Connecticut School Shooting

[Heathen Hammer]

I never said cops were expert marksman, I said one is more likely to be better with a gun than the other.

Um, you directly implied they could perform a William Tell shot.

And I deny tha one is more likely to be accurate, as general observation of real events proves. Cops fire in panic in many cases, and miss a vast majority of the time. Military personnel most likely are better, but we must never have military personnel patrolling our streets.

I am a gun owner and I'm not mischaracterizing anything. It's a simple fact that cops have regular training with a firearm since that is their job requirement, whereas a school teacher wouldn't. Not sure what's so hard to understand about that.

A school teacher who is required to carry, would. It's that simple.

There's plenty of reason. Regular training is one of them.

If regular training is your major reason, any profession or individual can get the same, or better, training. In fact, a nation-wide push for 'better training' for everyone is the solution. Restricting both the weapons and the training, to the cops, who are demonstrably unable to handle it, makes us all potential victims. If we are all trained and equally as likely to hit or miss in panic, the playing field is at least even, and you have a better chance of surviving when some ungaurded, unmedicated mental ******* kills his parent for their gun.

Here's reality kids: there will never be a perfect solution. There will never be world peace. There will never be a fool proof system. No police force will be able to protect you the instant something horrible begins. If you are there, YOU are the only one who will protect you, and your own family.

Be prepared, or surrender your arms. If you die from the former, it was time to die and you were beaten by a better opponent. If you die from the latter, it's your own damned fault. Don't cry because you voluntarily gave up your teeth.

 

[oldbadger]

............Cops fire in panic in many cases, and miss a vast majority of the time.

A school teacher who is required to carry, would. It's that simple.

If regular training is your major reason, any profession or individual can get the same, or better, training.

Yes........ imagine the scene.

Mr Treadgently and Mrs Go-lightly both attended a training refresher recently. The incident commences with a person barging into the school, shooting to left and right. (whatever)

Both the above teachers equip themselves with their issued handguns and both go towards the noise until they see the gun-person.
Pulse...........135bpm
Adrenalin......raging
Perspiration.
Both are frightened.
They are shaking.
It's a bit different to the training simulations. The pistols' grips are now wet with perspiration and both constantly change hands and attempt to rub them dry.
And then.......there is the gun-person.
Moving. Wearing some sort of heavy equipment across the chest. Turning towards them. That look.

OK....... nobody doubts their courage, but who wants to place a bet on either succeeding?

This would not be allowed in UK because only government officers and police can be armed. I just don't know if it can work.

I still think schools should have a proper armed guard. The cost is massive, but would help the unemployment programme, take people off benefits and do something.

Oh dear....... when we don't even know if our own idea is any good, you know it's a toughie!

 

[Heathen Hammer]

It's the exact same way for a cop, or for a British person

Point being, if a person on scene has the exact same possibility of putting a round down range onto target, as a cop who will definitely not show up for ten minutes, it's better to have the person on scene take the shot.

 

[Mister_T]

Um, you directly implied they could perform a William Tell shot

Um yeah, no I didn't. I asked which one you would feel more comfortable having take a shot. I'm guessing this is your way of not answering it?

And I deny tha one is more likely to be accurate, as general observation of real events proves. Cops fire in panic in many cases, and miss a vast majority of the time. Military personnel most likely are better, but we must never have military personnel patrolling our streets.

Cops have extensive training with gun, more so than average gun owner. That training has to be maintained regularly. They're also trained to handle situations and operate under pressure or stress in something like a gun fight, your average citizen is not. It's really a no-brainer to say that cops on average are better off than your average citizen.

A school teacher who is required to carry, would. It's that simple.

And on average, they're not going to be any wear near the caliber if a cop. That's just common sense.

If regular training is your major reason, any profession or individual can get the same, or better, training. In fact, a nation-wide push for 'better training' for everyone is the solution. Restricting both the weapons and the training, to the cops, who are demonstrably unable to handle it, makes us all potential victims. If we are all trained and equally as likely to hit or miss in panic, the playing field is at least even, and you have a better chance of surviving when some ungaurded, unmedicated mental ******* kills his parent for their gun.

