Universal Background Check and Universal Gun Registration-Breitbart

[44 AMP]

It's perhaps the most difficult balancing act, weighing reports of threats. suspicious behavior, empty boasts, and reality.

Especially when people can, and do, LIE.

And don't count on a police investigation to reach the right conclusion, either. They might, they might not.

There was a case not long ago, police got reports a guy was off his nut, going to kill people, etc. They went and checked on him. They found him lucid, rational, calm, not agitated, in short, no threat to himself or anyone else.

The next day (or maybe the day after, I forget..) he went out and killed half a dozen people. Shot a couple, stabbed a couple and ran some down with his car.

One of the Columbine killers is reported to have had a website with peace, love, brotherhood, and lets all get along slogans all over it, and yet they did what they did.

The Pulse nightclub killer was a licensed security guard. Passed every mental evaluation required, investigation way beyond any background check, deemed safe and stable and licensed to be armed, and yet, when he felt like it, he went and committed mass murder.

"The mind of man is as trackless as a bog at night" isn't just a hoary old saying. No one knows what evil lurks in the mind of man, save The Shadow, and he's not telling the rest of us.

The point here is that up until some thing they say or do reaches the legal level of action, nothing can or will be done. Deny someone's rights (especially without approved due process) jail them as a precaution, do things like that and have it turn out there was no credible threat, your career in public service is very likely over. AND possibly your employers will have to pay money for your mistakes.

At the same time FAIL to stop a nutcase killer when, after the fact it appears there was plenty of warning, and you'll be chastised, perhaps, but probably keep your job.

You can rave all over social media how you want to kill all the green skinned people, but until/unless you do something that proves your rants are more than just hot air, there's damn little that can legally be done.

And this is also the risk with the "red flag" laws so rashly passed in some places. They, almost literally allow action to be taken BEFORE there is any proof of criminal intent. I see a huge opportunity for anyone with an axe to grind against someone to make a false report (especially if allowed anonymity) and laughing as the wheels of justice roll over you.

I don't have a solution to preventing murders. I doubt there is one. I do believe that if we rigorously applied the old concept of removing proven murders from society, for good, it would reduce repeat offenders drastically.

 

[RC20]

Breitbart goes beyond conservative. Lunatic is more like it.

That said, no background checks are not an answer. They are a help maybe but not an answer. So even the nut sites get it right once in a while.

On the other hand, I like selling guns on line as an FFL is in the process. Best I can ensure it does not go to a known goofball.

Its a pat answer and putting it in place would stop it (and then the next mantra but that is life as well)

I usually can pick em out, but I have been taken in a time or two on other matters.

Last week we had a small town group at a coffee place, the gun owner pulls out his gun. His table mates (4) pass it around all commenting.

The last one pulls the trigger (bystander got hit with shrapnel)

Unfortunately any idiot can do that with 4 idiots in tow all thinking they are fine upstanding citizens.

 

[5whiskey]

Last week we had a small town group at a coffee place, the gun owner pulls out his gun. His table mates (4) pass it around all commenting.

The last one pulls the trigger (bystander got hit with shrapnel)

Unfortunately any idiot can do that with 4 idiots in tow all thinking they are fine upstanding citizens.

Who on earth would pull out their firearm in a coffee joint and pass it around!?!?!? I hope there was some kind of criminal negligence charge somewhere in the mix there. Not saying the guy should be a felon... but there are several laws in my (gun friendly, no less) state that would cover such stupidity.

 

[5whiskey]

It's perhaps the most difficult balancing act, weighing reports of threats. suspicious behavior, empty boasts, and reality.

Especially when people can, and do, LIE.

And don't count on a police investigation to reach the right conclusion, either. They might, they might not.

There was a case not long ago, police got reports a guy was off his nut, going to kill people, etc. They went and checked on him. They found him lucid, rational, calm, not agitated, in short, no threat to himself or anyone else.

The next day (or maybe the day after, I forget..) he went out and killed half a dozen people. Shot a couple, stabbed a couple and ran some down with his car.

One of the Columbine killers is reported to have had a website with peace, love, brotherhood, and lets all get along slogans all over it, and yet they did what they did.

The Pulse nightclub killer was a licensed security guard. Passed every mental evaluation required, investigation way beyond any background check, deemed safe and stable and licensed to be armed, and yet, when he felt like it, he went and committed mass murder.

