"Go For Broke" 442nd Japanese-American Regimental Combat Team
@austinslater25 looks like there is school district (or at least state government) that is looking into arming/training its teachers.
In the wake of the tragedy at Marshall County High School in Benton, Kentucky's Republican governor and legislature say they won't consider gun any control proposals. Rather, a measure allowing teachers or staff to carry guns on campus has gained traction.
Republican state Sen. Steve West admits his bill isn't going to stop all school shootings, but he hopes it'll help.
"It increases that kid's chances of surviving. And if there is someone there with a weapon, they will be able to take down the assailant, or at least calm the situation," West said.
So Senate Bill 103, would allow public and private schools to designate school staff to be able to carry guns on school ground if they have a concealed carry permit.
The article goes on to say that in order to get a permit you do get some training about proper use and storage but there's nothing about engaging an active shooter. Currently, Alabama, Colorado, Florida, Indiana, Maryland, Michigan, Pennyslvannia and South Dakota are also considering such laws. There are currently eight states that allow concealed carry at K-12 schools or have no laws that prevent them.
Off-duty police officers are already at Kentucky schools but many of those officers do not have any training on how to work with students.
So the last person the Seahawks have Franchised Tagged is Leroy Hill and Olindo Mare... is that right?
The Seahawks really don't have anyone worth tagging but has the tag itself run its course?
There's limitations so it won't be the issue that Walter Jones and the Seahawks faced when he would sit out all of training camp only to come in on week 1 and dominate everyone.
No one is giving up two first-round picks for any Franchise Tagged players like the Cowboys did for Joey Galloway.
It seems like the only benefit is that it gives teams ultimate control over a player without much recourse.
In case you're curious how your local Congress and Senate vote on these issues, NPR created a full list for all states.
Not surprisingly, they are voted along party lines in most cases. Without knowing each proposed legislation by heart the votes for and votes against are pretty straight forward. In more "swing states" it might be less partisan.
I'm sort of at the same place honestly. teachers I've talked to are for it if done right but I'm in a very pro gun area so maybe they're comfortable with guns? Like I said earlier I'm not even sure it's the best or even a good idea but I'm open to anything at this point. Pretty civil discussion in here with people from various view points. I like it
And this is part of our national problem. I live in Seattle and I would not feel comfortable knowing that in any of the given elementary, middle and high schools within my neighborhood now requires their education staff to also be active police enforcement. What works in a city with a fraction of the population may work great but I don't want it to be a national thing.
If a school district has the support of its parents, community, local government, law enforcement and the teaching community, then load up. How heavy or light they want to arm themselves do that. I don't see that working in the large cities.
Of all the teachers that I know, none of them would hesitate to shelter their students from harm. I think it's entirely another thing to expect them to use deadly force to prevent further damage from happening in an active shooter case.
I feel there's better solutions such as looking at how people access guns. I am not in favor of banning guns out-right (because it's impossible in our current climate) but we must seriously look at some other options such as punitive damages for selling guns and ammunition in excessive amounts. What's "excessive?" I don't know. I don't know what the difference is between buying a box of ammo vs. 100 boxes of ammo. But if we could actually study gun violence and see if there's a pattern with gun purchases it may give us better insight.
The fact is right now we are all flying blind and we are all grasping for ideas on how to solve this problem. An answer is out there but at the rate in which these events keep occurring and the lack of action on our government and communities part is really depressing.
@austinslater25 I agree that Trump really has no role in this latest shooting but he's also part of the pattern.
As you said, we should try something but even the insane ideas never get offered.
If any kind of access detergent is off the table and we are only left with fortifying schools and arming teachers then let's try it. Let's completely turn around what we expect of teachers already and increase their burden.
I have so many fundamental issues with that based on how I feel about the teaching profession but if that's all that people will accept then try something.
I am not a fan of throwing money at solution that I don't think will fix it. I'm not saying don't try it if you have funding, and schools willing to support this movement. I don't think it should be a federal mandate. Money is wasted everywhere, but the problem is that wasteful spending is never targeted. We already have issues with funding education that I am pained to think of what would happen to school funding if that money was reallocated towards armed teachers.
The problem that I have with any gun in close proximity to any one is how much training is enough? I don't feel our own police force get enough training (or the proper training) which results in fear of people with guns.
Guns by themselves are just a tool but like any tool in the hands of someone unequipped to handle it produces a far greater risk.
Most responsible gun owners will talk about storing their guns safely and their ammunition in another place. It only takes one bad day or one time to be unsafe to cause a lot of panic and chaos. That is far greater of a risk that I am comfortable in a location such as a school.
