a judge ruling that armed teachers in Ohio do NOT need the 728 hours of training police officers get they only need 27 hours of training.
My calculator says 728 hours is 18.2 40hr weeks. Or, put another way, that's FOUR and a half MONTHS of 8hr a day, Monday through Friday instruction.
I'd have to agree with that judge, armed teachers do not NEED four and half months of 8 hr a day instruction in order to be competent to use a firearm.
I believe that is a bit longer than Marine Corps boot camp. I know its almost 3 times the Army Basic Training I went through over 40 years ago...
(and, only one week of that was actual weapons training...)
The fact that someone apparently actually proposed that number a needed training, and the reporting on a judge saying tis not needed as if that were somehow a bad thing just shows how deeply people are committed against the idea, and also shows how some people are idiots, despite their actual IQ.
mention anything about any big or small gun 'control' law, regulation, rule, idea and labeling results
Not sure if its just a sign of the times, or something else, but you find it with nearly every subject these days. As soon as something is brought up, certain people jump to the extreme far end of the matter and go downhill from there.
As to people with military experience supporting gun control (or anything else), I can understand that. Not agree, but understand.
Military service teaches (or for many of us, affirms or re-affirms) our belief in our rights and protecting them, along with duty to country and pride of service. But it also teaches something else, something not often talked about, and that is that, certain people are, and will be, irresponsible, outside of a controlled environment.
also see a LOT of 'gun mayhem' occurring almost every day.. and nope, I have no solutions..might not be any..donno..j
I see it too. And I believe that there is no solution that will completely end violence. Not as long as human beings are involved. Even in completely "gun free" environments, (such as prison), people are beaten, robbed, raped, and murdered. Its not the gun that does it, its the criminals.
That being the case, I do think there is a "solution" that would reduce the violence (not eliminate), but the cost of doing so is not socially acceptable at this time.
Nothing but physical force will stop the death seeking nihilist, but the rest of the people who harm others generally want to live, so they can continue to harm others, and those people will be deterred (to a degree, at least) if they actually believe they will be caught and put away for good.
And that's what I think would work to reduce the current levels of mayhem. Take the "hit", suffer the innocents blood spilled, but remove the cause, the
person who did it, (NOT the tools used) from society,
permanently.
We can debate life in prison vs. capital punishment if you wish, other than the "waste" of tax dollars I don't care which one is the choice, what I do care about is that the killer never, ever, ever gets out to do it again. No parole, no time off for good behavior, no insanity defense, no exceptions of any kind.
Look at those old movies, where the crook taunts the cops, with "you'll never take me alive Copper!!!" The reason he was willing to die in a shootout with the cops was that he believed the certainty that if they took him alive he was going to the get the chair or go to the gas chamber, anyway.
I think capital punishment is a deterrent (though its really tough to prove a negative), some people think it isn't. I don't know with certainty, but what I am certain of is that no one who has been capitally punished has EVER been a repeat offender.
A raptor doesn't become a rabbit because you lock it in a cage for 20 years...