"The mind of man is as trackless as a bog at night" isn't just a hoary old saying. No one knows what evil lurks in the mind of man, save The Shadow, and he's not telling the rest of us.

The point here is that up until some thing they say or do reaches the legal level of action, nothing can or will be done. Deny someone's rights (especially without approved due process) jail them as a precaution, do things like that and have it turn out there was no credible threat, your career in public service is very likely over. AND possibly your employers will have to pay money for your mistakes.

44, you are on to something here. I am aware of this, and I'm aware that this is a response to my post. And it's a good response. Every random citizen complaint cannot be followed with an intense investigation and a denial of constitutional rights. I actually work in the world of taking away constitutional rights, and my specific assignment requires that I deal with citizen complaints a whole lot. I know that many of them are... well... unreliable, unreasonable, and often a steaming pile of male bovine fesces. Some people feel that any black man walking down the street and stops to talk to the driver of a car parked in a parking spot for a minute is automatically engaged in the purchase or sell of drugs. Despite trying to explain that there is the very real possibility that the guy just saw an old friend and spoke to him a few minutes without any form of illegal intent, something that is not uncommon in my medium-sized town, the complainant usually has their mind made up that something is amiss. When I explain that a guy walking down the street and stopping to talk to another guy is not even reasonable suspicion of a crime, I am usually berated as a "do-nothing cop who doesn't care about the community." But I digress.

All this to say, I feel you. And I agree. But with Nickolas Cruz, that fine balanced line was obliterated quite some time before the shooting. There were literally tons of tips sent to the BCSO, a tip sent to a neighboring county SO, 2 tips sent to the FBI, and screenshots of quite disturbing posts made by Cruz to social media (mutilated animals, and I mean dogs and cats not gutting a deer). Also there were several specific references by Cruz to killing other people, on social media. One of them specifically mentioned shooting in a school. The "balancing act" of red flag laws and due process rights don't so much pertain to this circumstance, if (the biggest word in the dictionary) only a LE Agency would have gotten their head out of their behind and done something. And it's not to be overly critical of the FBI. A matter such as an individual making numerous threats to shoot up a school, along with manufacturing other disturbing evidence that more or less corroborates their dark side, is much more the purview of local law enforcement than the FBI. But the FBI did receive 2 tips, so at that point knock on the kids door and talk to him at least. And the line the FBI agent gave in the article I linked about "not being able to prove that the youtube post was from Cruz or someone using a moniker" is a load of crap. They didn't want to do the legwork to get the information from Google. Which one comment that could be construed is jest, hey maybe not worth the effort. But once the 2nd tip came in about this kid? Yeah it's time to put in some work.

You can rave all over social media how you want to kill all the green skinned people, but until/unless you do something that proves your rants are more than just hot air, there's damn little that can legally be done.

Stating you want to kill a certain group of people in a public forum is likely NOT speech protected by the 1st amendment. I suspect that criminal charges can result from that. Someone making the comment on Facebook tomorrow that "I want to kill all ______ (insert random minority race here) people" will almost assuredly face some form of consequences, quite probably criminal. Conditioned or vague threats aren't always threats, but sometimes they are.

And this is also the risk with the "red flag" laws so rashly passed in some places. They, almost literally allow action to be taken BEFORE there is any proof of criminal intent. I see a huge opportunity for anyone with an axe to grind against someone to make a false report (especially if allowed anonymity) and laughing as the wheels of justice roll over you.

On this we absolutely agree. I've seen it first hand. Some "red flag" laws, at least in the realm of domestic relationships, have been around longer than we realize. I live in NC, not known to be anti-2A. We've had laws allowing the seizure of firearms by ex parte orders for a long time. At least over a decade. And I suspect that law's abuse began within days of it being passed.

A much better argument to be made about the balancing act would be the Las Vegas shooter. Surprisingly little push for gun control has come from that, and apparently his doc had him on some treatment for mental health... but apparently any possible mental illness was not overt to the general public if they came in contact with Paddock. There was literally nothing there, no warning sign that anyone saw. Since that is virtually a first in the history of mass shootings, the small conspiracy theorist in me says that there is something that the FBI is not sharing.

