 10, 2005 3:23:26 PM

Ok...so my idea is bad...what is yours?

There's a saying that you're either part of the solution or part of the problem. (An even catchier INXS lyric that goes "You're part of the solution or part of the problem - you're gonna have to dance with one." Anyway... The thing is that your idea would not be part of the solution. It would only serve to enhance the problem. You may think it's a solution, but it's not.

I, unfortunately, do not have any ideas for school shooting defense - that would make me part of the problem as well. But at least from my vantage point, I'm not adding fuel to the fire. I'm not worsening the problem. There will not be another life lost in a shooting because there was access to more guns, more bullets... because the idea of someone taking defensive action against shooters would make the student angrier causing him (or her) to shoot more people.

My best idea would be metal detectors but they cost money - money we don't have. Huh... funny how just about everything can go back to the lack of funding for education. More money for education means more teachers - smaller class sizes - the ability for a teacher or counselor to actually spot problem children before they bust into the school with a sawed-off shotgun that they got - already loaded - from their grandpa's unlocked gun cabinet.

The thing is we don't need school shooting DEFENSE we need a good OFFENSE. An offense we simply can't afford.

Posted by: JJ Ark | Apr 10, 2005 3:42:06 PM

Doretta:
>Have you seen anyone here ranting about the danger of CHLs in general? No, much to my surprise, you haven't.

No, I haven't but folks haven't seemed to get the point (now made by David Wright) that it isn't armed vigilates we are letting into the schools, but rather folks who have already been licensed by the State to carry their weapons around little children. No harm has yet to befall them.

Or maybe they *have* gotten the point, and trust the CHL holders less than the teachers. In either case, this isn't a change in subject. They are clearly related.

>The statistics about CHLs in general are irrelevant. NO school-aged kid is the holder of a CHL.

The statistics about CHLs are relevant. These are the folks I am suggesting we allow to carry their guns. I am not suggesting, nor would I ever suggest we allow kids to bring their guns to school (although clearly some are).

>What you are talking about is introducing more guns into environments filled with school-aged kids.

Yes, we agree on that front. However, the point has been made by others that I am not suggesting tossing 4 pistols into every room, or creating an armory. Indeed, I am not sure that *any* teachers would avail themselves of this change.

>Some of your arguments are simply ludicrous. Do you really think that over time it wouldn't be common knowledge among students who was packing and who wasn't? Some of their information might be wrong but it would be right often enough.

Often enough for what? To mark the teachers at the top of their hit list? To kill first? Fair 'nuff. That would be an issue. But they *already* make hit lists. They already mark certain teachers as the first to go, regardless of whether or not that teacher has any ability to defend themselves.

The point is that once the bullets fly, all the fancy rules and all the careful and hard work of prevention go out the window, and the cops are 5-10 mins away. Do we want to leave the teachers without effective tools to defend themselves and their students for that period of time? That is our current course of action. *I* don't wanna have to write the letters to the parents.

>However, as has been pointed out, that ignores all the schools and all the other days of the year when that doesn't happen and ignores what introducing a lot more guns into them might cause. Those other days and other schools are many orders of magnitude more numerous.

Doretta: what sort of activities will this cause? Riots? Student takeovers? Robbery? Assault? I am still waiting to hear the kind of mayhem this is likely to cause. History hasn't proven this out. Look at Israel. There aren't a lot of student takeovers in the schools and a LOT of teachers there carry their firearms daily*

I agree that there is a potential for abuse, but most folks would be abusing others by the time that they became teachers, and that is why the CHL has federal, state, and local background checks: to catch that sort of abuse pattern before the person gets their CHL, and is given permission to travel amongst innocents with lethal force in their front pocket.

>Please don't presume you know more about the politics and the facts and figures of the CHL in Oregon than I do.

I wouldn't dream of it. I don't know everything...I have said so repeatedly here. I certainly don't know more than most firearms owners in the state. Heck, I don't even HAVE a CHL.

>I have twice taken firearms training that meets the competency requirements for qualifying for a CHL in Oregon.

Me too. Interesting class.

*I have been hesitatant to use this example because most of the folks that carry at school in Israel do so openly, and that is not what I am suggesting here.

Posted by: Tenskwatawa | Apr 10, 2005 3:43:00 PM

Beatles - The continuing story of bungalow bill

What did you kill
Bungalow Bill?
He went out tiger hunting with his elephant and gun
In case of accidents he always took his mom
He's the all American bullet-headed saxon mother's son.
Hey,Bungalow Bill
What did you kill
Bungalow Bill?
Deep in the jungle where the mighty tiger lies
Bill and his elephants were taken by surprise

So Captian Marvel zapped in right between the eyes
All the chidren sing
Hey Bungalow Bill
What did you kill
Bungalow Bill?
The children asked him if to kill was not a sin
Not when he looked so fierce, his mother butted in
If looks could kill it would have been us instead of him
All the children sing
Hey,Bungalow Bill
What did you kill
Bungalow Bill?

It is the disfigured one who does damage to all, by aiming to fix an evil at the wrong end of the gun.

Posted by: JJ Ark | Apr 10, 2005 3:50:21 PM

Torridjoe writes:

>This report doesn't mention it, but I have read others that attributed deaths of both children and law enforcement directly to armed civilians.

I hadn't seen that before. It doens't surprise me, tho. A Lot of the problem in beslan was that law enforcement and officials were in on the deal (tho they didn't realize what their collusion was accomplishing).

>Fighting violence in schools with more guns is like fighting pregnancy in schools with porn.

So when the bullets are flying, and the kids are literally dying, your solution is?????

I see that the current solution is wait for the police. Of course that is the wisest move. The Police have three things that the armed civilian does not (or cannot have): lots of ammo, lots of people, and radios to coordinate both. But what about between the first time 911 is called, and the time that the police amass enough officers to sweep the building? How long? 5-10 mins? 30?

It is bothersome to me that so many of us are willing to write off those kids that will be shot in those minutes. We can't save everyone...it is foolish to try, I have questions as to whether that is the best idea on the table. So far, it seems to be the only one.

Posted by: JJ Ark | Apr 10, 2005 3:54:28 PM

bbungalowbill writes:

>Finally someone with the courage- against overwhelming popular opinion, and in the face of logic- to argue for MORE GUNS IN THE CLASSROOM.

Not really, no. I am not suggesting that *any* one bring their firearms to school. Indeed, I think it best that they NOT do so. I am suggesting that they be *allowed* to do so. If you arent quite sure what I mean, please reread my post.

Posted by: jj ark | Apr 10, 2005 4:34:23 PM

David Wright wrote:

>this does not sound to me like it was offered as a solution to school shootings, simply that it was offered as a way to improve the odds of survival for those who are fortunate enough to have a weapon available for defense in the event of a school shooting.

Holy toledo, I wish it was. If it was the solution I would have discovered the rosetta stone! No. This is a stopgap measure until more people with more ammo and radios can show up.

Look, the thought of a single teacher (even an overly aggressive gym teacher) hunting down 2, 4, 6 hopped up kids in the halls of a school with 2 clips of 8 rounds in a 1911 is enough to give anyone pause. That isn't what I am suggesting. I want to toss the kids and teachers a safety bone. Give them a chance in the time between the shots are fired and the calvary shows up. No body says "hunt these kids down, and kill them".

I will tell you what got me thinking about this. The security guard in Red Lake. Not the first one, but the second one. The first one heard the buzzer on the metal detector go off. When he confronted the kid, the kid shot him out of hand. The second security guard apparently didn't hear the buzzer, but *did* hear the gunshot that killed the first guard. She was powerless to stop what was rolling towards her, and most importantly towards the kids that she was employed to (and probably felt was her duty) to protect. She was sent into a gunfight without even a knife.

Then there are the teachers. My dad is a teacher. He cares very much for "his kids". I can't imagine the frustration knowing that someTHING is coming down the hallway, and you have nothing with which to stop it from taking those lives of those kids behind you. Nothing at all. You KNOW at that moment that kids will die, and you have no tools to defend yourself effectively.

>The point in this case is not to prevent it from happening, but to deal with it effectively once it does happen.

Hey, the more prevention, the better. Honestly. Look, if my plan is EVER used, we have failed our students. Horribly. Shame on us. But we cannot plan for nothing but blue skies and lollipops. We have to plan for the worst, and then work to prevent the same.

> But if the other person also has a gun, then you lose some of your control.

I actually think they lose that fish in a barrel attitude. In other words, it ceases to be a video game.

> In which case, we get back to the point that it's going to happen anyway, what can we do when it does happen?

Well, a good number of folks here either think it A. won't happen (and I hope they are right), or B. that a certain amount of death is worth the price. As my mother would say, "vale la pena". I happen to think we should not accept any price, or take the lowest price offered, but apparently I am in the minority.

>IIt's about allowing teachers who already have guns and are qualified to use them to carry those guns in school.

Thank you. I °tried* to get this across, but apparently, I failed. Oh, well, there goes my career in politics (snort, yeah right...who is gonna elect ME?).

>I do agree that more should be done to try to prevent these school shootings from happening in the first place. But until we eliminate them entirely, it does make sense to me to also address effective measures for dealing with them when they do occur.

Gimme a plan! I am open to suggestions. All I have heard so far is to rally the wagons, close off the options, and hide in the statistical ratios in the ferverent hope that it Won't Happen Here.

Posted by: Randy2 | Apr 10, 2005 4:49:42 PM

JJ Ark:

What is the state screening/training process on CHL?

Years ago I went through the process and recall a 2 - 4 hour training class on gun safety and a mutiple choice test on the CHL law.

Suggesting that state licensing automatically makes CHL holders into wiser gun users is difficult to get behind if I don't know that that entails.

Posted by: JJ Ark | Apr 10, 2005 4:54:47 PM

Edward writes:

This whole proposal strikes me as a back door method to change the rules for CHL holders.

Funny...I don't have a CHL. I don't see lars teaching school children any time soon. I keep looking around and don't see folks clamoring for this change, CHL or otherwise. Backdoor? I am kinda coming in the front door, actually.

I am knocking on your teeth, really. As front as you can get. I am giving an issue that folks throw their hands up at, and offering up a stopgap measure. Something that may work.

>That means: schools, courts, and the peace-nick vegetarian restaurant down on the corner that have rules against carrying can expect Concealed Handgun Licensees to not carry their weapons in those places.

Stated in my post, yes. Although you left out jails, Lloyd Center, my place of employ, and my moms house.

>I like the current rule.

Cool! I don't think its very effective, but it hasn't been that much of an issue, has it? In all seriousness...when was the last time you saw them taking down folks at the courthouse at gunpoint, or trying to visit their cousin at the jail with a 38 in their pocket.

>JJ Ark's proposal would create a fundamental change to CHL rules, allowing a person to carry a weapon
anywhere and, ... dare I say it, contemplates infringing on private property rights.

Nope. My rule change (it isn't even in ORS code...yet), would not be a fundemental change. It would be removing the legal carry restrictions on school property. Heck, they are actually changing the law this session. As far as private property...huh??? Look, I am all for protesting all you want, but property owners have a right to their own property. simple nuff.

>What I really disagree with is taking away the decision making power of local schools.

Well why didn't you SAY so, Edward?!?!?! I am all for local control! Wait. SB353. Hmmm...I assume you oppose that bill then? It DOES take away local control.

>And, by the way, just where are these CHL teachers and school administrators? Can we get one of them to speak up and go on record as either for or against this proposal?