The argument is made that "gun free zones are easy targets" because guns aren't allowed is a false problem. Easy access to guns allows for any place (gun-free or not) to be a potential site that can end up a mass shooting site.
We have seen movie theaters, schools, concerts, malls, stadiums and public streets as places of mass death. The solution should not be to make these places safer by responding with more guns; I will never believe that to be a solution.
I view the proposal of arming/training teachers is silly on the basis that we can't fund education as it is. We just cut billions of dollars for our tax revenue and the idea that the feds, local state, and cities are suddenly going to come up with cash to fund any kind of response is a pipedream. It will hurt education when there should be a better answer.
Yes, I understand that people think that teachers are somehow "overpaid" in some places and yet we struggle to fund teachers where they have to buy their own supplies for their classroom; now we are going to suddenly find funding to train and potentially arm them to protect our children?
No employee should have to go to learn how to handle firearms when that is not one of their top-100 responsibilities.
We as a nation should be better. I don't mind the spitlballing but I hate that we would rather looking at arming people as a solution to gun violence than looking at root causes.
Schools limit entry access during the day but it's very different for each school. Not every school is 100% enclosed with one entry/exit. My elementary school, both middle schools and my high school has a mix of open-campus and multiple-entries. So unless we turn schools into a prison where there's armed teachers and security perimeters we would be looking at changes to everything but looking at our countries love for guns.
Last note, how many teachers would leave teaching knowing that they would have to go through training where they may be asked to kill an armed shooter along with educating their students? Yes, that's a small chance but I wouldn't sign up for that kind of job and the teachers I know in the greater Seattle area would probably leave their district.
There has to be a better way and that means we actually look at all opportunities and dissect an idea's pro's and con's.
I understand that this suggestion is not a new one but I hate that it's the most common one proposed.I would not feel better knowing that there are armed teachers in my children's school.
I think that's the problem, the laws that are currently in place are either toothless or written to present a law to fight for safety but they are easily avoided; such as the "gun show loop."
More laws are not the answer but people thought "separate but equal" was good enough. I would argue the current laws are not as effective as they could be. Strip them away and create real laws that have impact.
Allow the government to spend money on gun-related fatalities like every other cause of death in the United States.
There is a middle ground that would potentially help schools and public areas safe from these kinds of attacks.
Thinking that the two opposing sides are never going to meet is giving up, which is how this debate drags on.
Yes, there are some people that want to ban all guns yet every single proposed legislation has never come close to doing anything along those lines.
If 99% of the gun-owning citizen know their gun will be never used to harm another then put your money where your bullets are. We have laws that punish bar tenders who knowingly let a patron keep drinking who drives and harms another. We can still allow gun ownership but also punish careless gun owners. Just like we have other deterent laws, why not force responsible gun ownership throughout the process.
It's not enough, it has to carry throughout the process; gun owner, gun seller, police/FBI background checks, etc.
Any small breaks in this chain make these mass shootings possible.
This does not prevent gun ownership in any case but if you recklessly sell someone 1,000 rounds of bullets, you better damn well be sure that's not going to be used to kill people.
I did a google search and found this "training tips" from someone at the University of Washington that's still active:
As a Harris’s hawk breeder, I get a lot of calls and emails regarding the training of captive-bred Harris’s hawks. Many of these inquiries come from falconers obtaining their first Harris’s hawk. It is primarily for these falconers that this article is written, although I do hope that even experienced Harris’s hawkers will find some valuable tidbits of information or alternative points of view to stimulate them.
I am a scientist by profession, so naturally I try to draw my conclusions on Harris’s hawk training using the scientific method whenever that is possible. Inevitably, because of the modest number of Harris’s hawks I have flown, a good deal of intuition creeps into the equation, too. Consider what is written below to be one person’s (informed) opinion.
Let me say from the outset that there is more than one "right" way to train a Harris’s hawk and end up with a highly desirable finished product. I am still learning new tricks every year and incorporating them into my "standard" training routine. I have seen exceptions to nearly every "rule," including my own training rules. I’d love to hear from you about your own views and experiences training Harris’s hawks.
The methods described in this article have worked well for me and many of my hawking buddies around the world, hunting in a wide variety of terrain for many different quarries. My comments are based on my 28 years of hawking with 31 captive-bred Harris’s hawks (with more than 3500 head of quarry taken), plus careful observation of dozens of other falconers and hundreds of Harris’s hawks. I have made more than my share of mistakes along the way, and been witness to the mistakes of many other falconers, but hopefully I can help you avoid learning everything the hard way.
The author is Toby Bradshaw and has his e-mail on the link above.