Tennessee passes bill to allow teachers to be armed.

[RF667799]

In fact what I stated is I’d be fine with that should you like that to be the case. I’m up to meeting any standard and then some currently. If I decide I’m not I’ll forgo carrying.

At some point I’ll have to as, like with driving, I’ll likely age out if I live long enough.

I’m smart enough to know that.

So you're fine with meeting any standard, because you exceed them all! Wow. Earlier you said you exemplified the minimum standard. But not only that...you'll decide if you meet the standard.

This is why your continued reference to yourself as a standard bearer can't be taken seriously.

 

[Noodlegawd]

Got evidence to the contrary? Perhaps you stopped reading the research after you came across that cherry?

I don't need to read research to know that it's a meaningless statement.

 

[ModernDiogenes]

So you're fine with meeting any standard, because you exceed them all! Wow. Earlier you said you exemplified the minimum standard. But not only that...you'll decide if you meet the standard.

This is why your continued reference to yourself as a standard bearer can't be taken seriously.

You are misquoting me. I said I held what I was speaking to as a minimum standard and I confirmed to it. I didn’t say that minimum was my highest level of proficiency or it was all I was capable of.

I, again, am not holding myself out as a standard. I am using myself as an example. Not the same thing. A standard sets a mark. An example shows a standard can be met.

 

[poppopfox]

I don't need to read research to know that it's a meaningless statement.

Of course you don't, you've obviously acquired all the knowledge you're ever going to need. That's the case with all close-minded individuals.

 

[RF667799]

You are misquoting me.

I am on record here and elsewhere that I have no problem with anyone carrying concealed who meets or exceeds the requirements I hold myself to for that purpose...
And:
I was suggesting my level as minimums.

I said I held what I was speaking to as a minimum standard and I confirmed to it. I didn’t say that minimum was my highest level of proficiency or it was all I was capable of.

That's convenient, since it is unsupported and you claimed you can meet ANY standard. The most proficient pistolero in the world, we must assume.

I, again, am not holding myself out as a standard. I am using myself as an example. Not the same thing. A standard sets a mark. An example shows a standard can be met.

Yeah yeah...and you can meet ANY standard. The above that I quoted seems to indicate you consider yourself both standard and example.

But we can test. Are there people with a lot less training and experience than yourself that are qualified to carry concealed firearms for their self defense? For example...I make no claims to engaging in gun battles. I've got exactly zero law enforcement experience. My military training never really covered any practical use of firearms I wasn't already aware of, so I guess you could say I also have nothing in the way of official instruction that means anything. I must admit that I have carried firearms though. Anyway, I consider that I am qualified to carry a concealed firearm, if that was my desire.

I'm thinking that might not meet the lofty standards you set, though.

 

[Noodlegawd]

Of course you don't, you've obviously acquired all the knowledge you're ever going to need. That's the case with all close-minded individuals.

Here's a key piece of knowledge I have: Your source says "may increase." That's meaningless in any policy discussion. And that's without pointing out that this conclusion is a massive stretch based on the source's actual contents.

 

[poppopfox]

Here's a key piece of knowledge I have: Your source says "may increase."

You're just repeating yourself. Try answering my question -
"Got evidence to the contrary?"

That's meaningless in any policy discussion.

No, it's not. And we are not having a policy discussion because we are not policy makers.

And that's without pointing out that this conclusion is a massive stretch based on the source's actual contents.

Prove it. The above is just an unsubstantiated opinion otherwise, a massive stretch based on the journal article's actual research which states -

 

[ModernDiogenes]

I am on record here and elsewhere that I have no problem with anyone carrying concealed who meets or exceeds the requirements I hold myself to for that purpose...
And:
I was suggesting my level as minimums.

I don’t see that as non-com-statements and I doubt anyone else would. If they did even they would say it’s picking at dust.

That's convenient, since it is unsupported and you claimed you can meet ANY standard. The most proficient pistolero in the world, we must assume.

Misquoting me again. What I said precisely is I think I could raise my skills to any reasonable standard i wasn’t;t at already and if I couldn’t I am fine with giving up carrying my sidearm as I know that day will come sometime due to aging if I live long enough.

Yeah yeah...and you can meet ANY standard. The above that I quoted seems to indicate you consider yourself both standard and example.

