13 year old fires AK47 in school

[ssgharkness020147]

I dont think the anti gun groups could really do too much. In Wisconsin they really wield no power. This is a blue collar hunting state, people like their guns up here. The only reason that CCW did not pass is cause of Doyal, the citizens wanted it. Issues like that make me wonder why the fu*k I vote. I vote to elect people that will represent my interests, but it seems that it does not matter. Once elected officals are in they just seem to do as they please, not as I the citizen and voter want. Then again I did not vote for Doyal, this time around Mark Green has my vote. He seems like he has much better ideas.

Originally Posted by f5fstop

I agree, it will go nowhere no matter who is in office. It was an idea, I liked it, but the anti-gun crowd will come out like crazy against this one.

[f5fstop]

Originally Posted by ssgharkness020147

Can someone explain to me why school shootings seem to happen in waves???? Think about it, it seems like everytime on school shooting happens a bunch of others quickly follow. I dont know if kids see all the other attention that kids who shot up a school got and then do it themselves??? Why would that matter. But on the other hand that does not matter, any kid that shoots up a school will get front page attention nationwide. It doesnt matter if your the first, last, or any where in between. I'd really like to know why when one kid shoots up a school that a bunch of others follow. Its like kids sit waiting and wanting to shoot up their school, but wait until some other kid does it first before acting themselves. I dont get it, i really dont get it.

Well, three of the five (counting this kid with the AK) school shootings were adults, not kids. Not sure if the others were in any type of grouping; other than the adult shootings.

-- Oct. 2, 2006: (Adult)
-- Sept. 29, 2006:
-- Sept. 27, 2006: (Adult)
-- Aug. 24, 2006: (Adult)

-- March 21, 2005:

-- Nov. 22, 2004:

-- April 24, 2003:

--August 22, 2000:
-- May 26, 2000:

-- April 20, 1999:

-- May 21, 1998:
-- May 19, 1998:
-- March 24, 1998:
-- Dec. 1, 1997:
-- Oct. 1, 1997:

[f5fstop]

Originally Posted by ssgharkness020147

I dont think the anti gun groups could really do too much. In Wisconsin they really wield no power. This is a blue collar hunting state, people like their guns up here. The only reason that CCW did not pass is cause of Doyal, the citizens wanted it. Issues like that make me wonder why the fu*k I vote. I vote to elect people that will represent my interests, but it seems that it does not matter. Once elected officals are in they just seem to do as they please, not as I the citizen and voter want. Then again I did not vote for Doyal, this time around Mark Green has my vote. He seems like he has much better ideas.

Didn't know that about WI. Good luck, hope you get a new Gov and get a CCW you can all live with.
Kansas had the same problems, but they overrode the Veto this year to finally pass a CCW.

[Wisha Haddan H3]

Originally Posted by PARAGON

You have no clue what you are talking about. No one needs annual training in markmanship. You shoot constantly. Gun safety is not something you train for annually either. Either you know gun safety or you don't.

Just because someone has a gun doesn't mean that they have the capacity to handle a certain situation... given. But to assume that, in your little fairy world, that a registered handgun and the other crap you read somewhere would have an impact is seriously flawed.

No carry individual would have need for any command and control training. Nor do they need to know, other than what they receive in the average conceal carry course, how to interact with LEOs. If someone doesn't have common sense, they should not have the handgun on them, and they are more than likely are not going to make the best decisions when faced with the fast-moving high-stressed situations that this accounts for.

Are we talking about the same thing? I'm talking about registering educators for concealed carry in the classroom ... not about concealed carry in general or the right to bear arms. I'm only saying make educators learn, train and demonstrate their proficiency before they take the responsibility of carrying concealed in school.

I have been shooting for 15 years. I am well-versed in gun safety, disassembly and maintenance and I value my 2nd amendment rights. But if I were a teacher carrying concealed to defend my students, these are things I would require of myself before I took on that responsibility. And it's what I would expect from my fellow teachers.

You're right about "training" in marksmanship and gun safety. I should have said "certifying or qualifying" (my mistake). Not every certification would have to be annual, either. But proficiency requires practice, and how do we know everyone's practicing? If a teacher accepts the responsibility of bearing arms to protect the classroom, should I just take their word that they understand (and practice) gun safety, can hit a target, and can work with police and others in a crisis? Should I accept that blindly and without verification?

No.

There is huge value in requiring background checks and "concealed classroom carry" permits for armed educators. If nothing else, at least police know how many armed teachers are inside and who they are, so they don't get shot when SWAT storms the building.

