wolfriverjoe

You're being told by directly a teacher, someone with experience in the field, that a certain thing is likely to happen and your reply is 'I don't think it is'? What experience are you basing that on? Well, I'm being told by GeorgiaDon, who was told by his daughter. Not sure if that counts as "directly." And my quote was taken a bit out of context. The concern of a gun being taken from a teacher is very real. If the gun falls into the wrong hands, the potential for death or severe injury is almost certain. However, the idea of a student basically mugging a teacher for a gun is not all that real. Again, that was a concern raised when concealed carry for civilians was becoming common and it really hasn't happened that I know of. Some teachers would not be able to keep the gun a secret. Maybe they shouldn't have one. Some teachers would. Smaller guns, deep concealment (not very fast to access, but that really isn't an issue), would help in that regard. And those teachers who are at risk for being disarmed would have to be cognizant of what sort of situations they put themselves into when armed (not everyone would carry every day). My personal experience as a public school teacher is zero. But I have had this discussion with several current and retired middle and elementary school teachers. People who do have direct experience in this. To a large degree, they feel that if it is going to be done, it has to be done correctly and carefully. But it can be done safely. Although, I must say that these teachers were all at the gun range or are friends through the gun range, so they are all 'pro-gun' to begin with. "There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy "~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

Not entirely true. A friend of my dad was a lawyer who was convicted of embezzlement. I don't know all of the details (neither did my dad), but a bunch of money disappeared from an estate and the lawyer spent a few years in prison (white guy, too). But, all too often, your description is how it goes. "There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy "~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

You say "without your knowledge of whom". Does the applicant choose who is interviewed? Or have the option of saying "this person will not give an honest answer"?Is there an appeal process for rejections? I know some people who would say "no" because they don't think anyone should own a gun. I know others who would say "no" because they just want to screw over a family member. I know some who, if faced with the idea of 'are you ready to take responsibility if..." would say "no" because they aren't willing to take on that responsibility no matter how they feel about the person (and I might fall in that category). Overall, more thorough background checks might be a good idea. But I would have to be convinced that they would be fair. That is, would they do anything to stop this sort of thing without unreasonably stopping people who wouldn't do this sort of thing? And there would need to be 'due process.' A transparency of the procedure and an appeal process. For example, the 'no fly list' is a perfect example of the lack of it. No idea how one gets put on it. No way to find out if you are on it. No process for those on it to show they don't belong and get removed. But there's no 'right' to get on an airliner. The 'right to travel' can be argued, but the counter to that (correct IMO) is that air isn't the only way to travel, there are alternatives. After all, this is a right. Bill of Rights and the SC decisions make it clear that the "people" in the text are individuals. Agree or disagree, that's how it is set up. Reasonable restrictions can be put in place, but I'm not sure your proposal is that. "There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy "~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

