Monday, December 31, 2012
Arming School Staff--an Addendum
The first ten minutes are critical to survival!
Screaming deniers are emotionally driven in their unthinking rejection of a few armed school staff per school. They are simply ignoring the facts of the crazed shooter situation.
1. The police are at least 10 to 15 minutes away after being alerted from any school, most of the time.
2. This means that a shooter has all the time he needs to massacre many defenseless children and school staff virtually unopposed.
3. Shooters are smart enough to remain some 10 or 15 yards away from their targets, thus avoiding being rushed by the staff or students. Rushing the shooter only hastens their deaths. A smart shooter would hold one gun with several rounds while he reloads his other guns just to thwart rushers.
4. Virginia recognizes this problem of protection as well as other unruly situations in middle and high schools by providing a law officer for the schools, some 500 or more of them, but, only 27% of the law officers are in grade schools.
5. There are three options available in Virginia to increase protection of students and staff: (1) Place law officers in all grade schools; (2) Arm school staff (with proper training and vetting); and, (3) Do both. This could be an individual school’s choice depending on the situation, but the better choice is to do both.
6. The reason that doing both, assigning a law officer and one or more staff to the schools, is obvious--they back up each other in the event of an attack, especially if the shooter is familiar with the school and goes for the law officer first. But the shooter would be faced with an unknown number of armed staff fully alerted by his actions in breaking into the school and shooting at the law officer.
7. Only school staff that volunteer to be armed and trained would be allowed to carry their weapons in the school. The training of staff would have to cover safety, accurate shooting, and shooting under combat pressure, plus training in the school itself by professionals to ensure that the individuals are qualified to handle a weapon.
Further, they should be vetted for their ability to cope with the pressure situations that may arise; this training also done by professionals. Only after they satisfy the professionals would they be allowed to carry their weapons in school. Drills in the schools themselves that expose the possible situations to the staff and show them the right responses in their particular school would better ensure that the staff response to a threat would be instantaneous and appropriate.
8. The least expensive solution is to arm and thoroughly train one or more staff. The staff volunteers could be required to purchase their own weapons and ammunition, but their training should be paid for. In the event that no staff members qualify and pass the testing, the only remaining choice is to provide a law officer.
Training is the key to this approach, and there are quite a number of establishments that offer such courses (for a fee, of course). Trained professionals are eminently capable of sorting out the individuals capable of being armed from those that would represent a problem if armed. Thanks to our several wars in the past ten years we have a sterling supply of combat- experienced and professional veterans to turn to for the training.
The first ten minutes are critical to survival!
Screaming deniers are emotionally driven in their unthinking rejection of a few armed school staff per school. They are simply ignoring the facts of the crazed shooter situation.
1. The police are at least 10 to 15 minutes away after being alerted from any school, most of the time.
2. This means that a shooter has all the time he needs to massacre many defenseless children and school staff virtually unopposed.
3. Shooters are smart enough to remain some 10 or 15 yards away from their targets, thus avoiding being rushed by the staff or students. Rushing the shooter only hastens their deaths. A smart shooter would hold one gun with several rounds while he reloads his other guns just to thwart rushers.
4. Virginia recognizes this problem of protection as well as other unruly situations in middle and high schools by providing a law officer for the schools, some 500 or more of them, but, only 27% of the law officers are in grade schools.
5. There are three options available in Virginia to increase protection of students and staff: (1) Place law officers in all grade schools; (2) Arm school staff (with proper training and vetting); and, (3) Do both. This could be an individual school’s choice depending on the situation, but the better choice is to do both.
6. The reason that doing both, assigning a law officer and one or more staff to the schools, is obvious--they back up each other in the event of an attack, especially if the shooter is familiar with the school and goes for the law officer first. But the shooter would be faced with an unknown number of armed staff fully alerted by his actions in breaking into the school and shooting at the law officer.
7. Only school staff that volunteer to be armed and trained would be allowed to carry their weapons in the school. The training of staff would have to cover safety, accurate shooting, and shooting under combat pressure, plus training in the school itself by professionals to ensure that the individuals are qualified to handle a weapon.
Further, they should be vetted for their ability to cope with the pressure situations that may arise; this training also done by professionals. Only after they satisfy the professionals would they be allowed to carry their weapons in school. Drills in the schools themselves that expose the possible situations to the staff and show them the right responses in their particular school would better ensure that the staff response to a threat would be instantaneous and appropriate.