 

[44 AMP]

ok, it was a bit over the top for an example, the word "kill" does often set people off. But we also use it in many situations where it is not taken seriously. A rabid fan screaming "Kill the Umpire" over a bad call may get then tossed out of the game, but no one usually assumes they actually mean to actually murder the referee...

Unless, of courses the ref does die soon after then game, THEN the police WILL be talking to that fan. He might be their only suspect!...

Several of the mass killers since the 80s have passed background checks (some multiple times), and several have been on prescribed "mental health" drugs, and some on those as well as illegal recreational drugs.

There is a small percentage of people who react to some medications in the almost exact opposite of the intent of the meds. Prozac and the rest of the ones intended to stabilize people and "mellow them out" help lots of people, but they turn a few people to less stable, paranoid and sometimes more violent behavior than they had before being put on the medication. I've seen it, personally.

we can, and do spend a lot of effort trying to figure out what makes a mass killer do what they do, in the hopes of being able to prevent it, but I think the reality is, we'll never know, unless the killer themselves tells us, and even then, they could be lying.

It might be mind control from the giant space ants (or bats) or it could be demons possessing them one step ahead of Sam and Dean Winchester or it could be whatever it is that causes some members of the animal kingdom to run "amok". I have no clue, but one thing I do know, with certainty, anyone claiming they can prevent such behavior isn't living in the same world I am.

As long as the idea of harming others appeals to some people, harm will be done, and background checks won't stop that.

 

[USNRet93]

I've never done it, perhaps you have. Walked down to the seedier side of town with a pocket full of benjamins, asking around to see who has an AR for sale..YES, once you find that person in that back room, who hopefully isn't an undercover LEO or CI, to buy that AR, don't need no stinking BGC, and hopefully the guy won't just roll you for that $$ you pull outta your pocket..

Just contemplating the scale of the prohibited behaviors, premeditatedly shooting people seems much more grand than not doing some paper work. Where an individual contemplates a dramatic felony, is it reasonable to suppose that record keeping will thwart him?

Not saying paperwork would have 'thwarted' him but it's a little harder to buy an illegal AR than just putting an ad on craig's list. LOTS of mistakes in this case by lots of people. The 'structure' for perhaps preventing this was in place..just not used.

 

[zukiphile]

I'm not personally up on the details of illicit commerce; I've been a grown-up and model citizen for longer than I like to admit. I do remember being 17; side stepping authority (school, parents and legal) occupied lots of our effort.

The idea that a couple of middle aged men might not risk an illicit transaction, and therefore this record keeping requirement could be a real obstacle doesn't take into account the overlap of population for whom law isn't an impediment and populations who commit serious crimes.

I've never talked to a PO or criminal defendant who thought buying a gun illegally is difficult.

Not saying paperwork would have 'thwarted' him but it's a little harder to buy an illegal AR than just putting an ad on craig's list. LOTS of mistakes in this case by lots of people. The 'structure' for perhaps preventing this was in place..just not used.

Emphasis added.

I actually don't think it would be harder than a craigslist ad. Armslist has lots of ads for arms that won't be shipped.

The real problem with this UBC problem is the one you accurately note above. It won't do much to dissuade someone who wants to shoot up a club or school. As a political matter it and because of lack of criminal deterrence, it can only be an intermediate step to granting the state more extreme methods of control and levels of prohibition. It turns the temperature up so few frogs can notice they are being boiled.


Just a note: Above you referred to an "illegal" AR. Was there actually anything illegal about the rifle itself? I don't believe there was, but am open to correction.

If we are not discussing a trade in illegal arms, but illicit trade in legal items, like untaxed cigarettes, that's not a minor difference.

 

[USNRet93]

The real problem with this UBC problem is the one you accurately note above. It won't do much to dissuade someone who wants to shoot up a club or school.

Except, are there any 'studies' about those who legally obtained their gun, and then committed mass murder vs those who couldn't get a gun legally, then obtained one illegally and then committed mass murder? My point, way back there, was if the warning signs with Cruz had been recognized as serious, he's an example of who should have raised many red flags when he bought his gun. Pretty sure the BIG majority of the 'mass murderers' obtained their guns legally(or had access to a legally obtained firearm-Adam Lanza)..and many had warning signs, often via social media', that they were intent on mayhem. Yes, it won't dissuade nor prevent some who are intent on going through with mass murder, but in some recent, well publicized cases, it 'may' have prevented it..20-20 hindsight.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/adam-...dsheets-columbine-collages-and-murder-tumblrs

Maybe a visit to Lanza's home to see how the mother's firearms were stored? BUT, unfortunately, if the mother's firearms were seized..more than a few would have yelled 'overreach'..in spite of Adam's social media 'record' was discovered.