But more to the point, if teachers are going to be responsible for defending our classrooms by force, it's realistic to set basic requirements for concealed classroom carry. They should demonstrate that they understand gun handling and safety, can hit a target consistently and have logged at least the minimum time on the firing range. Only the Principal and administrators would probably need training to understand police command & control, but all teachers would benefit from police terminology so they can follow or pass on instructions. And if they're going to take on a gunman, they must understand cover, concealment and backstops, and be able to put the bullets where they count under pressure. Or else why carry in the first place?

The real fairy world is letting teachers decide for themselves if they ought carry concealed, blindly trusting them to do the right thing under pressure, and then actually believing your kids are safer for it.

[PARAGON]

Originally Posted by Wisha Haddan H3

Are we talking about the same thing? I'm talking about registering educators for concealed carry in the classroom ... not about concealed carry in general or the right to bear arms. I'm only saying make educators learn, train and demonstrate their proficiency before they take the responsibility of carrying concealed in school.

I have been shooting for 15 years. I am well-versed in gun safety, disassembly and maintenance and I value my 2nd amendment rights. But if I were a teacher carrying concealed to defend my students, these are things I would require of myself before I took on that responsibility. And it's what I would expect from my fellow teachers.

You're right about "training" in marksmanship and gun safety. I should have said "certifying or qualifying" (my mistake). Not every certification would have to be annual, either. But proficiency requires practice, and how do we know everyone's practicing? If a teacher accepts the responsibility of bearing arms to protect the classroom, should I just take their word that they understand (and practice) gun safety, can hit a target, and can work with police and others in a crisis? Should I accept that blindly and without verification?

No.

There is huge value in requiring background checks and "concealed classroom carry" permits for armed educators. If nothing else, at least police know how many armed teachers are inside and who they are, so they don't get shot when SWAT storms the building.

But more to the point, if teachers are going to be responsible for defending our classrooms by force, it's realistic to set basic requirements for concealed classroom carry. They should demonstrate that they understand gun handling and safety, can hit a target consistently and have logged at least the minimum time on the firing range. Only the Principal and administrators would probably need training to understand police command & control, but all teachers would benefit from police terminology so they can follow or pass on instructions. And if they're going to take on a gunman, they must understand cover, concealment and backstops, and be able to put the bullets where they count under pressure. Or else why carry in the first place?

The real fairy world is letting teachers decide for themselves if they ought carry concealed, blindly trusting them to do the right thing under pressure, and then actually believing your kids are safer for it.

No, the fairy world is the fact that it matters differently because to you because it's a classroom when that same person can be carrying in more high risk situations where children are present and security is much less.

I just have one question for you.....

fire suppression?

[Wisha Haddan H3]

Originally Posted by PARAGON

No, the fairy world is the fact that it matters differently because to you because it's a classroom when that same person can be carrying in more high risk situations where children are present and security is much less.

Took a while to sort out what you wrote. I think you're saying that concealed carry by a teacher is less risky than on the street because of campus security. And therefore it only requires the same regulation as traditional concealed carry.

I disagree.

During regular carry, your goal is to protect yourself and family from a person or part of town you have reason to fear. Children may be present, but you don't have the explicit responsibility to care for and protect other people's kids every day. School attacks also take place on a much larger scale, potentially involving hundreds of students and faculty. Add to this that teachers are far outnumbered as the few adult decision-makers on campus. What's more, they must be able to shoot down a student attacker they know and care about, as well as someone who may not be attacking them directly.

These are important differences in scope and scale. It's a higher degree of responsiblity, which requires a correspondingly higher standard of training and qualification. Simply allowing teachers to carry concealed because they want to will not make schools safer. It only creates a false sense of security.

It would be like having an epidemic and expecting to protect student health by allowing teachers to carry stethoscopes, meanwhile refusing to require special training on their use, instruction on which symptoms to identify (and how to identify them), or any protocols on what to do when they find something. The teachers would manage their own training and self-assessment, and figure out how to work with health care professionals by themselves, hoping to do the right thing while students live or die by their actions and decisions.

That lack of training would be unthinkable in healthcare. It's all the more important regarding lethal weapons, educators and crime in school. It would have taken a lot more than a lucky shot from a concealed weapon to end the hostage crisis in Bailey or the massacre at Columbine ... much more preparation than you get in the average concealed carry course. We should either require a high standard of training or not let teachers carry concealed in the first place.