The Trump Presidency

From Donald Trump, most recently. From many Republican whackjobs of the past, otherwise. It's not a new idea.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Yeh worse than a football game that has about 4 minutes of worthwhile action in a one hour game that always takes more'n 2 hours.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I don't believe you. I know you interpret based on your opinion of the source.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

What part, specifically, don't you believe? It's a short post, with nothing remotely controversial in it that I can see.
Trump's rambling bs is public record, and the long history of Republican whackjobs advocating the arming of teachers is easy to Google. It's not a new idea. Most recently a Colorado Congresscritter named Neville has been introducing bills that even omit the training part - which cuts costs up front, but increases insurance liability down the road. And mishap probabilities.

 

Allowing armed teachers doesn't automatically mean "paid training from school budgets." It doesn't automatically mean being expected to act any differently than any other armed citizen either.

 

But saying you are going to train them does.
Are you going to skip the training? Seriously? And pay the resulting insurance bills from property tax increases, no doubt.

Yes, it does. Other armed citizens are not allowed to walk around in schools full of children, or asked to be prepared for an active shooter crisis. There's a reason for that.

 

Who said skip training? There a already a few sheriff's offices offering free training for teachers.
See, you're just making up crap. No one said it was coming out of school budgets.

No, you just keep making crap up.

 

That doesn't pay the teachers. And all day classes, week long classes, the local sheriff has that kind of time to spare?

Schools are going to require training, but not pay for it, or - -
There's going to be paid training, but not paid by the schools, or - - -
The money spent on this is not going to reduce or be offset by any reduction in other school funding.
You actually believe that.
Ok, whatever. Trump seems to think the same people who are imagined to be funding his wall will be picking up the tab. That makes about the same sense.

 

So they can do a better job mass murdering our kids? No thanks.

 

8 Hours on a Saturday, in my neck of the woods.
And sheriffs are offering, so I guess they do have the time.
Or is protecting children not worth their time to you?

No teachers would be required to carry. Their choice, their expense (unless they live somewhere smart enough to offer it for free to teachers).
The permit is often way more expensive than the training (as little as $50), so states could simply waive the fees for teachers.
But thanks for showing all the unsupported assumptions you're making.

Really? So you trust your kids to people you think would harm them?
That says more about you.

 

One day's training in crisis mode lethal weapon bodyguard service, donated by your property taxes and volunteer teacher time. Ok.
Doesn't sound like there's going to be much EMT training involved, submission techniques, etc - just when to shoot, how to shoot, couple hours practice shooting, Cliff's Notes version. What could possibly go wrong?
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/09/11/teacher-accidental-shooting/15452271/
http://www.localnews8.com/news/isu-professor-shoots-self-in-foot/58063274

So that's what this is - I knew there had to be some kind of excuse.

Sounds like I had it nailed - training required but not paid for, the money for all this offset by reduced expenditure elsewhere.
When the insurance bill comes due, for example, the school budget will have to be suitably rearranged.
Another "unsupported assumption", on account of I can do arithmetic.

Meanwhile, another flash of a match in the tunnel the Trump train inevitably entered: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/hope-h...house-intel-committee-after-month-long-delay/

Think Hicks will likewise brings a pre-typed list of the only questions that the House Intelligence Committee is allowed to ask?

 

Could go either way. Why trust an adult more? Adults kill people all the time.

 

Screening:
I would assume that some of the volunteers for such a program would not be the sort that you would want to be able to exercise the expected results.
So very thorough screening seems in order.

Training:
It seems that much time should be invested in training including "live fire" exercises.
(wild numbers) Perhaps a minimum of 1000 rounds fired at targets set up in a classroom setting. Perhaps a minimum of 6-8 weeks of training, and regular follow up refresher exercises.
And, all this including weapons and ammunition should be paid for by whatever government body that sponsors the program.

..................
I suspect that the "training" envisaged by the politicians will be inadequate.
and
I would be surprised if the scheme will actually work as intended.

 

There's an image.

I know a guy who runs a shooting range locally - I'll have to talk to him about setting up a mock classroom and hallway, with little desks and child sized silhouettes and so forth. And a big picture of the President , flanked by the Stars and Stripes, on the back wall.

The video goes viral in 37 minutes - bet.

 

Isn't that the old Neil Diamond ticket sellout record, like, pre-internet?

