Politically Incorrect
Carl McClanahan

School Safety

Posted Friday, February 23, 2018, at 4:32 PM
View 51 comments
Note: The nature of the Internet makes it impractical for our staff to review every comment. Please note that those who post comments on this website may do so using a screen name, which may or may not reflect a website user's actual name. Readers should be careful not to assign comments to real people who may have names similar to screen names. Refrain from obscenity in your comments, and to keep discussions civil, don't say anything in a way your grandmother would be ashamed to read.
  • If teachers receive a stipend, which I also think they should, legally they could be considered armed security and would need to be licensed as such. The training and license for armed security is relatively inexpensive and 2-3 days long, so not a major hurdle.

    Second, I'd ditch the requirement for a laser sight. Lasers are often hard to see in bright light and can blend in with similarly colored targets. Holographic relex sights offer the same advantages as a laser while being simpler to use. Also variations of the instinctive shooting discipline allow someone to shoot a pistol with no sights at all with impressive accuracy at short to moderate distances. Again, not a major issue, but teachers who would volunteer to be protectors would likely already be "gun people" and would have a system they're familiar with and trust. No reason to change what works for them IMO.

    Just a couple of points I thought I'd throw out.

    -- Posted by quietmike on Sat, Feb 24, 2018, at 3:27 AM
  • Increased security makes perfect sense. More good guys with guns will definitely be a deterrent to bad guys.

    Consider the hijackers of 911. Security was increased. Pilots were armed, and air marshals added to each flight. How many planes have been hijacked in the U.S. since these countermeasures were put in place?

    -- Posted by Liveforlight on Sat, Feb 24, 2018, at 6:33 AM
  • I do know that there are some school districts in Texas that has armed staff; don't know if this includes teachers or what kind of training.

    -- Posted by Tyger on Sat, Feb 24, 2018, at 8:21 AM
  • *

    Yep....more guns.


    -- Posted by RocketValentine on Sat, Feb 24, 2018, at 8:53 AM
  • I think liberal democrats should be ignored on this issue (and all others, but I digress).

    How many times have we imposed restrictions on the second, based on their whining, with no effect on crime?

    They said Obamacare was needed and would save so many, yet the website wasn't up and running before they were whining for single payor.

    A family doesn't plan their household on the advice of the most immature, irresponsible family member, so why should we plan a society that way?

    -- Posted by quietmike on Sat, Feb 24, 2018, at 1:36 PM
  • *

    Yep... More guns OR

    you can back the school students who have cussed the NRA and caused several hundred if not thousands of businesses to disassociate themselves with the NRA or lose customers. These are low life businesses and should lose their customers just because they went against what they believed in and their right to keep and bear arms. Will they turn their weapons in if the little children cry loud enough?

    I wonder just how many of those school students parents owned weapons. Of course they would only own guns for target practice and hunting. Hunting? What are they going to hunt in FL that isn't protected by some law.

    just how many schools have been attacked in America and how many schools are in each district in each county in each state? I don't have time to google it and no one has the money to arm every school and provide training for schools that will never be attacked.

    Then you have the Malls, Theaters, Restaurants, Concerts, Running Marathons, Ball Games and other events. Where do you draw the line? All those children were siting ducks for a sick gunman. And you, RV, want every man, woman and child in America to be a sitting duck for anyone who wants to go out for a stroll and shoot at anyone who moves. That's really great thinking. And I also heard that Australia does have mass shooting today, even with the guns removed from the people.

    As long as Mass Shooting are in the news, there will be continued Mass Shootings.

    You can pass all the gun control laws you want to, but they will only apply to the lawless. Who are the lawless? The people who don't obey the laws created for the lawless people. So they are not concerned with any laws made to stop them or prevent them from doing whatever it is they intend to do. So, just who does the gun control laws apply to? Federal Citizens! The State nor the Feds can place a limit, fee or charge on a right granted by the US Constitution.

    CASE CLOSED! Live with it or ruin America before Trump can make it great again!

    -- Posted by sui on Sat, Feb 24, 2018, at 1:59 PM
  • -- Posted by RocketValentine on Sun, Feb 25, 2018, at 6:58 AM
  • *

    Another example of how the "good guy with a gun" works.