You're missing the point entirely. Teachers are there to be teachers, not fully armed commandos. Putting a gun within reach of 30 or more children in every classroom around the country is going to increase school shootings...just look at how many kids die around the country from accidental gun deaths outside of school, and people want to have teachers carry guns? What a brilliant idea.

Here's reality kids: there will never be a perfect solution. There will never be world peace. There will never be a fool proof system. No police force will be able to protect you the instant something horrible begins. If you are there, YOU are the only one who will protect you, and your own family.

No there will never be a perfect solution, but at the very least we can prevent solutions that are worse than the problem.

Be prepared, or surrender your arms. If you die from the former, it was time to die and you were beaten by a better opponent. If you die from the latter, it's your own damned fault. Don't cry because you voluntarily gave up your teeth.

Yes, arm every person in America or you will die from a gun wielding maniac....sounds totally plausible.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

Um yeah, no I didn't. I asked which one you would feel more comfortable having take a shot. I'm guessing this is your way of not answering it?

I did answer it, I said your assertion was wrong that the cop would be more capable. And um, yeah, you DID say shoot the apple off my head.

Cops have extensive training with gun, more so than average gun owner. That training has to be maintained regularly. They're also trained to handle situations and operate under pressure or stress in something like a gun fight, your average citizen is not. It's really a no-brainer to say that cops on average are better off than your average citizen.

They are not trained very well then, based on actual events.
http://www.theppsc.org/Staff_Views/Aveni/OIS.pdf

Their base to-hit rate in gunfights in any reasonable street-gunfight range for super-trained police is... wait for it... 15%
15% to just hit the target. No bulls eye. Somewhere on a man-sized figure at less than 50 feet. Not even center-mass. That is a police trainer doing the study. Percentages only really improve at distances of less than 2 feet.
Yeah.

And on average, they're not going to be any wear near the caliber if a cop. That's just common sense.

Common sense does not appear to enter into it.

You're missing the point entirely. Teachers are there to be teachers, not fully armed commandos. Putting a gun within reach of 30 or more children in every classroom around the country is going to increase school shootings...just look at how many kids die around the country from accidental gun deaths outside of school, and people want to have teachers carry guns? What a brilliant idea.

Your use of hyperbole only damages your claim

No there will never be a perfect solution, but at the very least we can prevent solutions that are worse than the problem.

Like disarming everyone; that would indeed be worse.

Yes, arm every person in America or you will die from a gun wielding maniac....sounds totally plausible.

Again, useless hyperbole, lacking real argument.

My point remains, if training is the real issue, and it seems to be your only real issue, then train everyone.
Ask the Israelis what a dumb idea it is.

 

[Reverend Rick]

If a teacher does not want to have a gun, no one should force them to take gun training.

What I am saying here is we should not restrict properly trained individuals from carrying a weapon if they want to. No one questions a police officer who may be proficient or advanced with weapons while carrying but then certain people have an issue with an expert having a gun just because he is not in law enforcement? Thats just ignorant.

These same people have issues with pilots having a gun and they may have been a marksman in the military for 20 years before being employed in the private sector.

Cops are not the only folks who receive gun training. Many police officers are just barely proficient with guns.

Police go to the range and shoot once a month. Many people shoot in competitions every weekend.

 

[dust1n]

Statistics please.

In the U.S. for 2010, there were 31,513 deaths from firearms, distributed as follows by mode of death: Suicide 19,308; Homicide 11,015; Accident 600. This makes firearms injuries one of the top ten causes of death in the U.S. The number of firearms-related injuries in the U.S., both fatal and non-fatal, increased through 1993, declined to 1999, and has remained relatively constant since. However, firearms injuries remain a leading cause of death in the U.S., particularly among youth (CDC, 2001) (Sherry et al, 2012).