 

[zukiphile]

Except, are there any 'studies' about those who legally obtained their gun, and then committed mass murder vs those who couldn't get a gun legally, then obtained one illegally and then committed mass murder? My point, way back there, was if the warning signs with Cruz had been recognized as serious, he's an example of who should have raised many red flags when he bought his gun. Pretty sure the BIG majority of the 'mass murderers' obtained their guns legally(or had access to a legally obtained firearm-Adam Lanza)..and many had warning signs, often via social media', that they were intent on mayhem. Yes, it won't dissuade nor prevent some who are intent on going through with mass murder, but in some recent, well publicized cases, it 'may' have prevented it..20-20 hindsight.

I appreciate your recognition of the limits of a UBC. That's exactly why an additional regulatory burden that is generally ineffective can't be a political "solution" to 2d Am. rights.

Maybe a visit to Lanza's home to see how the mother's firearms were stored?

In order for a person to exercise her 2th Am. rights, she would need to forfeit her 4th Am. rights? You want government employees in peoples' homes conducting inspections?

If the helpful fellow from the government finds marijuana, signs of tax evasion, or evidence of income in excess of that permitted by the public benefits received by the possessor of the arms, is the possessor then subject to any state action on those matters?


You are holding a can of worms, and are perched over it with a can opener.

 

[USNRet93]

I appreciate your recognition of the limits of a UBC. That's exactly why an additional regulatory burden that is generally ineffective can't be a political "solution" to 2d Am. rights.



In order for a person to exercise her 2th Am. rights, she would need to forfeit her 4th Am. rights? You want government employees in peoples' homes conducting inspections?

If the helpful fellow from the government finds marijuana, signs of tax evasion, or evidence of income in excess of that permitted by the public benefits received by the possessor of the arms, is the possessor then subject to any state action on those matters?


You are holding a can of worms, and are perched over it with a can opener.

'Unreasonable' search and 'probable cause'...Yes, due process, not random or 'unreasonable' searches and seizures..Don't ya think there was 'probable cause' to at least take a look at the firearm situation in Lanza's mothers home? If a felon resides in a house with firearms present, by law, they need to either be removed, or secured. I don't think a 'look' would have been out of bounds in the Lanza case(20-20 hindsight) nor a 'red flag' in the Cruz case..not enough info in the most recent case in Florida(2 days ago)..

Not a LEO or attorney but warrants that would have been issued to look at mother's firearm 'situation', are pretty narrow in scope, yes? And tax evasion, or excess income would not be part of it. I'm in CO and in a year or two, the number one item won't be illegal, nor should it be(sorry-thread drift)...

BTW-

The man suspected of killing five women at a Florida bank had interactions with police officers in Indiana in recent years after they received concerned calls reporting his desire to kill or harm people, authorities said.

In documents released to CNN by the Bremen Police Department in Indiana, officers detailed previous encounters with Xaver when he lived in the state.
As a 16-year-old student at Bremen High School, Xaver was taken to a behavioral health center in February 2014 after he told a school counselor "he had a dream last night of killing students in a classroom," according to a police report.

Gerlach told The Washington Post that Xaver said he purchased a gun last week and "no one thought anything of it" because he had always liked guns.

Would the above issues, tied to some sort of national database, and then tied to a UBC prevented this? Don't know..

 

[zukiphile]

'Unreasonable' search and 'probable cause'...Yes, due process, not random or 'unreasonable' searches and seizures..Don't ya think there was 'probable cause' to at least take a look at the firearm situation in Lanza's mothers home? If a felon resides in a house with firearms present, by law, they need to either be removed, or secured. I don't think a 'look' would have been out of bounds in the Lanza case(20-20 hindsight) nor a 'red flag' in the Cruz case..not enough info in the most recent case in Florida(2 days ago)...

Lanza hadn't a criminal record. What's the PC? He liked video games? He had developmental difficulties?

PC and searches pursuant to a legitimate warrant don't require another layer of regulatory burden. While I am an attorney and have handled a few criminal matters, it isn't really what I do. My sense is that the scope of a warrant and what incidental evidence can be gathered is the sort of thing on which experienced people in that field spend a lot of paper and ink.