My youngest daughter is a high school teacher. She had some comments on arming teachers: 1. The "kids" in the classroom know everything. You can't hide anything in the classroom without everyone in the class knowing about it withing a couple of days. Where are you going to possibly hide a loaded weapon where no student will be able to get at it, but you can in seconds if need be? Is the teacher responsible if some student gets their hands on the gun? 2. Perhaps you decide to keep the firearm on your person (concealed carry). Now you may become a target of a disgruntled student; they don't have to bring a firearm to the school, they just get their hands on one that is already there. Is a teacher responsible if a student overpowers her and takes her gun? My daughter is about 5 1/2 feet tall, and has many male students in her classes who are well over 6 feet and outweigh her by 50 pounds or more. Does she also need to earn a black belt in some martial art to protect herself against having the gun taken by force? Should she never allow a student to get behind her lest she be knocked down or clobbered with a chair? Just having a gun on her, and the need to protect that weapon, will inevitably change her interaction with her students. 3. Is it realistic to expect someone with a small caliber concealed handgun to take out a much more heavily armed gunman who also has the element of surprise in his favor? 4. Will the teacher be liable if they shoot a cop, a student, or anyone else, mistaking them for the shooter? 5. Will being willing to play such a role become another one of those "extras" that turn out to be all but required to get a teaching job? When my daughter was first looking for a teaching job, she lost out on 3 or 4 jobs because another less qualified applicant (my daughter had 2 degrees vs their 1) had played some sport in high school or college and could volunteer to coach. Will teachers willing to carry in the classroom gain an advantage in the hiring process? If you aren't willing to do so, will that make you unemployable, even though it's not in the job description? I'm curious what you think. Don Thanks for a thoughtful and reasonable response. Those are all good questions and valid concerns. In order: 1 - No. There should never be a gun 'hidden' in the classroom. Not even in a locked box. As far as students knowing, maybe, maybe not. If the teacher is careful, and doesn't tell anyone, the likelyhood of a gun remaining unknown is pretty good. It's possible some teachers would be 'outed', but not all of them. 2 - This is a concern, but it's also a bit overblown. The anti-gun folks raised the same concern when civilian concealed carry became widespread. AFAIK, it hasn't happened. Or at least not often enough to become publicized. If a person is that worried about having it taken away, then they could always choose to not be armed. Just out of curiosity, does she allow any of those 'large males' behind her, or to be alone with her now? Obviously, as a small female, she is at risk for assault. 3 - Not really. But to a large degree, that wouldn't be the point. The trained response to an 'active shooter' situation is "run, hide, fight." That wouldn't change. Get the kids out to safety if possible, secure the classroom if not. Hide the kids as best as possible (cupboard, closet, behind or under furniture), have the armed teacher take up an ambush position on the hinge side of the door. They do NOT go out and 'hunt down' the shooter, they simply have a response if the shooter enters their classroom. There was a professor at VA Tech who held the door closed, at the cost of his own life, while the students jumped out of a window. This would provide at least some defense. Worst case would be a shooter in a hallway, cafeteria or outside opening fire when an armed teacher is present. In that case, they simply do the best they can. There have been several armed robberies where there was an armed civilian in the background. The cases I know of, the robber(s) simply fled when they started taking fire. 4 - Maybe. The reality of armed civilians is that using deadly force, even in legitimate self defense has a cost, often a high one. Lawyer fees, potential criminal charges, civil liabilities, penalties including prison time. It's part of the reality of choosing to carry a gun. 5 - I don't know. I would hope not, but I honestly hadn't even thought of this. "There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy "~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

Would it help? Would limiting assault weapons make any real difference? I don't know, but we had the AWB for 10 years and it didn't seem to make any real difference. Many of the mass shootings used other kinds of guns. Even Holmes in CO used a shotgun after the stupid drum mag on his AR jammed up. The flip side of your 'we can't fix' argument is the "Do something, do anything to make me feel safer, even if it has no real effect." Which is what many of the proposed 'solutions' (including arming teachers, FWIW) seem to be. "There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy "~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

You might read the thread on the Pitt Meadows King Air crash. http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=3287168;search_string=Pitt%20Meadows%20King%20Air%20;#3287168 Engine failure at around 2000' Nobody had the opportunity to get out. This sort of thing happens really fast. "There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy "~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

Me too, not terribly surprisingly. Go after the root causes. Try to understand why these people do these things and address that. I will, however, support some sort of actual armed defense in the schools. Cops (resource officer) are one idea, regardless of how well it worked in Florida. Teachers are another. Despite all of the ridicule, there are some teachers who are in favor of this. Not all, not most, probably not even 'many'. But there have been enough times where some teachers in these situations have shown incredible bravery. The professor who held the door shut at VA Tech, at the cost of his own life, the security guard/coach in Florida who died trying to protect the kids, there have been others. Properly trained (to the level of police officers at a minimum), and understanding the entirety of the task they are taking on. The fact that they may have to shoot a kid in order to save others. The fact that their actions may take innocent lives, the fact that they may die in the process. The tactical fact that they aren't going to 'go out and get' the shooter, but will have an ability to stop him if there's no other alternative. It's not a step to be taken lightly, but for those who are willing to take on the responsibility, its a better option than "lock the door and hope he doesn't find us." Civilian carry in the US has become a reality. Millions of people have permits. Some of them carry on a regular basis. Yet we have not seen the 'blood in the streets' predicted by some. We haven't seen a whole lot of 'heroic defenders' shooting bad guys either. The reality is that that sort of situation is pretty rare. "There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy "~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

