02-23-2018, 03:01 PM
(02-23-2018, 01:25 PM)David Horn Wrote:(02-23-2018, 05:58 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:(02-23-2018, 12:47 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: After all, our current President has endorsed the consummate folly of arming teachers, most of whom need a focus on education and not on a firearm.
Not a folly. If you aren't going to address the base cause, you have to confront shooters at the point of attack as soon as possible.
Now, I am no fan of Trump, but one has to look at the problem.
Bob, I'm shocked you think this is acceptable. There is nothing less reliable than an inexperienced active participant in a high stress situation. If the PSO at Parkland felt he couldn't address the shooter, why would an armed teacher do any better? More to the point, why expect this non-professional to use judgement under stress, selectively choose when and how to address a shooter and actually hit where he or she is aiming? I would expect more collateral damage than good results. For comparison, several highly-trained NYC cops shot and killed an armed nutbag outside the Empire State Building some time ago. Nine innocent bystanders were injured either directly by their gun fire or by ricochet.
It's a negative idea -- worse than doing nothing!
The PSO at Parkland was fired for not doing his job correctly. Even CNN was harsh in their judgement of his choice. People died as a result of his choice.
A lot of the spree shooters are cowards. They suicide, surrender or retreat as soon as the situation is bad, and prefer no gun zones like schools, hospitals and military bases to stage their attacks. It makes sense in the prevention of attacks as well as successfully resolving an attack for the good guys to have the tactical advantage.
The effectiveness of armed bystanders seems part of the red/blue values systems. Red people say the chance to act proactively is positive, while the blue see the hazards of engagement. These are parts of the world view, values lock is engaged, to the extent that one view can not be held without viewing the other as insane. To me it seems the whole premise of the red world view is that an armed People are a deterrent or effective force in upholding the social contract, while the blue are unprepared to fill the role and count on others to assure of their safety. There are fatal flaws in both perspectives, and common sense in both perspectives.
Often, though, the values locked cannot see the other guy's logic.
That this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom, and that government of the people, by the people, for the people shall not perish from the earth.