Crime prevention in the sense that one incapacitates an individual suspected of planning a crime, but who is yet to commit one, is problematic. Detaining a group of people actively conspiring to build a bomb is a plausible use of criminal codes; limiting the rights of the general population so they are less able to act lawfully on the theory that this will also have the incidental effect of making them less dangerous criminals is not consistent with recognizing the rights they hold against the state.

 

[5whiskey]

'Unreasonable' search and 'probable cause'...Yes, due process, not random or 'unreasonable' searches and seizures..Don't ya think there was 'probable cause' to at least take a look at the firearm situation in Lanza's mothers home?

...I can't even... Wait... are you suggesting that anyone with a family member with mental illness residing in their home should be kosher and understanding of the state routinely serving some sort of "inspection search warrant" on the home to inspect for firearm storage conditions? Am I hearing that correctly??? That a family member with a mental illness gives the state probable cause for a search warrant to make sure that you store your guns on the up and up??? How often is said residence to be required to submit to said state "search warrant inspection?" Yearly? Monthly? Don't forget that guns can technically be hidden almost anywhere, so the "routine inspection warrant" will require officers to search your underwear drawer, porn collection, or whatever embarrassing container you may have in your home to be completely thorough. Probable cause is not "I think we need to inspect and certify your firearms storage situation, you know in the interest of the public good, even though we have no specific articulable facts that suggests your firearms storage is inadequate." But to answer the the bold, let's look at the definition of "probable cause"

Probable cause to search exists when facts and circumstances known to the officer provide the basis for a reasonable person to believe that a crime was committed at the place to be searched, or that evidence of a crime exists at the location.

https://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-rights/probable-cause.html

Let's look at this in light of Adam Lanza's situation. Which was an unfortunate situation, btw. There were no indicators to authorities about Adam Lanza's contemplation with mass shooting. There were no social media posts, or pretty much any communication from Adam Lanza that was privy to the public eye. It was discovered that he was part of an on-line group that idolized mass murder, however they were not a public forum. She is dead and gone, and I don't mean to be overly critical as she paid for this with her life, but Adam Lanza's mother did herself, her son, and 26 others (along with their families) a great deal of disservice (to say the least) by placating Lanza's behavior and refusing to provide for his treatment. That being said, there was no mental health provided to Lanza when he was of age to commit a school shooting. There is little evidence of clinical professionals having much interaction with Lanza after the age of 15. The limited mental health care he received prior to being 15 probably wouldn't focus very much on his potential to be a school shooter. One of the great issues in his case was his caregiver allowing him to be insulated from anyone who possibly would wave a red flag. If you really want to know the nitty gritty details, you can read it here... http://www.ct.gov/oca/lib/oca/sandyhook11212014.pdf

If a felon resides in a house with firearms present, by law, they need to either be removed, or secured.

This is quite true, but this does not give law enforcement probable cause or any other justification to serve a routine warrant on the residence "just to make sure."

Not a LEO or attorney but warrants that would have been issued to look at mother's firearm 'situation', are pretty narrow in scope, yes?

Obviously... but to answer the question generally search warrants must specifically describe what you are searching for. BUT BUT BUT the search warrant gives Law Enforcement a legal reason to be there, and anything observed while having a legal reason to be present will fall under the plain view doctrine. There is such thing as an "inspection search warrant" in my particular state, used solely for the purpose of ensuring a condemned structure is habitable, that will exclude evidence observed during the execution of the warrant. That warrant is not executed by law enforcement, but by civil building inspectors. Consequently, it doesn't involve rummaging through underwear drawers (outside the scope and purpose of the warrant) and almost always involves entering a vacant building that's all but falling in on itself.

 

[USNRet93]

Adam Lanza’s fascination with death, shooting, school shootings, in social media, is well documented. He wasn’t just ‘mentally ill’, but mentally ill with a disposition towards mass murder via gun.
https://www.thedailybeast.com/adam-...dsheets-columbine-collages-and-murder-tumblrs

 

[5whiskey]

Adam Lanza’s fascination with death, shooting, school shootings, in social media, is well documented.