    -- Posted by RocketValentine on Sun, Feb 25, 2018, at 7:17 AM
  • -- Posted by quietmike on Sun, Feb 25, 2018, at 4:38 PM
  • *

    In the last ten years conceal/carry holders(good guys with guns)have been responsible for 1,119 murders, including 21 police officers.

    They committed 31 mass shootings.

    I think we need to come up with a new name for these people.

    "Good guys with guns", is a bit of a oxymoron.

    -- Posted by RocketValentine on Mon, Feb 26, 2018, at 3:47 PM
  • Source?

    -- Posted by quietmike on Mon, Feb 26, 2018, at 7:36 PM
  • *

    Crazy people with guns. We all know they're out there.

    If you think about it, you probably know a few.

    Maybe a neighbor, or your cousin Jerry.

    You might not consider them "dangerous", but you know they're not quite dealing with a full deck.

    Many of these same idiots also have a conceal/carry permit.

    I personally know a few.

    "Good guys with guns". Yep.

    It makes me think about a story in the news a couple years ago, I can post a link(or you could google it), about the woman(conceal/carry holder) that pulled her gun on another woman in a Chuckee Cheese. They were arguing about their kids.

    But anyway Mikey, here's your link on conceal/carry killers.

    In each case the name of the killer is given, along with the source of news reports in case you'd want to research each one yourself.


    -- Posted by RocketValentine on Tue, Feb 27, 2018, at 7:54 AM
  • I thought that was your reference.

    Most of those stories assert the person had a CCW license with no evidence to back up that claim. Many states bar the release of that information.

    States that track and publish crimes committed by CCW holders as a matter of law, such as Texas, show CCW holders commit crimes at rates far below that of the general population and sometimes lower than police officers.

    -- Posted by quietmike on Tue, Feb 27, 2018, at 2:10 PM
  • *

    Some states do bar the release of that information. But if you read the article, you'll see that many of the conceal/carry killers committed the murders in states that did release that info. Other sources came from court records when they were prosecuted, law enforcement, or previous jobs, such as security guards where they were known to have had their permit.

    All very reliable sources.

    -- Posted by RocketValentine on Tue, Feb 27, 2018, at 4:44 PM
  • Their "sources" don't back up their claims.

    One was a former marine in Florida who shot a cop. Nothing in their linked story, or in a google search showed him as being a CCW holder.

    Every one of John Lott's articles cites sources for every piece of information he writes about. Oddly, you reject those with no explanation.

    -- Posted by quietmike on Tue, Feb 27, 2018, at 6:41 PM
  • *

    Mikey, you have selective memory disorder.

    We've been thru the whole fraudulent John Lott debate in another blog about gun control.

    I posted several links about his proven bogus statistics and how former universities he worked for have all disassociated all ties with him.

    If you need a refresher, you'll have to revisit and reread that blog post.

    -- Posted by RocketValentine on Tue, Feb 27, 2018, at 8:10 PM
  • The only "disorder" I have is a low tolerance for idiots who spew BS.

    So instead of addressing the issue that your gun control group "source" never backs up what they claim, you go off on a tangent.

    -- Posted by quietmike on Tue, Feb 27, 2018, at 8:20 PM
  • *

    Mikey, scroll back 3 posts to my post at 4:44pm...reread.

    -- Posted by RocketValentine on Tue, Feb 27, 2018, at 8:53 PM
  • Re-read my response at 6:41.

    Their "sources" do not show the people they highlight as having CCW permits.

    Try again.

    -- Posted by quietmike on Tue, Feb 27, 2018, at 9:30 PM
  • *

    Mikey, it's strange how some things just don't compute in your brain.

    You mentioned Texas as one of the "States that track and publish crimes committed by CCW holders as a matter of law".

    Others also do it, like New York, Connecticut, etc.

    That's exactly where some sources were obtained to show where CCW holders had committed these killings.

    Some others were from court documents.

    What more evidence do you need?

