Scorpion89
Banned
- Joined
- May 29, 2009
- Messages
- 2,629
- Reaction score
- 527
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
OK....I get it.
No, you don't. Let me explain it to you in the simplest possible terms:
Goshin said it makes sense to arm teachers.
You countered, suggesting that vulnerable teachers (AKA Miss Landers) would make for easy targets.
Your counter-point erroneously assumes that vulnerable teachers (AKA Miss Landers) would be issued a weapon at all; they won't.
In making an erroneous assumption and attributing it to another person's argument you are creating a straw man, which is a logical fallacy.
Simple enough for you?
You countered, suggesting that vulnerable teachers (AKA Miss Landers) would make for easy targets.
Your counter-point erroneously assumes that vulnerable teachers (AKA Miss Landers) would be issued a weapon at all; they won't.
Tell me......Where exactly do we find invulnerable teachers. Your argument assumes there is such a thing. ALL teachers would be vulnerable & easy prey due to the element of surprise always working against them......Regardless of how big/tough they are.
In that sense all teachers would be as vulnerable to surprise attack as Miss Landers & just as easy to disarm.
We are having a nice simple conversation here so please....don't drag it off into the semantics weed forest.
That is your opinion & has not been established at all. I think kids would pretty easily uncover who was carrying. To be effective at all, a teacher would need to be carrying a weapon at all times or the weapon would be useless, right? Where does a teacher carry concealed on a hot day in Sept of May?We've already established that determining which teachers are carrying a concealed weapon would not be easy.
Again, you claim things are established which are ust suppositions on your part. Coaches, principals, etc are not LEO's & no amount of training can turn a milk cow into a lion, especially if that milk cow has no real interest in becoming a lion but just wants to give milk!:lol:.We've established that in order to be sure they got the weapon before the teacher they'd need to know where it was concealed. We've further established that armed staff-members (not simply teachers; there's principals/vice's coaches and maintenance and etc) could be given training in weapons retention to make them harder targets, etc etc...
You've ESTABLISHED nothing, other than stating your opinions & claiming them as fact.In short, we've established that there is NO REASON at all that it would be EASY for students to take guns from teachers.
Just because you claim an argument is proven erroneous doesn't make it so. You just stated your opinions & then claimed they were facts or proof.
The fact is that I disagree with your assertion that students, who will always have the critical element of surprise on their side, would not make any teacher or staff member vulnerable to their surprise attack.
Let's take your arguments one at a time:
That is your opinion & has not been established at all. I think kids would pretty easily uncover who was carrying. Why is your opinion better than mine?
Again, you claim things are established which are ust suppositions on your part. Coaches, principals, etc are not LEO's & no amount of training can turn a milk cow into a lion.
You've ESTABLISHED nothing, other than stating your opinions & claiming them as fact.
Tell me......Where exactly do we find invulnerable teachers. Your argument assumes there is such a thing. ALL teachers would be vulnerable & easy prey due to the element of surprise always working against them......Regardless of how big/tough they are.
In that sense all teachers would be as vulnerable to surprise attack as Miss Landers & just as easy to disarm.
We are having a nice simple conversation here so please....don't drag it off into the semantics weed forest.
Maybe you're the ignorant one. Here's Jall's original question:
Please point out the word "Winchester" in that post. Thanks.
:doh I probably didn't ask him which Winchester it was and when it was made because at that point he hadn't mentioned that he had a Winchester (that came much later in post 159). Ya think? As for my "bolding of California law," I suspect that, since he indicates that he lives in San Francisco, the gun laws of, say, Vermont, wouldn't be of much help to him.
More snotty insults. Pure class, Rev. :roll:
Given your demonstrated inability to follow a simple conversation, I'm thinking you're probably not the guy he's going to go to for clarification on anything in these fora. But that's for Jall to decide, isn't it?
:roll:
Devil, dear devil....you really are stretching the matter beyond reason.
My opinion is better than yours because I am an expert on the issue of concealed weapons and training civilians.