2009-2010 Death at school by gun.. 7.

School Associated Violent Deaths and School Shootings

 

[Revoltingest]

In the U.S. for 2010, there were 31,513 deaths from firearms, distributed as follows by mode of death: Suicide 19,308; Homicide 11,015; Accident 600. This makes firearms injuries one of the top ten causes of death in the U.S. The number of firearms-related injuries in the U.S., both fatal and non-fatal, increased through 1993, declined to 1999, and has remained relatively constant since. However, firearms injuries remain a leading cause of death in the U.S., particularly among youth (CDC, 2001) (Sherry et al, 2012).
2009-2011 Death at school by gun.. 7.
School Associated Violent Deaths and School Shootings

Where would state sanctioned shootings (eg, by cops) fit in these statistics?

 

[dust1n]

Where would state sanctioned shootings (eg, by cops) fit in these statistics?

The state doesn't sponsor freedom of that sort of information.

 

[Revoltingest]

The state doesn't sponsor freedom of that sort of information.

How unsurprising.

 

[dust1n]

How unsurprising.

"Looking for the number of burglaries last year in Devils Lake, N.D.? How about the increase in property crimes in Caribou, Maine? The answers (34 and 23 percent, respectively) are readily available from the FBI.


Want detailed information on how many people were shot by police in the United States last year?


That's not so easy to find.


The nation's leading law enforcement agency collects vast amounts of information on crime nationwide, but missing from this clearinghouse are statistics on where, how often, and under what circumstances police use deadly force. In fact, no one anywhere comprehensively tracks the most significant act police can do in the line of duty: take a life.


"We don't have a mandate to do that," said William Carr, an FBI spokesman in Washington, D.C. "It would take a request from Congress for us to collect that data."
Congress, it seems, hasn't asked.


The FBI, which has the power to conduct civil rights investigations related to any questionable use of deadly force by any law enforcement agency, has produced at least one report analyzing shootings over several years by its own agents.


In addition, the agency tracks the total annual number of "justifiable homicides," acts it defines as "the killing of a felon by a law enforcement officer in the line of duty," but that only covers people shot while committing a serious crime and the data aren't broken down by agency. In 2010, that number was 387, down from 414 the year before.


While the agency collects, reports, and analyzes murders and assaults where police are the victim, Carr said budgetary concerns would likely preclude collecting such detailed data on shootings by police."

National data on shootings by police not collected - 142 Dead, and Rising - Deadly Force - ReviewJournal.com

 

[Kilgore Trout]

All we can do is implement the best plan. All are imperfect.

Yeah, but any serious, cogent analysis of the variables involved precludes the best plan involving the introduction of tens of thousands of firearms into close physical proximity to millions of small children.

 

[Mister_T]

I did answer it, I said your assertion was wrong that the cop would be more capable. And um, yeah, you DID say shoot the apple off my head.

Yeah I did mention an apple on your head, which is about the only thing you got right out of that sentence.

And although I did assert that a cop was better, you did not say my assertion was that a cop was more capable, you accused me of asserting that cops could perform the William Tell shot, which I didn't. I asked who would you rather have take that shot, a cop or an English teacher. Actually reading things is more helpful than browsing a sentence and shooting your mouth off, but you don't do that with you're own sentences as we can see, so I wouldn't expect you to do it with mine.

They are not trained very well then, based on actual events.
http://www.theppsc.org/Staff_Views/Aveni/OIS.pdf

Their base to-hit rate in gunfights in any reasonable street-gunfight range for super-trained police is... wait for it... 15%
15% to just hit the target. No bulls eye. Somewhere on a man-sized figure at less than 50 feet. Not even center-mass. That is a police trainer doing the study. Percentages only really improve at distances of less than 2 feet.
Yeah.

Maybe you should be looking at more than one study whose majority of sources appear to be from 1992.

In this article alone they site three to four different studies that are a lot more than 15%, and this is an article that is painting police shooting accuracy in a bad light:

According to a 2008 analysis of NYPD firearms discharge data done by the New York Times, between 1996-2006 officers hit their intended target about 34 percent of the time.

