Question to Dad
Sep12
And so the comic gets nuts. Enjoy the ride from here out.
So this happened! Discuss. Again, I am doing short posts because shit be cray in my life.
So enjoy the distracting video.
And so the comic gets nuts. Enjoy the ride from here out.
So this happened! Discuss. Again, I am doing short posts because shit be cray in my life.
So enjoy the distracting video.
“I think it’s important that we train those individuals if they are going to be carrying,” said state Sen. Sen. Will Kraus
Hang on, I need to check something real quick…
*sticks head out window*
*notes absence of snow and aviationally-enhanced swine*
Well I’ll be mogadored. We appear to have a genuinely intelligent politician here, at least on this topic.
Even a stopped clock is right twice a day? Still, mark me as surprised.
I dunno. “that WE train” them. We, the state. Maybe it’s just that they smell an opportunity to combine control with a new revenue stream.
Exactly. If the state wants to train people….all they have to do is organize a state militia and train THEM. Until then…. no.
Why not just put some genuine firearms education into the public school curriculum?
Start with Eddie Eagle in Kindergarten, move onto basic shooting/marksmanship with bolt-action .22lr rifles by about 5th-6th grade, and bring back high-school rifle/shotgun teams.
Can I just PRETEND he means ‘we, the people’?
If you are allowing them to carry not simply for their own self-defense, but also for the defense of others, then they NEED to be trained, preferably at a level such as PA’s Act 235 training, required for all armed non-police jobs.
Why would you assume that the raison d’etre for a teacher to carry a firearm at work is to protect the students under his/her care?
Frankly, were I a teacher, my desire would be to carry for my own protection; Any protective effect enjoyed by students as a result thereof would be nothing more than a side effect.
I take it you’ve read Pratchett’s “Interesting Times.”
Nope.
Allowing teachers to concealed carry is really a no-brainer. Even if none of them actually do carry, the fact that they *could* be carrying will be enough to keep most of the nutters at bay.
But then again I still think posting an armed national guardsman at each school is an awesome idea…
“No brainer”, indeed. Didn’t take long before-
http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/teacher-accidently-shoots-leg-school-25431716
“A Utah elementary school teacher who was carrying a concealed firearm at school was struck by fragments from a bullet and a porcelain toilet when her gun accidentally fired in a faculty bathroom on Thursday, officials said.”
… how do you… what was she… why would the…
How do you accidentally shoot yourself in the SHITTER?
Because a lot of people take their guns out of their holsters when they have to sit on a toilet. Not every concealment solution adequately accommodates dropping trou and then subsequently reinstalling said trousers at the wearer’s waistline without the removal of the firearm from the holster.
Also, some people think that unnecessary manipulation of a firearm whilst on a toilet is a good idea.
But I have to manipulate my firearm while on the toilet.
It ain’t gonna shake itself.
No, that’s your gun. Not your firearm.
If it *is* a firearm a good dose of penicillin will generally clear that right up.
By the way, even cops do this every so often. In fact, every once in a while they take off the gun, and then forget to put it back on when they leave the room.
Eh, Scottsdale gun club had to replace a SINK recently when someone put a round through one…
Still better than a trained government agent shooting himself in the leg in front of the full class, explaining to the how he is the only person in the room that should be allowed to carry a gun.
I choose to imagine she was pretending her vagina was going on a child killing spree & trying to hold the thing with her labia or something.
The salient point is that “nutters” are not rational. So why would the chance that a teacher is armed even slow them down? Besides, not one mass shooting has ever been stopped or prevented by a “good guy with a gun”. I’m not anti-gun, or anti-carry, but they are not a magic fix-all.
You need to get out more…here’s the first story that came up on google, there’s plenty more http://www.buzzfeed.com/ryanhatesthis/10-potential-mass-shootings-that-were-stopped-by-someone-wit#8ce19i
(The BuzzFeed article is a bit shaky — I don’t count Trolley Square, for example, and they don’t count Muskegon or Santa Clara’s National Shooting Club. Davi Barker’s second study, and the FBI study, are both more rigorous. (I’m also annoyed I didn’t remember Winnemucca 2008 and Edinboro 1998, since those are both pretty picture-perfect.))
From those, it seems that all but one or two were law enforcement officers, or military. In other words, TRAINED. The one at a school dance was not a “good guy with a gun” in the sense of a concealed carry holder, he went and got a shotgun. And two were not “mass shootings”, but robberies. I have never said robberies had not been stopped.
I never said that they shouldn’t be trained, the more training the better to some extent. I honestly think that most cops are undertrained.
The issue of training is a red herring.
Should people who carry firearms seek out quality training? Absolutely!