Any reasonable one. Look, believe anything you care to. Means nothing to me, because it isn’t required it should. Same the other way about. Nothing I think shouldn’t matter to you, and I’m pretty sure it doesn’t.

But we can test. Are there people with a lot less training and experience than yourself that are qualified to carry concealed firearms for their self defense? For example...I make no claims to engaging in gun battles. I've got exactly zero law enforcement experience. My military training never really covered any practical use of firearms I wasn't already aware of, so I guess you could say I also have nothing in the way of official instruction that means anything. I must admit that I have carried firearms though. Anyway, I consider that I am qualified to carry a concealed firearm, if that was my desire.

I'm thinking that might not meet the lofty standards you set, though.

I’m not reinventing the wheel here. There is nothing I’ve suggested that isn’t practical common sense.

Can you pass a mental health and criminal history screening?

Do you know how to safely store your weapon so it’s no danger to you or anyone else when it’s not on your person?

Do you know it’s safe operation?

Do you know how to retain it when it’s on your person or in your hand do it can’t be taken from you?

Do you know how to fire it, particularly under duress, so under those conditions you’ll hit what you aim at?

Are you capable of determining before you fire, in real time, what your bullet is going to hit if you miss or the round passes through its target and continues down range?

Are you fully aware of use of force law in the jurisdiction this is taking place in?

Have you insured yourself so if bad things happen and you get sued, and you will be sued, the person or their survivors effected will have resources to make themselves whole, or as much as possible, and you’ll not live under the cloud of liability based forfeiture for the rest of your life?

Like I said, nothing not common sense based there. I have all of this, because it is common sense if you’re going to carry a lethal device on your person when you are out and about. If you have them as well it is my opinion you are at least minimally prepared to carry a lethal device without being a major risk to yourself and others.

If you don’t have them, it would be my opinion you aren’t prepared. I’d bet if we took a poll most present here would agree with me.

 

[RF667799]

I don’t see that as non-com-statements and I doubt anyone else would. If they did even they would say it’s picking at dust.



Misquoting me again. What I said precisely is I think I could raise my skills to any reasonable standard i wasn’t;t at already and if I couldn’t I am fine with giving up carrying my sidearm as I know that day will come sometime due to aging if I live long enough.

Here's what you said: I’m up to meeting any standard and then some currently.

Any reasonable one. Look, believe anything you care to. Means nothing to me, because it isn’t required it should. Same the other way about. Nothing I think shouldn’t matter to you, and I’m pretty sure it doesn’t.

...any standard and then some...

I’m not reinventing the wheel here. There is nothing I’ve suggested that isn’t practical common sense.

Can you pass a mental health and criminal history screening?

Unconstitutional subjective criteria so far as "mental health screening". I'm good with a criminal background check for mere possession of guns and motor vehicles.

Do you know how to safely store your weapon so it’s no danger to you or anyone else when it’s not on your person?

Unreasonable standard.

Do you know it’s safe operation?

When it's loaded, only point it where you want the bullet to go.

Do you know how to retain it when it’s on your person or in your hand do it can’t be taken from you?

Unreasonable standard.

Do you know how to fire it, particularly under duress, so under those conditions you’ll hit what you aim at?

Unreasonable standard, and apparently not a law enforcement standard anyway.

Are you capable of determining before you fire, in real time, what your bullet is going to hit if you miss or the round passes through its target and continues down range?

Something else law enforcement officers regularly fail at.

Are you fully aware of use of force law in the jurisdiction this is taking place in?

Self defense. Not rocket science. I'll worry about the law after I defend myself or my family from a threat of death or bodily injury.

Have you insured yourself so if bad things happen and you get sued, and you will be sued, the person or their survivors effected will have resources to make themselves whole, or as much as possible, and you’ll not live under the cloud of liability based forfeiture for the rest of your life?

That's my lookout. Not yours or anyone else. Seems more like a way to keep economically disadvantaged people from having effective self defense capabilities.

Like I said, nothing not common sense based there.

Doesn't seem sensible at all. Some of it is pure fantasy.

I have all of this, because it is common sense if you’re going to carry a lethal device on your person when you are out and about. If you have them as well it is my opinion you are at least minimally prepared to carry a lethal device without being a major risk to yourself and others.

Oh bullshit. My criticism is way more sensible.

If you don’t have them, it would be my opinion you aren’t prepared. I’d bet if we took a poll most present here would agree with me.

If you think a poll of an anonymous discussion site carries some sort of moral authority, you're sadly mistaken.