I think you miss my point. And it's a far from perfect analogy (few analogies are perfect). I'm not calling alcohol "evil", just acknowledging that it impairs ability and judgement. So driving a car while impaired is a crime, as it should be. Yet it is a very common crime, and costs lots and lots of lives. While it is impossible to 'ban' cars, we can take a rather intrusive and expensive step of requiring "Intoxalocks" in all cars. Not unlike banning certain types of guns. This would greatly reduce drink driving deaths. Not eliminate, there was an incident where a convicted drunk driver was arrested with one of these installed in his car. He had gotten his 12 year old son to blow into it to get the car started. But we, as a society, have decided that this is too intrusive. That 'saving one life' isn't worth it. "There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy "~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

Wonder why there are still laws against drinking and driving? Clearly it still happens and clearly these laws only hurt law abiding citizens who can safely drive after a couple of drinks, or at least don't kill anybody doing it. Actually, there was a guy who tried that. He claimed that the BAC levels didn't take into account that as an alcoholic, he had a much higher tolerance for alcohol and could safely drive with a higher BAC. Didn't work. There are currently laws against shooting people. There are laws against OWI. Most people obey them. In the case of the guns, we seem to want to go after the object, not the user. In the case of OWI, why shouldn't the same mentality apply? We could drastically reduce OWI and the resultant deaths by requiring breath analyzers in all cars. Currently, they are usually only required for drivers who have been convicted of OWI. I don't think this is a good idea, the intrusion is well beyond it's benefit. But so many people who wish to ban the 'bad' guns say: "If it saves one child's life it would be worth it". Why does this mentality apply only to lives taken by firearms? "There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy "~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

Or going to a concert or the movies or a political event. Despite a few very high profile shootings, these events are still safe to do. As was noted, far more kids are killed by drunk drivers than by these 'school shooters.' Which ones of these shootings would this have prevented? Same question applies to the "on topic" thread. I asked this question over there and got zero response. The proposals over there (at least the marginally realistic ones) include background checks, mandatory registration, storage requirements, training requirements, ect. Which one of those would have stopped any of the recent mass shootings? "There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy "~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

It's all in your definition of 'best'. They won Trump the election. Can't argue with that. If you're purely results driven as Mr. Trump claims to be he totally had the 'best' people in his campaign. That they're lying, criminal scumbags doesn't matter. Well, to be a bit pedantic, Trump had better people in his campaign that HRC did. That doesn't necessarily mean the "best." And he's had how many resign? Indicted? Guilty pleas? Compared to Obama? "There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy "~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

Well, he promised to 'drain the swamp'. Apparently he scraped the bottom of it to find people for his campaign. "There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy "~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

You said planned breakoff was 5k & 4.5k, yet you normally pull at 4. What was your planned pull altitude for these jumps? Do you know the USPA recommendation for breakoff altitude compared to pull altitude (as in how far breakoff should be above planned pull altitude)? Do you know why a staged breakoff was planned? I've done up to 15 ways, and all we did was break off fairly high, all at once. "There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy "~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

AKA, "There I Was, Thought I Was Going To Die" Some don't survive to tell the story. Never forget that. John's "survival zone" is very real, where your decisions truly become life and death, with luck often playing a huge role. Sometimes bad decisions are made, sometimes the luck just isn't there. And its: "No shit, there I was. Thought I was gonna die." "There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy "~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

