Tennessee passes bill to allow teachers to be armed. (1 Viewer)

[RF667799]

I’m not inclined to be overly concerned about “shitheads”. I don’t like bad people. I do like systems that work. When you back someone up against a wall they strike out. That leads to bad outcomes. So, while I don’t let people off the hook I find ways to accomplish what needed doing while giving real waste points that let off pressure. That way things get accomplished. Works in prisons, on the streets (where i did most of my work) and it would work with the scenario you’re making your example here.

So you have a violent shithead who's been stalking his ex who he used to beat, and you take his gun and give him a piece of paper that says he isn't supposed to take his machete (or obtain another gun), and drive his car to his ex's current residence.

I think it would be better to take away his mobility and his firepower at the same time. Yes, it will greatly inconvenience him. But **** him. He should consider himself lucky he isn't in prison for forty or fifty years.

 

[ModernDiogenes]

So you have a violent shithead who's been stalking his ex who he used to beat, and you take his gun and give him a piece of paper that says he isn't supposed to take his machete (or obtain another gun), and drive his car to his ex's current residence.

No, obviously, and you know that because I said systems that work. That wouldn’t work. What I wouldn’t do is but someone out of employment, what we were discussion, if at all possible. Because there are usually kids to feed, a spouse to support and rent to be paid, etc.

I think it would be better to take away his mobility and his firepower at the same time. Yes, it will greatly inconvenience him. But **** him. He should consider himself lucky he isn't in prison for forty or fifty years.

I here you but it us my experience it causes more problems for the victim than it solves. The victim is frequently female. Frequently at least partially financially dependent. More often than not involves children.

These mean the VICTIM is better served by keeping the actor fiscally solvent much of the time. Still have to make sure the order if protection remains in force.

These things are best resolved on a case by case basis with a court involved. The defendant apprised fully of what is expected of them under the order, and vigilance on the iartnof the victim in conjunction with the police department (location but in frequent check list for patrol, etc.)

 

[Mungo Jerry]

So you have a violent shithead who's been stalking his ex who he used to beat, and you take his gun...

That's all thy care about - taking the guns.
If they cared about protecting people, they'd take the violent shithead into custody.

 

[RF667799]

No, obviously, and you know that because I said systems that work. That wouldn’t work. What I wouldn’t do is but someone out of employment, what we were discussion, if at all possible. Because there are usually kids to feed, a spouse to support and rent to be paid, etc.

He can keep his employment. He might have to move, or arrange another way to get to work other than a personal vehicle.

What do you propose to enforce the restraining order better than removing his mobility?

And it's a bit silly you want to use an obligation of spousal abuser to support his wife and kids. Do we refrain from sending violent people to prison because they might have a spouse and kids? What about when the spouse abuser ignores the restraining order, drives to his spouse's residence and murders her? He gets a pass because there's still kids to support?

I here you but it us my experience it causes more problems for the victim than it solves. The victim is frequently female. Frequently at least partially financially dependent. More often than not involves children.

These mean the VICTIM is better served by keeping the actor fiscally solvent much of the time. Still have to make sure the order if protection remains in force.

These things are best resolved on a case by case basis with a court involved. The defendant apprised fully of what is expected of them under the order, and vigilance on the iartnof the victim in conjunction with the police department (location but in frequent check list for patrol, etc.)

He only has to successfully avoid detection once. But yeah, let's tell him we're really serious he abide by the law now much better than he did before. "You might have beat your wife half to death and be stalking her, but if you don't quit you're really going to be in trouble!"

 

[ModernDiogenes]

He can keep his employment. He might have to move, or arrange another way to get to work other than a personal vehicle.

Like I stated, individually decided by judicial overview. It’s not unusual.

What do you propose to enforce the restraining order better than removing his mobility?

If necessary it can, and is, done. It’s not the primary approach though. At least not in my jurisdiction nor in others I am aware of.

And it's a bit silly you want to use an obligation of spousal abuser to support his wife and kids. Do we refrain from sending violent people to prison because they might have a spouse and kids? What about when the spouse abuser ignores the restraining order, drives to his spouse's residence and murders her? He gets a pass because there's still kids to support?

It’s not silly at all it’s current practice. Having a “TRO’ or a permanent order of protection dies nor release the defendant from fiscal responsibilities. There are entire units of our counties prosecutorial units devoted to the nick maned “dead beat dads” units, that handle court orders in this in both divorced and court ordered separations due to violence.

I’m finding that in this day and age knowledge of such units existence would be void in most adults so I’m started to question whether you’re being serious or just egging this on for personal amusement?