Should some arbitrary level of “training” or “skill” be mandated by the state? ABSOLUTELY NOT!
Frankly, the right of self-defense is just that: A right. Requiring that an individual pass a government-mandated training course to exercise effective self-defense is a concept that I find to be utterly unconscionable. As far as I’m concerned, government-mandated training/licensing for/of gun owners is the moral equivalent of the “literacy” tests that many southern states used to ensure that certain people were not able to vote.
For the flipside, look up Joseph Wilcox. He tried to be the “good guy with a gun”. He was killed because he didn’t know what to do or how to do it. And tthere’s stuff like this-
http://gawker.com/good-guys-celebrate-new-georgia-gun-law-by-almost-shoot-1599056873
Muskegon MI, 1995.
Pearl High School, 1997.
Parker Middle School, 1998.
National Shooting Club, 1999.
Appalachian School of Law, 2002.
New Life Church, 2007.
Golden Market, 2009.
New York Mills, 2010.
Clacakmas Town Center, 2012.
San Antonio, Mayan Theaters, 2012.
You can have your own arguments, but you can’t have your own facts. Best starting point is the FBI study in the LEB covering 2000-2012, with about 15% of rampage incidents studied stopped by non-LE.
The reason that no mass shootings have been solved by a “good guy with a gun” is because they wouldn’t be mass shootings then.
Crazy =/= brainless.
The Aurora Co. shooter is a prime example of this: It’s likely that he selected the theater he did specifically BECAUSE it was posted as a gun-free zone.
While he was likely less than totally sane, that doesn’t mean that he was incapable of reaching rational conclusions: When a crazy person decides that he/she wants to amass the largest possible body count (something that normal sane people generally don’t do), it is entirely reasonable to expect them to do everything in their power to make sure that they can actually fulfill their goal.
For the Aurora shooter, that meant selecting a target where there were a lot of people in a small area, and where there there was likely to be no effective resistance. To that end, he selected a theater that prohibited patrons from carrying firearms, and selected the premier of a widely anticipated movie.
Of those three obvious choices (action: massacre, place: theater that prohibits carry, time: night when the theater was going to be packed) only the first is actually irrational.
TLDR: Even crazy people are capable of making rational decision.
“If you argue with a madman, it is extremely probable that you will get the worst of it; for in many ways his mind moves all the quicker for not being delayed by things that go with good judgment. He is not hampered by a sense of humour or by clarity, or by the dumb certainties of experience. He is the more logical for losing certain sane affections. Indeed, the common phrase for insanity is in this respect a misleading one. The madman is not the man who has lost his reason. The madman is the man who has lost everything except his reason.”
—G. K. Chesterton
They are rational enough not to storm a police station when they want to go out in flames with a body count, they all invariably head to a ‘gun free zone’.
But sometimes they pick military bases, once they’re disarmed by statute…
A 19 year old person can conceal carry, but he can’t buy a handgun…guess he’ll have fun tucking that AK under his shirt…makes me think of Blazing Saddles, “‘Scuze me while I whip this out!” Good news in that this is the 20th state to allow some form of carry in schools…looks like Bloomie and his demanding mommies are losing to Wayne and his “good guy with a gun” plan.
SBS or SBR is available isn’t it?
I believe the answer is “It depends.”
An FFL can only transfer long guns to people between the ages of 18 and 21. Pistols are’t long guns, and neither are NFA items.
IIRC, an 18-21 year old can make NFA items (form 1) and can also get NFA items via transfers (form 4/5) so long as it doesn’t violate state law.
What’s the Missouri Black Powder laws like? Pocket BP revolver could be an option. Or go full on and wear a shoulder rig with a Colt Walker lol.
1860 army would be pretty decent with a conversion. Or a rem 1858.
I wonder how long before people start tacticooling up 1858s and 1860s because they aren’t “Firearms” in you neck of the woods.
They can purchase a handgun in a private transaction (from another MO resident) or have one gifted to them. 18 year olds have been able to carry in Missouri since day one on a non-resident Maine permit.
Vermont has a similar rule. A 16 year old can be in possession of a handgun if they were given it by a parent. But you still can’t buy one until you’re 21 or even ammo.
Same rule in the UK. A 14 year old can legally own a firearm if gifted by someone but not purchase one or ammo for it unless they are 18.
A 19 year old can not buy a handgun if there is an FFL requirement (IE Gun Store, Gun Broker, etc…), but many states allow adults under 21 to be able to purchase handguns from a private party or be gifted by family.
Strip comments: Dear Abby .vs. Dear Daddy: Are you better with him or without him? She needs trusted loving and healing. Mick is a trustworthy lover, moderator and nurturer.
I like her dad. Apparently, he has the brains to realize that they are good together and not fight what they are doing.
My reaction to the Missouri thing:
1. I have no problem with specially trained school employees carrying at school. To give perspective on it, a police officer is nothing but a specially trained police department employee.
2. Open carry by CHL holders over the objection of cities and counties – Plenty of states have laws on the books that state that cities and counties can’t pass gun laws that are more restrictive than the state’s laws. And, since a large number of states have open carry with absolutely no problems, I don’t see the issue with it.
3. Overriding the governor’s veto – It is an example of a representative democracy in action. If the voters in the state don’t like it, they will change their representative’s.
Was just in southern MO for a week- It was different. A VERY gunny culture.
??? How do you trademark “God damn it”? and who is Tracy Stark? An evil real world version of Tony Stark?
More guns = more people shot with guns
Exibit A:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/09/11/teacher-accidentally-shoots-herself_n_5805080.html
I am glad that teacher had a gun, because if she didn’t there could have been more gun deaths
Clearly the more countries who have nuclear weapons, the more nuclear wars we’ll have. It’s not like when ONE country has a monopoly on the ultimate weapon, they’ll use them all up on civilian population centers or anything, right?
Part of being a dad is being able to finally say “I’m cool with that” – If you raised your child well, when they are grown, you WILL be cool with their choices. Besides, two people in a house who are not a couple gets boring. – This way he gets a new drinking/shooting buddy, AND a perfect excuse to develop a man-cave in the garage loft. Win-Win-Win situation for the .22 Whisperer.
That moment when you realize that you have just read every comic on here in less than a week and you have to wait for the next update… sad
I was wondering when The Whisperer was going to put in an appearance again.
Meanwhile, in Utah, a teacher managed to shoot herself while on the crapper.
I’m a teacher. I dread the day the state allows teachers to carry in school. I wouldn’t trust most of my colleagues with a sharpened pencil. The scatter-brained one will do what that Utah teacher did or worse. And the stressed out teachers… I don’t even want to think about it.
Maybe you should quietly ask around and see if your school hasn’t hired any veterans, whatsoever? I’d be surprised.
They have hired veterans. I’m one of them.
So why the lack of confidence? Not sure whether to ask “self-confidence”.
Here’s the question though: If you think they’re so untrustworthy as to be an active threat (i.e. that you believe them capable of committing an atrocity), then what makes you think that a law banning the possession of firearms on school property would stop them from committing murder?
Frankly, if they’re going to perpetrate a massacre some piddly law banning the possession of firearms on school premises isn’t going to stop them.
To be entirely clear:
I understand the premise that there are a lot of people in this country, and indeed the world, who probably shouldn’t have firearms.
Still, that’s not the question: The question is actually twofold: First, whether laws seeking to prohibit said persons from coming into contact with firearms will have significant efficacy; and secondly, what the cost such legislation has on peaceable citizens?
Frankly, I tend to favor less government, and more individual liberty on the whole. As a result, given the overall lack of efficacy of said legislation (criminals seem to have no problem getting firearms), I’m inclined to believe that it does far more harm than good. Thus, I cannot in good conscience advocate for anything less than an absolute right to keep and bear arms, free from government encumbrances.
I’m not concerned about a teacher planning a massacre. There’s no stopping that. I’m concerned about spontaneous violence. In nearly every case of student abuse, the teacher did not plan it out ahead of time. The teachers don’t sit at home and plot what criminal act they will commit if little Johnnie makes an ass of himself again. They don’t go to school planning to duct tape the kid to his desk or lock him in a closet. When a stressed out teacher finally loses his shit, he uses what is readily available to correct the perceived wrong. There’s a convenient roll of tape. Strap the kid down. There’s a closet. Lock ’em up. The teacher justifies it by saying the student wasn’t harmed. Now add a gun to the mix. Little Johnnie has just gone too far. Teacher won’t shoot the kid. Oh no. A simple threat is enough. It’ll happen eventually. I’ve already seen parents threaten to shoot their own kids around here. Just last summer a guy down the street pointed a gun at his kid for scratching the paint on his truck.
See, this sort of reminds me of the if-you-allow-guns-in-bars-there-will-be-havoc argument. You are expecting something to happen which is not yet in evidence, and making a policy preference based on these predictions.
Unfortunately incidents with guns will happen in schools whether those guns are legally carried or not. So in retrospect I think it is better that teachers are allowed to carry guns rather than the alternative, which is to infringe on people’s rights because something “might” happen. We shouldn’t live in the universe of a “Minority Report” like society.