 

Who said anything about "crisis mode lethal weapon bodyguard service" (whatever that word salad is) and how does that differ from when any other citizen may need to use a gun?
And no one said school budgets would pay for anything. And yes, volunteer time from volunteer teachers.

Why would there be? Just like any other concealed carrier, the gun is a last line of defense. In this case that would be, in order, flee, shelter in place, and then fight. So you imaging a teacher using students as body shields while firing?

Accidents happen. Do you really think that accurately reflects on the defensive use of a gun? Or the dangers they pose to others?

Again, the time of volunteers. No teachers are being drafted into carrying.

Nope, you just keep making wholly unfounded assumptions.

Most government agencies, including states and the federal government, have immunity from lawsuits, which means that they cannot be sued. This is called “sovereign immunity” when it is applied to the federal and state governments, and “governmental immunity” when it is applied to city, county and other smaller governments -- although “sovereign immunity” is often used as a blanket term.

Typically, a public school district will be considered an agency of the local municipal government. Although they are immune, most government agencies make exceptions to immunity and allow themselves to be sued under specific conditions. However, there may be narrow constraints, for example the negligence must have been “gross” (i.e.very negligent) or a municipality must have purchased insurance to cover the type of lawsuit.
http://www.alllaw.com/articles/nolo/personal-injury/sue-school.html​

If you're sending your children to be cared for by these people all day, five days a week, I would hope you trust them.
If not, how do you deal with the cognitive dissonance?

 

Yes.

Money's coming from somewhere, and spent on school stuff. Hello?

I don't think you guys are paying attention to what you're expecting from these armed teachers. I'm hearing about a few hours of training volunteered by everybody, no significant budget hit, etc, and wondering what you are imagining this situation to be.

Schools get sued. Teachers get sued. They're going to have to carry insurance on something as mishap-inviting as arming teachers by policy.

Why would there be what? EMT training for a teacher expected to handle a mass shooting and take care the kids? Gee, dunno - - - . Priorities, I guess.

Lord knows where Trump got this half-baked idea from. He has very little experience with public schools, so maybe it was an easy sell, but it's in line with the rest of his bs as an actual President - a distraction from what's happening on his watch.

 

I know what we as kids did to our teachers, sometimes they had a mental breakdown. I mean, I also trusted them to keep my kids safe, and they can't. Even if they had a gun, a mutual shootout in class is not an interpretation of the word safe that I understand.

 

Compared to defensive uses?

According to this study not only have the number of accidental firearm deaths been on the decline over the past century but they now account for less than 1% of all unintentional deaths, half of which are self-inflicted.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States#Accidental_and_negligent_injuries

Studies place the instances of guns used in personal defense as low as 65,000 times per year, and as high as 2.5 million times per year.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States#Self-protection​

"School stuff?" So teachers never voluntarily pay anything out of their own pockets for their own voluntary purposes?
Just like every other concealed carrier, teachers who volunteer to carry (and can't find free training) will pay for it themselves.
If they don't want to pay, no one is forcing them to get trained and carry.

The exact same situation as currently exists. Teachers and students first try to flee. If they can't, they try to hide and barricade themselves. And if all else fails they fight. The difference being that they could now use guns if it comes to fighting, instead of whatever random object you may think is effective against a gun.

• Government immunity doesn't mean you can't sue the school, but the reasons you can sue are extremely limited.
• For example, if your child falls down and gets injured in the lunchroom, you typically can't sue the school. Schools can't be sued for simple negligence. However, if your child suffered heat stroke because they were forced to run outside on an excessively hot day, you may be able to sue.
• Generally, your cause of action will be based on some intentional act on the part of teachers or administrators. Most often, lawsuits against a school are related to the violation of a child's constitutional rights.

https://www.wikihow.com/Sue-a-School​

So teachers should be trained as emergency medical first-responders?
Why does being armed make that a sudden priority?
Do you think teachers should have such training even if they aren't armed?

Your histrionic understanding is skewed.

 

Of course they do. And now some of that money will be diverted into firearms training.

That's not Trump's proposal.
And for good reason - it obviously wouldn't do much.

No change in priorities is involved. Just a recognition of them.
As far as having a bunch of loaded handguns floating around a high school bumping the urgency of EMT capability on site - well, duh.