Transportation isn’t the primary concern requirement to prevent an abuser for abusing. There are, as you pointed out, all sorts of ways to get around. The primary deterrent is to foster a state of knowledge in the defendant that there is no way to do further harm that isn’t self defeating. Punishment would be swift and unescapable. That is more effective deterrence in non-psycho/socio impaired individuals.

As to do we refrain? No, there are cases of criminal co-defendant spouses with children where the two guilty parties have their interment staggered so one can remain free while the other serve their sentence, then switch as the next is free, sentence completed, to take over the care of the children.

He only has to successfully avoid detection once.

That is true for anyone, under any circumstances, thus making your focus on personal transportation self-defeating. It us precisely why deterrence based in the internal understanding and fear of consequences the most effective alternative.

But yeah, let's tell him we're really serious he abide by the law now much better than he did before. "You might have beat your wife half to death and be stalking her, but if you don't quit you're really going to be in trouble!"

We aren’t talking about “beating anyone half to death” as the response to that in ALL US jurisdictions since federal “Violence Against Women Act” of 1994 and state statues is a non-police discretion response with immediate arrest and detainment, prosecution and imprisonment. So that person isn’t getting bail before a hearing (and probably not after), isn’t going to work any time soon, and if convicted is going to be sorndung sine time as a guest if the State this took place in. Their transporting themselves anywhere isn’t a concern.

The situation we were discussing, or I thought we were discussing, are incidents of violence that range from threats to acts of simple or minor aggravated assault. Not mayhem/serious bodily harm.

Now I think we’ve covered this. I’m feeling a bit manipulated and I’m no one’s play toy for their amusement. If that perception is wrong than I apologize but that’s the “vibe” I’m picking up.

 

[RF667799]

Like I stated, individually decided by judicial overview. It’s not unusual.

It's not unusual that recidivist offenders are free to use their cars to enable their next criminal act.

If necessary it can, and is, done. It’s not the primary approach though. At least not in my jurisdiction nor in others I am aware of.

Then the primary approach is to leave them free to use their cars to enable their next criminal act.

It’s not silly at all it’s current practice. Having a “TRO’ or a permanent order of protection dies nor release the defendant from fiscal responsibilities. There are entire units of our counties prosecutorial units devoted to the nick maned “dead beat dads” units, that handle court orders in this in both divorced and court ordered separations due to violence.

And there are entire legions of dead beats who pay no child support at all, as they apparently have no job. But many of them do manage to have a car. By all means, let's not inconvenience them.

I’m finding that in this day and age knowledge of such units existence would be void in most adults so I’m started to question whether you’re being serious or just egging this on for personal amusement?

I'm wondering how a retired cop ends up with a Pollyannaish "let's not inconvenience the scumbags" approach.

Transportation isn’t the primary concern requirement to prevent an abuser for abusing. There are, as you pointed out, all sorts of ways to get around.

Few as convenient- day and night- as a personally owned vehicles.

The primary deterrent is to foster a state of knowledge in the defendant that there is no way to do further harm that isn’t self defeating. Punishment would be swift and unescapable.

That doesn't seem to be a real consideration. Punishment is escapable and slow. Might never happen. Someone bent on enough mayhem likely doesn't care at all.

That is more effective deterrence in non-psycho/socio impaired individuals.

If violent individuals can't control themselves, they don't even need to be free. If they can control themselves but choose to deliberately commit their violent crimes, then they don't need to be free either. But we can at least limit their mobility as we try to limit their firepower.

As to do we refrain? No, there are cases of criminal co-defendant spouses with children where the two guilty parties have their interment staggered so one can remain free while the other serve their sentence, then switch as the next is free, sentence completed, to take over the care of the children.

Interesting but irrelevant.

That is true for anyone, under any circumstances, thus making your focus on personal transportation self-defeating. It us precisely why deterrence based in the internal understanding and fear of consequences the most effective alternative.

The consequences of having one's car taken, and being prohibited from ever owning one is not a deterrent? I think you're overlooking the affection and love most Americans have for their motor vehicles. Really strange, since you are so intent on defending possession of motor vehicles on behalf of the criminally inclined.

 

[RF667799]

We aren’t talking about “beating anyone half to death” as the response to that in ALL US jurisdictions since federal “Violence Against Women Act” of 1994 and state statues is a non-police discretion response with immediate arrest and detainment, prosecution and imprisonment. So that person isn’t getting bail before a hearing (and probably not after), isn’t going to work any time soon, and if convicted is going to be sorndung sine time as a guest if the State this took place in. Their transporting themselves anywhere isn’t a concern.

For the time they are in prison (if they actually go). After that it's payback time, and they really aren't concerned that someone admonished them not to violate a restraining order.