The Times reported that in 2006-2007, Los Angeles police officers hit their targets between 27 and 29 percent of the time, respectively. There is no reliable national data on hit ratio.

His 2003 report on the subject found that shootings involving a single officer have an approximately 50 percent hit ratio, and that low light diminishes police accuracy by up to 30 percent.

Empire State Building shooting sparks questions about NYPD shot accuracy - Crimesider - CBS News

But again, you're trying to strawman this into whether or not cops are expert marksman who have sniper aim, which I've already said they're not and it's not my point at all. My point is who is likely to be more of an expert to handle a situation better and on average, it's going to be cops.

Your use of hyperbole only damages your claim

Your labeling the facts about of accidental child deaths due to firearms as an "hyperbole" reinforces my earlier comment about your reading comprehension. You're entitled to your own opinions, not your own facts.

Like disarming everyone; that would indeed be worse.

And yet more reading comprehension issues. You show me where I once suggested such a thing in this thread or on this site even. I'll wait.

Again, useless hyperbole, lacking real argument.

That's rich, coming from the person who just said "arm everyone in the country or die by gun-wielding maniacs."

My point remains, if training is the real issue, and it seems to be your only real issue, then train everyone.
Ask the Israelis what a dumb idea it is.

Well if you read correctly (seems to be a recurring trend) that is not my only issue, it's one of many. And now you're comparing the USA (gets an occasional psychopath shooting spree) to Israel (a country constantly at war with it's neighbor)? Maybe hyperbole doesn't mean what you think it means, as I can not even fathom how someone can't see the disconnect in that comparison.

 

[Revoltingest]

Yeah, but any serious, cogent analysis of the variables involved precludes the best plan involving the introduction of tens of thousands of firearms into close physical proximity to millions of small children.

I disagree.
Do you think school staff are so dangerous that it's safer to have them remain entirely unarmed?

 

[Kilgore Trout]

I disagree.
Do you think school staff are so dangerous that it's safer to have them remain entirely unarmed?

I think firearms are so dangerous that it's safer to have them not around children, and untrained/undertrained individuals.

 

[Revoltingest]

I think firearms are so dangerous that it's safer to have them not around children, and untrained/undertrained individuals.

If the firearms are in the hands of trained individuals, then it's safer (IMO) to have them
around children, untrained/undertrained individuals, who cannot defend themselves.

High concentrations of vulnerable people is a bad idea when evil doers know that they
cannot be legally defended. We see this all too often, so a change is in order.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

Yeah I did mention an apple on your head, which is about the only thing you got right out of that sentence.

And although I did assert that a cop was better, you did not say my assertion was that a cop was more capable, you accused me of asserting that cops could perform the William Tell shot, which I didn't. I asked who would you rather have take that shot, a cop or an English teacher. Actually reading things is more helpful than browsing a sentence and shooting your mouth off, but you don't do that with you're own sentences as we can see, so I wouldn't expect you to do it with mine.

Then why did you bring up the entire metaphorical about shooting the apple? backing away from your stance now? Good.
You place both participants into the scenario, and ask who would I prefer to take the shot. I cited that cops are awful shots and it certainly would not be the cop. I then cited evidence as to the fact that they do not even often hit their targets at all, despite all the training you keep insisting makes some kind of difference. I showed evidence from a police trainer, the very person you insist makes them somehow specialists in shooting things. Their own trainer says they can't shoot for ****. Really, what's so hard to get, here?

Perhaps it's necessary for you to define what you think a 'specialist', your word, actually is?

Maybe you should be looking at more than one study whose majority of sources appear to be from 1992.

In this article alone they site three to four different studies that are a lot more than 15%, and this is an article that is painting police shooting accuracy in a bad light:

Empire State Building shooting sparks questions about NYPD shot accuracy - Crimesider - CBS News

But again, you're trying to strawman this into whether or not cops are expert marksman who have sniper aim, which I've already said they're not and it's not my point at all. My point is who is likely to be more of an expert to handle a situation better and on average, it's going to be cops.