Of course LEO's are not supermen, but they have chosen a dangerous/confrontational life style & expect to have to apply deadly force some time in the careers as possibility. School personnel have devoted their lives to teaching & that usually attracts a different kind of person.Careful, your elitism is showing. You seem to think that LEOs are the only ones capable of showing professionalism, courage or capability in the face of danger? (or was the milk-cow reference thinly veiled sexism?) What about soldiers and ex-soldiers, of whom include a good many principals, teachers, coaches and other staff. You actually think LEO's are some kind of breed of supermen?
Now I'll give you a " for-instance".......:lol:Let me give you a for-instance, regarding concealed weapons. There was a certain subject that had been arrested, who was put into my custody. At the time of custody transfer, the arresting officers claimed they had searched him thoroughly, using the pat-down method. I did a strip-search on the subject and turned up:
1 bag of marijuana approx 1/4 oz
1 knife, approx 4" blade, folding type.
1 small pistol, .22 caliber.
This perp had allegedly been patted down by two allegedly professional street cops, then cuffed and put in the back of their cruiser. They were miffed that they missed the drugs and knife, but they really turned green when they saw the gun I found on the guy and realized they'd had him in the back of the car, behind them, with a gun they'd missed.
Professionals, mm-hm. Fact is about a third of the guys with badges have nearly as much in common with Barney Fife than the nearly mythical "supercop".
The "resource officers", LE's, typically carry them in plain sight. A couple of big, strong, young thugs acting together could have a decent chance of getting his gun, and they KNOW he has one because it is in plain sight.
The fact is I could EASILY round up ten civillian shooters that I'd put up against ANY ten street-cops in any practical shooting comparison, and the street cops would probably get waxed, smoked and shut-out in short order.
The factual and analytical errors you've made in your arguments on this topic leave me feeling very secure that my opinion is, indeed, far more informed and experienced and correct than yours.
No offense, but frankly you don't sound like you have much experience with this issue (disarming concealed carriers), or else you're too wedded to your position to think things through and analyze the situation tactically.
I have carried concealed for most of my life too, as well (as all my SA friends on the job) so I have some experience in this field too.
Carrying concealed with light clothing is not all that easy, unless you carry a very small pistol (say 32cal or below) which gives you very little stopping power. (hammers tend to ruin shirts unless you wrap them with rubber bands, etc) To regularly carry.... say a 9mm or above means toting a fairly large, heavy hunk of equipment around that becomes pretty obvious when you only have light summer clothes on.
Of course it can be done & LEO's do it all the time, but to expect a school teacher to force herself/himself to do this on the extremely off-chance that he/she will ever need it, i asking allot.
Of course LEO's are not supermen, but they have chosen a dangerous/confrontational life style & expect to have to apply deadly force some time in the careers as possibility. School personnel have devoted their lives to teaching & that usually attracts a different kind of person.
We are talking generalities here & of course there will be exceptions to every generality.
Now I'll give you a " for-instance".......:lol:
When I was in DEA training, we trainees always would arrest the bad guys (instructors) & pat them down, etc b4 cuffinging them. On one raid execution training scenario, an instructor (bad guy) had hidden a small caliber 32 auto in his underwear, just below his testicles. (the idea was that no trainee would reach down there to check for fear of being called a fag!:lol
The ploy worked perfectly & the agent trainee who did the search (an ex cop, btw) missed the hidden weapon & cuffed him, hands behind his back.
A few seconds later, the bad guy instructor reached down behind him, pulled out the weapon &, firing with from behind his back, "Killed" 3 agents...... b4 we killed him. (with blanks)
The moral of the story, as we were all made keenly aware is to do a thorough search b4 handcuffing & don't worry about what you may be called!
Listen, I understand what you are saying & you do have experience training civilians that I don't have......BUT...The fact remains that I don't think it's a good idea to try to train school personnel in the use of deadly force with children all around.
Kids have ways of knowing things & I think any armed teacher would be pretty easy to deiscover/target.
Here's an Idea I like better:
Train a group of LEO's to perform the function of armed school guards (posing as custodians, kitchen workers, whatever) & don't have their real identities know to anyone in any school, except maybe the principal. These professionals could be moved around (between schools) on a regular basis & still receive constant training to keep up their firearms skills. They would undoubtedly be more effective than typical school personnel as they had already chosen LE as the careers & this "School Guard" could be just a temporary assignment to keep alert level high.