The situation we were discussing, or I thought we were discussing, are incidents of violence that range from threats to acts of simple or minor aggravated assault. Not mayhem/serious bodily harm.

So a few bruises are okay, just don't break bones? Something like that, or better?

Now I think we’ve covered this. I’m feeling a bit manipulated and I’m no one’s play toy for their amusement. If that perception is wrong than I apologize but that’s the “vibe” I’m picking up.

No, it's really interesting knowing how effective a retired cop thinks policing is, that the domestic violence concerns are all wrapped up and taken care of. Of course there are more domestic violence cases than gun accidents yearly. And motor vehicles are likely used much more often to enable criminal activity than are guns. But you propose likely unconstitutional measures and widespread inconveniencing of peaceful people in the case of guns...but inconvenience criminals in the case of their God-given right to drive wherever they wish and whenever they wish? Heaven forbid.

 

[ModernDiogenes]

No, it's really interesting knowing how effective a retired cop thinks policing is, that the domestic violence concerns are all wrapped up and taken care of. Of course there are more domestic violence cases than gun accidents yearly. And motor vehicles are likely used much more often to enable criminal activity than are guns. But you propose likely unconstitutional measures and widespread inconveniencing of peaceful people in the case of guns...but inconvenience criminals in the case of their God-given right to drive wherever they wish and whenever they wish? Heaven forbid.

The world is a real place, with real considerations that pull and push against each other. Naming wards of the state and welfare cases isn’t in the state’s best interest. The decisions made tend to end among the practical and pragmatic that balance the best interests of the victim with that of the state. That’s just the way that works. Voters want it that way because they don’t like higher taxes. So there are only so many cops, they want parents to pay for their kids and spouses. That’s just the formula works that forces determination and the system working the way it works.

You want different. Talk voters into paying more in taxes and politicians to grow some balls. They make the rules. We just play by them.

 

[braindrain]

Ah, so women will be limited in their choice of apparel?

Do you have any idea how ridiculous your whining sounds.

No one is forcing teachers to carry.
Any teacher who chooses to carry will either dress in a way that allows them to carry or not carry that day if they want to wear something that doesn’t allow conceal carry.
It’s their choice.

But please keep whining. It’s a good look for you.

 

[braindrain]

LOL! "Options" aren't going to be much of a motivating factor.

Especially given students' abilities to suss out who is carrying.....

Btw, will the state subsidize those options? Or pay for having clothes altered to accommodate concealed carry?

Why would the state do that when all the state is doing is giving them the option to carry if they want to.

You argument would make sense if the state was saying they had to. Since that is not the case your argument is just stupid.

 

[braindrain]

Active shooter enters classroom.

Active shooter armed with AR-15-style weapon enters classroom, gets the drop on the teacher trying to access concealed handgun and takes him or her out.

Active shooter sprays classroom with lethal bullets.

See what happens without your handy-dandy WARNING and TIME FOR TEACHER to LOCK the DOOR? If the intruder doesn't spray the room before he enters?

If the intruder does look into the room, sees where the teacher is with her handgun, and enters aiming for the teacher?

If the intruder just shoots the lock?

A handgun against an AR-15-style weapon is more or less meaningless.

But you go on living in lalaland, with your precisely-detailed-to-dovetail-with-your-fairy-tale-reality. Me? I've got grandkids in classrooms. I can't be so unrealistic as you.

In that scenario how is what happened any worse then if the teacher hadn’t been armed at all.
And seeing as that is not the only scenario and not even the most likely it’s a rather dumb thing to be arguing against.

Someone who is as obviously clueless about firearms as you are really shouldn’t be trying to act like you know what you are talking about.
Not only does it make you look foolish it shows everyone just how little integrity you posses.

Just incase your constant lying in this thread want evidence enough.

 

[braindrain]

I would go with no carry. Kids are brighter, more inquisitive, and much more discerning than many adults give them credit. PLUS, they sure as hell communicate among themselves re their teachers.

Don't underestimate what kids know.

Back to the futility of concealed carry: an intruder armed with an AR-15-style weapon will most likely not be "taken out" by a handgun-armed teacher. Especially not before the shooter has had a chance to take out the teacher.

Prove that past claim of yours. With actually evidence. Not just your bleating.

 

[braindrain]

Insult me as much as makes you feel superior. It doesn't bother me, and I understand that some people need to feel good by tearing others down.

I haven't said I know what training law enforcement agents receive. I have noted that teachers do not receive that level of training re firearms. If you want to try to prove they do, go for it.

"Short range" doesn't matter, because I'm talking about - and you're avoiding - the rapid-fire capability of AR-15-style weapons. The ones used in many mass shootings, probably because they can take out more people more quickly than can handguns. If you would like to prove that handguns supplied to teachers have the same rapid-fire capability as AR-15-style weapons, go for it.

In addition to the inferiority of using a handgun to try to stop an intruder armed with an AR-15-style weapon, there's also the possibility that a student could access the "concealed" handgun.

There's another concern: liability. Will all teachers carrying handguns be indemnified from any financial and/or legal consequences? Will the state provide this coverage? Or will teachers have to get and pay for coverage on their own - and hope it holds up?

This just proves for about the 100th time in this thread alone that you are simply talking out your ass.
Please explain to me the rate of fire difference between a rifle like an AR and a semiautomatic handgun.

You do know what the word semi automatic means right.

 

[braindrain]

So far as I know, semi-automatic Glock 17's aren't issued to teachers. (Heck of a concealed carry weapon)

If you can show that they have been and are being issued, go for it.

Who is talking about issuing any firearms to teachers.
And plenty of people conceal carry Glock 17 and 19 pistols. I carry my Glock 19 with a 15+2 round magazine all the time.

But good seeing you keep proving you don’t have a clue what you are talking about.

 

[braindrain]

Please show that semi-automatic handguns are carried by teachers.

And please prove that teachers have complete indemnification from all financial and legal consequences of carrying and using guns in schools.

Jesus. Talk about dumb.

 

[Mungo Jerry]

Do you have any idea how ridiculous your whining sounds.
No one is forcing teachers to carry.

They choose to misunderstand.

 

[Rich2018]

Fascinating!

Should there be a teacher who wishes to carry out a mass school shooting, he/she will have no difficulty whatever in bringing a firearm into the school.

Regards, stay safe 'n well 'n un=shot.

If I had a child, there's NO way I'd allow him to study in a school with armed teachers.

 

[NolanVoyd]

Fascinating!

Should there be a teacher who wishes to carry out a mass school shooting, he/she will have no difficulty whatever in bringing a firearm into the school.

Regards, stay safe 'n well 'n un=shot.

I wonder if they will allow substitute teachers to carry.....that could be dangerous.

Some of mine back in the day seemed a bit unhinged......combine that with the pranks kids tend to play on subs.....and handy firearms and I can see a rise in the death toll.

 

[Rich2018]

I wonder if they will allow substitute teachers to carry.....that could be dangerous.

Some of mine back in the day seemed a bit unhinged......combine that with the pranks kids tend to play on subs.....and handy firearms and I can see a rise in the death toll.

What about janitors and non-teaching school staff, like cooks and cleaners ?

 

[CLAX1911]

I wonder if they will allow substitute teachers to carry.....that could be dangerous.

What could make this dangerous anyone can just walk in there with a gun anyway.

Saying okay if you don't want to murder people will let you walk in over the gun doesn't make it more dangerous.

Some of mine back in the day seemed a bit unhinged......combine that with the pranks kids tend to play on subs.....and handy firearms and I can see a rise in the death toll.

So you believe as long as they don't let teachers carry guns in school there's a magical force field that stops guns from entering the school?


A firearm can be handy even if it's illegal. We're going from only people who break the law having guns to allowing people who follow it to have them.


Your idea that everyone that legally carries a firearm is just unhinged in seconds away from a massacre at every moment is not based in reality.

 

[JMB1911A1]

If I had a child, there's NO way I'd allow him to study in a school with armed teachers.

So you are saying that you don't want our children protected as well as our politicians are protected.

What about janitors and non-teaching school staff, like cooks and cleaners ?

Read the law. It is posted up thread. School staff. That would include non-teachers.

 

[NolanVoyd]

What could make this dangerous anyone can just walk in there with a gun anyway.

Saying okay if you don't want to murder people will let you walk in over the gun doesn't make it more dangerous.

So you believe as long as they don't let teachers carry guns in school there's a magical force field that stops guns from entering the school?


A firearm can be handy even if it's illegal. We're going from only people who break the law having guns to allowing people who follow it to have them.


Your idea that everyone that legally carries a firearm is just unhinged in seconds away from a massacre at every moment is not based in reality.

Lighten up.

 

[CLAX1911]

Lighten up.

You're the one thinking every legal gun owner is just one confrontation from mass murder.

 

[NolanVoyd]

You're the one thinking every legal gun owner is just one confrontation from mass murder.

No, I'm not.

 

[Rich2018]

So you are saying that you don't want our children protected as well as our politicians are protected.

No, of course I want them protected, which is why I don't want guns anywhere near them.

Read the law. It is posted up thread. School staff. That would include non-teachers.

The only thing that would be worse is letting the school pupils be armed too.