8. The least expensive solution is to arm and thoroughly train one or more staff. The staff volunteers could be required to purchase their own weapons and ammunition, but their training should be paid for. In the event that no staff members qualify and pass the testing, the only remaining choice is to provide a law officer.
Training is the key to this approach, and there are quite a number of establishments that offer such courses (for a fee, of course). Trained professionals are eminently capable of sorting out the individuals capable of being armed from those that would represent a problem if armed. Thanks to our several wars in the past ten years we have a sterling supply of combat- experienced and professional veterans to turn to for the training.
Friday, December 28, 2012
More Peeves for 2013
More Pet Peeves
In the past few days I uncovered more of my peeves that just must be added to the list.
1. The awful bias of the MSM towards liberal memes.
2. The Imperial Presidency of a smug, narcissistic Obama.
3. Spending other people’s money is the Liberal's delight.
4. Redistribution of wealth seems to be the key to Obamaisms.
5. Welfare overkill, where too many people are in fact well off.
6. Buying votes by any means possible, including handing out free cell phones.
7. ObamaCare, which will ensure the deficit will grow in 2013.
8. Suspicion of voting irregularities, such as double the number of voters in a Pennsylvania district than actually live there.
9. Campaign finances out of control with not far from $2 trillion spent in 2012.
10. Regulation-happy EPA has 4400 new environmental regulations to issue this year.
11. White House incursions into the private sector, especially the GM and Chrysler companies.
12. No rational budgets for almost four years.
13. The fiscal cliff that appears to be looming ever closer.
14. Alinski’s Rules which are a shameful anti-democratic approach.
15. Ditching Iraq and Afghanistan, and avoiding Iran; so many lives lost for nothing, money spent in a futile attempt to rebuild the infrastructure, and Iran still working hard on their nuclear weaponry.
16. Poor strategy and tactics in Iraq, including failure to saturate the nation with troops at the outset, thus thwarting the insurgency, and failure to utilize the standing army, thereby giving a resource to the insurgency.
In the past few days I uncovered more of my peeves that just must be added to the list.
1. The awful bias of the MSM towards liberal memes.
2. The Imperial Presidency of a smug, narcissistic Obama.
3. Spending other people’s money is the Liberal's delight.
4. Redistribution of wealth seems to be the key to Obamaisms.
5. Welfare overkill, where too many people are in fact well off.
6. Buying votes by any means possible, including handing out free cell phones.
7. ObamaCare, which will ensure the deficit will grow in 2013.
8. Suspicion of voting irregularities, such as double the number of voters in a Pennsylvania district than actually live there.
9. Campaign finances out of control with not far from $2 trillion spent in 2012.
10. Regulation-happy EPA has 4400 new environmental regulations to issue this year.
11. White House incursions into the private sector, especially the GM and Chrysler companies.
12. No rational budgets for almost four years.
13. The fiscal cliff that appears to be looming ever closer.
14. Alinski’s Rules which are a shameful anti-democratic approach.
15. Ditching Iraq and Afghanistan, and avoiding Iran; so many lives lost for nothing, money spent in a futile attempt to rebuild the infrastructure, and Iran still working hard on their nuclear weaponry.
16. Poor strategy and tactics in Iraq, including failure to saturate the nation with troops at the outset, thus thwarting the insurgency, and failure to utilize the standing army, thereby giving a resource to the insurgency.
Monday, December 17, 2012
Arm the Teachers!
You most likely cannot stop a shooter without a gun yourself!
In just about every criminal action I can imagine, the police are not nearby, are not called promptly, and are therefore miles and many minutes away from the scene. The average response time is likely to be on the order of 10 to 15 minutes, and more in rural areas. This means that either individuals at home, or at work, or people at schools or theaters have a gap in official police defense of a minimum of 10 minutes, and most likely longer.
That is the rationale for many gun owners to buy weapons and learn to use them: for defense during the gap time. A few simple scenarios will make this clear.
Scenario 1: A pair of armed robbers break into your home, and try to subdue you with threats of using their guns. If you happen to be in a more remote part of the house, you could call 911, and from that time you can expect the police to arrive in 10 minutes or more. You can also pull out your weapon if you have one, and confront the robbers, providing others in your family are in the clear. The robbers often run at the sign of a weapon. If not, your best bet is to go with their demands, say, to lie down and be absolutely still while they ransack your house. If the robbers start shooting, you must try to shoot back to save your family and yourself. The robbers operate on a schedule of perhaps 10 minutes maximum, knowing that no alarm will summon the police any sooner most of the time. They will be long gone before then.