That is a long story, not in scope for this post, so I won't bore you. You can find records of it, or ask around salem where the hearing was NOT held...hmmmm.

>This is clearly a solution in search of a problem, a rhetorical trick to give CHL holders more rights than they currently have based on the fear of school violence.

I don't even have a CHL. I wouldn't be effected by this one way or the other. I want our children to have a fighting chance. I am still trying to figure out how you expect the teacher to defend your kids against guns with...er...pencils? Pens? Long rulers?

>The inherent dangers of ANY teacher (even a CHL teacher) packing a gun to school far outweighs the supposed "benefit" of the proposed solution.

and those inherent dangers are????? Please share your fears with me. I keep hearing of these dangers, but haven't seen them yet.

>And lastly, please, everyone who reads these posts and feels strongly about the issue, continue the discussion by contacting your elected representatives in state government and tell them how you feel about the issue.

Please do. While you are at it, tho ask those same representatives what the plans *are* for this issue. How *DO* they respond to a beslan or a springfield? I am afraid you won't like what you hear.

Posted by: Steve Bucknum | Apr 10, 2005 5:55:38 PM

JJ - I was going to email you this privately, but your JJ Ark email address won't pull up off the screen for that purpose.

You really seem all hot and bothered about this issue. Well, I guess you have a right to get hot and bothered from time-to-time. Out of my prior comments you pulled out that I was accusing you of being a Republican, etc. etc. Not.

My "accusation" is that you have bought into a frame of reference sponsored by the Republicans.

In reality, gun violence in our schools is rare, and it really hasn't changed much over the years. On the day that Martin Luther King was assassinated there was an incident with a gun at the High School I was in (Jefferson H.S. in North Portland Oregon). No one was hurt, but still. This is not an increasing social problem.

You make the point that you are advocating a rule change/removal not a new rule. Okay, got me there. But my point stands: New rules, old rules, changed rules - rules don't fix problems. This paradigm that somehow a rule on a written page fixs a social problem is - stand back and hold your breath - nuts!

We don't solve social problems with rules, we just change how we react to them.

Again, you have bought into a Republican sponsored paradigm: Part one - violence at schools is on the increase and they are now dangerous places. Part two - kids with guns is a new social menace. Part three - guns is the issue (never mind that man behind the curtain). Part four - since guns is the issue, something to do about guns is the solution. Part five - if you shoot someone before they shoot you or someone else, that is a "solution".

No, I'm not saying you are a Republican, only that you are hypnotised by their world view, and respond from it.

The Republicans have pulled the rug out from under the support systems parents used to have to deal with kids with problems. Mental Health and Juvenile services at all levels have been cut, to the point in many cases of ineffectiveness. Each one of these incidents with kids with guns in the last 10 years, EACH ONE, has a direct connection to an underlying social services cut.

A key concept in working on solutions to social problems, one that has stood the test of time for not just generations, but for thousands of years, is "DO NO HARM". Your proposal fails that test.

There are many options to solve the "problem" of troubled youth. Shooting them, as you propose, is I think one at the bottom of the barrel.

I often times think that when I talk with other Democrats and liberals, I agree with them in at least 90% of our world view. Now, you have me doubting that.

Posted by: Terry | Apr 10, 2005 7:17:45 PM

"Not open carry, with is quasi-legal, but dubious in the intelligence department---kinda like a big "hey, mug me!" sign."

Really JJ? How many law officers have been mugged?
Especially since more are woman and there are more single patrols today.
So, when muggers see someone openly carrying a gun, they smile and start stalking for the opportunity to jump the person? Really? Especially, when they know if they don't get the surprise, there is a good chance they will be shot dead or worse, severely wounded and thus caught and thus jail time.
You make no sense.

Posted by: afs | Apr 10, 2005 7:53:04 PM

JJ Ark: All your arguments depend on the ludicrous proposition that being handed a CHL instantly turns the holder of a CHL into some Jackie Chan gun-fu master. In real life, it takes years of constant training for an individual to be capable of wearing a gun in an environment in which they have to be constantly vigilant of having their weapon taken from them. I'm not half so worried about the very rare threat of a Columbine-type situation. There's a greater chance of kids being hit by lightning... twice. What I worry about is a kid getting depressed after being picked on, grabbing a gun off a teacher not paying attention, and blowing their brains out in the bathroom. That's a real threat. Far more real than any of the rantings of a gun extremists like JJ Ark. See that Harvard study? It proves that the presence of guns is the problem... no matter who is initially in possession of a weapon, the mere presence of guns instantly multiplies the risk of greater violence.

JJ Ark, don't come back here to discuss any of this until you are prepared to discuss only having highly trained individuals carrying weapons into a school. Anybody else is just someone who be eventually shown on camera crying about a dead child on the news because they thought they were paying enough attention to their holster, but were tragically wrong.

Posted by: afs | Apr 10, 2005 8:00:07 PM

Police Killed With Their Own Guns

by Jaime Adame
September, 2004

"New York City Police Detectives Robert Parker and Patrick Rafferty were shot and killed in East Flatbush on September 10th, allegedly after a suspect, Marlon Legere, 28, grabbed Parker’s gun and used it to shoot both detectives several times at close range.

It is a scenario that, while not commonplace, happens with enough frequency to alarm law enforcement professionals nationwide. Last year, 10 police officers were shot and killed in the United States after a suspect managed to get control of an officer’s weapon. Nearly one in five officers killed as part of a crime last year were shot with their own (or a partner’s) weapon, according to the National Center for Law Enforcement Technology - the highest number of such deaths in 18 years.

New York has been fortunate to have few of these incidents. Before this month’s shooting, the last incident of an officer being killed with his own weapon occurred in the city in 1998. Still, the recent deaths reinforce the danger of being a cop in New York and raise questions about how to best protect officers in the future.

Training and Equipment

So far this year five officers in the U.S. have been shot and killed with their own weapons, including Parker and Rafferty.

One way to address the issue is through regular training. All New York police officers attend mandatory defensive tactics training sessions twice a year that help officers prepare for a variety of violent encounters with suspects. The sessions, which usually last about a day, focus in part on weapon retention.

Even with substantial training, however, the danger is always present. To further protect officers, safety holsters – gun holders with a variety of mechanisms to help “lock” a gun in place – began to be developed in the 1970s. However there are trade-offs: Features that make it more difficult to disarm an officer can also slow down an officer’s ability to draw.

And while uniformed patrol officers in New York routinely wear such safety holsters, plain-clothes detectives wear holsters that are easier to conceal. Police say Parker was wearing an off-duty hip holster, which typically does not have safety features. Neither Parker nor Rafferty were wearing bulletproof vests when they were shot.

New Gun Technology

Recognizing the need to protect officers from being shot with their own weapons, the federal government has spent millions of dollars in research on personalized weapons that can only be fired by their owner.

Ideas range from a ring worn by the user that unlocks the weapon to sophisticated biometric sensors designed to recognize a gun owner's grip. But the reliable technology still remains years away.

Even if “safer” guns are ever mass-produced and sold, they may not meet the demands of law enforcement. New Jersey passed a law in 2002 that will make user-recognition technology mandatory once it’s developed, but law enforcement officers were specifically excluded from the law. Police are understandably unwilling to carry a weapon they believe may not fire when they need it.

Not A Capital Case

Under New York's death penalty law, anyone who murders a police officer can face the death penalty.

But in June, New York highest court ruled that the state's death penalty law was flawed and could not be imposed. Until the State Legislature adopts an amended law, prosecutors and defense lawyers argue that there is effectively a moratorium on capital cases.

Police union officials are angered that the death penalty will not be sought for Marlon Legere, who has entered a “not guilty” plea in the shooting of the two officers last week.

In 1989, Jay “Stoney” Harrison, the last person to shoot two officers in New York, also used an officer’s handgun. Harrison took a gun from an unlocked locker at a District Attorney’s office and shot Detectives Richard Guerzon and Keith Williams. The death penalty was not in effect at the time.

Unanswered Questions

The deaths of the two officers Parker, 43, and Rafferty, 39, are tragic, and colleagues have been effusive in their praise of the detectives.

In the online tribute page to fallen law enforcement officers, some colleagues have left poignant and heartfelt tributes for both officers.

“Their reputation preceded them in the area, in the neighborhood,” Michael J. Palladino, the president of the Detectives Endowment Association told The New York Times. “They were well-known, well-respected guys.”

Police say they may never know exactly how the suspect was able to get Parker’s gun; Parker may have even had his gun already drawn and the suspect somehow wrestled it away, or he may have grabbed it from Parker’s holster.

What is known is that Parker showed enough presence of mind after being mortally wounded to call 911 and describe the shooter."

http://gothamgazette.com/article/20040916/4/1119

Posted by: jj Ark | Apr 10, 2005 8:04:36 PM

Terry:

in 2003,there were 12 officers killed with their own service weapons. This out of 44 deaths due to firearms. I believe (its been about 6 months since I crunched those numbers from Officer Down.) Feel free to peruse the numbers and cause of death yourself.

The numbers for 2002 were similar, but 2001 is all a mess statistically due to 9/11...couldn't really track those reasonably to figure out the cause of death, there were too many. I haven't gone over 2004 figures yet, but in September, the trend seemed to be lower just from a casual glance.

Posted by: afs | Apr 10, 2005 8:06:45 PM

School gunman stole police pistol, vest
Student killed 9 before turning weapon on himself

Wednesday, March 23, 2005 Posted: 2:27 AM EST (0727 GMT)

RED LAKE, Minnesota (CNN) -- A student authorities say killed seven people at his Minnesota high school first shot his grandfather and the man's girlfriend before taking his police-issued weapon, bulletproof vest and squad car to Red Lake Senior High School.

FBI Special Agent in Charge Michael Tabman said Tuesday that 16-year-old Jeff Weise killed his grandfather, 58-year-old Daryl Lussier, and his grandfather's 32-year-old girlfriend, Michelle Sigana, with a .22-caliber gun before driving to the school Monday...."

"...Federal investigators, however, said that while the postings may provide clues to the rampage, it was premature Tuesday to speculate on a motive. The shootings at the school appeared to be random, Tabman said.

He said authorities believe Weise stole his grandfather's police-issued pistol and a shotgun, as well as a gunbelt and vest. Authorities said he had three guns in all.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/03/22/school.shooting/

Posted by: afs | Apr 10, 2005 8:15:38 PM

Weapon Retention On and Off Duty
03/30/2005

Member Submission

By: Al Samson, 30 March 2005

One of the most important aspects of law enforcement, on and off duty is weapon retention. Keeping the weapon secured and not letting it get taken away by an assailant is a high priority to every law enforcement officer. Law enforcement officers have to make sure they have good weapon retention skills, to avoid having their weapon taken away and used against them by a person whose intent is to do bodily harm.

There are approximately 870,000 duly sworn local, state, tribal, and federal law enforcement officers now serving in the United States, which is the highest figure ever. A total of 1,658 law enforcement officers died in the line of duty during the past 10 years, an average of one death every 53 hours or 166 per year. Of the 1658 law enforcement officers that died on the line of duty 616 officers were killed feloniously.

Of the 616 law enforcement officers who were killed in the line of duty feloniously from 1994 through 2003, 568 were murdered with firearms. Of those, 425 were murdered with handguns, 109 where shot to death with rifles, and 34 were killed with shotguns. Fifty-two of the victim officers were killed with their own service weapons.