After the fact, not before

Thanks for the link, but it does not indicate where any authority figure (mental health, LEO, school officials, etc) were notified of his online persona, and linked it to him, before it happened. To that end, were I an FBI agent I would be looking at the Columbine forum daily. I can't believe there is a forum for that...

 

[44 AMP]

Maybe a visit to Lanza's home to see how the mother's firearms were stored?

And what would that accomplish? I read the linked article, and while containing a lot of information about Lanza obsession with school shootings, the ONLY mention of the gun(s) he used or how he got it was this,

One month later, Lanza would obtain the high-power rifles he lauded in forum posts, pull on fingerless black gloves like one of the Columbine shooters, and walk into Sandy Hook Elementary to commit an atrocity.

NO mention at all of a few minor details, one of which is that Lanza KILLED HIS MOTHER to obtain the high power rifle...I don't have a link or source available, but if my memory is correct, Lanza's mother's firearms were kept in a gunsafe. Any visit by the authorities, whether "just to check" or with a search warrant would have found a moody teenager, firearms stored securely in a safe, and the mother in control of the situation. They would have then left, and filed their reports. The mother did everything we would think prudent, and was in control of the firearms, right up to the point when her son MURDERED HER.

OK, this is behavior we have seen in other mass shooter incidents. The killer, killing a parent or grandparent, to obtain their firearms and other things, THEN going on their rampage. One I recall killed his grandparents, broke into their gunsafe, and then used their van to drive to the school...

Yet when the reports get written, and the "studies" done, what is most often reported is that the killer "had access to assault weapons", apparently based on the fact that they guns were physically in the house, and generally ignoring the crimes (including murder) the shooter committed in order to "obtain" them. They make it sound like the killer had the guns they used loaded and simply leaning against the wall in their room, ready for instant use, and this is often NOT the actual situation at all.

So, OK, maybe, when it seems there might be a threat, maybe someone should take a look at things in the home, but again, there is no guarantee that what they find will result, or SHOULD result in any further action. Tough call. Do a check on Wednesday, find all is well within "normal", and then Friday the killer launches their rampage. Did the people doing the check "fail"?? Did they miss some vital clue?? Or was it that conditions changed without them knowing it?

Here's an example of "erring on the side of caution" that I have personal knowledge of..

A teacher (in the school my children attended) gave a creative writing assignment. Write a short story ...normal, happens every day all over the country. One student wrote a story about "terrorists" taking over the school and a mass shooting. A work of FICTION, done to comply with a homework assignment.

Teacher freaked, School admin freaked, Lock down the school, cops sent to the home, ALL the father's firearms seized, both family computers seized.

After about two weeks, nothing even remotely suggesting the story was a declaration of intent was found, (or could plausibly be manufactured) and the guns and computers were returned. I assume with an apology, but don't know that for certain.

So, do we do this, EVERY time someone has a bad dream??? I don't think we should. DO we "screw up" and not do "enough" to stop these killers? Yeah, most people think so, but few take into account that most of them aren't mass killers until they pull the trigger, and until they do that, they have the same legal rights as the rest of us.

"False is the idea to take fire from man, because it burns" another old quote, but again, one with merit.

How is it that all those old dead guys we quote so often (and including our Founding Fathers) seemed to know so much more than we do, today??
(this is intended to be rhetorical, but feel free to answer if you want..)

 

[DaleA]

No amount of laws, mental screening, or gun bans are going to prevent school shootings as they are mostly easy soft targets yet most simply hang a "no guns allowed sign" on the door.

Well we do what we can. I'm with the poster about hardening the schools and having an armed person there. I particularly like the idea of turning some class room with an outside entrance into a police substation.

All that said can we remember that the NRA put out a school safety book over 200 pages long after Sandy Hook on ways to make schools safer? And IIRC a couple hundred schools have used this guide.

 

[5whiskey]

Well we do what we can. I'm with the poster about hardening the schools and having an armed person there. I particularly like the idea of turning some class room with an outside entrance into a police substation.

All ideas with some value, IMO. I also think teachers who are willing to volunteer, complete police firearms instruction and use of force training (actually quite a small portion of basic police academy), and qualify yearly should be allowed to carry concealed. No teacher would be mandated to do this, only those willing to volunteer. No teacher would be allowed to carry without obtaining basic police firearms and use of force training (about 2 weeks of their time). I simply do not understand the pushback against this idea.

 

[DaleA]

I simply do not understand the pushback against this idea. [arming some teachers in schools.]