 

[ModernDiogenes]

Here's what you said: I’m up to meeting any standard and then some currently.


...any standard and then some...

That could mean as is or by adding to my skill set. I have room to improve with more learning. So, likely, do you.

Unconstitutional subjective criteria so far as "mental health screening". I'm good with a criminal background check for mere possession of guns and motor vehicles.

I disagree. You know that. I already comply. There have been Constitutional challenges we’ve brought. Some were successful, like fees being charged. Some weren’t, like round limitations.

Unreasonable standard.

And again.

When it's loaded, only point it where you want the bullet to go.

If you think that’s the extent of it, you’re a lousy risk, dun;t know enough about shooting under duress, and are dangerous to yourself and others.

Unreasonable standard.

Nope.

Unreasonable standard, and apparently not a law enforcement standard anyway.

Your wrong.

Something else law enforcement officers regularly fail at.


Self defense. Not rocket science. I'll worry about the law after I defend myself or my family from a threat of death or bodily injury.


That's my lookout. Not yours or anyone else. Seems more like a way to keep economically disadvantaged people from having effective self defense capabilities.


Doesn't seem sensible at all. Some of it is pure fantasy.


Oh bullshit. My criticism is way more sensible.


If you think a poll of an anonymous discussion site carries some sort of moral authority, you're sadly mistaken.

Your lucky I don’t have the final say on it. You don’t know half of what is required to make you safe with a ballistic projectile with lethal force. I don’t know if I’d trust you with a Nerf gun. Just my opinion.

I certainly wouldn’t want you carrying a gun on my former job covering my six. You’re just arguing to argue. I doubt you even hold with much of what you’re putting forth. I’m done.

Anyway… have a good night.

 

[braindrain]

MAGA states want teachers to be armed with a gun but not with the independent choice to read and teach as they see fit unless it dovetails strictly with MAGA and theocratic values.

Can you name a single place in this country where teachers are allowed to read and teach as they see fit unless it meets the requirements set out by the people in charge of the school.

 

[Noodlegawd]

You're just repeating yourself. Try answering my question -
"Got evidence to the contrary?"

Evidence to the contrary that something "may" be true? Really?

No, it's not. And we are not having a policy discussion because we are not policy makers.

Oh right, and this isn't a forum for debating politics, or anything like that. This line of thought from you keeps getting more and more bizarre.

Prove it. The above is just an unsubstantiated opinion otherwise, a massive stretch based on the journal article's actual research which states -

View attachment 67506681

Prove the contrary. It's your citation.

 

[poppopfox]

Evidence to the contrary that something "may" be true? Really?

Yes, post your research that states it is not true. The correlation is there my friend. Deny it if you can, but with evidence, not opinionated snark.

Oh right, and this isn't a forum for debating politics, or anything like that. This line of thought from you keeps getting more and more bizarre.

Are you a policy maker?

Prove the contrary. It's your citation.

My citation is my evidence, you prove it's wrong.

Here's another one to work your magic on -
Why Does Right-to-Carry Cause Violent Crime to Increase?
Using data from 217 US cities, we find that the effect of RTC on violent crime is concentrated to large urban centers. In cities with an average population of over 250,000 between 1979 and 2019, we find that the introduction of RTC increases violent crime by 20 percent. We then present novel estimates that RTC increases gun theft by 50 percent and lowers violent crime clearance rates by 9 percent in these large cities. Leveraging city-level heterogeneity in RTC-induced violent crime effects, we demonstrate that these two mechanisms explain a substantial portion of the RTC-induced increase in violent crime.

 

[CLAX1911]

It's a slippery slope.

View attachment 67506616

Slippery slopes are fallacies.

Also why didn't people walk into fort Knox with guns?

 

[RF667799]

Slippery slopes are fallacies.

In the case of gun control fanatics, sometimes they're strategies.

Also why didn't people walk into fort Knox with guns?

I have.

 

[RF667799]

That could mean as is or by adding to my skill set. I have room to improve with more learning. So, likely, do you.


I disagree. You know that. I already comply. There have been Constitutional challenges we’ve brought. Some were successful, like fees being charged. Some weren’t, like round limitations.


And again.


If you think that’s the extent of it, you’re a lousy risk, dun;t know enough about shooting under duress, and are dangerous to yourself and others.



Nope.


Your wrong.



Your lucky I don’t have the final say on it. You don’t know half of what is required to make you safe with a ballistic projectile with lethal force. I don’t know if I’d trust you with a Nerf gun. Just my opinion.

I certainly wouldn’t want you carrying a gun on my former job covering my six. You’re just arguing to argue. I doubt you even hold with much of what you’re putting forth. I’m done.

Anyway… have a good night.

Personal attacks, and "Nuh-uh" arguments.

Let's look at just one of your supposed standards.

Do you know how to retain it when it’s on your person or in your hand do it can’t be taken from you?

Where's the standard? Surely you don't mean in the absolute sense implied in your statement. That's unreasonable and unrealistic. So where's the standard?

The absolute implication of what you wrote might not be of importance to someone who claims he can meet or exceed ANY standard, but mere mortals might be less perfect.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Thus, you are not safe, you just feel safe.

Thus, you are not safe, you just feel safe.

I see, so your definition of "safe" is "100% safe" and, of course, you are 100% safe from being gunned down by some nut with a whine in the US - right?

Nonsense.

If you think that American elections are "... free, fair, open, and honest elections which are not manipulated by the party in power in order to perpetuate their grasp on power regardless of their degree of popular support." then you haven't been paying attention.

What makes you think that? Al I need is the proper ID.

Show me the place in the constitution of the United States of America where American citizens have the constitutional right to "... right to enter, remain in and leave ..." the United States of America.

In the US, the states can choose to restore felons voting rights.

And, by and large, they fail to do so.

Show me the place in the constitution of the United States of America where it says that "Every citizen of (the United States of America) has the right to vote in an election of members of the House of Commons or of a legislative assembly and to be qualified for membership therein.".

You do not have a right to own a gun, you have a privilege granted to you by the state.

Strangely enough I do have the "right to own a gun". Not only that, but I would have that right if I was 80 years old and had committed a felony when I was 19 years old. In the United States of America I would NOT have that right even if I was 80 years old and hadn't committed a crime of any nature since I had been convicted of "felony embezzlement" when I was 19 years old.

Admittedly I do have to prove that I can handle guns safely, but once I have done that the government cannot stop me owning guns.

That's not a right, it's a privilege given to you by the state; in giving you that privilege, the state forces other people to pay for your medical care.

Indeed, you would be quite correct IF I had never paid into the medicalcare insurance pool myself. You do understand how insurance works, don't you? You do realize that, if you take out a $1,000,000 fire insurance policy and your house burns down the day after your policy comes into effect (because you have paid your first premium) you are "forcing" every other policy holder to pay for your burned down house, don't you?

You do understand the difference between "free" and "at no direct cost", don't you?

True. You have the privilege, as you have no right to a firearm.

Quite frankly, no rational person wants to be able to walk around armed to the teeth and dressed like an extra in a third-rate movie about mercenaries.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Just so long as you understand the state cannot make such a requirement.

If I choose to delegate that power to the government then, yes it does.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Some questions are not worth the bother.
View attachment 67506609


Political cartoons are not "Spam", this is -
View attachment 67506607

And sometimes it's

​

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

It's a slippery slope.

View attachment 67506616

By my calculation, the current "whackdoodle right" position is that there should be a minimum of three armed persons (the teacher and two guards [the guards to prevent either the other guard or the teacher "going postal"] in every classroom PLUS a fully equipped SWAT team in each school (in order to deal with situations where the three armed guards in the classroom have all "gone postal" [or been gunned down by either the kids or an intruder]).

That sounds like a wonderful way of reducing unemployment but the problem then arises of paying for increasing the school staff by (roughly) 200%.

Obviously you can't raise taxes so the only thing to do is to consolidate classes (from the present average of 16 to 23 to around 70) and higher teachers who will work for less than they are currently earning. The beneficial effect of those larger class sizes and lowered quality teaching will have is hard to underestimate.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

I don’t see that as non-com-statements and I doubt anyone else would. If they did even they would say it’s picking at dust.



Misquoting me again. What I said precisely is I think I could raise my skills to any reasonable standard i wasn’t;t at already and if I couldn’t I am fine with giving up carrying my sidearm as I know that day will come sometime due to aging if I live long enough.



Any reasonable one. Look, believe anything you care to. Means nothing to me, because it isn’t required it should. Same the other way about. Nothing I think shouldn’t matter to you, and I’m pretty sure it doesn’t.