    We've had this same problem when you were confronted with the fact that the most substantial use of food stamps/snap benefits in the United States comes from a county in Kentucky that's 99% white, and 95% republican.

    But in "Mikey's world", there are two demographics that just don't exist...

    White republicans on food stamps, and CCW holders that kill innocent people.

    When you read the statistics on either of these I just picture you rocking back and forth in your chair, staring off into space, and mumbling to yourself over and over..."it can't be true, it can't be true, it can't be true...

    -- Posted by RocketValentine on Wed, Feb 28, 2018, at 10:27 AM
  • RV,

    I know logic confuses you like chopsticks would confuse a cannibal.

    Once again you make a claim and it turns out you're talking out of your backside.

    Do I need to type slowly again so you can understand?

    Your link claims CCW holders are responsible for so many crimes.

    It links to stories describing the crimes, but does not show any evidence they were CCW holders in many cases. In others, it has reports where "neighbors say" he has a CCW permit.

    In others still, they claim he has a CCW, but in their quoted articles, one of the criminal charges is carrying a weapon. You can't be charged with carrying a weapon if you are permitted to carry it.


    -- Posted by quietmike on Wed, Feb 28, 2018, at 2:13 PM
  • Carl, I do not know much about the best weapon or accessories but I like the idea with an addition. Although they probably would know, I think local law enforcement should know in advance and meet the ones who are carrying in the school to avoid extra issues.

    -- Posted by stevemills on Wed, Feb 28, 2018, at 4:50 PM
  • *

    Sheesh...you sound exactly like Trump trying to validate his confusion over President Obama's birth certificate.

    -- Posted by RocketValentine on Wed, Feb 28, 2018, at 4:54 PM
  • -- Posted by RocketValentine on Wed, Feb 28, 2018, at 4:58 PM
  • Steve, I think your idea should be considered along with other's ideas.

    I stated in the piece knowing the identity of the armed people should be very closely minimized. The reason for this is to prevent an inside job such as the recent tragedy in Florida. If the scheme works as it should there would be much higher odds such would not happen. If all policemen knew their identity just more possibility for leaks. Also, if the scheme is valid and works as it is designed to, the "situation" would be over by the time Police arrived.

    Thanks for your remarks and your concerns

    -- Posted by cmcclanahan on Wed, Feb 28, 2018, at 6:12 PM
  • RV,

    If you'd just admit that some talking head told you to feel a certain way about a subject you don't really understand, you'd go much further than trying to defend that position from ignorance.

    -- Posted by quietmike on Wed, Feb 28, 2018, at 6:51 PM
  • *

    Talking head?

    I do love The Talking Heads.


    -- Posted by RocketValentine on Thu, Mar 1, 2018, at 5:27 AM
  • -- Posted by RocketValentine on Thu, Mar 1, 2018, at 8:28 PM
  • Guess we have to ban axes now, nevermind those high capacity automatic chainsaws.


    -- Posted by quietmike on Thu, Mar 1, 2018, at 8:39 PM
  • *

    Or we could have teachers carry axes too.

    Of course, they would have to be properly trained. Preferably have previous experience as a tree trimmer or lumberjack.

    -- Posted by RocketValentine on Fri, Mar 2, 2018, at 4:45 AM
  • Nah, guns work against axe murderers as well.

    -- Posted by quietmike on Fri, Mar 2, 2018, at 12:38 PM
  • *

    But aren't they equally as dangerous?

    Why would you choose the gun, over an axe?

    -- Posted by RocketValentine on Fri, Mar 2, 2018, at 1:03 PM
  • No one is saying guns aren't potentially dangerous.

    That danger comes from who is using it.

    As usual liberals don't think much of their fellow man, as they think he will only do the right thing when forced to by the government.

    The rest of us don't have such a dim view of humanity.

    But then again, most dems live, work, and associate with other dems, so their view might be shaped from that fact.

    -- Posted by quietmike on Fri, Mar 2, 2018, at 2:14 PM
  • *

    I noticed you dodged the question.

    Of course, guns are potentially dangerous, just as an axe is potentially dangerous.