In 2003 alone there were 145 law enforcement officers killed, 11 of the slain officers were feloniously shot with their own weapons. A review of the number of years of service for the victim officers killed in 2003 showed that the officers had an average of 10 years of law enforcement experience. Uniform Crime Reporting November 2004.

The number of officers killed with their own weapons may be contributed to weapon retention and or lack thereof. With such a glaring need for weapon retention officers worldwide are in search of methods, products, tactics and training to keep their weapon where it belongs, on their body securely, so that their weapon cannot be taken away and used against them. There are several good quality security holsters currently on the market that offer numerous levels of retention and are concealable...."

"....Incarcerated felons have been observed practicing in the prison "yard" on how to take a firearm from the holster(s) of law enforcement officer. However with the UCComfort Concealment Holster System if they can’t see then they can’t get to I as easily… The law enforcement officer and or wearers must practice with the holster until it becomes second nature to just draw that weapon and get it on target....law enforcement officers and those using the holster still must exercise good weapon retention skills to defeat a grab for their weapon, especially when the weapon is out of the holster. Officers must practice the way they position themselves when they are confronting a suspect(s), they should constantly be aware of other people around them and evaluate their environment and their own actions. Having a visible weapon that is accessible to a suspect(s) is a good indicator that he /she could attempt to take that weapon away from the officer and use it against them...."

About the Author: Al Samson is former a Police Detective with the Bronx County District Attorney's office in New York with over 14 years of law enforcement experience. He's worked as an undercover operative in some of the toughest neighborhoods in New York City and is now actively involved in the fight against terrorism and protecting the Homeland.

http://www.policeone.com/policeone/frontend/parser.cfm?object=News&tmpl=&operation=full_newsline&id=98214

Posted by: rebellingboxer | Apr 10, 2005 8:22:52 PM

JJ Arc: "in 2003,there were 12 officers killed with their own service weapons. This out of 44 deaths due to firearms. I believe"

So there were more highly trained police killed with their own guns in 2003 than there were kids killed in "school massacres"... and your solution is to allow a whole ton of barely-trained people to carry lots of guns around kids?

That sure sounds like the above comment "using porn to reduce teen pregnancy."

Posted by: myrln | Apr 10, 2005 8:29:42 PM

What saddens me is all this time and thought and energy wasted on a foolish notion by someone who clearly has abandoned good sense (assuming its prior existence) for creating what amounts to a free-fire zone. All the above would have been better spent discussing what schools are supposed to be about, what teachers are supposed to do (beyond teaching subject matter), what parents are supposed to do (beyond feeding and clothing their kids). Honest discussion and exchange about those matters would focus us on kids and their needs (beyond subject matter), on relationships, on cooperation and supportiveness, on kids as human beings whose struggles are every bit as important and meaningful to them and to the world we live in as earning a living and making ends meet. Focus on those kinds of matters would do infinitely more toward returning sanity to our schools than the noxious notion of letting guns into them. Giving all this time and energy to JJArk's idiot proposal unfortunately lends credibility to his idea. In his fevered mind, at least.

Posted by: afs | Apr 10, 2005 8:49:08 PM

myrln... I agree that it's a ludicrous proposal. However, one of the problems the left has had lately is not slapping down ludicrous right-wing extremism when and where it rears it's ugly head. We see something like... say... Social Security privatization begin to get discussed 10-15 years ago, and we say to ourselves, "That's so stupid, nobody will take that kind of extremism seriously." Then we don't bother to respond. Then we become shocked when it appears "out of nowhere" and the entire GOP is prepare to vote as a block in favor of it.

This idiot gun proposal must be slapped down here and now. More people get killed from guns taken from cops than in "school massacres." The fact is a police officer didn't secure their weapons properly, and that directly lead to the Red Lake school massacre.

So we slap this down now and be done with it... so it doesn't appear a few years from now "from nowhere" as a proposed change in Federal gun laws supported by the whole GOP Congressional delegation.

Posted by: Utterly Confused High School Student | Apr 10, 2005 9:01:53 PM

Ok. Let me get this straight. You want to give teachers the right to have hand guns in school? Ok, fine. So what happens when this teacher carrying a hand gun decides to get a little frisky with your 16 year old daughter? or 10 year old daughter? Well sure you'll say that your child will scream and put up a fight and tell the other teachers. But not if your child is scared out of her mind! With threats of "I'm gonna kill you if you say something" surrounding her.
What happens when a mentaly disturbed student decideds to round up all the teachers guns and wants to play a one person shoot 'em up game, where the games characters are actually real? Or a teacher pushes a hot blooded redneck of a student too far and he/she pulls out the teachers firearm that he/she nicked earlier?

Question: WERE YOU NEGLECTED AS A CHILD? WERE YOU DROPPED ON THE HEAD ALS0? WERE YOU LET OUT OF THE LOCAL BEDLAM RECENTLY? I MEAN MY GOD, MY DOG HAS MORE BRAINS AND COMMON SENSE THAN YOU DO!!!! If I ever had to fear someone in my school's admin. it would be you. Your idea is sooooooo far out in left field, I would almost prefer hardened killers to someone that would allow a ready gun so close to a mentaly disturbed child, an enraged child, or a sick teacher that needs to be put a way.

Your just adding fuel to the fire, and I don't know if you've heard or not but if you play with fire you're going to get burned. They say that we learn from our mistakes, our history. Obviously you didn't pay attention in history class as a kid. You would have learned that once there was a weapon with in arms reach, it was used against us. Cold War ring a bell? We developed the nukes, others got the plans then bang! U.S. vs. U.S.S.R. all because the threat was within arms reach. Have you heard of the comedian Bill Engvall? Well....Here's your sign.

You know I've heard that some people from the generation or two before mine are scared of the future that my generation will create. Well parents and grandparents, it is my greatest displeasure to give to you the reason why you need to be frightened. *points to the author of this audacious article* Ta da! You hear that my fine showpiece? That is the sound of a VERY displeased and angry audience. Wait! what's that over the horizon? Ah! It's the men and women in the white coats coming to take you away.

However if you are just doing this for the publicity then I am appalled to no end at how low you are going. As Greenbread said in LOTR II, "There is no curse in Elvish, Entish, or the tongues of Men for this treachery."

Posted by: JJ Ark | Apr 10, 2005 9:04:44 PM

Hey, you know? I am done for the night. After so many posts, I have other things to do. Beside, when Myrlyn slaps me down, I gots to take a bow.

Seriously, tho...I was hoping for more discussion, and less name calling.

I was really unprepared for how unreceptive folks are on this issue. I thought that at least a few folks would take some time, look at things from a less entrenched perspective, and then make comments. Instead, a LOT of folks just seemed to ignore what I wrote, and comment off the headline. Heck, AFS alone has crossposted enough material to make a book. I am getting tired of explaining the same stuff over and over, and frankly, I bet y'all are tired of reading it.

I am beginning to see why a lot of folks with differing viewpoints don't find much of a home with our party. Its very interesting to be a pahriah.

I will check back tomorrow, and if y'all have something other than insults and crossposts of offtopic material, I would love to converse further.

I hope that I haven't missed anyone legit comments, but if I have, I am using the excuse of eyestrain from typing like a fiend.

If someone wants to reach me, they can at jj at scooternut.com.

Posted by: JJ Ark | Apr 10, 2005 9:09:25 PM

Hey, you know? I am done for the night. After so many posts, I have other things to do. Beside, when Myrlyn slaps me down, I gots to take a bow.

Seriously, tho...I was hoping for more discussion, and less name calling.

I am beginning to see why a lot of folks with differing viewpoints don't find much of a home with our party. Its very interesting to be a pahriah.

I will check back tomorrow, and if y'all have something other than insults and crossposts of offtopic material, I would love to converse further.

I hope that I haven't missed anyone legit comments, but if I have, I am using the excuse of eyestrain from typing like a fiend.

If someone wants to reach me, they can at jj at scooternut.com.

Posted by: afs | Apr 10, 2005 9:28:41 PM

JJ Ark: "Heck, AFS alone has crossposted enough material to make a book. I am getting tired of explaining the same stuff over and over, and frankly, I bet y'all are tired of reading it.

I am beginning to see why a lot of folks with differing viewpoints don't find much of a home with our party. Its very interesting to be a pahriah.

I will check back tomorrow, and if y'all have something other than insults and crossposts of offtopic material"

Now let me get this straight... you post saying that you are panicked enough about Red Lake School massacres to put weapons in the hands of barely-trained school employees, and I post a CNN story that shows that the Red Lake school students were killed by guns that were taken from a police officer that was a lot better trained than any of the barely trained school employees that you suggest should carry guns, and you claim that that's a "crossposts of off-topic material?"

How is the CNN story about the Red Lake school shooting "off-topic" on a thread about after-effects of... the Red Lake School shooting?

Nope... you just believe so much in the gun religion that you discard all facts that do not directly support your religion. I can sit here and wave the cops guns that kid shot those students with, personally run your fingers over the "Property of Red Lake Police" on the actual equipment itself, and you would still try to deny that THE SHOOTER TOOK THE GUNS HE KILLED THOSE KIDS WITH FROM A POLICE OFFICER. You would continue to quote NRA talking points like scripture with a religious fervor we normally associate with Islamic mullahs preparing for strapping explosives on themselves in order to meet all those virgins in paradise after they detonate themselves.

Your NRA religion causes you to delude yourself into thinking that facts that completely tear your case to shreads are actually "lib-rul insults." You have to delude yourself, or you would be force to admit your Church of the NRA is all BS.

Posted by: Jack Bog | Apr 10, 2005 10:27:28 PM

Hey, Kari, who the heck is "JJ Ark"? And who's lined up for our next "guest column," Ward Weaver?

Posted by: Terry | Apr 10, 2005 10:51:14 PM

JJ Ark wrote," >Talk about crazy. This from the liberal democrats.

I pride myself on being a left libertarian, actually."

There is no such thing as a "left libertarian". Thats like being a beer drinking teetatolar or double cheeseburger with bacon eating vegetarian.

JJ you wrote an logically irrifutable arguement for letting teachers carry firearms. After that, you don't make sense alot of the times.
Wh?

Posted by: Kari Chisholm | Apr 10, 2005 10:55:35 PM

Jack et al, I've now posted a mini bio on his guest column. Sorry I missed that. And yes, JJ Ark is his real name.

Posted by: Tenskwatawa | Apr 11, 2005 5:49:38 AM

Cognitively Handicapped Lunatic -- C.H.L. Each place you wrote CHL, the reader is reminded you obsess about Cognitively Handicapped Lunatics. CHL. CHL. CHL. Say it some more, come on, say it together, CHL, Cognitively Handicapped Lunatic, Cognitively Handicapped Lunatic. So that's for starters.

Look, mini-Liars, here are your words: "one simple thing: Remove the restrictions that prohibit." But which do not exist, in fact, to "prohibit" as long as you say "the schools' ban on weapons is somewhat up in the air," "state law allows ... anywhere not specifically prohibited," "the district has stated they do not want firearms," "I see no reason why any ... should be disallowed."

Duly enacted law empowers schools to choose to ban or not ban guns. Some schools choose bans. So those schools' LEGAL BANS means DISALLOWED, that's the REASON as such is understood by people not suffering Cognitive Handicap unable to THINK RATIONALLY, and the only believable way that you don't SEE it is willful blindness. Open your eyes, read the law, this means YOU.

More of your Liars' lies: "I am not actually asking that we *require* anything." Liar. You ask that schools be REQUIRED to obey your version and you REQUIRE that existing School's Choice be taken away and you REQUIRE schools not to have a choice.