I’m not reinventing the wheel here. There is nothing I’ve suggested that isn’t practical common sense.

Can you pass a mental health and criminal history screening?

Do you know how to safely store your weapon so it’s no danger to you or anyone else when it’s not on your person?

Do you know it’s safe operation?

Do you know how to retain it when it’s on your person or in your hand do it can’t be taken from you?

Do you know how to fire it, particularly under duress, so under those conditions you’ll hit what you aim at?

Are you capable of determining before you fire, in real time, what your bullet is going to hit if you miss or the round passes through its target and continues down range?

Are you fully aware of use of force law in the jurisdiction this is taking place in?

Have you insured yourself so if bad things happen and you get sued, and you will be sued, the person or their survivors effected will have resources to make themselves whole, or as much as possible, and you’ll not live under the cloud of liability based forfeiture for the rest of your life?

Like I said, nothing not common sense based there. I have all of this, because it is common sense if you’re going to carry a lethal device on your person when you are out and about. If you have them as well it is my opinion you are at least minimally prepared to carry a lethal device without being a major risk to yourself and others.

If you don’t have them, it would be my opinion you aren’t prepared. I’d bet if we took a poll most present here would agree with me.

Personally I'm opposed to "concealed carry" and don't think that anyone should be allowed to carry a concealed gun.

On the other hand, I do support "open carry" (admittedly with a proviso that any person who has NOT established that it is safe for them to be in possession of guns be required to clearly display visible and auditory notice of the fact that they have not done so and are armed. Something along the lines of

​

but with full led lighting and the constant sounds of bells ringing.

 

[poppopfox]

Slippery slopes are fallacies.

Kinda like gun registration is the first step to gun confiscation?

Also why didn't people walk into fort Knox with guns?

Perhaps we should turn all of our schools into little Fort Knox's? Want to include high fencing topped with razor wire around our schools? How about manned gun towers? That might have stopped the Uvalde school massacre right?
Your question is ludicrous my friend. Put more thought into the next one.

 

[RF667799]

Kinda like gun registration is the first step to gun confiscation?

Perhaps we should turn all of our schools into little Fort Knox's? Want to include high fencing topped with razor wire around our schools? How about manned gun towers? That might have stopped the Uvalde school massacre right?
Your question is ludicrous my friend. Put more thought into the next one.

People often say Fort Knox, when they're really talking about the Bullion Depository that happens to be located within Fort Knox.

Believe it or not, there is an armed presence at the Bullion Depository, so aside from all the other security there, they must think it helps. I say that as one who has actually been in the Bullion Depository several times. The used to say that commanding generals of Fort Knox had asked to tour the facility and were turned down.

 

[ModernDiogenes]

Personal attacks, and "Nuh-uh" arguments.

I’ve not attacked you personal. I’ve disagreed with you.

Let's look at just one of your supposed standards.

Do you know how to retain it when it’s on your person or in your hand do it can’t be taken from you?

Where's the standard? Surely you don't mean in the absolute sense implied in your statement. That's unreasonable and unrealistic. So where's the standard?

It’s not established yet. If it came to pass I’d imagine it would be a certification. One would take a class. Gun safety, use of force law, retention could all be covered. It would show that at least basics in these common sense concepts of gun ownership and carry were covered. It would show the basic skills and also present a base so an “I didn’t know.” Aspect would be removed from the equation, making folks more responsible.

The absolute implication of what you wrote might not be of importance to someone who claims he can meet or exceed ANY standard, but mere mortals might be less perfect.

You’re being ludicrous (that’s not an attack either, it’s a comment to your behavior specific to this exchange, not you personally). All of this is basic, practical, common sense.

 

[ModernDiogenes]

Personally I'm opposed to "concealed carry" and don't think that anyone should be allowed to carry a concealed gun.

On the other hand, I do support "open carry" (admittedly with a proviso that any person who has NOT established that it is safe for them to be in possession of guns be required to clearly display visible and auditory notice of the fact that they have not done so and are armed. Something along the lines of

View attachment 67506761​

but with full led lighting and the constant sounds of bells ringing.

So is my suggestion that people who own and carry guns should know how to secure them safely, not have the taken from them and used in others or themselves, and use of force law? Is it not practical, if you own things and are carrying a deadly weapon around with you, that you insure yourself against bad outcomes?

It all seems quite practical common sense to me.