Scenario 2. You are a teacher in a school, and a deranged student appears with a gun or two and starts shooting whoever is in sight. There is no time for a call, and the shooting might take only 4 or 5 minutes to kill 10 or 20 students or faculty. You are not armed, so your only defense is to hide with your students or try to tackle the shooter. The latter maneuver is likely to cost you your life. The shooter operates on a schedule of perhaps 10 minutes maximum, knowing that no alarm will summon the police any sooner most of the time. He will be dead or gone before then.
It is obvious, then, from these scenarios that having a weapon immediately available can either scare the criminals off, or actually allow you to shoot them and prevent harm to family or students. This is the rationale for arming some of the faculty of schools, providing them with training and concealed carry permits, and allowing them to respond to such threats as has happened several times in the recent past. Many lives could have been saved if one or more armed teachers had confronted the shooter as he began his killing spree.
You most likely cannot stop a shooter without a gun yourself!
In just about every criminal action I can imagine, the police are not nearby, are not called promptly, and are therefore miles and many minutes away from the scene. The average response time is likely to be on the order of 10 to 15 minutes, and more in rural areas. This means that either individuals at home, or at work, or people at schools or theaters have a gap in official police defense of a minimum of 10 minutes, and most likely longer.
That is the rationale for many gun owners to buy weapons and learn to use them: for defense during the gap time. A few simple scenarios will make this clear.
Scenario 1: A pair of armed robbers break into your home, and try to subdue you with threats of using their guns. If you happen to be in a more remote part of the house, you could call 911, and from that time you can expect the police to arrive in 10 minutes or more. You can also pull out your weapon if you have one, and confront the robbers, providing others in your family are in the clear. The robbers often run at the sign of a weapon. If not, your best bet is to go with their demands, say, to lie down and be absolutely still while they ransack your house. If the robbers start shooting, you must try to shoot back to save your family and yourself. The robbers operate on a schedule of perhaps 10 minutes maximum, knowing that no alarm will summon the police any sooner most of the time. They will be long gone before then.
Scenario 2. You are a teacher in a school, and a deranged student appears with a gun or two and starts shooting whoever is in sight. There is no time for a call, and the shooting might take only 4 or 5 minutes to kill 10 or 20 students or faculty. You are not armed, so your only defense is to hide with your students or try to tackle the shooter. The latter maneuver is likely to cost you your life. The shooter operates on a schedule of perhaps 10 minutes maximum, knowing that no alarm will summon the police any sooner most of the time. He will be dead or gone before then.
It is obvious, then, from these scenarios that having a weapon immediately available can either scare the criminals off, or actually allow you to shoot them and prevent harm to family or students. This is the rationale for arming some of the faculty of schools, providing them with training and concealed carry permits, and allowing them to respond to such threats as has happened several times in the recent past. Many lives could have been saved if one or more armed teachers had confronted the shooter as he began his killing spree.
Gun Control--A further comment
The main issue in practically all school or theater shootings is the mental stability of the shooter. This leads to great difficulties in weeding out the potential nutcases, and ensuring that their access to guns is severely limited. So many problems arise in identifying these nutcases that little or no action has been taken, except to focus on the guns and not the shooters.
Parents are reluctant to admit that their children are a hazard; cities and states are reluctant to carry formal lists of deranged people and let them be accessed throughout the nation; the medical profession is likewise reluctant to give out their diagnosis; and the definitions themselves of what constitutes serious mental derangement are at variance. Teachers are also reluctant to identify deviant behavior of their students except in the most glaring and disruptive cases.
So the simple-minded go for the guns, as we have seen in announcements at the highest levels of governance since the CT shootings. Thus they will attempt to penalize 99.95 % of the people because of the mental problems with .05% of the people, which in my opinion is grossly unfair. As I stated in the previous post, over 60,000 serious encounters are negated each year by potential victims bringing their guns to bear. This massively exceeds the loss of life from nutcases with guns in a year.
One wonders if there is another motive behind attempting to take guns out of circulation, such as disarming the populace despite Amendment 2 to our Constitution.
Parents are reluctant to admit that their children are a hazard; cities and states are reluctant to carry formal lists of deranged people and let them be accessed throughout the nation; the medical profession is likewise reluctant to give out their diagnosis; and the definitions themselves of what constitutes serious mental derangement are at variance. Teachers are also reluctant to identify deviant behavior of their students except in the most glaring and disruptive cases.
So the simple-minded go for the guns, as we have seen in announcements at the highest levels of governance since the CT shootings. Thus they will attempt to penalize 99.95 % of the people because of the mental problems with .05% of the people, which in my opinion is grossly unfair. As I stated in the previous post, over 60,000 serious encounters are negated each year by potential victims bringing their guns to bear. This massively exceeds the loss of life from nutcases with guns in a year.
One wonders if there is another motive behind attempting to take guns out of circulation, such as disarming the populace despite Amendment 2 to our Constitution.
Saturday, December 15, 2012
Gun Control Rises Again!
There is another side to the story!
The stories are horrific. The miseries of loss are devastating to the survivors. The inexplicable mind-quirk that sent some person on a killing rage is simply not capable of being understood, especially for this latest killing rage of twenty five, six, and seven year olds and six adults. The outrage stokes the fire of the gun control advocates that would love to make guns disappear from earth, and their fervor is certainly understandable.
However, the question is raised whether there is a tradeoff in the nation between allowing guns to be owned and used for sport and self-protection, versus a series of gun controls that all but deny guns to the public with stringent regulations vehemently enforced.
Here are a few facts bearing on the issue:
1. There are about 80 million gun owners in the US today.
2. The number of registered guns is about 200 million.
3. The Constitutional Amendment II states that gun ownership is permitted, and this has been affirmed again by the Supreme Court.
4. Gun owners have thwarted about 3 million criminals from carrying out their plans for robbery, rape and murder every year.
5. Of those 3 million crimes spoiled, easily 2% of them would be classified as leading to murder or rape or both. Thus about 60,000 murders/rapes are avoided each and every year because the victims had a preventative weapon nearby.
6. The number of gun-related crimes is decreasing each year, because of the increasing prevalence of guns in homes.
7. The two examples of extreme gun control laws and their results are found in the UK and Australia. In each of these nations, crimes have ballooned terribly since guns were confiscated.
8, The two examples of nations that allow guns in every home are Switzerland and Israel, and they both report yearly gun-related crimes to be minimal in the extreme. Excepting, of course, the conflicts with Arab nations, which is an external factor.
The conclusion I reach from the above is simple. I want the US to be able to handle guns as both the Swiss and Isrealis do, let them be posessed and used for sport, self-defense and recreation. The benefits outweigh by far the negatives, despite the awful specter of deaths in schools.
The stories are horrific. The miseries of loss are devastating to the survivors. The inexplicable mind-quirk that sent some person on a killing rage is simply not capable of being understood, especially for this latest killing rage of twenty five, six, and seven year olds and six adults. The outrage stokes the fire of the gun control advocates that would love to make guns disappear from earth, and their fervor is certainly understandable.
However, the question is raised whether there is a tradeoff in the nation between allowing guns to be owned and used for sport and self-protection, versus a series of gun controls that all but deny guns to the public with stringent regulations vehemently enforced.
Here are a few facts bearing on the issue:
1. There are about 80 million gun owners in the US today.
2. The number of registered guns is about 200 million.
3. The Constitutional Amendment II states that gun ownership is permitted, and this has been affirmed again by the Supreme Court.
4. Gun owners have thwarted about 3 million criminals from carrying out their plans for robbery, rape and murder every year.
5. Of those 3 million crimes spoiled, easily 2% of them would be classified as leading to murder or rape or both. Thus about 60,000 murders/rapes are avoided each and every year because the victims had a preventative weapon nearby.
6. The number of gun-related crimes is decreasing each year, because of the increasing prevalence of guns in homes.
7. The two examples of extreme gun control laws and their results are found in the UK and Australia. In each of these nations, crimes have ballooned terribly since guns were confiscated.
8, The two examples of nations that allow guns in every home are Switzerland and Israel, and they both report yearly gun-related crimes to be minimal in the extreme. Excepting, of course, the conflicts with Arab nations, which is an external factor.
The conclusion I reach from the above is simple. I want the US to be able to handle guns as both the Swiss and Isrealis do, let them be posessed and used for sport, self-defense and recreation. The benefits outweigh by far the negatives, despite the awful specter of deaths in schools.