But more false presentations: "your solutions is?????" "I am still waiting to hear." "I am open to ideas." "I am waiting for you [sic] good idea." "When you figure out how ... gimme a call." "Gimme a plan! I am open to suggestions." " so my idea is bad ... what is yours?" "I intend to respond to each and every concern in a thoughtful manner."

From many people's efforts, there were supplied suggestions, logically developed conclusions, educated and informed views and ideas. Research references to related media contents were linked, including: wireservice.wired.com, vpc.org/press, news.bbc.co.uk, and implicitly, Jonathan Swift's "A Modest Proposal." The "thoughtful" -- NOT, (that liar), manners of response to "each and every concern" -- NOT, (that liar), were limited and split irrelevant hairs and picked invisible nits.

Thus, liar's words: "eh? How do you figure?"; "No, not better safe than sorry"; "No, No, No, and I will tell you"; "that just doesn't seem to be the case"; "It just doesn't pan out number wise [sic]"; "Do you really believe that"; "that isn't germaine {sic}"; "that isn't what we are talking about"; "I didn't hear anyone complaining"; "I tend to ignore them, so I may be wrong"; "I hadn't seen that before"; "reread what I wrote. I am NOT asking for another rule"; "Nope. Wrongo. This isn't ... about 'guns'"; "If you don't *like* what I have to say, fair enough"; "Not really, no."; "Nope. ...huh???";

See, liars are not about listening, and dialogue. 'Nope, not really, no, shut up and reread what I wrote and reread and reread until it's all you know.' Fill your time following the liars' tirades ... and you don't have time for anything else.

Which is what this is all about. This whole bloated gassy mess was Liars Larson out to monkeywrench the BlOr blog, by running up trial balloons, ('an empty head on a stick raised up in a space-wasting thread to draw fire,' or as myrln commented -- Excellent!: "the above would have been better spent discussing what schools are ..., what teachers are ..., what parents are ... this time and energy to (liars) idiot proposal unfortunately lends credibility"). In all of it is show prep. Liars is here compiling what works and deep-sixing what doesn't.

I postulate, Kari, you been hosed. And maybe we can think of a way to prove or disprove my theory. First, come to believe Liars would even care enough to try. 1. - He showed up before. 2. - He pseudonymed that ('lordlawless') "was never coming back to this blog," (when LordLawless had never been here). 3.- Liars came back to this blog. 4. - The voices, the issues, the braintrust, the action and the momentum that politic-stalk radio had in the past are all trends going here, now, and in the blog concept more widely, and away from unilateral dictate broadcast. Liars is floundering desperately to catch up, to get 'what is this "blog" you speak of.' His numbers are down, big time, (ditto dittoheads'). It's curtains for them. And have you heard Liars' programming lately? Flatline. There's no air, there. 5. - His radio programming understudies -- Kremer, Abrams, Leonard, (Kropf?), all walk in here welcome and do well giving and taking discussion, which leaves Liars conspicuous for being out of it and 'out of it' is the vacuum that's naturally abhored and that sucks him in. 6. - Liars cannot survive on a level playing field like BlOr blog where he is demoted to just another peanut gallery spitballer. He can't stay out, when he gets sucked in he can't hold on, so he goes to cheating and lying to game the blog. 7. - There has been a shift in the aggregated voices here, the last couple or three months -- really, ever since Liars showed up the first time. Earlier it was good and respectable and experienced voices and words; lately those have tapered off and been crowded jammed tweaked and monkeywrenched by spates of oddly-ID'd trolls, rightwing verbal-bomb throwers, thread-topic snippers and twisters, and denialists and lockstep contrarians and energy sinks like this ostensibly-serious, actually-hoaxing, piece of crap on bullets and fear bark. 8. - NaziRight 'agent provacteur' dopes are assigned to assail blogs, (e.g., Air America's, MediaMatters's, Ed Schultz's, MediaChannel's), to swamp and confuse them; central casting is coordinating the assignments; and there's been some effects, (tighter webpage security, strained contact communications, fewer newbie tryouts and beginner explorations and mistakes, e.g.)

So here comes Liars at BlOr blog using his rightwing tip sheets, tactics leads, and talking points. Yes, Blue Oregon is the biggest bane of his existence. That's maybe the key to knowing how strongly the nazi mentality hates blogs -- you have to know blogs are the ascendent political sensation and The growing Force in politics. You have to recognize you got it, before you can imagine someone would scheme against you to take it away. Blue Oregon's got it. Liars is not going to die quietly.

Utterly Confused High School Student vaguely sensed (and rightly so -- trust more often your 'something's fishy' sense; Jack Bog, too: "Who the heck is [this loser]?"), the same thing I'm smelling rancid. That "you (gun-goon fearmongers) are just doing this for the publicity." That's correct. Not publicity for themselves, in the conventional style, but publicity for the topic in setting the issues agenda and anti-publicity for the blog in choking off blog oxygen. Hence, the baiting: 'I'm waiting, what's your idea, you got anything better, show your hand what am I up against"; and the switch: "No. No. Nope. Try again. Name-caller. Never touched me. Knocking your teeth." With the sporadic pseudo-anonymices sprinkled around, (more orchestration), squeeking "Here here. That's right, I saw one once. Yeah, I echo that thinking. I second the motion." -- who the heck are they, (not there before), and where are they coming from, (and never came back)!?

I admit I reached the conclusion first and then easily found the facts in evidence on which to base it. Such a reverse process doesn't invalidate the results. This topic and thread is all Liars Larson struggling at BlOr blog. The absolute clincher is the vocabulary, grammar, idiomatic phrasing, and illogical sequencing. Recognition in it comes first to anyone who has a few months' or years' saturation of his peculiarities. Second, and equally incriminating, this topic is the one Liars ran out last week's clock with. (Most of his material since no-WMDs and yes-Torture murders has been finger-in-the-dike red-herring dead fish to fill, fill, fill hours and hours and hours stalling any important topic that matters from getting attention.) Put guns in schools to scare kids is Liars' perennial stalking horse, and he is the only one who ever salutes and crusades it. (And, damn, he has wanted SO BAD to Guest Column in here, more of that issues-setting control freak -- the very core of his presence is actually really mental illness, he is deranged, his brain is damaged, and you can spot where he touches a topic by the juvenile disruptions he puts in it.) And, finally, Sunday is the only day in his schedule he could be at this. Gawd, was he. Review how fast and furious his commenting ranted during today -- just like in radio: instant, instant, quick, quick, we're on the air, no dead air no dead air -- and then he goes 'hey, I'm done for the night, I've got other things to do, I thought people would take time to look and think things over and comment later,' despite his every action making lies of all his words. Yeah, so Liars, check back Wednesday ... if you've got some time. Ha. NOT.

Then, at the last, Kari fetches up the additional information that there is a 'jj ark' jerk. But every ventriloquist's dummy gets a name. Maybe consider this is an autonomous person, who just happens to channel Liars fulltime, talks like him, thinks like him, schedules like him, an autonomous person like an career Elvis impersonator. Besides, the 'jj ark' tag has been around here several months. (Remember, BlOr blog is not a year old yet.) But -- hello? -- that's the breakthrough clue. Earlier 'jj erk' comments sounded somewhat fascist-symp as it was, and presto: Liars reads that, emails into contact, propositions for an accomplice, (suppose there actually is a person living in Southeast with spouse and two point three children, not that it much matters, it just changes the logistics a wee bit), and in tandem Liars spends the day reading comments and feeding back replies through the 'jj erk' email dropbox cutout. Without a dummy to put words in the mouth of, if that was the case, then Liars simply lied it all the livelong day. Do duh. Do duh. (Probably the dummy could mix in a few improvised sentences, no harm if it's more supporting propaganda and two 'voices' would be even murkier to see through.)

Refresh the essential premise to more reasonably see everything connecting. And that's this: It is hard to imagine that Liars is that. hate-filled. crazy. concerning Blue Oregon, because I'm not, and you're not, because we're normal and we don't think that way. But Liars is that crazy, really, actually, mental illness, and this whole thread is what's possible when someone is that bent about it.

Kari, I doubt there's a way or a procedure to screen such debris out, entirely. The way I'd treat it is along the lines in afs's comments: "This idiot ... must be slapped down here and now," and "JJ Ark, don't come back here." Don't try to remove the steaming heap o'deceit, but instead, as soon as it's found out, hold it up and put a glaring neon sign by it, that says 'This came out of Liars Larson.'

Now, whether or not I'm right he did this, there is no question about something Liars did do in his programming last week. He got Oregon State Police Superintendent Ron Ruecker on the air and sucker punched him. First, Liars says: 'The state police want more Cognitively Handicapped Lunatics carrying guns, don't they," and Ruecker says, 'No, not really. Guns kill people and are problemmatic for law enforcement.' And Liars says, 'But then these carriers can jump out and step forward and be cop-helping deputy heroes in an emergency shoot-out,' and Ruecker says, 'They're part of the problem, not any cure.' So Liars says, 'Hey, good to have you on my air, how about we get you back on once a month,' (to fill time and lend official cred to Liars' political propaganda butchery), and Ruecker rather warily soft-says, 'well, yeah, maybe okay, see what happens.'

So I have a message for Supt. Ruecker and incidentally can prop or slop the claims I made about Blue Oregon's mass and momentum by putting the message here and watching to see if it reaches OSP administration. Look ma, no media! Here's the message: Don't just jilt Liars by never coming back on his programming, (where he mocked you after you got off the line, Superintendent, telling his cult to ignore you and carry guns everywhere anyway), but, BUT, Ron, finally somebody official stand up to this Liars' lying provocations of civil disorder and community unrest, and anti-social hatreds, by publicly announcing (a standard press release would do fine) that you are not coming back on Liars' programming. And maybe include saying that you discourage all OSP personnel from appearing, also. Especially if you're on duty, on the clock, on the public dime. (Perhaps Superintendent of Public Instruction Susan Castillo and/or House Speaker Karen Minnis and/or Governor Ted Kulongoski, or their offices, might share with OSP their experiences and developed policies regarding Liars encounters, and why they don't anymore.) See, Liars is an entertainment programmer, not legitimate news. Entertainment programming is supposed to pay AFTRA union scale for any guest appearances with a speaking part that's broadcast. Did Liars pay you? Newscasts are public information conduits, and newspapers and news reporters get privileged access to public officials in order to serve their public information function, which goes both ways, since public officials can more or less command news outlets to carry official public announcements. Entertainers don't get access, (for free, they have to pay guests, because they are re-selling the content for private profit), and public officials can't really tell entertainers what they have to carry.

In Liars' case, recall that he was the one who watched the Ch.12 TV and Ch.6 TV news helicopter midday coverage (which didn't have many viewers driving around in their cars), at the time of the Special Unit action in which Officer Weibel was killed a few years ago, and Liars trans-shipped what he saw on TV into speech going out on his radio programming to many car drivers, reporting the street address of the operation and leading gawkers to it while it was on-going, live, real-time; and Liars was the cause of subsequently enacted restrictions on TV news helicopters' approach to live 'situations' and 'operations,' for which restrictions the legitimate news outlets and many former colleagues never have forgotten or forgiven Larson.

Superintendent Ruecker, Liars deserves to be repudiated. Not celebrated and placated.

Posted by: Kari Chisholm | Apr 11, 2005 8:38:19 AM

Tensk, I believe JJ Ark to be a real person. While I disagree wholeheartedly with his views, I found his guest column well-written and well-argued. Wrong, but well-written. I'd suggest arguing it on its merits (plenty of fodder there), rather than developing conspiracy theories about what Lars Larson is up to.

Incidentally, if Lars Larson wants to write a guest column for Blue Oregon, I'd probably accept it. There would be no need for him to hide his identify. As long as it was interesting, topical, and well-written, I'd run it.

Finally, if "Blue Oregon is the biggest bane of his existence", then we must be doing something right, eh?

Posted by: riotboy | Apr 11, 2005 8:39:15 AM

An extremely logical proposal to counter the utopian socio-babblists, who tell us that laws can make schools "Gun Free Zones." Laws can never do anything but disarm the honest. Gun Free School laws are especially onerous, as they make school grounds safe places for a bad guy bent on shooting up the place - he can be sure he'll be the only one there with a gun.

Right now our schools are just Legislatively Enhanced Child Murder Zones.

Posted by: art de volve | Apr 11, 2005 8:55:26 AM

Funny. People with handgun licenses don't shoot up schools or anything else as far as I can tell from the media.
The great thing about allowing CHL's to carry in school is that the bad guys will never know who might be able to stop them. This is like free security.

Posted by: Richard Jennings | Apr 11, 2005 9:43:27 AM

JJ Ark, you are right on the money with this. As long as we forbid the lawful carrying of arms in our schools, they will continue to be vulnerable to psychos who will get the weapons they want, no matter what. (Even stealing them from the police!) However, since many of your attackers seem to be "utterly confused students" (as one commenter called himself), then perhaps this is a good policy. Then the killers can weed out the lemmings from among us. Just make sure your children don't go to a "gun-free school"!

R.Jennings

Posted by: afs | Apr 11, 2005 9:48:24 AM

riot boy/art de valve: "Legislatively enhanced child murder zones" huh? You've oficially entered the realm of the "orange alert" as a means of stiring up pointless hysteria as a distraction from the real problems the GOP is facing. Now would be a good time to point out...

Tom DeLay...Tom Delay...Tom Delay...

...Just as a reminder of how crooked the GOP is before the I go on....

Now, back to dealing with this distraction...

Lots of people get killed in fast food restaurants, too. Fast, food, shootout gets 468,000 google hits. Do I have to remind you of all the slaughters that have happened at fast food restaurants? A lot more than have happened at schools. Are fast food restaurants "legislatively enhanced teenage murder zones"? Hey... let's give everyone that flips a burger or asks "Do you want fries with that?" an Uzi. They are in danger, right? More in danger than those in schools....

Posted by: afs | Apr 11, 2005 10:00:00 AM

Kari, why's everything getting posted in italics?

Also Kari... you have to be careful in the future regarding gun topics. They really draw out the loons. I wasn't kidding when I made reference to the Church of the NRA. Being a "gun nut" really is quite similar to a fundamentalist religious practice. The practicioners make no reference to science or fact in the discussion. DemocraticUnderground.com has had all gun issue discussions banned to seperate forum for a reason. They are more divisive and hate filled than even discussions of Ariel Sharon... and if you're on the net, you know how bad those get.

Posted by: afs | Apr 11, 2005 10:01:56 AM

Guess the brief italics problem is fixed :-)

Posted by: mike | Apr 11, 2005 10:21:54 AM

i've found this whole thread much more enjoyable to read if i envision jj ark, riotboy, art de volve, richard jennings and their ilk as dressed in a chicken little costume.

is the sky really falling?

more guns do not make anyone safer. ever. more guns offer more opportunity for killers to kill.

let's turn our children's schools into armed encampments. brilliant. that way they can learn that the sky is falling at a much earlier age.

should school principals be given tactical nukes?

crazy, crazy, crazy.

Posted by: afs | Apr 11, 2005 10:31:42 AM

This is what happens when you turn the whole country into a free-fire zone as JJ Ark, riotboy, art de volve, Richard Jennings advocate...

Six Wounded in Florida Family Feud
By Associated Press

April 11, 2005, 12:23 PM EDT

CRESCENT CITY, Fla. -- Members of neighboring families shot at each other, wounding six people, as part of a long-running feud that victims said peaked when a girl from one family began dating a boy from the other one.

Six people ages 14 to 22 were taken to hospitals Sunday for treatment of gunshot wounds. Two remained hospitalized Monday, one in serious condition.

Baldemar Riojas, 46, was charged with six counts of aggravated battery with a firearm. He was freed on $15,000 bail.

Members of the Soliz and Ortiz families say their feud with the neighboring Riojas family has simmered for more than a year and became more heated when Riojas' teenage daughter started dating Miguel Soliz, 15, who was among the wounded.

"All this started because they were dating," said Melva Ortiz, Miguel's mother. "I tried to tell him to leave the girl, but you know how kids are."

Maj. Rick Ryan of the Putnam County sheriff's office said members of both families had guns and fired across a street at each other.

However, he said investigators had been stymied by the families' reluctance to talk to authorities. "We get out there and nobody knows anything," Ryan said...."

link to Newsday story

Posted by: Tenskwatawa | Apr 11, 2005 10:43:43 AM

Kari, yeah, 'jj ark' is likely but not likeably a real person, I believe so, because you said so earlier. Whether mind-soaked by Liars in real time or in practiced impersonation, the result is the same -- this topic and its terms -- only the method to be used different. The minor point is how Liars, et alii, could fabricate such piece o' crap, but to show it is possible; and the major point is that he, (and they), would go to such straining contortions to pile up such a dump. I went long to make that major point because I doubted you and other true blue BlOr bloggers might conceive and believe this blog is so important and valuable that some self-selected enemy like Liars' gun-goonies would and could stalk here. (I'm unsure if I said it well enough for you to believe it yet; maybe your last line "If BlueOregon is their bane ..." had more words on the end, and my browser lost them, which to read would indicate whether you do or don't believe it -- that they are stalking mentalities and BlOr is their idea of a target.)

If Liars could submit a Guest Column, (see, he can't write because he's illiterate -- brain damaged, so that puts a handicap complexion on the premise, but), if he could I in your place would probably accept it, too, just as you say you might, quite rightly. However, Liars is ashamed of his earlier behaviors here and hides and lurks around too embarrassed to show himself, and too puny to sustain an argued position on a current issue and too petty to grasp one. (Hence reverting to his guns-over-kids neurosis from years of habit in the topic, while that issue is ended and reality world has moved on.)

There's no 'merits' in it to argue on, which is the first thing I said in the thread. No bullets and guns in schools, no matches and gasoline in fireworks stands, done, stop. Someone who doesn't get that and reflexively keeps trying to revive it from dead is someone who is crying for help with their halted development and all there is to argue or decide is whether or not society (or schooling) is safe to laugh them off or look away unvigilant. The topic is not even dubious, the dysfunction of the speaker is. (Which reprises Jack Bog: "April Fools was last week;" forget the trick, look to the fool.)

And, scant comfort -- voila: apres tu, le deluge -- after you comes an immediate spate of (two) "oddly-ID'd trolls, rightwing verbal-bomb throwers, thread-topic snippers and twisters, and denialists and lockstep contrarians and energy sinks," as I foresaid.

My ultimate point remains in (here, whispered) calling on OSP Superintendent Ron Ruecker to hang up on Liars' radio programming and to publicly repudiate Liars in doing so.

Posted by: JJ Ark | Apr 11, 2005 11:15:38 AM

> We consider a public safety measure to arrest you, detain you for mental evaluation, profiling and medication if appropriate
>This guy is a dangerous idiot who has perhaps seriously misread J. Swift.
>t is not a personal insult when you're broken and somebody points out that you're broken.
>JJ Ark, don't come back here to discuss any of this until you are prepared to discuss only having highly trained individuals carrying weapons into a school.
>What saddens me is all this time and thought and energy wasted on a foolish notion by someone who clearly has abandoned good sense (assuming its prior existence) for creating what amounts to a free-fire zone.
>Question: WERE YOU NEGLECTED AS A CHILD? WERE YOU DROPPED ON THE HEAD ALS0? WERE YOU LET OUT OF THE LOCAL BEDLAM RECENTLY? I MEAN MY GOD, MY DOG HAS MORE BRAINS AND COMMON SENSE THAN YOU DO!!!!
>Hey, Kari, who the heck is "JJ Ark"? And who's lined up for our next "guest column," Ward Weaver?
>Kari, I doubt there's a way or a procedure to screen such debris out,
>'This came out of Liars Larson.'
>This whole bloated gassy mess was Liars Larson out to monkeywrench the BlOr blog,

For the record, I am not now, nor will I ever be Lars Larson. I have never even met the guy, although my wife has. She also hung out with Dean when he was in town for the shoe throwing incident, so I guess I could be Howard.

I am ceasing responses in this thread.

This was obviously not the place to bring this up. It is clear that this weblog I have participated in for many moons now isn't really the forum for introduction of new ideas that might challenge viewers and participants. I am saddened.

So what did I expect? I expected at least some of the usual stuff. I got that stuff in spades, but what I was really looking for were folks that would take this idea, and look into better ways to prevent school shootings, and if possible, mitigate the effects after the shooting has happened. Embracing all the above in the context of a cash strapped system, I was confident that BlOg'ers would be up to the task of thinking outside their box. Its clear I was wrong...at least on this issue. That greatly saddens me.

AFS: you have successfully shouted down this idea. I am glad you feel better. I have left a good bunch of your comments untouched and will leave them untouched, mostly because they are not germaine to the debate at hand...but its clear I can't expect you to understand their reason for exclusion. Cry foul all you want.

But I want you to know something, folks, and this should scare you to the core: I do not belong to the NRA. I never will. I disagree with the NRA on many, many fundemental levels. I am not coming to you from the "wrong side" of the aisle: until yesterday, I voted straight democrat. I didn't buy guns to protect myself from "them" and I am not stockpiling ammunition for an apocolypse at a theater near you. I do not even *have* a CHL. I have never even shot another living creature.

In other words, I am not the enemy. It was very interesting that you treated me and the ideas I presented as such, even going to so far as to say I was someone I wasn't. I am now understanding why the dems, the party of my family throughout our history here in this country, is so resistent to change, and are losing.

If we as a party refuse to even *consider* other alternatives then we. are. dead.

Posted by: David Wright | Apr 11, 2005 11:22:05 AM

AFS:

You're right, "gun nuts" do bear an interesting resemblance to religious fundamentalists.

So do "anti-gun nuts".

Both groups tend to use inflammatory rhetoric to incite an emotional reaction rather than a reasoned response. Such as, oh I don't know, Mike's inane statement: "Should school principals be given tactical nukes?"

Seems like the responses in this thread have been heavily weighted on the emotional side. Oh, there have been lots of facts and figures thrown about, but no clear logical connection between those stats and the proposal at hand.

By the way, were any of the people involved in that "free-fire zone" in your most recent posting, teachers on school grounds? Or teachers at all?

To all:

I don't know that this proposal would make schools any safer. But I don't know that it would make them more dangerous, either.

I am reminded by this discussion of the great wailing and gnashing of teeth when Texas enacted their changes a few years back, allowing CHL holders to carry in churches unless expressly forbidden. (Yeah, I know, Dubya's stomping grounds... I'm not holding Texas up as a model for anyone, I'm just using that particular state because it was in the news for this very reason.) The same arguments were applied there -- that having people carrying concealed weapons in church would somehow cause widespread violence to break out in the pews.

I was unable to find a single instance of gun violence in a Texas church, after that law change went into effect, that was the result of anything other than a disgruntled outsider bringing weapons into the church with the express purpose of shooting up the place. So it seems clear to me that the "allowing guns = more violence" equation does not necessarily hold true. The violence that occurred there did not happen because people were carrying concealed weapons in church.

Of course, I was also unable to find any reference to anybody who had been carrying, using their weapon to prevent or disrupt such violence either. So it seems equally clear to me that the "allowing guns = more safety" equation also does not necessarily hold true.

If anybody can provide information about cases of either situation that I may have missed, please post that information, thanks.

Anyhow, if your natural inclination is to not change something unless it can be shown to have a positive effect (and I don't think this has), then it makes sense not to back this proposal. And congratulations, sounds like you're basically conservative.

If your natural inclination is to try something new unless it can be shown to have a negative effect (and I think the jury's still out on that too), then it might make sense to back this proposal. And it sounds like you're basically liberal.

As for me, hell I don't know. I'd like to see more relevant information about safety levels in other locations where it's legal to carry concealed weapons (and, if you like, where there are high concentrations of kids). The arguments against seem to focus on all of the mishaps that may occur other than when there's a "school shooting" type event. So let's see the data on all those mishaps that are occurring in other venues under similar circumstances.

Hmmm... but of course, since "I don't know" I guess that makes me a heretic in the anti-gun religion, eh? ;-)

Posted by: Pat Ryan | Apr 11, 2005 11:49:41 AM

The big question surrounding handguns is who gets to have and use them.

Right now we have,

1) the military,
2) police,
3) law abiding citizens,
4) criminals.

The only group that can be disarmed in any plausible way is group 3, because you just repeal the second amendment and pass laws prohibiting ownership. From that point anybody not in the military or the police that owns a handgun will immediately fall into category 4.

While I agree with the principle of doing away with guns in society, allowing the state to be armed while prohibiting ownership by ordinary citizens is unacceptable to me.

So, disarming all police and private citizens at the same time is the only solution that I will accept. In a few decades we will hopefully develop science fictiony tech that allows the total incapacitiation of people at a distance without the use of lethal force. When that tech is widely available, that will be the time to discuss disarming private citizens.

Posted by: Tenskwatawa | Apr 11, 2005 12:14:02 PM

And still not getting it. 'jj ark': It is not that this is the wrong place. It is not that it divides Democrats from neo-fascists.

It IS a dead and sick thought. It's dead, Jim. It don't work.

Schools stay stupid if you throw money and legal clamps on them. Self-government by remote control is an oxymoronic fallacy. Schools and education don't need your stinking money and don't need your stinking armchair quarterbacking.

Invest your labor -- your life -- not your paper money and platitudes. Get up, get out, get down there and HELP. Assistant teach. Assistant principal. Drive a bus pro bono. Raise the kids to the Legislature, don't drop legislation on the kids.

Give your time. Give your heart. Give a damn. Get in the game. Make a difference. Run with the ball, advance, score some points. Be somebody, do some thing; else: "slacker." It's what you are up to doing, not what you are down on damning. And if/when you go to school and help, teach what you know, (every one has some gift to share, come out, come out), you will learn a gun has no use for you in dealing with what you encounter there.

It doesn't matter whether you are Liars veritably or virtually, if all you are is sealed in his closed bunker-brain just go ahead and choke on your stinkin' wad of dirty money and legal manuscripts. Slink off scolded if you ain't happening, (Liars exactly). Out here we're eating right, paying it forward, living life with all we got.

Posted by: afs | Apr 11, 2005 12:15:11 PM

JJ Ark: "you have successfully shouted down this idea. I am glad you feel better. I have left a good bunch of your comments untouched and will leave them untouched, mostly because they are not germaine to the debate at hand...but its clear I can't expect you to understand their reason for exclusion. Cry foul all you want."

JJ Ark is still desperately trying to spin that the CNN coverage of the Red Lake School shooting has nothing to do the Red Lake School Shooting, or school shooting in general. The fact that the kid that did the shooting did them with STOLEN POLICE WEAPONRY completely destroys his entire position. He says that more weapons in the hands of those barely trained to handle them would be a good thing, when what caused the Red Lake School massacre was a well-trained police officer having his weapons taken, and the kid using said weapons to open fire at school. Clearly, more weapons around kids in any form means more chances for kids to take away said weapons and start firing at people.

David Wright: As is normal for you David, you attempt to distract the discussion with nit-picking... like earlier when you tried to distract a discussion about tax policy with claims that a graphic wasn't an accurate picture of the economy becasue it was based on the IRS data from the total pool of taxpayers rather, not the absolute total numbers of all employed individuals in the US economy in all possible circumstances... a figure that not even the IRS or economists can absolutely determine.

David Wright said, "By the way, were any of the people involved in that "free-fire zone" in your most recent posting, teachers on school grounds? Or teachers at all?"

So, David is again applying completely unreasonable expectations upon research. David says he'll only accept "techers with guns" data. Gee David, there just isn't a hell of a big pool of "teacher with guns" data.

What we do have is data that proves that the more lax gun laws are in a state, the more kids die from gun violence. That's good enough for me. That "6 shot" story I posted illustrates that point quite well. Bunch of teenagers and young adults got shot because there were a ton of guns around and the two families decided to play Hatfields and McCoys.

David, I gave up giving a shit what you thought a while back when I realized there was probably a direct coorelation between your attempts to troll up a flame wars here, how bored you are that day at work.

Posted by: rebellingboxer | Apr 11, 2005 12:24:59 PM

Pat Ryan... Your argument is a false circular argument. What has been proven over and over is that fewer guns in the hands of your so-called category "law-abiding citizens" reduces gun crime and reduces gun violence. By reducing the amount of guns available for gun crimes, fewer previously "law-abiding citizen" turn into gun-using criminals.

The thing that this "law-abiding citizen" rubbish argument completely distracts from is those citizens who are currently law-abiding that go on to commit violent acts with guns.

Posted by: Tenskwatawa | Apr 11, 2005 12:44:24 PM

David Wright: Have you decided that the gun-carnage Branch Davidians in Waco was not a church in Texas? They had a 'savior' and everything.

As for knowing "negative effect" errors before blindly 'trying something new,' there is a wisdom of the ages that says you cannot hug a child with small caliber arms. If you don't know what nurtured children grow up to be ... well, I guess that's your "'I don't know'." It's not so much that it is heretical to a religious creed in gun-ness or anti-gun-ness, and more like unfulfilled in 'to your own self (and its potential) be true.'

Posted by: David Wright | Apr 11, 2005 1:04:35 PM

AFS:

Hey, if you don't much care what I think, why bother replying to my posts?

Oh yeah, anybody who disagrees with you in any way has to be "slapped down" (I believe that's your term, right?) immediately. Lest somebody actually give reasoned consideration to an alternative world view.

AFS, man, you showed your rather tenuous grasp of cause and effect in that other thread to which you alluded (and which you continue to mischaracterize, but I've given up on helping you with that one), I'm not at all surprised to see you here spouting off irrelevancies as though they prove whatever point you're trying to make. Do you honestly have no idea that the stories you relay, though true, do not actually prove the point you think they prove? Yet you accuse me of distracting the discussion?

I didn't say I required research only about teachers with guns. I said I wanted research that was more directly applicable to the situation at hand, i.e., concealed weapons carriers losing their weapons to those who would create mischief and mayhem, particularly (but not exclusively) in environments where there are high concentrations of children. In fact, I believe that it's legal in some states to carry concealed weapons in amusement parks. Lots of kids there, right? How many "incidents" have been reported where CHL holders lost their weapons to kids who subsequently used those weapons to commit violence? Do you know? I don't. I'd like to find out. I think that information would be entirely germaine to the discussion.

Exactly HOW are these questions distracting from the issue at hand? Oh, right... it's a distraction from the point you'd like to make, which is that guns are evil, period. Well, you can believe that if you want. I think there's entirely too much gun violence in this country. I'd like to find a way to reduce that violence. And my only point is that I'm not convinced by anything anybody has posted here, that this specific proposal would either increase or decrease that violence. I want more information. That's all.

By the way, the flame war in this thread has burned quite brightly without anything I've said here. I'm not the one telling people how to think or ridiculing those with different ideas. I'm asking questions to try to get people to think for themselves. Isn't that at least partly the point of these community discussions?

Posted by: Pat Ryan | Apr 11, 2005 1:25:00 PM

Rebelling Boxer,

What has been proven in my personal experience is that I have been in face to face confrontations with armed psychopaths on more than one occasion. The credible threat of violence has prevented violence from occuring. Progressive theories and studies carefully crafted for a desired result will not change my personal experience regarding the efficacy of posessing a weapon in certain circumstances.

You also danced around the intangible effect that an armed citizenry has on the tendency of an armed state toward repression without the fear of retaliation.

This was one of the main issues that caused the founders to argue for allowing citizen ownership of weapons. (And yes I did read the part about the militias so don't waste the keystrokes.) The principle remains the same. I refuse to open myself to the possibility of martyrdom to support your belief system or that of any other religious belief system.

The general contempt that you and others exhibit toward any possible use of the threat of violence, clearly displays your collective ignorance and knee jerk bias. Refusal to consider an issue on your part does not preclude the possibility that thoughtful dialogue on the topic is appropriate and useful.

Posted by: afs | Apr 11, 2005 1:50:19 PM

First of all... I'm afs and "rebelling boxer." I use "rebelling boxer" where my initials are already registered. Unfortunately, I occasionally forget to re-type everything into typepad, and "rebelling boxer" goes up. My bad... but I use them interchangably, and I put up a notice very early regarding that, so I'm not trying to hide anything.

Anyway...

Pat Ryan:"I have been in face to face confrontations with armed psychopaths on more than one occasion."

-Pat, you're going to have to prove that claim with evidence. I suggest the possibility that the closest you have ever come to "armed psychopaths" is your X-Box. Nobody in the security field uses the term "psychopath," but video games use the term all the time.

-Until you prove differently, I suggest we as a group reject all policy suggestions made that are based on what someone has seen in first person shooters.

David Wright: I've repeated over and over the most on-point evidence in this discussion. In the tragedy in Red Lake, the whole basis of this discussion, the guns that were used were taken off a highly trained police officer. If kids are successfully getting guns from trained cops, teachers that attend a two hour seminar and take a quiz will be no obstacle to the same kids whatsoever. But, watch as David Wright completely ignores the central point of a discussion yet again to attempt to distract from the central issues to nit-pick on issues on the periphery of the discussion.

Posted by: David Wright | Apr 11, 2005 2:06:58 PM

Tensk: No, I didn't decide the Branch Davidians were not a church. There are several reasons why that particular example is not germaine:

Waco happened in 1993, prior to the time when guns were legally allowed in churches in Texas.
The Branch Davidians were not legally carrying concealed weapons in church (the basis of my question). The weapons were not legal, and within the church they were not necessarily concealed.
The violence at Waco was a conflict between the members of the church and law enforcement personnel, not a matter of violence breaking out between church members.

In short, the Branch Davidian mess was a completely different sort of affair than simply people carrying weapons in church.

"You cannot hug a child with small caliber arms" is "Wisdom of the Ages", eh? That's right, I seem to recall that written in the Bible somewhere... er, no, maybe it was in the Magna Carta... uh, wait, wasn't that in the Declaration of Independence?

No, I've got it, that was from a clever little bumper sticker from the cold war! Except that "nuclear arms" are of rather large caliber, aren't they? Ah well, 40 years is an "age" I suppose...

