Reply to: Richard Burr warned Trump lawyer about Mueller targets
I don't care if it's for obstruction of justice or parking his fricking Thing improperly, you shouldn't be able to intentionally undermine a DOJ investigation and get away with it. Grrr.
Reply to: Tuesday News: Parting is such sweet sorrow...
When ya leave Dallas, don't let the door hit you where the good lord split ya...
- Reply to: Tuesday Twitter roundup
Reply to: Monday News: Beto testing
how many Americans still not only support but adore Donald Trump. He has raised $30 million so far this year for his 2020 re-election campaign, and while I'm sure a hefty chunk of that came from the 1%-ers, a lot of people who got screwed by his tax scam also gave to him. Bigotry is a big business, I guess.
Reply to: Sunday News: From the Editorial pages
I missed this pro-gun diatribe two weeks ago, but better late than never:
When we look at school shootings, it becomes clear that there is one common element: The perpetrators attack schools because they are easy targets. They know schools are a large gathering of innocent bystanders in a confined space and there are very few – if any – armed people present to defend the students.
This is just one of many broad-based assumptions this guy makes, and it's just as inaccurate as the others. Perpetrators don't "choose" the school because they're easy targets; the vast majority of these deranged individuals actually attended (or are attending) schools they target. And it isn't because they are vulnerable, it's because the venue provides a spectacle, and all of their fellow students are caught up in that spectacle.
While there has been a tremendous amount of heated rhetoric regarding the School Security Act of 2019, the fact is that this proposed law would make North Carolina schools safer for teachers and students alike.
First of all, it is important to clear up some of the things this bill would not do. Contrary to what many who are opposed to it have been saying, it will not give teachers free rein to carry weapons in schools, and it will not unnecessarily put students in danger.
Again, a whole lot of assumptions on child safety, based on other (wrong) assumptions. Aside from the distinct possibility of accidental discharges (like this teacher in California who is also a reserve police officer), increasing the number of firearms on a school campus automatically increases the likelihood of a discharge, accidental or otherwise. To posit it has no dangers associated with it is either disingenuous or simply idiotic.
What SB 192 would do is allow willing teachers to undergo an annual security training, which would teach them to safely carry a firearm and — although we all pray it will never be necessary — use it in an active shooter situation. After completing this training, these “teacher resource officers” would receive a 5% salary boost and be permitted to carry concealed weapons in schools.
And they would be granted the power to arrest students and others as they see fit, operating under the instructions of both the school and the local police. From the bill itself:
A teacher resource officer who is a law enforcement officer of the police department pursuant to subsection (a) of this section shall report to the chief of police and shall work under the direction and supervision of the chief of police or the chief's designee when carrying out duties related to his or her role as a law enforcement officer.In all other aspects, the teacher resource officer shall remain an employee of the employing public education entity, as defined in G.S.115C-105.50(b)(3)."
The fact the op-ed writer did not mention this (critically) important aspect of the bill proves he's either trying to suppress that information or he didn't actually read the fucking bill before spewing his nonsense.
Responsibly armed Americans are a crucial aspect of deterring criminals and stopping shooters in their tracks, and this legislation will simply reverse the status quo and give teachers the tools they need to defend themselves and their classrooms.
Blah blah blah. Just more gun-nuttery that promotes the idea that law enforcement desperately needs their help. And again he uses the word "criminal," when in most cases these school shooters are not actually criminals, in the classic sense. Here it is again:
Most of all, a criminal is less likely to go after a population that can and will defend itself. We need these responsible citizens to be the first line of defense and should allocate appropriate resources to ensure they are ready and able to protect our children.
Dude is just full of assumptions. Have you ever heard of "death by cop"? It's when somebody wants to die, preferably in a hail of bullets, to a) complete a task they're too cowardly to perform, and b) to achieve some sort of fame in the process.
Many school shooters begin their assault with at least the assumption they will be killed during or shortly after said attack, and arming teachers might actually enhance that fantasy.
But aside from that, introducing multiple shooters, especially with none of them being "experts," will create a crossfire and almost guarantees more casualties. I know this because I used to teach MOUT (Military Operations in Urban Terrain) and other use of deadly force subjects to foreign military and security folks. Even seasoned, trained people make mistakes that are often deadly to innocent bystanders, and that's not a situation we should expose our students to. Period.