I haven't really thought this idea through yet but I like it allot better than trying to arm & train civilians.
You appear to be calling me a liar, which is untrue & something I haven't accused you of. Neither one of us KNOWS the other guy & I see no reason to lower the discussion by going down that unnecessary road.. Let's stick with our arguments & simply accept that the other guy is what he claims.
For the purpose of this topic, I think we both desired to show some expertise in this field but that our arguments are really what's important, not our background.
I am not contemplating replacing any school personnel. Just adding a few discrete agents in the mix who would be far less spottable, imo than an armed teacher.There are some drawbacks: when such a crew comes in and replaces some of the staff, students will notice and talk. Unless they are trained at undercover work, they will be sadly obvious --- being a cop puts its stamp on you, I've been out of the biz for nearly 13 years now and people still mistake me for plainclothes LE at times. Item two: you have to keep paying the people that have been temporarily replaced while the crew is on site. Item three: you wouldn't have very many such crews for budgetary reasons, and only a few schools would be covered.
hey chica, pay attention, you have no clue, your advice, given that without a model, you could not know if it is a C&R, could get Jallman arrested and put in jail, makes your advice not only ignorant, but dangerous....
so if he needs advice on collecting cans to recycle, or how to hug a tree, i will defer to you. leave the gun questions to the experts, like me.... :lol::2wave:
Now, I'll grant that your undercover roving LEO crew is an intresting idea. Not a bad idea in general, and perhaps and improvement over what we currently have. .....: you wouldn't have very many such crews for budgetary reasons, and only a few schools would be covered.
Just jumping back in to make a point here:
Just as budgetary restrictions prevent Sky Marshals from protecting every flight , the same reason would indeed prevent every school form being protected...every day. The good thing is the bad guys never know which flight, (or which school in this case) are protected & therefore can not plan an attack as easily.
I envision a very similar system to the federal Sky Marshal system. (Maybe call them "School Marshals")
Planes move around a lot.
Schools do not.
Therefore, it would seem more economical to have any "School Marshals" stationed in a specific school, instead of moving around to different schools.
Although if the schools were close enough to each other...
I was thinking more of the boredom that any such job entails & being able to shuffle the crew to other jobs like SWAT, etc.
Staying alert in these type jobs present a major problem for any LEO & being able to detail the small crew around for short periods has many benefits, imo.
(I have known federal Sky Marshals who say that such boredom is one of the major drawbacks to those positions)
I think it makes more sense to have many schools protected by a professional force than ALL schools barely protected by a poorly trained, amateur force.
Ah.
An interesting idea.
Would these "School Marshals" be connected to the local police? Or a federal organization?
Ah.
An interesting idea.
Would these "School Marshals" be connected to the local police? Or a federal organization?
I was thinking more of the boredom that any such job entails & being able to shuffle the crew to other jobs like SWAT, etc.
Staying alert in these type jobs present a major problem for any LEO & being able to detail the small crew around for short periods has many benefits, imo.
(I have known federal Sky Marshals who say that such boredom is one of the major drawbacks to those positions)
I think it makes more sense to have many schools protected by a professional force than ALL schools barely protected by a poorly trained, amateur force.
The costs would be excessive. The same goal could be accomplished by arming competent school officials.
Actually, I think both ideas have some merit.
Both have potential downsides, as well.
Here, you & I part company. All of my LE work was at the federal level but we worked very often with state & locals who normally were very good at what they did, & way above the tactical talents of the drug dealers & bad guys that we all dealt with.I am not overly impressed with the average cop's tactical training and readiness, and do not consider the average private citizen CCW to be much below Joe Cop in competence, if below him at all.
I think therein lies the problem. Sky/School Marshal would need to be a cut above the avearge street cop & much better trained in target acquisition, hostage rescue, etc.This is based on my experiences with LEOs and with CCWs. Note that I'm not talking about SWAT teams, Felony Warrant Service crews, and similar specialists... talking about regular cops: who, from what I've seen, go to the range once a year to re-qual and rarely seek advanced training on their own, and rarely get any through their department either. (Budget, you know.)
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?