I have come to realize that SOME people, and I pray it isn't a lot of people, are just totally IRRATIONAL when the topic of guns comes up. I mean "hoplophobic" as much as claustrophobics can't stand to be in tight places they can't stand to have guns around (or people who like guns).

I recently met an upbeat, cheerful, energetic very actively religious woman who was very pleasant to talk to yet lied through her teeth about the NRA and gun control.

I suspect she embraced "the ends justify the means" philosophy. I dare say she was self righteous to the point of believing being anti-gun was an item of faith of her religion. I don't think I would trust her or have her for a friend. If there were a fire or a flood or a tornado though I suspect we could work together.

 

[44 AMP]

I simply do not understand the pushback against this idea. [arming some teachers in schools.]

Well, there's all kinds of people with all kinds of reasons, and words do matter more than people frequently thing.

I am against "arming teachers". I fully support teachers, or any other adult who meets the state requirements being allowed to be armed at school, or any other public place. But I object to "arming teachers".

First, because "arming" and "being armed" are DIFFERENT THINGS. The popular media can't seem to tell the difference (or, more likely, simply doesn't care) but the are different things.

Arming someone means supplying them with arms. Issuing arms (giving them a gun) and in effect making them armed agents of the group issuing the arms. It also means that the agency arming people has a level of responsibility for the behavior of those it arms.

I oppose this idea, particularly for teachers, because #1, its NOT their job to be armed guards. And #2, I have serious doubts about any govt/school bureaucracy doing that job properly.

Allowing those teachers and other adults who voluntarily carry arms, meeting all standard state requirements to do so, allowing them to be armed on school grounds is a much different matter.

I've always felt the "gun free zone" is nothing more than a hunting preserve for evil with a posted sign keeping game wardens out...

but that's just me...

If they do "arm teachers" do you think they'll demand the need to run a background check EVERY DAY before issuing (transferring) the firearm? And again at the end of the "shift" when the teacher turns the gun back in? That's another transfer...

Here's a thought, for consideration..

If people cannot be trusted, and personal judgement cannot be used, so ALL private transfers require a background check, why give SOME people a pass, just because they work a certain job, wear a special uniform, or carry a badge? They are still people, the exact same "untrustworthy" people as the rest of us, who happen to do different job.

Yes, I want that cop or soldier or other govt agent to have to go through exactly the same background check and paperwork process, in both time and personal cost that I do, EVERY TIME they get a firearm transferred to them, and again when they transfer it back to storage, background check and all the rest on the guy running the arms room, too.

If it so good for us, make them do it, too!!

Now, I do understand that's not happening, but morally why should they get to avoid all the crap the rest of us have to put up with? The only part of any gun control law I have ever approved of was the part of the Lautenberg law that did NOT exempt police or military.

That law, literally took thousands of cops off the streets across our country, because it prevented them from carrying a gun!

Considering that there HAVE been murders committed by people who were police/military/private security at the time, seems to me that NOT putting all these people through at least the same level of scrutiny as the rest of us, each and every time a firearm is transferred to or from them, isn't just a bad idea, its not "equal treatment under the law".


Sure, the argument will be made that they are already investigated and vetted, etc. but I don't care. Things can change. If you NEED to investigate me buying a gun today, when you investigated me for buying one yesterday, to be "safe" and ensure "compliance" that I can today, still legally possess the gun, then you need to do it to the cops and all the other armed agents of government just the same as you do it to me.

Not doing so is what I consider institutional hypocrisy. Double standards are inherently unfair..unless of course, it works in your favor, then its ok...or is it?
(hint: its never fair, those who say otherwise are selling something)
I am enough of a realist to recognize that what I wish would happen won't happen, because too many people have too much invested in doing things the way we currently are to allow a change.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Well, if we are free form here, then I’m with 44AMP. I think teachers have a right to defend their own lives with a firearm, just like any peaceable citizen does.

Having said that, if you qualify teachers to be armed, there will be an expectation that they don’t just use that firearm to protect themselves; the parents of those students will expect the teacher to move to the guns to protect their children. (See Broward County)

And that latter expectation is a whole different level of training and experience. If you expect teachers to adopt that responsibility, you have to step up and facilitate their ability to be well-trained for that. If you don’t expect that, this still needs to be clearly communicated to the community.