    But in the hands of a crazed killer that wanted to unleash as much carnage as possible on a large group of people, do you think he'd do a better job with an axe, or let's say...an AR-15 with a few 30 round clips?

    -- Posted by RocketValentine on Fri, Mar 2, 2018, at 3:55 PM
  • If a person wanted a high body count, a gun is a poor choice.

    Tim McVeigh killed over 300 in a split second.

    Bombs, even thermobarics, are fairly simple to make with plans available on the internet.

    Same for toxins such as Ricin or Botulism.

    -- Posted by quietmike on Fri, Mar 2, 2018, at 4:10 PM
  • The simple fact is liberals are pretty dull, and they yet again demonstrate their hypocrisy and dishonesty on this issue.

    Far more kids are killed in car crashes than all rifles put together.

    But where is their sanctimonious whining while calling for the age to get a driver's license raised to 21?

    Or cell phones?

    -- Posted by quietmike on Fri, Mar 2, 2018, at 4:15 PM
  • *

    Ok, so we can agree that some "weapons" are more dangerous than others.

    Thank you.

    After Timothy McVeigh used ammonia nitrate to bomb the building in Oklahoma City, The Department of Homeland Security put strict regulations on the sale and transfer of ammonia nitrate.

    Pretty sure we haven't had another mass ammonia nitrate bombing since.

    We've had other bombings, like the one at The Boston Marathon. But it was not the scale of the Oklahoma City bomb.

    Guns work the same way. Some can do a lot more damage than others. It's pretty safe to say that a person with an AR-15 with a high capacity clip, could get a much bigger body count firing on a group of people than if he just had a six shot revolver.

    You said, "If a person wanted a high body count, a gun is a poor choice."

    It would seem that the majority of the mass murderers in the U.S. would disagree.

    They have a weapon of choice. It's the military style assault weapons like the AR-15. They use it for exactly what it was designed to do, kill as many people as possible quickly and efficiently.

    Now we'll never stop crazy people from shooting innocent people.

    But by regulating guns like the AR and high capacity clips. We can reduce the body count

    -- Posted by RocketValentine on Fri, Mar 2, 2018, at 5:28 PM
  • Again,if you knew what you were actually talking about, after educating yourself on a topic, that would be one thing. Instead, you repeat nonsense you've heard elsewhere.

    If you knew, or took the time to research, you'd know the AR platform was designed to wound, not kill, Russians during a European conflict that never happened. A wounded soldier requires two others to take him off the field, taking three people out of the battle. A dead soldier is left where he fell until the battle is over.

    Even if you didn't study military history, a cursory look at the energy numbers of various rounds would uncover your foolishness.

    For decades the .223 was illegal to use for deer hunting because it was too weak for a humane kill. It wasn't until the deer population exploded, that the TWRA relaxed its rules and allowed what was once a varmint round to be used on deer. This means a 30-30 or other olden cartridges are more effective. And before you go on about rates of fire nonsense, you might visit a cowboy action shooting match to see how quickly those old lever actions can be fired.

    As an aside, the Tannerite used in the pressure cooker bombs in Boston is made from the same Ammonium Nitrate that was used by McVeigh. So, much for effective regulations.

    -- Posted by quietmike on Fri, Mar 2, 2018, at 7:06 PM
  • *

    And the small tannerite bomb used in Boston was like a firecracker compared to the one McVeigh used with his truckload of ammonia nitrate.

    Effective regulations indeed.

    And thanks for pointing out that the AR was designed as a military weapon of war.

    A military weapon of war that's now easily available to civilians, light weight, easily adapted with high capacity ammo clips, and it doesn't take a professional "cowboy action shooter" to fire it quick and effectively.

    Thanks for confirming every point I wanted to present.

    -- Posted by RocketValentine on Fri, Mar 2, 2018, at 8:46 PM
  • *

    So, RV, if someone was coming after you with a knife, axe, gun, whatever, would you rather defend yourself with an AR or a .22 pea shooter? Or maybe a nerf gun or spitball? Or maybe use your wits to talk your way out of a tight spot?

    -- Posted by fair share on Fri, Mar 2, 2018, at 9:10 PM
  • The only thing you've ever presented is your incredible stupidity.

    -- Posted by quietmike on Fri, Mar 2, 2018, at 9:10 PM
  • As I've pointed out earlier the AR-15 has been available to civilians since the very early 1960s. No mass school shootings with it then. The 30 round magazine (not clip) is standard issue, not high capacity.

    The muzzle loading rifle was designed for war, the lever action, the bolt action.

    So was the interstate highway system. Duct tape, GPS, canned food,and many other things we use everyday.

    Most of us aren't such effeminate sissys that we think anything attached to the military is terrifying and should be banned.

    Remember the other time you were talking out of your rear end?

    Sorry, let me be more specific to avoid confusion. The time you claimed 900 people were shot in Vegas?

    442 were injured by gunfire and 58 were killed (not including the shooter). If that gun had been a 30-30, 308,270,or 30-06 there would have been much fewer wounded people and more dead ones.

    -- Posted by quietmike on Fri, Mar 2, 2018, at 9:25 PM
  • I ran across a quote that defines the issue very well. I don't remember the exact quote but it was something like this:

    "If we ban guns because criminals use them, then our rights depend not on law abiding citizens, but on the conduct of the criminals and lawless."

    As long as the focus is on the gun, our rights are jeopardy. If the focus were on the misuse of words, then our free speech rights would also be in jeopardy.

    A right is worth fighting for.

    -- Posted by Liveforlight on Sat, Mar 3, 2018, at 6:24 AM
  • *

    Mikey, And as I pointed out also, very few AR's were manufactured in the 60's and 70's and they were very expensive at that time.

    They are now readily available and affordable.

    They also weren't easily adapted with a bump stock or binary trigger to become fully automatic like they can now.

    That, along with being light weight, easy to shoot and capable of producing maximum carnage, have made them the favorite weapon of mass murderers.

    It's almost impossible for me to explain things to a guy that can't differentiate the dangers of a AR-15 with the usefulness of duct tape and canned food, so I'll make this my last post on the subject.

    Machine guns, (and let's cut the B.S. terminology because that's exactly what they are) have no business being readily available to ordinary citizens.

    And as long as they are, we will continue to have mass shootings.

    We, as a nation just have to decide what's more important to us.

    The right as a civilian to own a machine gun, or the right to keep ourselves and our kids from being slaughtered in these frequent mass shootings.

    I know...tough choice, right?

    -- Posted by RocketValentine on Sat, Mar 3, 2018, at 7:10 AM
  • RV,

    Your ignorance on a subject is only matched by your willingness to pull things straght out of your @ss.

    Not many ARs were manufactured in the 60s and 70s?

    The AR was being advesrtised in magazines and reviewed by gun writers in 1964. The price then was $189. ARs were being sold to the public before the M16 replaced the M14 in the military in 1969.

    At that time, prior to 1986, real fully automatic versions could be bought by civilians.

    Bump stocks and binary triggers do not covert a semi auto to a machine gun. As in every discussion we've had, you'd do well to research what your talking about instead of speaking from ignorance.

    You know, it's really amazing.

    We've been going back and forth on these blogs for years.

    In every case, you find some reason why you shouldn't accept personal responsibility. Not for finances, retirement, children, not a single subject we've discussed.

    No matter what the subject, over several years, your answer is, instead of you acting like an actual adult, the entire rest of the country should change to cover up your inadequacies.

    -- Posted by quietmike on Sat, Mar 3, 2018, at 2:20 PM
  • *

    Are yall still arguing about guns?

    The FBI reports say that more Americans are beaten to death than all the deaths by all the guns in America, including the mass shootings/killings.

    Let's go over the 2nd amendment again. The Constitution nor the Bill of Rights gives you the right to keep and bare arms! PERIOD. If you will just take the time to read the 2nd Amendment you will see that it says "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. The Right of the people! The people already had the right to keep and bare arms given to them by their creator. God in my case! The Federal Government in the case of immigrants and U.S. Federal Citizens (14th Amendment Citizens). Since God gave us that right and the constitution recognized that as a right that belongs to the people, The Government CAN NOT infringe upon that right of ours. They can not make any laws, rules, regulations or qualifications to keep and bare arms. That is already our right. Anyone who does not have Unalienable rights like people who commit a felony or who surrender their unalienable rights to be 14th amendment U.S. Citizens must obey the laws of the United States and the State laws. That is the price they paid to be Citizens of our FREE Country.

    Article I, Section 8, clause 17 gives congress the right to make any needful laws governing their Territories,without any Constitutional limitations or restrictions, but when legislating for the Sovereign man and woman, it must do so according to the constitution or the legislation is Null and Void.

    Since we have two different class of citizens, we have two different laws, Federal legislation and state legislation. Just like the congress,state legislators can make any laws they want to without constitutional limits or restrictions when legislating for 14th amendment citizens, immigrants and felons, but when legislating for the sovereign man and woman they must protect their rights guaranteed by the State and US Constitution. The 14th amendment created a 2nd class of citizens, Federal Citizens that Congress and the states can legislate for without constitutional rights. They MUST protect their Civil Privileges, but not constitutional rights because they only have a few of those. The people demanded the Bill of Rights just to show the people some of the rights they had, but not all of their rights!

    All men and all women are born with Unalienable Rights making them all equal to each other in God's eyes. However, some people chose to be 14th amendment citizens and unknowingly surrendered their Unalienable rights. Some people and women mainly, because they don't stand up and demand their rights, because they don't know what Unalienable rights are. They have been brainwashed to believe they don't have equal rights. You only have the rights that you are able to claim and protect. Some people want the Federal and State Governments to protect them and take care of them then complain when the government takes away their rights. Go Figure. That's enough on that.

    -- Posted by sui on Sun, Mar 4, 2018, at 12:39 AM
  • *

    Mikey, they also advertise the Maserati in car magazines, doesn't mean the average person can afford one.

    Only around 2500 AR's were manufactured in the 60's.

    Minimum wage was $1.15 an hour. A new car cost $2,000.

    If someone's bringing home $40 a week, $189 is a lot of money.

    A yes, bump stocks and binary triggers do turn an AR into a machine gun.

    When you can empty a 30 round magazine in 4 seconds, that's a machine gun.

    And your only answer when you lose an argument is personal attacks on people you really know nothing about.

    I own two homes, have a great job and retirement plan, my oldest son is a Sergeant (airborne) in the Army that did two tours in Iraq and Afghanistan (and he's also a Democrat)

    So don't act like you know me.

    -- Posted by RocketValentine on Mon, Mar 5, 2018, at 7:54 AM
  • RV,

    I make personal obsevations based on evidence presented. If you can show one single instance of you saying you should take personal responsibility on an issue, instead of demanding concessions from everyone else, please post it up.

    If bump stocks or binary triggers made regular guns into machine guns, the ATF would not have approved them for sale.

    Installing one by a private citizen would be manufacturing a machine gun which has been illegal without a tax stamp or license since 1934,and illegal for newly manufactured weapons since 1986.


    As for the price being a significant obstacle, the price of a Remington 700 bolt action rifle in the 1960s ranged from $120-$310, so the price of an AR at $189 was not out of line.


    But once again, you refuse to research very basic topics and instead rely on histrionics you heard from another uneducated fool.

    -- Posted by quietmike on Mon, Mar 5, 2018, at 11:24 AM
  • *

    I suggest you might want to take personal responsibilities and observations about yourself, and not worry about others.

    Get a few of your own issues worked out.

    -- Posted by RocketValentine on Mon, Mar 5, 2018, at 3:39 PM
  • If you useless liberal democrats weren't ALWAYS (still no rebuttal) seeking concessions and subsidies from we who do accept personal responsibility, you'd never hear anything else from me on the issue.

    -- Posted by quietmike on Mon, Mar 5, 2018, at 4:32 PM
  • HEY, I'VE GOT IT! Let's put a bucket of rocks in each classroom. Problem solved..! Such an ideal deterrent will guarantee no more injuries/deaths due to gun attacks!

    -- Posted by cmcclanahan on Mon, Mar 26, 2018, at 4:06 PM
Respond to this blog

Posting a comment requires free registration: