Topic: Run Hide Tell : Public guidance in case of a firearms and weapons attack.

[Duke McDukiedook]

With most of my public school teachers being barely competent enough to teach the class in the first place I sure as hell would not want a gun in their possession. I am pretty sure it hasn't gotten any better since when I was a wee lad.

[TwoTired]

Education is usually the answer to many problems.

I find it refreshing that there are at least some teachers (voluntary) willing to learn about gun handling and capabilities, taking responsibility, and offering to be part of the solution to belligerent behavior, in part caused by well meaning but naive legislators.

"Gun free zones" is an idealistic and naive response which only provided a target rich environment, meant to further the total gun ban effort, created by the gun ban faction in support of their goals.  They created a problem for which "their" answer is the preferred solution.  And, the ghouls think a few children harmed is a necessary means toward their ultimate goal, just so they can say "see, we told you so."

Most teachers I encounter would rather run away and hide from a violent individual and hope the perpetrator directs their energies toward someone else.  And then have some henchmen deal with the issue and the paperwork, rather than they become responsible for actual corrective behavior and proper guidance.  This irresponsibility is then propagated on a daily basis to their students, taking the naive stance that all guns are bad no matter who wields it and then teach that to the student body.  This teaching dichotomy will eventually be exposed by those who can actually think and analyze using latter added knowledge, and then question what other falsehoods those in apparent authority have foisted upon them.  In some cases this actually promulgates the creation of militant individuals of which authoritarians are so fearful, particularly in those widespread "rebellious years" when they realize they have been lied to for the "convenience" of the teachers and others in apparent authority.

This latter approach is NO education.  And, in fact, fear used as a weapon in its propagation.  Because fear is a deep emotional response, the media will place it in prominence before the public eyes and thoughts, as it promotes advertising income.

Social behavior is what society makes it and responsibility for ones actions cannot be legislated, only enforced after the fact.  I for one resent social engineering attempts painted with a broad brush which punishes the good for those actions of the bad.

As much as it would be convenient, a single solution to a social problem will never be effective if it treats a machine with the contempt better placed on the specific operator.

Society is best served with quashing unsocial destructive behavior at the moment of offense.  Personal threats aren't routinely misdiagnosed by an individual with education.  A swift and appropriate response enhances the social behavioral norm.

Who wants to live in a social body with a growing number of cancer cells?  Or, are they just misunderstood?

[bwaller]

I won't even read this from the beginning or I won't sleep. I try so hard not to get dragged into these discussions because no-one ever makes a perfect point, or sways opinion. It's left right, conservative liberal and too much hate.

But I opened this thread and read the last post...your post Lloyd, and especially about a few children harmed. God damn it, call me a ghoul then, because one harmed child is too many. #$%* man, that's wrong no matter what side of the fence you stand on.

Nobody ever called me a pussy and I'm a long way from angelic, but we need to turn this world around.

[ofreen]

"Gun free zones" is an idealistic and naive response which only provided a target rich environment,

Wait a sec, you mean calling a location a gun-free zone doesn't keep bad guys with guns at bay?

Kev asked if training and equipping some teachers was a good idea. Time and again the punks that perpetrate these atrocities have killed themselves as soon as they meet any resistance.  If it is a teacher that provides that resistance before the cops get there, excellent.

[ofreen]

God damn it, call me a ghoul then, because one harmed child is too many. #$%* man, that's wrong no matter what side of the fence you stand on.

You completely missed his point.

[bwaller]

Well I hope so, but I'm not going back to fill myself in. And you know what, maybe I'll just take a break from this place and social media in particular because I have a hate on for this fukin society we've created.

[TwoTired]

But I opened this thread and read the last post...your post Lloyd, and especially about a few children harmed. God damn it, call me a ghoul then, because one harmed child is too many. #$%* man, that's wrong no matter what side of the fence you stand on.

You did indeed misread.  The position forwarded is the sentiment of those in favor of legislating "gun free zones" primarily forwarded by the anti-gun lobby, because they believe guns have to be bad wherever they are found.  If that message requires the loss of life in a sensational school shooting.  What better to punctuate their desires?  Emotional decisions have little to do with scientific facts and reason.  Which, no offense meant, you seem to have demonstrated nicely, with your reaction to the messenger.

Anyway such people never consider how guns can be, and are, used for society's benefit, and far more often than they are used to it's detriment, at least in the USA where citizens are allowed to posses them.  But, the news media doesn't show that, do they?

[evinrude7]

Well of course if you believe the official report on 9/11, (the catalyst for everything that's happening now) 3 commercial airliners full of people allowed a handful of terrorists armed with tiny knives to somehow fly said aircraft into the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon, completely destroying the WTC and killing around 3000 innocent people.

Since then, we've been involved in two of the longest running wars in history, hundreds of thousands of people have died, trillions of dollars have been spent on the war effort, and the west has more enemies now than ever before. The world is not a better place for "The war on terror". 

I've often wondered, what if those passengers had been able to over power the terrorists and those planes safely landed, what the world would be like today? Cheers, Terry.

this ^^^

[scottly]

Because fear is a deep emotional response, the media will place it in prominence before the public eyes and thoughts, as it promotes advertising income.

How does fear promote advertising income? Who are these paying advertisers? Smith & Wesson? Colt? Ruger?

[TwoTired]

Because fear is a deep emotional response, the media will place it in prominence before the public eyes and thoughts, as it promotes advertising income.

How does fear promote advertising income? Who are these paying advertisers? Smith & Wesson? Colt? Ruger?

Fear mongering is the forte of the so called "news" shows.  Emotional topics garner interest and attract viewers, wanting to see the spectacle.   Advertisers pay for public exposure.  So, the more viewers, the more advertising dollars can be brought in.  Sensationalism sells.

I haven't seen any gun manufacturer paid advertising on Network "news shows".  Have you?

 Probably because the "news" topics are certain to place any gun related incident into a negative light, even righteous self defense use, either with bias or careful editing, usually to promote an outrage response.  "How horrible the elderly man shot someone breaking into his house to steal mere property."  Never mentioning the perp had a known record for assault and battery.  Omission or oversight in the haste to get the message out before facts came to light?
I implore you to take note of the actual advertisers preceding and after such a story.

Case in point. Back in the late 80's, there was a big media push to aid an "assault weapons ban".  The broadcast story expounded on the awesome destructive nature of AK-47s, showing a scene of an AK-47 being shot, and in the next cut scene a gallon water bottle exploding from impact quite spectacularly.  The police department head had invited journalists and cameramen to a demonstration their range.  The cameras recorded the AK being shot, and the jug getting hit.  But, the jug merely had two small leaks from the hole it punched through the water jug.  The journalists were disappointed.  So, the officer took out his side arm and shot a new water jug with his issued hollow points.  The jug exploded spectacularly, and that is what made the "news show" that evening, leaving the public uneducated about what actually caused what.

Anyway, the networks are primarily owned by anti gun promoting owners, and make enough money that they can and do refuse advertising or any program material from those in favor of the second amendment, gun manufacturers included.  They make a point of editing any sort of pro gun topics and carefully excerpt only portions of interviews that they can quickly show something horrific to associate with it, whether relevant to the issue or not.  They used to call this sort of thing yellow journalism.  Now days it is routine for the "show", and advertisers pay for it.

I don't know of any gun manufacturer that doesn't promote education and training about their guns, and certainly less fear inducement than any of the insurance companies foster to induce purchasing their "product".

[ofreen]

How does fear promote advertising income? Who are these paying advertisers? Smith & Wesson? Colt? Ruger?

Google "if it bleeds it leads."

[BobbyR]

My School District has solved the problem. We have a dedicated policeman on every school campus. It costs us money, but we value our children. They are also the DARE officers. They are equipped well and have AR-15s.  The regular patrol officers we have circulating around town have either a rifle or shotgun in the car.

We have about 1,000 members of the NYPD living in the community and several hundred from other departments. nonsense is not tolerated often.

[vfourfreak]

They are not abandoning the "Run, Hide, Tell" mantra : http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-40553565

Seems to me the attackers would have escape routes covered, to have the fleeing persons run right into their sights. But I'm blowed if I know of a better alternative.

Kev

[Duke McDukiedook]

Suitcase nukes. Suitcase nukes are the answer to your problems.

[vfourfreak]

Suitcase nukes. Suitcase nukes are the answer to your problems.

Sounds like the answer to my ongoing woes with the ex. It's only the collateral damage that would cause me anguish. 

Kev

[BomberMann650]

Neutron bombs.  Destroys biomass, leaves infastructure immediately habitable.

[Terry in Australia]

What I don't get is why people are so anti-gun because it kills a couple thousand people per year (not meant to be an arguing point) but they endorse alcohol sales which kills hundreds of thousands of people each year? Didn't we learn back in the 20's that prohibition doesn't work? There is definitely a good side of private gun ownership but that rarely gets any mention in the public media. And you have to admit, when a mass shooter plans an attack they generally pick a gun free zone and carry out the attack with an unregistered or stolen weapon.

Hmmnnn, that's an interesting post mate. There are approx 33000 gun related deaths per year in the US, along with another 75000 non fatal injuries. Of the 33000 deaths, two thirds are suicides, and the other third is mostly murders. A "Mass shooting" (technically any shooting involving more than 2 victims) happens at least every second day of the week, and quite often, several times a day. These aren't terrorist related incidents, some are gang related, but the majority are committed by just one disgruntled person who legally purchased his guns and ammo, who's had a bad day. You're more likely to be murdered by a family member, neighbor or work colleague than you'll ever have of being killed by a terrorist.

Alcohol does kill a lot more Americans, not hundreds of thousands, but approx 88000 Americans every year. Now of course we know that alcohol accounts for some of the above gun related murders (guns account for 67% of all murders in the US) and some of the 33000 killed and 2,239,000 injured in car crashes annually, but generally speaking most people who die as a result of over consumption of alcohol do so as a result of their own poor choices, and don't take any others with them.

Personally, I like guns AND alcohol, and won't hear a bad word about either!  

[74cb750]

Yep - also heard they are stockpiling and hoarding all the King and Queen seats and Vetter fairings they can find !!   
 PS-Good post PeWe   

I have 3 King/Queen seats and am from the other country north of the one i live in me....oh, and I also have a couple of Vetter fairings.
Peace
michel

[calj737]

...so that leaves 11000 that die from guns violence.

And the bulk of those are from a few major cities who have the most restrictive gun laws or these occur (as has been said) in Gun Free zones.

[BomberMann650]

...so that leaves 11000 that die from guns violence.

And the bulk of those are from a few major cities who have the most restrictive gun laws or these occur (as has been said) in Gun Free zones.

The practical upshot of abstinence only gun education.

[Duke McDukiedook]

Mandatory dispensing of street sweepers and bazookas to all citizens is the only answer.

[Duke McDukiedook]

Mandatory dispensing of hand grenades and black jacks to all school children is the only answer besides the other items dispensed above.

[TwoTired]

Mandatory dispensing of street sweepers and bazookas to all citizens is the only answer.

Ah yes overreaction is a valid retort.   

So, to extend that same vein, let's get to the root, shall we?
We should lobotomize the little human taxpayer minions at birth, rather than slowly through the public education system, "entertainment" media, monopolized news "shows", and of course alcohol and other drug abuse, in order to avoid any conflict or murderous behavior altogether.  Wouldn't you agree?  Or would you prefer eugenics to solve the problem, perhaps?

Let's nip this problem in the bud instead of silly "gun control" programs that only temporarily raise perceived "safety" until the next inventive murderer finds a way around a patchwork of ineffective laws to perpetuate historical human behavior patterns.

Seriously:
Humans will stop killing other humans only when Homo-Sapiens is extinct.  It only takes a few to spoil it for the rest.  We have laws because of aberrant behavior inherent in the species.   Our society is based on taking advantage of others.  That's capitalism.  And pretty much every other form of government in existence today.  We don't all have red hair and we don't all think the same way.  A certain percentage will always be devious and vindictive to lethal ends.   And, as the population increases, the number count of those deviants will also grow in number. "During the 20th century alone, the population in the world has grown from 1.65 billion to 6 billion."  Any small percentage of each of those numbers, results in a larger number for the latter.  And with instant media, we know about it wherever we are in the world.  So, we learn about far more incidents of a larger number base.

news flash:  World goes to hell!

Still reading?

[TwoTired]

There are approx 33000 gun related deaths per year in the US, along with another 75000 non fatal injuries. Of the 33000 deaths, two thirds are suicides, and the other third is mostly murders.

I believe this to be an incorrect assumption.  Does this not include justifiable homicides, and police action life termination (murders) as well?  That's the trouble with looking for statistics to support a forgone conclusion.  Or, as some say "common sense", which in reality has no predictable meaning, it's just a popularity vote of a population segment.

A "Mass shooting" (technically any shooting involving more than 2 victims) happens at least every second day of the week, and quite often, several times a day.

Do you have support for this assertion?  What agendized playbook have you been reading?

These aren't terrorist related incidents, some are gang related, but the majority are committed by just one disgruntled person who legally purchased his guns and ammo, who's had a bad day. You're more likely to be murdered by a family member, neighbor or work colleague than you'll ever have of being killed by a terrorist.

Isn't this another unsupported assertion?  You are certainly entitled to your opinion,  But, it seems rather disingenuous to present it as "common fact".  Although, in the broadest of terms, we are all neighbors on this planet.  So, I'm surprised you think I'm likely to murder you.  I'd really rather avoid that.  But, thank you for not declaring me a terrorist.

Alcohol does kill a lot more Americans, not hundreds of thousands, but approx 88000 Americans every year. Now of course we know that alcohol accounts for some of the above gun related murders (guns account for 67% of all murders in the US) and some of the 33000 killed and 2,239,000 injured in car crashes annually, but generally speaking most people who die as a result of over consumption of alcohol do so as a result of their own poor choices, and don't take any others with them.

Oy. Nice touch throwing in another flawed statistic  (67% - where did THAT come from?) for repetition as well as memory reinforcement about just how bad guns are within the presentation of a separate topic.  But, I haven't seen ANY handguns or AK-47s roving the streets causing havoc on their own.  Such broadcast events pretty much are always accompanied by a human operator.  Anyway, lives destroyed by alcohol (families included) far exceed the number of actual deaths from alcohol abuse.  (See how easy it is to present unsupported "facts"?)  Such a nice resonation to it, don't you think?

For all the evil that people using guns bring to the world (no denying that), there is far more benefit of a gun to more individuals than harm.  You don't have to fire a gun or kill someone to deter criminal acts.  And such deterrent events don't show up on convenient Government statistics.  Even if we accept a flawed statistic of 11000 murders involving a firearm (which I don't), it pales in comparison to 2.5 million times per year guns are used for self defense. (Kleck et al). Even anti-gun Clinton researchers concede that guns are used 1.5 million times annually for self-defense. According to the Clinton Justice Department, there are as many as 1.5 million cases of self-defense every year.   With the confiscation of guns from the citizens, criminals will still find access to deadly weapons (tools of the trade), criminals with guns would certainly prevail in almost every crime attempted.  Can you imagine the murder rate increasing or decreasing if the means for self defense were denied?

[Duke McDukiedook]

Overreaction?
Eh, I am just waiting for the next plague that only hopefully targets a majority of the mouthbreathers and hoopleheads in the world.
Until then I say no limits on gun control so hopefully it will rid the planet of more idiots and generally all-around stupid people.

The only problem with no limits to gun control is the idiots and stupids tend to harm the normals when performing their stupid gun tricks.