Missed your comment the first time around. I had to laugh out loud, thanks, brother.
“Do you want motivation? Well, guess what? A reason to act is not a zing you get from a stimulant packed pre-workout drink. It’s not something that makes you overly emotional because emotionality is a liability. Man’s primary motivation, the reason to take action, is life itself, to first survive, then to thrive. Thriving is a heightened state or quality of being; it is to grow or develop successfully; to flourish or succeed. As a human you must embody the tactical virtues and live the quest of constant and never-ending improvement (kaizen), especially in truth and morality as well as health and tactical skill. Shut out all distractions, abandon relationships that hold you back, and “LIVE LIFE AGGRESSIVELY!” To live life aggressively you need a plan; YOUR plan, and you need to execute that plan for your own success, not others. Execute aggressively!”
Thought for the day: If you are going to be an asshole, perhaps you should keep up your guard.
Thought for the day (2): really? seriously? , probably a fake stunt, but, based on the dumb shit I have in gyms over the years, you never know.
Thought for the day: I have been fortunate to obtain a little rank over the years. Now that is great, however, it forces me to work for other people of higher rank. From my personal experience,the higher you go up in rank, the less oxygen you have, forcing you to be deprived and turning you into an asshole. I am sure each of you have to deal with someone like this.
I never “ordered” anyone to do anything. I always “asked.”
I had a friend who was an officer in the German special forces and he told me how one day an American officer was observing them train. The American asked him why he didn’t yell at his troops. My friend replied that if he needs to yell at them to get them to do their jobs then there is a problem.
I suppose a higher ranked person feels they have a lot on their plate. They are more likely to be put in the crucible, think David Petraeus, the commanding general in Afghanistan who got sacked by Obama for public statements that wouldn’t have made the news if spoken by a corporal.
Curious what your actual examples of this in history are.
Is this actually possible? I’ve considered getting a gun + training for self-defense because the place I live in is virtually guaranteed to have a natural disaster and has a pretty high population density, but this is something that’s always on my mind.
The police need to make split-second decisions. I don’t know how I’m supposed to identify myself as being harmless to them short of dropping the gun and raising my hand high into the air.
if you are unfortunate enough to be present when an active shooter has entered your child’s elementary school and starts slaughtering kids, if you are armed, you must take action. It would be your moral duty. Throwing the gun down is of course the best thing to do, but, if the shooter is still active and you are engaged, you will not be able to focus on the shooter and watch your back at the same time. Combat without support is the most dangerous of all, so, the green or orange vest may give you an extra couple of seconds to be identified as a friendly.
now, this is just my opinion, but, several instructors who I respect have advised to take this simple precaution.
And yet they still won’t arm teachers that show a vested interest in carrying protection.
The armed teacher argument has not been crafted in a manner to withstand the negative argument against it.
As an comparison, when pilots were allowed sidearms, my 767 pilot friend said their prospect pool was 95% military (20 years ago), thus no resistance to an armed group who were trained, qualified, and be assumed to be willing to use deadly force.
Compare to Susie, the brand new art teacher, being told her 9mm was to be used to kill interlopers. Or Mike, the disgruntled English teacher whipping out his Glock because of a sassy teen gets in his face.
Armed teachers look pretty scary when there is no discussion of certification, continued proficiency, usage protocol, etc. Implement these and neutralize the negatives arguments to a degree. But at least, harden the campus first - fencing (gasp,), centralized visitation entry point, steel classroom doors, and such.
Just like at home, gun should be final layer of protection.
Just read this article recently, pretty neutral in my opinion considering it’s GQ. Gist of it is, most states are not waiting for congress to take action, they are doing it themselves. Several states have implemented systems for armed teachers, including a training and certification process.
Found the article by accident, decent read.
Thanks for the find.
Compare to a retired teacher l heard about that carried a .32 in her purse. No training, not secured in any fashion, likely unknown to either school or leo.
I think arming teachers fall into the same issue that I’m concerned with.
It’s not like teachers wear things that visibly identify them as a teacher.
And, if they do, what’s to stop an active shooter from taking it for themselves or wearing it beforehand because they know the concept?
I believe that if someone is properly trained, they have the potential to make a difference in the 4 or 5 minutes it takes for police to arrive at the scene of an active shooter (or 10 minutes, if you’re looking at Parkland). I also believe that if someone is properly trained, the likelihood of someone nabbing their gun decreases significantly.
Now, if we just decided to make it mandatory for teachers to carry guns, I would acknowledge that a problem exists there. However, if you are trained and willing to carry a weapon, you have to be willing to do two additional things:
1.) use it if the need arises
2.) protect it with your life. This may ensue a personal fight or even the death of either party involved if somebody decides to make a move for your gun.
The more trained you are, the less likely it is that an active shooter grabs your gun. Besides, if someone is planning on shooting up the school they go to, I wouldn’t imagine that they’re going to predicate their success on getting hold of a trained man’s gun.
An aside: I firmly believe that if you gave ex-Marine sharpshooters jobs as school security officers that you’d see significantly fewer shootings.
I don’t think anyone has seriously argued that all teachers should be armed, that’s idiotic. It’s the way the anti-gun crowd keep trying to frame the argument to make it sound stupid.
The argument is that all teachers who want to be armed, and take on the responsibility of keeping their students safe should be. I don’t know more than a dozen or so teachers, but I imagine the number that step forward will probably actually be low. But if only 20% were armed and trained, that would be a dozen or more in the average school. That would have a massive deterrent effect. Most would be mass murderers would probably go looking for a softer target.
My point exactly.
[quote=“liftangryordie500, post:1852, topic:232312, full:true”]
I believe that if someone is properly trained, they have the potential to make a difference in the 4 or 5 minutes it takes for police to arrive at the scene of an active shooter (or 10 minutes, if you’re looking at Parkland). I also believe that if someone is properly trained, the likelihood of someone nabbing their gun decreases significantly. [/quote]
I don’t disagree with this. My concern is how are the police supposed to know that someone with a gun on a school that raised the alarm is a teacher or an active shooter.
Indeed, that was my question towards Idaho to begin with. How are the police supposed to know that the brightly colored vest I’m wearing is supposed to signify that I’m harmless to them?
I tend to look at the cons of everything, even things that I ostensibly support. I support the idea of giving military veterans (that go through extensive checks) a security guard job at schools. But, again, this raises a couple questions-
1- Are the extensive checks enough? Many shooters showed no history of violence or mental illnesses.
2- How will the police know that the security guard is really a security guard? We already have a couple instances where the police responded to an active shooter situation and then accidentally shot security guards that were originally there. Presumably these security guards are wearing something that signifies that they’re security, and they got shot anyways.
Well, when you hear police enter the building, the first thing you do is put the gun down. Your students should also be able to vouch for you. Also…that’s why I believe the vest was suggested to signify the difference between teachers and students. Sure, that vest could be fabricated or replicated, but an active shooter sure as hell isn’t going to put their his down when police attempt to apprehend him.
Also…police with itchy trigger fingers are going to shoot who they’re going to shoot regardless of what’s being worn. That’s also why new police officers shouldn’t be the guys sent down to kill an active shooter (especially in a sensitive, circumstantial situation such as that).
I don’t disagree here either. But I think the main thing to evaluate here is that we don’t see veterans flipping out and killing kids. More often than not, they turn the gun on themselves (at the rate of 22 suicides per day). If anything, even though some veterans may suffer from disorders such as PTSD, I would argue that they’re still better trained to deliver a bullet to the right person more quickly than anybody else (and that includes cops).