Yeah, um, all this evidence points to them not being good shots. Or even passable. None of what you just listed supports you over my statements. The evidence shows the cop is NOT likely to be any kind of expert.

Your labeling the facts about of accidental child deaths due to firearms as an "hyperbole" reinforces my earlier comment about your reading comprehension. You're entitled to your own opinions, not your own facts.

Strawman
My mention of hyperbole is not about child deaths, and certainly not about facts, its your exaggerations of my own stances [note that you do it again, below]. Reading comprehension, have you met him?

And yet more reading comprehension issues. You show me where I once suggested such a thing in this thread or on this site even. I'll wait.

Im sorry, I was engaging in your own habit of sarcastic hyperbole; is that only reserved for you?

That's rich, coming from the person who just said "arm everyone in the country or die by gun-wielding maniacs."

Oh look! Here you are, using it again.

Well if you read correctly (seems to be a recurring trend) that is not my only issue, it's one of many.

Except you don't mention any others, of course

And now you're comparing the USA (gets an occasional psychopath shooting spree) to Israel (a country constantly at war with it's neighbor [Editor: but not the location of frequent shooting sprees against its own, oddly])? Maybe hyperbole doesn't mean what you think it means, as I can not even fathom how someone can't see the disconnect in that comparison.

Im sorry if bringing in real-world example of where the thing you say doesn't work, actually works, feels thwarting to you. Perhaps if you took a moment to examine the fact that what I suggest does work somewhere, your eyes might be opened a bit to the possibility of my common sense solution actually being feasible.
A general disarmament does work in some places. It will not work here.

Welcome to the internet.

 

[Reverend Rick]

I believe it is a common misconception that the police are any better at handling fire arms than any other competent person.

This is not a rub on law enforcement, we all could apply gun safety and the correct handling of fire arms equally. We all could practice at the gun range and become proficient.

The biggest problem is people make mistakes. Cops leave guns in toilet stalls all the time. A teacher could do the same thing unintentionally.

Another issue is when the poop hits the fan and your heart is racing pumping adrenaline through your body, your hands shake and sweat, you get tunnel vision, and simple tasks become challenging.

I don't care if your a private citizen, a cop, ex-military or whatever, your ability to place shots correctly is diminished under extreme stress.

Only extensive training that is kept up to date can increase the odds of success in these situations and most private citizens or cops are not going to be that dedicated to achieve these levels.

Swat teams practice every week and yes, there are private citizens that perform at their level as well. There are great training facilities for the private individual but are extremely expensive and time consuming.

The best advice I can offer is to arm willful teachers with non-lethal weapons like tasers and give them some basic training how to use them.

If a school can budget a police officer at the school, that would be the best candidate to have a gun near children.

My only point is, if a principle or other staff member could demonstrate that they had exceptional training in high stress shooting situations, (ex-navy seal, for instance) they should not be prevented from carrying a weapon in school.

Zero tolerance policies are stupid. Gun free zones are dangerous and nieve.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

we all could apply gun safety and the correct handling of fire arms equally. We all could practice at the gun range and become proficient.

Thank you; that is all I am trying to say.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

I know someone who bought some guns to protect himself and his wife. He got a concealed-carry license and did all the legally required training, plus additional classes and training. He has been shooting for fun every few weeks for many years now, he owns a few pistols and a shotgun. He's a very kind, responsible man and I fully trust that he knows how to use his guns.

Over the past several years he never had cause to use any of his guns for protection, however. Quite unexpectedly, his wife left him this year and sent his entire world spinning. He was a devoted husband and now he is beside himself and nearly out of his mind with grief and anger and hurt. Now that small arsenal is a source of constant uneasiness and worry for everyone who knows him and his wife, and we would all probably feel safer if it had never existed. It only takes one night, after a few too many beers ...