That is possible, it's also possible they were the "deactivated" ones that someone filled back up with some sort of explosive and got hold of a real fuse/detonator assembly. Or maybe the feds simply planted them to have 'something to find.' I'd actually lean towards the idea that Koresh had acquired a couple real hand grenades and maybe converted a semi auto rifle or two to full auto/select fire. It's not an easy thing to do, and given Koresh's proclivity for doomsday predictions, it's reasonable to think he might have done a couple rifles as "practice" so that when the "SHTF" (as someone on here likes to say), he could convert more as needed. He absolutely was a piece of shit. Kind of interesting how many "prophets" and 'messiahs' show up to 'preach the word of God', yet at the same time shine 'special attention' on the female members of their 'flock'. Young ones too. Mohamed, Joseph Smith (look at why he was lynched), Jim Jones and Koresh all did it. So did others that don't come to mind at the moment. Koresh deserved prosecution and imprisonment, almost without a doubt. But there are certain principles, like due process, proper court procedures, the 'Rights of the Accused', all that that simply didn't happen. FWIW, there was some serious government misconduct in the Bundy case, which is why it was dismissed. I hate the idea of that asshole walking free, but I hate the government misconduct more. And those sorts of documentaries have to take a side. It's how they are done. The better ones tell the truth about both sides, both good and bad. The less better ones make the side they are defending look as good as possible. The recent "Making of a Murderer" is a good example of the latter. Stephen Avery and Brendan Dassey are both very unsavory individuals. But the makers of the film portrayed both of them as sympathetic characters (falsely). "There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy "~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

Well, it could be argued that the Waco standoff was the reason the Malheur one was handled the way it was. And that was one of the things the sheriff made clear. Apparently he was at least somewhat friends with Koresh. From what I understand, Koresh knew that the BATF was interested in him. He had an FFL and was accumulating "assault weapons" and high cap mags. Partially because he was prophesying that the "Apocalypse" was approaching, partly because it was becoming more and more apparent that some sort of ban was going to be put in place. Buying up a bunch in advance of that was simply 'investing'. If he and his crew had survived, he could have sold them (legally) for a tidy profit. Prices on 'pre-ban' stuff went through the roof for a few years. They did find a couple hand grenades (destructive devices) and a couple full auto (machine guns) in the rubble, none of which were legally registered. But most of what they found was semi-auto (legal), many of which were simply 'stripped receivers', which are the 'legal gun' for that sort of thing (bolt, barrel, stock, 'internals' are all considered 'parts'). It was pretty clear from the beginning that this was far more of a "make the BATF look good by arresting him" than an actual "investigation" type of thing. The BATF had a big issue with that sort if thing back then. It seemed like they kept trying to show that they weren't like that, yet kept on pulling stunts 'just like that'. The NRA called the "jack-booted thugs" and had some really good reasons for it. Once Koresh fought back during the raid, it got way, way out of hand for the BATF and the FBI had to take over. And they botched it up pretty badly too. Apparently the negotiator and the head of the HRT weren't communicating very well and stuff the negotiator offered was rejected out of hand by the team leader. Which led to Koresh not believing anything the negotiator would say. Because Koresh and the Branch Davidians were "preppers" they had food and fuel and other stuff to last for a reasonably long time without outside input. And the FBI got impatient when it became apparent that 'waiting them out' was going to take quite a while. So they hit the building with armored vehicles, pushing powdered CS (tear gas, more or less) into the holes they knocked in the walls. In the process, they destroyed the escape routes for the occupants and set the compound on fire. Given the fact that they had the place surrounded and under surveillance for a long time, it's highly likely they had both audio (microphones) and video (cameras) installed in the walls. It's likely that they had a very good idea of the layout of the interior, and the location of the occupants. So the idea that the stairway being taken down and the kerosene lamp being knocked over 'by accident' becomes a little bit hard to believe. I still think it was more 'negligence' than 'intent', but that doesn't change the fact that they killed over 50 people that day. "There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy "~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

As long as the plane isn't descending all that fast once it gets below 1500' or so, it doesn't matter. The individual jumpers are descending very fast in freefall, aren't they? And if the plane is still coming down that fast when it gets that close to the ground, there are bigger problems to worry about than having the AADs fire. "There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy "~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