Look, I'm not saying guns are good for kids. I'm saying that guns are a reality of life, some people legally own firearms and are legally licensed to carry them, so I'd like to see some rational information on why those people should be restricted from taking them on school grounds. Period. Perhaps there is a study out there, some data that clearly demonstrates that wherever you find concealed handguns being legally carried by adults, you'll find dead kids. I haven't seen it. Does anyone have this study? Such information would certainly influence my opinion on this matter (which, as yet, is still undecided).

Posted by: Pat Ryan | Apr 11, 2005 2:21:43 PM

AFS,

No, I don't have to "prove" where I've been, nor do I have to prove my assertions of my personal experiences. Those that know me or for some other reson find me to be a credible person, will take my statements about my personal experience at face value.

You, of course, are under no obligation to believe anything that I say. The obverse is also true. Again, your incredulity does not automatically demonstrate your factual grounding.

If you want to visit the grave of Rosalino Carriaga in Puerto Guarani, Paraguay and interview town residents, I can offer some names.

The red freaks that invaded my home in Bend back in the mid '70s looking for one of my idiot roomates, might be more problematic as there was little time to take names as I looked to protecting my wife and three small children.

I could go on, but suffice it to say that judging the veracity of others by your personal life experience is not necessarily going to lead you to the one and only truth.

***********
Be assured though that I will continue to base arguments outside of my personal experience on facts and will be ready to defend assertions with references when possible.

Oh yea, I don't own an Xbox but I love playing Doom and its descendants on my PC. No psychopaths though, just big old nasty demons and zombies....

Posted by: David Wright | Apr 11, 2005 2:36:23 PM

AFS, again you misunderstand what your "facts" prove.

Does anybody know whether the gun(s) used in Red Lake were literally "taken off" the police officer? From what I've heard, the only people who were in the house at the time are all dead. How do you know for a fact that the kid disarmed the cop to get his gun, rather than simply taking the gun from wherever it was stored?

There was a gun in the house somewhere, that much is true. You have offered no evidence however that the gun was forcibly taken from the highly trained police officer. The cop was the kid's grandfather, you don't think the kid knew where the gun was kept in the house? You suppose the cop carried the gun on his person at all times when he was at home?

In short, you have demonstrated nothing other than deranged people who are interested in doing harm, will find the tools they need to do harm. That is not news, nor does it demonstrate that schools will be any less safe if licensed adults have guns on their person on school grounds.

But hey, it's nice to know that I'm not the only person that you post wild assumptions about here. Pat, welcome to the club... ;-)

Posted by: Torrid Joe | Apr 11, 2005 3:49:57 PM

Pat--how do you know you prevented violence? And if you had shot one, how do you know absent your gun that anyone would have been shot?

The concept of proximity and supply being a factor in discharge of weapons seems not only obvious but nearly irrefutable. You cannot shoot someone without a gun, and you cannot do so with a gun that is not at hand. By definition, allowing people to bring guns into school increases both supply and proximity, 100% of the time. Absent guns being legally brought to school, there is no evidence I'm aware of that would indicate school shootings go UP.

Until the latter is unequivocally shown, I think it's clearly more prudent to refrain from adding weapons to the mix. The reason why, is the same reason why you don't leave oily rags uncovered in a shop: maybe the number of times those rags ignite and cause a lethal fire is probably small, but if you put them in a closed container the risk approaches zero.

Posted by: afs | Apr 11, 2005 4:44:36 PM

Pat Ryan: I did do a google search for Carriaga + Paraguay. 9 total hits internationally. None of them for a Carriaga in Paraguay.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&c2coff=1&q=Carriaga+Paraguay&btnG=Search

The closest was a Carriaga teaching at Arizona State who wrote a book on Bolivia. So, as far as Google can find, there are no Carriaga's in Paraguay.

So... no Carriagas to be found in Paraguay, and you know first person shooters very well...

David Wright: Nobody said the guns had to be proven to have been physically wrestled from a police officer. Good training includes weapon security when a person isn't using their weapons. The first thing an military recruit learns when they approach the topic of personal weapons is that if their assigned weapon is not in the armory, they better be paying attention to it. Not paying attention to a weapon during basic training gets one the opportunity to sleep with said weapon. Keeping a weapon safe when a person is not using it is a major topic in weapon security. We're not talking about wrestling guns from people. We're talking about prevention of doing stupid things like setting a weapon on a desk and turning one's back on it while putting on or taking off a sweater, etc. Any way a kid gets ahold of a police weapon is the wrong way. Nobody has to prove they bested that individual in physical combat. All you need to see is a kid with a police weapon in their hand to know the police officer screwed up. If as many well-trained police make mistakes that allow weapons into the hands of kids, think of all the mistakes that will be made by people who only have to take a 2 hour class and take a quiz.

Posted by: Heather | Apr 11, 2005 4:57:18 PM

1. Several school shooting have been stopped by people who had guns on campus. One in Pearl, Mississippi, and one at a law school in West Virginia come to mind. In both cases, the press mostly neglected to report that guns were used to stop the shooter--in the WV case, I caught ABC News outright lying about the matter. SO, I guess it's little wonder few people are aware of that fact.

2. The study cited has NOTHING to do with holder of Concealed Carry permits, or the children around them. It has been discredited, due to bias. What sort of bias, you ask? Firstly, skewing those studied toward areas where gang activity is plentiful, and, secondly, including as children, people up to the age of 19, so as to make sure to include just as many gangbangers as possible. The actual gun death stats for children under 14 are so low that such a child is actually more likely to DROWN IN A BUCKET than to get shot to death.

3. Depending on whose stats you want to use, Americans use a gun to defend themselves between 40,000 and 2.5 million times a year. Most times, the gun is never fired. Even the Brady Campaign will admit to the 40,000 stat. In the US, every year, roughly 30,000 people are shot to death. Half of that 30,000 are folks that used a gun to commit suicide. Simple math: upwards of 40,000 people defended every year with a gun, 15,000 people shot to death by another, with some of those being people killed in self-defense.

4. Again, simple statistics. The wave of violence that is supposed to happen when concealed carry is allowed NEVER has happened, anywhere. In every state that has concealed carry, violent crime rates have dropped. The places in this country with the strictest gun laws are the most unsafe places in this country. The safest places have the least strict gun laws--some do not even require a permit to carry concealed. In other words, places where people can carry concealed are safer than places where people cannot. So, we deliberately make the places where our children spend their days less safe than they could be. Excuse me, but something is wrong with this picture.

Posted by: Ty | Apr 11, 2005 5:23:00 PM

Knock the idea of armed teachers and citizens all you like. To deny the reality of what happened in columbine and Beslan russia and the obvious vulnerability of victim disarmament (gun control) that exists here is intellectually dishonest and sickening.

FACT: Gun control is a myth in the face of determination. And restricting access to firearms to citizens and civil servants only makes a killing field more available to a criminal mind. One way or another, a determined criminal, terrorist or common street thug will get guns. They will find them somehow, somewhere. They dont care about the law! Thats why they are dangerous!!! Thats why they are having their way when they decide to start a killing rampage, they dont fear disarmed people!!!! They have the power.

Must we wait to lose dozens of children to terrorists and nut jobs in order to not be labeled "fearmongers". If anything, those who are quick to dismiss this option are usaully fearful of guns. And rather than face that fear by going to a range, taking a course in defensive arms. And taking responsibility for their own safety. They will try to disarm the rest of us in order to sedate their cowardice.

"Gun free Zones " are like ringing the dinner bell for those with a need to kill for Godssake!. Thinking that something other than a bullet is going to stop them is like an abused women throwing a "napkin court order of protection" at a disgrunteled spouse who is about to murder them.

Its our fight, bottom line.

Posted by: David Wright | Apr 11, 2005 6:27:41 PM

AFS, I'll grant that weapon security is an issue.

Do we have any relevant statistics showing that CHL holders are consistently lax with weapon security?

It's not sufficient, in my mind, to say that something bad could happen. Lots of bad things could happen. What I want to know is, do we have any reason to believe that bad things will in fact happen?

Hey, since apparently we want to make sure that our children never come anywhere near anything that has even the potential to cause them harm...

Motor vehicle accidents are the #1 cause of death in this country for every age group from 4-34. Certainly that includes all school-age children. Clearly, motor vehicles are deadly dangerous for kids.

So let's ban all motor vehicles from school property. Teachers are no longer allowed to drive themselves to school. What if they hit a child? Let's eliminate bus service for all schools. What if the bus was involved in an accident and a child was hurt or killed? Dammit, cars KILL PEOPLE therefore they must be eliminated!

Er, wait a minute... might that be a bit of an irrational fear-based overreaction? I mean, it's true that cars are dangerous, in fact they're deadly. More deadly, actually, for school children than guns are (more deadly for all age groups as a matter of fact). Where is your moral outrage that such devastating instruments of death and destruction are allowed in the vicinity of children?

Now wait for it, AFS is going to miss the point entirely and accuse me of confusing the issue...

Posted by: Pat Ryan | Apr 11, 2005 6:28:41 PM

AFS,

Rosalino died in 1972. Google didn't have him until this thread got going, but he's on the internet now. He doesn't care any more than I do about your credulity regarding the incident of his murder at the hands of some small time thieves in a corrupt South American country 33 yers ago.

Torrid Joe,

Like Heather David, Ty, and others have said here, responsible owners do not do anything around guns in a light hearted and inattentive way. Despite the general presumption of our lunacy by our opponents, we take ownership very seriously indeed.

I have not come down on either side of the original question posed by JJ, but I think that it's a topic worthy of debate. If I were a teacher in today's public schools, I would have to decide if my specific environment warranted carrying a concealed weapon. If the answer was affirmative, I would be (as I have always been) inclined to make every attempt to diffuse potential violence through negotiation, but I'd rather be sure that I had their attention while talking.

Bottom line, as the weapon barrel swings your way or toward the students in your care, you would be able to minimize if not entirely avert a tragedy provided that you had the proper training and focus.

I don't carry a weapon around with me these days as I am able to be selective about where I go and who I associate with. I still don't want you or anyone else removing that option from my toolbox, unless and until you can guarantee that every other person on the nation, including the gangsters, the police, the white supremacists, and all other special cases are to be simultaneously disarmed.

Posted by: afs | Apr 11, 2005 8:05:04 PM

Heather conveniently posted numbers and statements which prove my case.

"In the US, every year, roughly 30,000 people are shot to death. Half of that 30,000 are folks that used a gun to commit suicide."

Repeat that. Half of all gun deaths are due to suicide.

"Suicide is the third leading cause of death among young people ages 15 to 24. In 2001, 3,971 suicides were reported in this group (Anderson and Smith 2003)."

http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/factsheets/suifacts.htm

Now, I don't have the exact numbers on teen suicides by guns, but clearly, the greatest risk to the safety of teens in schools in not extrememly rare Columbine/Red Lake type incidents. The greatest risk to teen safety at a school is teens killing themselves. The last thing a policy maker should do is write a policy that gives teens access to weapons they can more easily kill themselves with. Teens kill themselves all the time. Columbine incidents are very rare.

So... what's more important, trying to prevent the 3rd leading cause of teen deaths... suicide... and the weapons teens use to kill themselves? Or allowing a far greater risk of the 3rd leading cause of teen death to take place in order to possibly prevent a few fatalities a year in very rare incident of mass violence?

David Wright: Stuff your continued nitpicky demands for ridiculous statistics nobody has ever researched sideways, dude.

You do not need piles of statistics to know that the two hour class required for the CHL is not going to create a Jackie Chan ever-vigilant gun-fu expert. Your attemps to pretend that CHL holders will learn more in their two-hour class than police learn in their entire career is ludicrous. CHL holders will be SLIGHTLY better than the general population in regards to gun safety and security. No more. What's an "irrational fear-based overreaction" is giving all those suicide-behavior prone teens a place where they know they can get a gun to take themselves out of this world in exchange for a only possible reduction in risk in extremely rare mass shootings... which have as much real chance of killing a teen as, as Heather said, teens drowning in buckets.

Pat Ryan: Go back to your Doom 3 game, dude. Your story might hold water... except there's nobody with the last name Carriaga to be googled up in the whole country of Paraguay... or are you claiming now you shot every single Carraiga in Paraguay? Bwahahahaha....

Posted by: Jeff Alworth | Apr 12, 2005 8:28:27 AM

Hey, Kari, who the heck is "JJ Ark"? And who's lined up for our next "guest column," Ward Weaver?

When JJ's column came down the pike, we scratched our heads about whether to run it. I have to say, observing the incredible, engaged dialogue that it produced, we clearly made the right decision.

If ideas are good, they should be able to flourish in the public square, with a full consideration of the facts. If they're bad--as I believe this one is--that same consideration should be useful in guiding us to better ones.

We are confronted with a culture of aggressively forced agreement right now, thanks to Majority Leaders who threaten the judiciary, Attorney Generals who threaten Senators, and cable and radio screamers who threaten everyone. It creates a kind of mute line-toeing. I like to think that the strongest antidote to this poison isn't a firmer discipline on our side, but actual open discussion.

Cool to see it happening here.

Posted by: Torrid Joe | Apr 12, 2005 10:42:12 AM

Heather:

on #1--you've insulated yourself well on this allegation: it happened, but the press refused to report it. So essentially we just have to take your word for it? Thanks, no.

on #4--your "simple statistics" may be correct as far as they go, but they're highly misleading. ALL crime has gone down over the last decade or so. What you don't report is that loose conceal-carry states have had their crime rates fall HALF AS MUCH as those with tighter carry laws. So to put your contention more accurately, looser conceal-carry laws have PREVENTED crime from dropping as much as in those states with stricter laws.

And alarmingly, in three states with loose carry laws, violent crime went UP.

Feel free to work over the study material presented here:
http://www.bradycampaign.org/facts/research/?page=conctruth&menu=gvr

but recognize that they rely on FBI UCRs, which, while flawed in their own way, represent a stable and uniformly objective barometer for evaluating laws and programs related to crime.

Posted by: Torrid Joe | Apr 12, 2005 10:47:14 AM

Ty--the reality in Beslan was that armed civilians caused serious, unnecessary death and harm to vulnerable populations.

Posted by: Tenskwatawa | Apr 12, 2005 11:28:10 AM

I'm with Jeff. Communication is everything. Hang up your hang-ups and TALK.

David Wright: I was slightly 'ribbing' you with a reference to Branch Davidians, in that I do not consider them a 'religion' at all. (Nor does any strongly held 'conviction' -- pro-gun, anti-gun, vegetarianism, militarism, many more -- make a religion. The minimum criterion for a group religion is that they have a calendar -- but that topic is for another time.) I didn't expect to be taken very seriously in citing David Koresh's messianic nihilism, and when you extended on it sort of serious-sounding it seemed to me the miscommunication stemmed from you and I having our own different set of facts about who he was, who they were, what was 'in there,' and what was going on. Another time, for that comparison, perhaps.

afs/rebelling/whatever: I thought your material was steady and strong.

Pat Ryan: I like your thinking; we haven't met, so I don't know, but I like your thinking. For example, that you are still suspending judgement on this topic and gathering information. However, in my opinion you give too much credence, or too long the benefit of some doubt, to inveterate worry-workers. Worry, like paranoia, does not an actual threat make. Evidence, however, does.

Those voices stuck with me. One comment still resounding in mind was to the effect that 'deferring getting a gun shows fear of guns, whereas getting a gun shows assuaging a fear of them.' I don't understand, I just don't understand ... that's completely backwards ... there will be an answer, let it be, let it be.

I really didn't and still don't acknowledge ('fall for it') that anyone actually believes the premise, "Armed Teachers Can Save Children's Lives" ... I mean, really. Reallyreallyreally, read that sentence; uh, well, when I read that sentence it is like "take my wife ... please;" I mean, it's a joke on its face -- April Fools was last week -- and starting from it there is no direction for serious thought to go. (I don't even think Liars Larson truly believes the things he says in this vein, and that his disingenuous words are premeditated only to provoke emotional responses strong enough to attract attention -- 'pay attention to me, give me love, or I might threateningly endanger you,' to paraphase my understanding of his behavior motives using child psychology reference framing -- because his paid employment depends on him getting people to engage him and talk, and they sure wouldn't talk to him based on him offering anything interesting or original or stimulating to think over. So he lies. That's okay, that's his name. Lying into a broadcast microphone, and people's superstitious belief in what they hear on the radio because it was on the radio, might be further contexts to consider that could maybe make his lying not okay.) I do like the starting premise being stated in terms of "armed" or "arms," the category, and not 'guns' 'knives' 'bombs' 'weapons' or another instance. Because, for me, a specific armament has its own conditions and qualifiers (connotative 'baggage') which adds sidestep clutter in the way of getting into the conceptual thought of the topic in the abstract.

And the origin of most of the contemporary discussion of guns comes out of so-called Second Amendment bestowed rights, where, in fact, the conservatively literal interpretation must be constructed in the term "arms," which can be kept and borne, as the writers in that time understood the definition. (And why they/he chose that term and not 'guns' 'rifles' or 'cannons' which existed and were known but meant something the writer(s) didn't intend to mean.)

'Arms' is not the same as 'guns.' Similarly, 'people' is not the same as 'women.' And compare: "Armed With Knowledge, Teachers Can Save Children's Lives," a premise that sounds to me credible on its face, at least enough to consider it. Yet I insist food, clothing, shelter, and sociality (or 'communication') saves most children's lives, and that religious dogma regarding afterlife exigencies hardly does; (because you got to be dead to know if it's true). But I'm simply too much the conservative literal constructionist in my thinking perhaps.

"Arms" in colonial usage meant what they thought it meant. And it did not mean cartridge ammunition because they never thought of such a thing. One could argue, and I sometimes do, we can preserve a right to keep and bear arms and at the same time outlaw or tax-burden the sale of (or 'interstate commerce' in) mass produced cartridge ammunition. Gunslingers can and could load their own cartridge ammunition, say five hundred rounds a year. Similarly to our enactments allowing alcohol distillation untaxed within a individual's quota or ration of it, but taxed and regulated beyond such gallonage.

Constitutional lawmakers also never thought of guided missiles and scarcely anyone considers there is a right to keep and bear them at the same time nearly everyone would call them 'arms' or 'armaments.' What is so self-evident and obvious that it is uniformly assumed of such a contradictory distinction?

Eventually, where I'm going with this, is to urge consideration of the following. Premise: It is readily possible using today's technologies to kill a person with a computer, by, for example, storing false information in their personal records that causes the agencies of police (on your behalf) to arrest, try, convict, and execute the person. Falsely, of course, but the person is killed dead. (Teachers could do this where they are unilaterally empowered to store unreviewable information in personal records.) Killing without a gun. It takes longer to trigger executive and judicial action than to trigger a gunshot but it is just as violently forceful and just as lethal.

I foresee a time when it will be argued before the Supreme Court whether or not a citizen has a 'right' to own and operate (keep and bear) a personal computer. In that day, it may be argued the 'right' consists in the extension of the 'right of free speech' in that computers are only communications devices, or in the 'right of free press' in that computers are only printing devices. Or, I'd rather, (and in this is my steadfast endorsement of the Second Amendment), it may be argued the 'right' consists in the extension of the right to keep and bear arms in that computers are weapon devices. Saying that knowledge arms (or 'equips') us and that personal records information, writeable and readable, is 'knowledge' in the more ancient, biblical, meaning expressed as 'to be with and know a person.'

I foresee that the first arguments (speech or press 'rights') might not sustain the 'right' to personal computers, and that the last argument (of keeping 'arms') might sustain the 'right' to personal computers.

That's what I wanted to get to. This is all pretty far out there, but people exist (me) who think that way and communicate so.

Posted by: Jon | Apr 12, 2005 12:15:38 PM

I would suggest that we do one simple thing: Remove the restrictions that prohibit Concealed Handgun License (CHL) holders from carrying their personal firearms while on school property.

There is NO such restriction. By LAW, in Oregon, you can carry your weapon on school grounds. They cannot stop you.

I am on the fence about the "arming teachers" issue, but lets be honest about the law.

Posted by: lars | Apr 12, 2005 12:24:11 PM

i carry at schools all the time. there is no legal restriction on chl permit holders. carry to schools every time you go...it's for the kids
Lars

Posted by: afs | Apr 12, 2005 12:37:22 PM

Lars: If you or any of you idiot dittoheads tries to carry a gun on the grounds of an Oregon school, we will take that gun from you.

Don't think we will? Watch us. We will force this issue. You will not make Oregon children a pawn of a game to make yourself more famous.

Posted by: Torrid Joe | Apr 12, 2005 12:38:13 PM

Lars, please stay the hell away from Lake Oswego schools. Thank you.

Posted by: Jon | Apr 12, 2005 12:50:52 PM

Lars: If you or any of you idiot dittoheads tries to carry a gun on the grounds of an Oregon school, we will take that gun from you.

How will you know? Its concealed.

And whats with the "idiot dittoheads" remark? Do you really beleive that all conservatives follow Rush?
Please....

I think carrying in schools is a good idea. And for the record, I am not Republican, I dont own a gun, and I cant stand Rush Limbaugh. Oh, and I have three kids in public schools.

Posted by: Pat Ryan | Apr 12, 2005 1:04:09 PM

A minor but crucial point for progressives on this thread. As Jon points out, the "Right" is not monolithic.

Many times in arguing with my fundamentalist Christian father, I'll cite someone like Falwell or Limbaugh to illustrate points and he'll respond (as Jon just did) that my remark is puzzling as he has never been a lockstep supporter of the person cited.

***********
Republicans make this "mistake" about us too, but mostly with clear propaganda goals in mind, not because they actually believe that we are all Ward Churchill aficionados.

Note: The presence of any individual above does not imply an endorsement by BlueOregon. The selection of faces shown is done by Facebook. Visit BlueOregon on Facebook.

BlueOregon

What is BlueOregon?

BlueOregon Sponsors

Advertise on BlueOregon

LEGAL STUFF

Armed Teachers Can Save Children's Lives
guest column

Sponsored Advertising

Comments

Post a comment

Connect

BlueOregon Premium Sponsor

Sponsored Advertising

Google BlueOregon

Guest Columns

SUPPORT US

Editors

Contributors

More

GET YOUR FIX

Name:
Email:
	Remember personal info?

BlueOregon

What is BlueOregon?

BlueOregon Sponsors

Advertise on BlueOregon

LEGAL STUFF

Armed Teachers Can Save Children's Livesguest column

Sponsored Advertising

Comments

Post a comment

Connect

BlueOregon Premium Sponsor

Sponsored Advertising

Google BlueOregon

Guest Columns

SUPPORT US

Editors

Contributors

More

GET YOUR FIX

Armed Teachers Can Save Children's Lives
guest column