Well it was the BATF that really screwed up. And they had a long list of serious screwups throughout the late 80s and 90s. Everything about the initial raid on the compound was a mess. From inviting the media, but forgetting any EMS. From getting lost on the way, and asking a mailman for directions (who just happened to have friends at the compound) to ignoring the advice of the local sheriff not to go in with force (which played directly into Koresh's 'prophecies'). Throw in the lies by the government in the early stages (Koresh was making meth was one of the more outrageous ones), then the fire that ended it. The idea that the fire was deliberately set is more than a little bit ludicrous. However, the FBI knew the interior layout and knew that they were using kerosene lamps for light, and knew where the stairs were, and then used tanks to knock down walls, destroying the stairs and knocking over the lamps that started the fire. Either they didn't think any of this all the way through (likely), or they didn't care if the occupants got hurt (less likely), or did it deliberately, hoping to start a fire (still less likely). In any case, this would likely fall under the heading of "negligent homicide" had it been a civilian setting. But the government didn't see any consequences. In fact, the hearing that was supposed to investigate this started off by "convicting" Koresh of child molestation (likely true) and pretty much ignored the huge errors committed by the federal agents. Apparently, they cared so much about the kids that they burned them to death. "There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy "~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

Pfft. That was 'sport' back in the late 70s and early 80s. First they were drafted and sent thousands of miles to fight a war that was not winnable (at least not the way it was being fought). For a country that really didn't appreciate it. Many didn't come back home, or came back seriously damaged. Some visibly, some not. Then they were vilified. Both personally and in popular culture. The "Crazed Viet Nam Vet" was a really popular 'bad guy'. And vets were treated like shit. Spit on, denied jobs, ignored, left to die. Both vets who had served in Viet Nam and ordinary peace time vets. Many were thought to be drug users, 'lunatics" and overall "losers". People with real options didn't serve in the military, or at least that's what many people thought. Seeing this happen (I was 10 when Saigon fell) was a large reason I chose not to enlist when I was younger (graduated HS in 83). The idea that vets were "heroes" and worthy of thanks was not something anyone thought of back then. And I do find it rather ironic that Ron feels Viet Nam vets deserve special treatment because they were mistreated back then. Really? A group of people who were treated badly in the past deserve special consideration today because of that? Who else might that apply to? Hmmm... Who else might feel that way? "There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy "~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

But it's still illegal to sell cold beer anywhere but a liquor store. Heathens. "There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy "~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

Wanna bet? There's some really gullible people out there. Barnum was right. "There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy "~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

Well, Wisconsin isn't the Arctic, but we saw a pretty unusual winter here. We had 3 separate January thaws. That is, a day or two with high temps above freezing, then back to cold. One isn't unusual, but doesn't normally happen each and every year (or at least it didn't used to happen every year). Three is pretty unusual. The "fun" part of it is that the freeze/thaw cycle melted a lot of the snow, but much of it refroze into ice. This ice isn't melting very easily, and is creating all sorts of problems with melt runoff. Not on a large "flooding the neighborhood" level, but in a "my backyard isn't draining the way it's supposed to and now my basement is flooding" kind of way. Big pain. "There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy "~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

C'mon. How about the fun people. AggieDave was mentioned. How about Lucky McSwervy? DSquared? ILuv2Fly? The "three Smutskateers"? How about Gonzala? I haven't heard the Greenskeepers in a long time. Turtle? Bolas? VanillaSkyGirl? Lots more that I can't think of right now. "There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy "~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

Ok, one of my personal gripes: These AREN'T 'theories'. A theory is a proposition (hypothesis) that has been tested and confirmed with scientific proof. There are still parts of it that are unexplained and not fully understood, but it's a concept that has a high level of proof. Gravity is a theory. Evolution is a theory. Relativity is a theory. Kennedy being assassinated by the CIA or the mob or the Cubans is not. Alien technology being analyzed at the Groom Lake test facility (Area 51) is not. Lizard aliens is not. The illuminati is not (nor is any of the "secret society world domination" bull shit). Flat Earth is not. Although the Flat Earthers have to win the prize for tenaciousness. They persist in this idiocy despite all the evidence to the contrary. They win the prize for stupidity too. "There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy "~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

Benghazi! Benghazi! Somebody should investigate Benghazi! Ah yes, back in the days when investigating things for years and spending loads of money was all the rage. What changed? The ones in charge of "investigating" are the same side as those being investigated. Go figure. "There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy "~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo