Once again I hang my head in shame of my State Legislature. Yesterday the South Dakota House voted 42 to 27 to let school boards put our children at greater risk of violent death by empowering Second Amendment devotees to strut around our schools pretending they are doing something brave and noble with their guns.
House Bill 1087, the school gunslinger bill, compounds its harms by trying to keep them secret from parents and taxpayers. Frankly, as a parent, I want to know exactly which teachers and staff in my daughter's school are carrying weapons. If one second-grade teacher has a gun in her classroom, I will demand that my daughter not be placed in that classroom. If a fellow teacher in my high school is carrying a gun, I will demand that that teacher not enter my classroom while students are present.
Yet as proponent and big shooter Rep. Charlie Hoffman (R-23/Eureka) made clear in the floor debate yesterday, one major point of the school-gunslinger bill is to keep the presence of guns in the school absolutely secret:
Other speakers emphasized the perceived security benefits of this bill. Even if very few schools arm teachers under this measure, supporters said, the ambiguity that perhaps a school might have an armed volunteer would deter shooters.
“The bad guys will have no knowledge of any school that has taken advantage of being able to have a sentinel,” said Rep. Charlie Hoffman, R-Eureka. “That alone will stop many of the people who want to create carnage from doing so” [David Montgomery, "School Sentinels Bill Passes House 42-27," Political Smoekout, 2013.01.29].
Rep. Hoffman is wrong. Parents and attentive crazed gunmen will know whether their schools are submitting to media hype and hysteria and putting their children at greater risk of death by firearm. Section 9 of HB 1087 reads thus:
Any discussion conducted by a school board regarding a school sentinel program created pursuant to this Act shall be conducted in an executive or closed meeting held in accordance with § 1-25-2 from which no printed materials or record may be made available to the public.
Any discussion.... Our open meeting laws and this clause allow discussion in private, but votes still must be public. The board cannot simply come out of executive session and say, "We hereby vote to do the thing we were talking about." The vote must be open, and the public must know what that vote is for.
And there's more: regarding a... program created... created. That's a past participle. When a school board sits down for its first discussion of a school gunslinger program, the program will not yet have been created. Therefore, under the language of the current bill, the creating discussion must be public. Parents and other taxpayers must be able to at least watch if not participate in that discussion. That initial public discussion and subsequent public vote will make clear whether a school has succumbed to Second Amendment fantasies or whether it continues to take serious its obligation to teach children in a safe, gun-free environment.
I agree with this post and that's why I stood to oppose an amendment to make the entire decision during executive session. My comment was that the intent of those who drafted the bill was to shift the conversation to the local level and that includes parents, school board members, teacher, administrators and the public involved in creating the program. However, once the decision is made to design a sentinel program that fits their districts needs, the details of the implementation of that plan are not public. The school superintendents I've spoken to want it that way, and I'm talking mainly about one who testified against the bill in committee. I asked him about this program in December and he said his main concern is that his school safety plans NOT be in the newspaper- where kids are in lockdown or any other aspect of a school safety plan that would tip off a person intending to cause harm in the building. Just the fact that it is announced a school has decided to implement a school sentinel program will serve as a deterrent similar to how the sky marshals are a deterrent though they certainly aren't on every plane.
No, Steve. No, no, no. How is it local control if the locals can't know about it? Parents must know. I must know. The school is not a plane. It's a symbol of democracy and civil discourse that you are wrecking.
Can somebody explain to me how you deter a suicide attack with the threat of death?
The only thing this bill does is make me far MORE concerned about the safety of my kids as they head to school in the morning. We have been fortunate in that South Dakota actually is quite a safe environment in which to raise our kids - this knee-jerk response makes me more concerned about them going to school than when they head to the park, McDonald's, or to WalMart. I will be encouraging our local school board to stick with the established safety procedures if this makes it through the rest of the system.
I wonder what effect publication of schools opting for the "sentinel" protocol would have on open enrolment?
Cory - do you disagree with Jim Holbeck of Harrisburg, representing the Superintendents? Should the public really know where kids are on lockdown and the mechanics of building security? That's foolishness. As a parent of THREE, and the husband of a long serving SD teacher, I would consider the ARgus printing the details of school security procedures to be beyond irresponsible and borderline aiding a criminal.
Matt, it's widely known suicidal shooters pick soft target areas so they can do as much damage as possible before checking out. There is a reason we don't see mass shootings in police stations or gun shows. Does that help? If they know they will encounter resistance it is an additional deterrent.
And Cory, no, no, no. I'm not wrecking democracy and civil discourse. Get a grip. We are encouraging democracy and civil discourse at the local level. This amazes me how fast and far you run from local control and how you want legislators in Pierre to make the big decisions for districts. I have Democrat leaders in one of my districts, names you'd recognize, saying they are for this bill and disappointed the school board association opposed it without polling their members.
"compounds its harms by trying to keep them secret from parents and taxpayers."
that must be why they tell you where the sky marshalls are? Secrecy is going to protect those schools involved in the program. It will also protect those schools that aren't involved because a shooter won't know.
I don't get the fear of legal gun owners. It's simply unwarranted.
What part of capitulating to gun industry donors are you people missing?
I agree with Larry. It's all about the profits of the gun manufacturers not kids safety.
As a grandfather of kids who are in school and my wife who is a teacher I would want to know, but the point is this bill never should have happened anyway. Putting more guns in schools is asking for trouble.
What this state needs is a overall gun control policy. Local control is always good but not on everything. The Governor and the legislature have to show some leadership on this and not just kick the can to the schol boards.
And Sibby this has NOTHING to do with the 2nd amendment.
Steve they are not targeting schools because they are soft, they target them because these are psychologically disturbed people. They often feel wrong by society, and they want to hurt society where it hurts the most. They want attention. Most school shooters target schools they went to (or go to). Columbine didn't happen because it was a soft target, it happened because two disturbed people wanted to kill people they knew, and know amount of history teachers with guns were going to make them think twice.
Matt, which is exactly why they need more protection. They are trying to put a dagger in the heart of public safety. Schools represent that.
How often are school shootings perpetrated by a random person who didn't or doesn't attend that school? How does that number compare with the school shootings perpetrated by a current/former student? In the middle school and high school settings, kids are more cunning - they will figure out who is packing heat. Are we going to change lock down procedures and sentinels every year to keep current/former students guessing? I get the point of this - it's a lot like having a dog or evidence of having a dog around your house. If a burglar has a choice between breaking into a house without a dog or a house that might have a dog, then they will probably pick the house without the dog. But if someone has been to my house and has met my dog, then they'll know the procedure - give him a steak and he'll be your best friend. Unless you can keep the lock down procedure secret from the students themselves, I don't see how you can keep it secret from the public.
Rev. Hickey,
Allow me a hypothetical. Suppose, God forbid, it had been a Sandy Hook Sunday School that had suffered the horrendous attack.
Would you as pastor remind those of your flock of Romans 8
"31 What, then, shall we say in response to these things? If God is for us, who can be against us? 32 He who did not spare his own Son, but gave him up for us all—how will he not also, along with him, graciously give us all things? 33 Who will bring any charge against those whom God has chosen? It is God who justifies. 34 Who then is the one who condemns? No one. Christ Jesus who died—more than that, who was raised to life—is at the right hand of God and is also interceding for us. 35 Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall trouble or hardship or persecution or famine or nakedness or danger or sword? 36 As it is written: “For your sake we face death all day long; we are considered as sheep to be slaughtered.” 37 No, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him who loved us. 38 For I am convinced that neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons, neither the present nor the future, nor any powers, 39 neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord."
Would you stand before your congreation and remind them of Psalm 20:7 "Some trust in chariots and some in horses, but we trust in the name of the Lord our God."
If not, would you counsel them that "God created man but Sameul Colt made them equal?"
The more I read about this law, the more it seems its advocates seem relish the role of pistolier over that of pastor.
DB, protection would be fine but this bill does not provide that. My point above was that this bill will not deter a darn thing. As for protection, sure let's take common sense steps to make schools more safe. But as Cory has already pointed out, our schools are already incredibly safe. Our state has had what, one shooting death in the last 50 years? And that was accidental. And there is the problem. We know without a doubt, from decades of research, that gun possession leads directly to an increase in unintended gun deaths in the form of accidental shootings, suicides, and homicides. There is no reason to introduce that unneeded risk into our schools. Except of course the reason Larry pointed out.
Have additional sheriff's deputies been part of this discussion? This looks like a county home rule issue to me. Why not raise property taxes pay to secure schools?
Great questions Larry. How is this going to be funded? Nobody has answered that and the media hasn't asked it
Larry, how about removing the child income tax credit and give the money to the schools? Let those with kids finally foot the bill instead of property owners?
Matt, It will deter a shooter. It will send him to a location that isn't protected that allows him to kill many before they are stopped. Why do you think mass shootings always happen in gun free zones? They go there because it is a chicken shoot.
DB, they go there for the reasons I spelled out above. You know, the ones backed up by fact, not your deterrent delusions.
http://bismarcktribune.com/news/state-and-regional/house-approves-home-rule-charter-vote-bill/article_ab4e099c-6a5d-11e2-ad4d-0019bb2963f4.html
Even by your reasons, that should mean we need more protection. Delusions are for you, Larry, Sibby, Owen, and Corey. You think the cops a mile away can save your kids.
If this bill passes, my our kids will need saving from the inherent danger that guns in our schools will represent. Day in and day out, the likelihood of a gun related incident in our schools will increase if this bill is passed. You can not say that about the status quo. Let's invest this time and effort in mental health treatment and diagnosis in schools. That would provide protection.
Corporation schools could hire
BlackwaterXeGod's Army for security:https://www.azpm.org/p/top-news/2013/1/30/22120-charter-schools-share-safety-plans/
I'm so annoyed by this decision on so many levels, it's not evidence based. First, the chances of being injured by a shooter are miniscule in comparison to the dangers of normal daily life. This is just more retarded security theater with the downside of actually bringing guns into school zones. Second, there is no existing model for this decision but it's going to be rolled out state wide. There can be no expectation for outcomes but these legislators evidently have secret knowledge about the efficacy of this approach.
These kinds of responses to irrational behavior are why I have to take off my shoes at the airport. It's just ridiculous.
[...] As to your hypothetical, LK, a good case can be made Biblically for self-defense but even if you think that case is weak there is no doubt we are morally obligated according to Scripture to intervene and defend the lives of others, especially children.
"It's a symbol of democracy and civil discourse that you are wrecking."
Cory, when will it become a symbol of a constitutional republic that contains the right to bear arms?
[...]
Allow me a follow-up. Jana made this point yesterday.
"However, there seems to be a consensus among practitioners and researchers alike that police marksmanship in real-life (scene of a crime) situations is less than desirable, something along the order of one hit for every six shots (Morrison 2002). This means that in gunfighting with actual criminals, the average police officer effectiveness is at the level of 17% proficiency. This is much less, as you will have noticed, than the 84% proficiency level required for qualification in police training. It also illustrates the problem, that real-life situations are so vastly different from training situations." http://faculty.ncwc.edu/mstevens/205/205lect02a.htm
What allows anyone to believe that the school hire pistolier will perform better than a police officer?
As I read that stat, I have a greater chance of being shot in the back by the school hired pistolier than I do being killed while looking the intruder in the eye, an act I pray God grants me the courage to do should the situation ever arise.
I'd like to know where South Dakota lawmakers get the idea that discussion of whether or not to participate in the school sentinel program can be held by school boards in executive session.
Executive sessions can be devoted to certain activities by a board or council of a governing entity -- personnel matters, student discipline, contract negotiations with staff, or marketing strategies (which really doesn't apply to schools). Rep. Hoffman can huff all he wants, but it appears that state law won't permit school boards to discuss whether to participate in school sentinel program behind closed doors. I'm hoping for some input from someone with more legal expertise than I possess, just in case I'm interpreting things incorrectly.
http://legis.state.sd.us/statutes/DisplayStatute.aspx?Statute=1-25-2&Type=Statute
The South Dakota State Legislature: the best reason you have to simply do away with public education.
LK - "What allows anyone to believe that the school hire pistolier will perform better than a police officer?"
Caveat: Still not a fan of this bill. I just don't see the need. South Dakotans possess more firearms per capita, yet have some of the lowest crime, murder, and accidental death rates with firearms.
LK, I don't know if anyone expects "pistoliers" in schools to perform better than a police officer. However, they should probably be held to the same training requirements so we might expect equivalent performance under stressfull situations.
Given the low accuracy of police under stress situations, police intervention sounds like a bad idea during an active shooting situation.
But we screamed and hollared at the police for sitting outside Columbine for 45 minutes as those boys killed their classmates methodically and unhindered.
Collateral damage (i.e. accidentally shooting a bystandard) is undesireable, but may be an unfortunately acceptable risk to end the threat of the active shooter. I'd much rather an innocent get injured/killed in the process, than to simply allow someone to continue to perpetrate violence until they run out of ammo.
In 2008 there were 680 accidental shooting deaths in the United States, with more than 15,500 shooting injuries. Given the +/- 300 Million guns owned in America, that's a pretty good statistic. The largest contributor to that statistic is improperly secured firearms in the home - children getting ahold of a parent's handgun, cleaning accidents, etc.
Accidental discharges drop dramatically among those trained with firearms use. I don't think we need to be spouting fear about a teacher or administrator with a concealed weapon shooting people. We already know people with conceal carry permits commit crimes at a lower rate than even police officers.
So stop sowing fear.
Start discussing in rational terms.
We don't need this bill - our schools are safe enough. Our time & resources are better spent elsewhere. 'nuff said.
Dave, it's my understanding that it becomes a personnel matter because at that point in the planning, who is designated and hired to serve as a sentinel, and the particulars of their responsibilites all justify executive session.
Donald - you lose when you insult the intelligence of those of us supporting this bill. It tells me you have nothing intelligent to contribute. Honestly, some of the dumbest things have been said by those who oppose the bill - comments that betray the fact that they have no idea what they are talking about when it comes to firearms.
I certainly agree we don't need this bill.
The proponents are the one's sowing fear. I am pointing out that for every fear they purport to allay, they create a new one.
Can't put god into public schools? Turn 'em into the prisons where young bullied men are destined anyway.
Let them eat lead.
"Given the low accuracy of police under stress situations, police intervention sounds like a bad idea during an active shooting situation."
So we should ban police officers?
"The proponents are the one's sowing fear."
If you listen to the testimony it was the opposition and their dreams about being stalked by armed guards who show irrational fear...fear of guns.
"some of the dumbest things have been said by those who oppose the bill"
Did you know that a gun that is unloaded, trigger removed, and firing chamber filled with wood putty can jump up and kill you. Anybody who would own such a thing is evil. Keep them out of my school.
Think DD will sign it, Sibby?
Respect is earned. Passing this bill is a step backward toward earning respect. More guns will bring on more violence. The innocent will be the victims. Hundreds of high quality and caring educators will leave education--thousands more in the future will not enter education if this leigislation is passed. We have missed our "target" in this issue of guns and school violence-that being a 20 something young white male has become suicidal/homicidal as revenge for what has been a miserable life. Treating his illness will save lives. HB1234 last year was attempt to destroy public education. HB1087 will just broaden the collaterial damage by doing the same thing.
Just curious if there are any churches that have ministers armed in the pulpit? Should Sunday school teachers pack heat to adhere to what pastor Steve says is morally obligated by scripture to protect His children.
Pastor(s)?
Sentinels can't be all places at all times. What is next Park Boards hiring Park Sentinels? movie theater sentinels? Grocery store sentinels? We eventually get enough secret sentinels, and the sentinels aren't going to be able to discern themselves from threats, and could end up having sentinels shooting sentinels before they can realize a guy is packing bc he is sentinel. Ridiculous. Bad law from people who simply can't accept that more guns is not the answer. BTW, 1,400 gun deaths in this country since Newtown.
Steve H: Wouldn't a school board have to make the determination of whether or not to participate in the sentinel program before having any discussions about personnel?
If a school district DID decide to participate, it certainly would seem that such action would also have to be made publicly, and hopefully with vigorous public input from a large audience at a school board meeting.
The school board can't privately recruit prospective teachers to be sentinels without first establishing that it is going to exert local control to follow the law (if it is approved) and participate in the program.
Plus, any decision made by the board in executive session must be revealed. The open meetings law doesn't give boards the ability to keep secret the identities of the teachers/sentinels who are employed by the public, paid by the public, and very likely armed with guns and training purchased by the public.
If my school decides to NOT participate, it wouldn't need an executive session to discuss personnel matters, since it wouldn't need sentinels. Therefore, no private meeting could be held. The board would have to take action regarding not to have sentinels in public, despite the claims of Rep. Hoffman. I think the Legislature has a problem -- it doesn't know how to interpret South Dakota laws, specifically the open meetings statute.
Again, if someone thinks differently, I'd sure like to know ... but how can a school board make a decision about whether or not to have school sentinels in executive session? Such a decision does not meet the criteria of a closed meeting. It must be public, and the citizenry deserves it to be so.
School districts have various personnel guidelines, policies and handbooks that would have to be changed. All this would have to be public information, and would have to have a recorded vote. As I recall districts publish just about everything with respect to salaries and benefits. If anyone would be compensated for this extra duty, I would expect it would have to be published. Since I would expect a sentinel program would have implications for liability and it may increase insurance costs , I would expect there would need to be a lot of vetting of anyone chosen as a sentinel. As a school board member, I would want a sentinel to undergo psychological testing and have training through a police academy. I expect an insurance carrier would be similarly concerned about training.
I would also be concerned about whether an insurance carrier would automatically drop any district that would institute this sort of program.
good points Donald. The big question is who's going to pay for this? Maybe Steve H can asnwered that if possible. Will people handle there taxes going up for this?
Either way money going to this program will be money not going for something in school;
Dana P just found this:
http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/local-news/deputies-do-paperwork-outside-douglas-county-schools-a-security-innovation-inspired-by-newtown
Steve: yes, the public should know who has guns in the school. I as a parent demand to know. My child will not be in a classroom with a gun.
And my school is not a plane. We don't need sky marshalls.
First of all, I'm not a fan of weapons in schools. As already stated accidental injuries from guns is way more likely then them actually stopping one. However because there are a ton of paranoid individuals many who serve in the legislature why not make it so non-lethal weapons such as bean bag guns or rubber bullet guns?
Also I talked to an insurance guy and he had reservations with issuing liability insurance to these schools that allow for this. Said its big problem, also said he'd be shocked if a school ok'd it without having insurance.
If your town board appoints sentinels and you are made aware of it because it's not secret are you going to home school, Mr. H?
The way I look at it is the more guns in an area, the more chance some innocent person will be shot. Look at it like this, the person going into any location will be prepared to shoot, instantly, in the case of schools, the person with the gun will have to get it out of wherever it will be take the safety off, etc. Now who is going to be shooting first?
Mr. Grudznick...you know how Howie's penchant for forcing the Lord on you drives you crazy? What did you call it...over godding? Well, the over gunning and worship/fear of the NRA is driving me crazy!
These pinheads are so afraid of the NRA and Howie's phony rating system that sound reasoning left the station a long time ago. What a bunch of cowardly spineless weenies. I thought we elected leaders...guess I was wrong.
These people are more afraid of the NRA than they are of selling out and something bad happening to our kids.
Heck, if Pastor Steve isn't packing underneath his pastoral robes in the pulpit on Sundays, he is turning his back on Scripture in protecting his flock. If his Sunday school kids are not protected by armed guards, he's turning his back on Scripture.
Pastor Steve, is that about right? I mean after all, legal gun owners have gone crazy in churches slaughtering the faithful, young and old. The faithful need to be vigilant.
How will you protect them? Sounds like prayer is a backup plan. I like it better as plan A and the whole 'we'll arm ourselves to the teeth and live in fearful paranoia' as plan Z. Sorry NRA, guns don't appear in the Bible anywhere.
BTW, where's the usury bill? Not as sexy as doing the gun and abortion thing I guess. Oh well.
WCWJU...What Caliber Would Jesus Use?
Owen, One rep responded to my question about who will pay with, "the local school district."
Donald, I don't think compensation for this position will happen. If so, why not pay an actual law enforcement officer who will have security as the sole responsibility rather than expect a school employee to work security on top of the other existing duties?
Thanks Sam. Hence the passing of the buck.
We are combating fear with fear and violence with violence. What lesson does that teach?
Do you trust every teacher in your school district? Do you trust them well enough to not use the gun as a method of intimidation? Do you know every teacher? Do you know them well enough to know that they don't have anger issues or problems that could lead to them using the gun in a violent act? Are the teachers strong enough to fend off an angry teenager who goes after their gun?
The trained armed guards at Columbine stopped nothing. The armed police force at Virginia Tech stopped nothing. The armed military members at Fort Hood Army base stopped nothing. Why do you think that teachers, for the most part a more liberal base of our population even here in South Dakota, can do what those with years of training could not.
In 30 years of research by Mother Jones not one instance was found where an armed person stopped a mass shooting. Not one! I give you the following from the Mother Jones Study.
“Moreover, we found that the rate of mass shootings has increased in recent years—at a time when America has been flooded with millions of additional firearms and a barrage of new laws has made it easier than ever to carry them in public. And in recent rampages in which armed civilians attempted to intervene, they not only failed to stop the shooter but also were gravely wounded or killed.”
“There is no evidence indicating that arming Americans further will help prevent mass shootings or reduce the carnage… To the contrary, there appears to be a relationship between the proliferation of firearms and a rise in mass shootings: By our count, there have been two per year on average since 1982. Yet 25 of the 62 cases we examined have occurred since 2006. This year alone there have already been seven mass shootings—and a record number of casualties, with more than 140 people injured and killed.”
http://wonkwire.com/2012/12/16/arming-people-doesnt-stop-mass-murders/
How many of our educators do you think have looked in the eye of another person and pulled a trigger? How many of you have? Do you think this is an easy thing to do? Do you think this will be the first reaction of people that are going to receive a basic gun safety training?
Do you want your children in a classroom with an armed teacher? Will the teacher be carrying the weapon. If so can they draw fast enough to stop a shooter carrying an assault weapon...or for that matter ANY weapon?
No? The Gun should be locked up so the kids don't get to it?
Do you think a teacher can get to a lock box and get a weapon to stop a shooter before any child is injured? Do you want them doing that or do you want them moving our children to safety?
Think long and hard about where we are headed. South Dakota should be leading the charge with an even head moving for reform in background checks, stopping mass ammunition sales, regulating sales at gun shows, working to get help to the mentally disabled and moving to take sane precautions to protect our children by upgrading school entrances with security doors at an inner and outer perimeter and security cameras.
There are better answers that aren't near as reactionary.
If this law is so needed where were all of you after Columbine? Virginia Tech?
Let's all slow down and honestly talk to people. Let's ask kids age 5-18 if they would feel safe knowing that teachers have guns on them in school. Let's talk to teachers, parents, administrators. All reactions I have seen by school officials has been overwhelmingly against this move. I feel like we are (once again) being reactive instead of pro-active.
That's my two cents.
Shane Gerlach
I wasn't even going to post having said everything that I needed to say about this dumb bill. Insurance, training, misidentification of bad guys, and the list just keeps growing and growing.
First Steve has this to say. " I asked him about this program in December and he said his main concern is that his school safety plans NOT be in the newspaper- where kids are in lockdown or any other aspect of a school safety plan that would tip off a person intending to cause harm in the building." Who would this person be that you talked to Steve?
Wouldn't an effective procedure to get the masses to respond in the best possible way also have to be rehearsed for it to be effective? I'm not saying you are a liar Steve but what principal would ever put his school in that kind of situation?
"We are in lockdown, hope for the best."
"We are in lockdown would the person with the gun please come down from her third grade room to the gym we need you."
"We are in lockdown, some of you stay in your classrooms, and some of you others hide in the johns, flip a coin."
Honestly it sounds like the old atomic bomb scare from the fifties and sixties. Ok you kids bend over and put your heads between your legs and you will be safe.
I'm going to say something here that is going to cause some problems with a lot of people. Why do we have concealed carry in the first place? Wouldn't it make more sense to show your weapon all the time if that's what you are worried about? Or are there a lot of "Dirty Harrys" out there looking to make their day?
Why not do like the cops have been doing for years and use dummies to get the attention of those that want to break the law. Let me explain what I mean. For years the law has known that an empty patrol car with a radar gun slows traffic just as well as having a real man behind the wheel. "THIS SCHOOL HAS ARMED GUARDS"
It might have and it might not have who would know?
This bill makes all of us less safe, teachers students, parents, and the community. Its just bad knee jerk law looking for the right situation to make it look good.
The Blindman
Here's some reading for those in Pierre who are afraid of voting against the NRA and felt the need to wash their hands like Pilate and kick it off to local control.
http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=C9BB4B06-A5E1-4325-9F53-99E3B2AE17D0
For you paying members of the NRA who saw their membership roster grow with free memberships, here's something for you:
http://www.businessinsider.com/nra-approval-ratings-press-conference-gun-control-video-games-media-2013-1
I'll follow with one more on how effective the NRA was with your member ship money in the next post.
Hey legislators who let the outside influencers affect your gunslinger vote...here's something to think about when it comes to cowering to the NRA and the gun nuts that are wrecking it for hunters and sportsmen and sportswomen:
http://www.americanprogressaction.org/press/release/2012/11/30/46501/release-new-polling-shows-vast-nra-spending-had-no-effect-on-election-outcomes-voters-continue-to-favor-stronger-gun-laws/
The Seattle PI reported yesterday that an off-duty Seattle police officer attending the Sturgis Rally was detained in a shooting that left a Hells Angels MC member injured early Saturday morning.
A crowd of 500-plus was jamming to the beat of rock group Judd Hoos at the aptly named Loud American Roadhouse when a number of Hells Angels members began to congregate in and around the building, said bar co-owner Dean Kinney. His employees called police just to play it safe.
"We didn't call the police because there was a fight; we called police because we just knew that it was different. We were being cautious," Kinney said. "We have almost no trouble at Sturgis. The people are so happy that you just learn to recognize when things seem a little different."
Kinney said he then heard two shots fired in quick succession.
If someone misread this situation and shot the cop that was doing the actual shooting, what would the charges be?
The Blindman
DB, why should I have any fear of legal gun owners? They never shoot anyone they aren't supposed to, do they?
So suppose I'm a disgruntled ex-student with an ax to grind. Suppose I'm like the guy who killed Norm Johnson one year ago (hey, didn't that guy own his gun legally, too?). I harbor that grudge against my old school for a long time. During that time, I obtain guns legally, I obtain the necessary LEOSC training to become a school sentinel. I become intimately familiar with my old school's security plans.
And then one day I open fire with the gun my old school let me carry inside. Revenge served oh so cold... perfect. Perfect! It would get more attention than any previous school shooting. What murderous but determined and just-rational-enough shooter could pass it up?
Matt and I still deserve to know which teachers are packing so we can keep our kids away from them. Dang—HB 1087 is just a conservative plot to drive all the liberals to homeschool, isn't it?
Tony, foul—the Legislature just voted that you can't say "retarded security theater." The proper term is "security theater with intellectual disabilities."
1400 gun deaths, Jim? Ugh. Why aren't we fixing that problem?
Grudz, yes.
Shane: slow down, talk honestly... don't combat fear with fear and violence with violence... you are the man. Or at least one of the men. A man who understands that being a man is about more than carrying a gun.
And Larry, foul on that photo and cheap shot. You know it. We are not Pat Powers. Rep. Hickey, I apologize for not catching and erasing the insult sooner. LK, I apologize for any discomfort that Rep. hickey's mistaken but understandable response caused you. I have edited the related comments.
I don't blame you, Mr H. When my granddaughter has kids could be pretty soon now I would not want them in schools where goofy teachers have guns. and they can't be fired. and the good ones aren't paid enough so they left for Wyoming. We are in one death spiral of death here aren't we?
The only thing I want fired in my school is a bad teacher... and Grudz, once again, the only thing we need to fire bad teachers is a principal who knows how to administrate and a board with the guts to do the right thing.
I don't understand the concept that an armed sentinel is going to deter someone. I can see that it might deter someone who is rational, but the guys who do this aren't the most rational people in the community. There are already plenty of cases every year of suicide by cop. The guys doing these school shootings now tend to kill themselves. I can see these sentinels attracting far more dangerous nutcases who will kill students and wait to be killed by the sentinel. In the meantime, the nutcases will come armed with even more guns and ammo.
It just seems to me the South Dakota legislature is filled with too many Barney Fifes to be taken seriously. Pathetic.
The bold and courageous legislators knew they had to do something to keep their 2nd Amendment street cred in tact (not to mention NRA money and endorsements) and decided that the locals should handle it.
Pastor Hickey, as our resident theologian, does this sound anything like Matthew 27:24?
"When Pilate saw that he could gain nothing, but that rather a tumult was made, he took water, and washed his hands before the multitude, saying, I am innocent of the blood of this just person: see you to it."
Seems like history did not treat Pilate too well for his actions.
I don't know any bible verses but I think this whole thing is probably just some sick sort of payback for being whiners.
As long as I'm quoting religious leaders of the right wing, NRA's Wayne LaPierre testified in front of Congress that "Gun Free Zones were reasonable" in 1999.
Just guessing he changed his mind after the assault weapons ban, supported by Ronald Reagan, was allowed to expire and millions of more guns were put on the streets at the urging of the NRA.
So now he's saying that there are so damn many guns in the hands of crazy people who we think deserve to legally exercise their 2nd Amendment rights that those "Gun Free Zones" aren't safe anymore...so we need more guns!
I see what you did there NRA...well played.
Speaking of right wing religious leaders...when will Grover Norquist seal the deal with a call for a pledge from lawmakers to eliminate sales tax on firearms and ammo?
Heck, he might even call for tax breaks on assault weapons and large clips as they are necessary to the good order of the country. Not to mention they seem to be creating jobs.
Sadly, to many on the right, that isn't a crazy thought.
Oh crap...I just gave some of the idiots in Pierre an idea for a new bill!
Wait for it in 5-4-3-2-1...
Pierre legislator calls "Gunslinger Bill" a job creator for education!
Film at 10:00 when Pierre's KUKU Action News team interviews state representative Floyd R. Turbo* - (R) Crazytown, SD.
Turbo: "We've always been dedikated to skools and lernin and stuff. We're creating new jobs for real Mericans who have a gun and the bullet guys too. But don't worry, there will be no contagious contacts offered to any of our sentinels who will not be represented by union thugs...and we'll give them bonuses if they can do their guzzintas and minuses without taking their shoes off and stuff."
KUKO: "So why do we need these new armed sentinels in our schools?"
Turbo: "Cuz freedom...and liberty...and stuff. Oh yeah and Kenya...and Gubmint motors...and getting the gubmint out of our Medicare...and...and...you know that stuff we're sposed to say. That stuff."
KUKO: "Thanks Floyd for your valuable insight, we'll take your word for it. We will try to find an opposing rational voice on this subject, but now let's go back to our Pierre studios for the weather where we learn that hell..I mean Pierre...will actually freeze over tomorrow."
* For those not seasoned enough in years to know Floyd R. Turbo, you should meet him...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fqXDN3Scsls
Blindman , it was Jim Holbeck, Superintendent of Harrisburg and chair of the association of school superintendents. They feel strongly about non public security plans.
Selective hearing, Steve: Holbeck also said his group is strongly against this legislation.
Holbeck also says the Legislature should be involving school administrators and teachers in policy (not ignoring our overwhelming testimony against your bad ideas) and focusing on finding the money we need to do our jobs better.
Please, do keep citing Jim Holbeck as your advocate... and adopt his policy agenda whole, not just the one line that you think you can put as a nice blue bow on your big bad Barney-Fife bill. (Donald, I like the Fife reference! Someone needs to put that on the record in Pierre.)
I didn't mean to imply Holbeck was for the bill, he certainly isn't. We were just on point and that point was relating to the need for executive session which he is for when it relates to school security procedures.
Listening to you guys who oppose this and your wild imaginations about what this would look like is mildly entertaining, but more frustrating. You'd think this was a plan to put bullets in the hands of bumbling mall cops on Segiways. Crazy fears about people leaving guns laying around or leaving them overnight in their stapler drawer. Obviously people making those comments have no experience with firearms or people who are trained to use them.
Read the Argus this morning - front page.... 24 states already allow non-police people to have guns in school - Hawaii has no laws prohibiting guns in schools. None of the scary scenarios we are hearing have ever materialized. Parents aren't taking their kids out of these schools.
Let's relax, beef up security if and as needed in the various districts, let's get more trained mental health people in the schools, let's restrict building access and as a society let's have zero tolerance for death glorifying music, video games, movies, etc.
I want to see the mental health community deliver the various early warning signs with regard to a person with a propensity to violence----- one of which, btw, is cruelty to animals which my wife mentioned the other day from her years in the classroom. Maybe I will vote for the animal cruelty bill if it comes before me. Violence is violence.
Sorry Steve you can try to justify this all you want, but it's a bad idea. I don't think to many school boards will approve guns in school mainly for the finanical reasons. I've heard insurance carriers might drop schools who adopt this because of the liability issue. Plus, thanks to the cuts made to education schools just can't afford it or if they would implement it they'd have to cut something to pay for it.
Education is under attack by Pierre and this is just one more example of that.
"Standard right wing tactic: if you don't really have an argument, fixate obsessively on an irrelevant detail.
cont'd -- sometimes hard to avoid, but whenever you get sucked into arguing the irrelevant detail, you've ceded the debate."
RT @tomtomorrow
Sweet that Fleming believes he's above the fray.
Steve, you mention a whole bunch of other reforms that would do more good, pose less danger, and which aren't getting nearly as much attention in Pierre as enabling gunslingers to enact their "sentinel" fantasies in our schools.
Now, as you say, on point about Holbeck: South Dakota open meetings law does not currently include security plans as part of the justifiable topics for executive session. School boards get to discuss legal matters, personnel matters, and specific student issues behind closed doors. Everything else is in the open. Are our security plans in peril from public knowledge right now? No. Building administrators may formulate specific security procedures and keep that information confidential, and I can see Holbeck's reasoning there. But we're talking about things like who calls whom, where we move the kids, which doors get closed, etc. As I think about what I know about Spearfish's security plans, I have trouble thinking of anything that any parent or citizen couldn't find out pretty easily or that, if publicized, would create much more if any danger.
Armed guards in the building are different. We may not know the schedule of our resource officer, but everybody knows who she is (the tall gal in the uniform with the gun in plain sight). Especially in the small towns where you seem to think HB 1087 has the greatest support, the grapevine will trump HB 1087's unnecessary secrecy clause, and everybody will know who's carrying a gun.
And we parents have a right to know which teachers are carrying a gun so we can choose whether or not to subject our children to that daily danger.
Of course, this would be a lot simpler if we could just stick with knowing that none of our teachers are carrying guns.
[Hey, Larry, could you check your e-mail? Is it working? I'm getting "undeliverable" errors.]
Reverend Hickey,
Listening to you advocate the fact that this bill will make schools safer is far more amusing than you can know. I enjoy reading tortured logic as much as the next guy.
You and others advocate that parents should have the final say about matters concerning their children. Yet you have never answered Cory's concern about keeping his child out of a room with a pistolier. Do only gun proponents have parental rights? My young'uns are graduated. One has spent two years living abroad so I don't think I sheltered them two much, but I would have pulled them from any class or classroom with a civilian carrying a gun.
I haven't seen an answer to the insurance issue. I also have never heard anyone cogently explain why one needs to protect the second amendment by stomping on the first
I'm beginning to believe that guns have moved past being a fetish and are becoming an idol for many conservatives.
"Crazy fears about people leaving guns laying around or leaving them overnight in their stapler drawer."
Crazy Steve?
"The security officer who recently left his gun unattended in a school restroom will keep his job at the Lapeer charter school where he works, school officials said."
http://www.mlive.com/news/flint/index.ssf/2013/01/lapeer_security_officer_who_le.html
A quick Google search of "gun accidents in police stations" will show you how even highly trained officers in secure environments can accidently discharge their weapons.
Crazy? Don't be so dismissive Pastor Steve. Remember, you work for us.
Blindman , it was Jim Holbeck, Superintendent of Harrisburg and chair of the association of school superintendents. They feel strongly about non public security plans.
"non public security plans" Steve what does that have to do with the subject at hand, security at "public schools?"
Is a church public or non public? Have you had the same discussion at your church that you are having in Pierre? And if you have did you designate someone to do the killing in case of the attack?
If your faith is strong enough it sure seems like your god would protect you from evil. On the other hand if the faith that you have is a little shaky maybe you should go ahead and implement an alternative protection plan for the church, "appointed killer."
I don't mean to make anyone mad here but until you make an effort to change how people treat each other in their formative years, "bullying" all the gun legislation in the world wont help the problem. And if it isn't a gun it could very easily be some other kind of weapon that is used.
The Blindman
Hickey does not work for you Jana, he represents you. The choice is yours and there are far worse, though Steve frequently dances to the company tune.
.
Swirl in your problems as Hickey is about the end of any meaningful legislative discourse Madville will have with name calling and off subject attacks.
Fascinating discussion. Lots of fear.
I think Cory is right that the decision to implement such a program at the local level must be made in open session. I think a parent also has a right to know whether a particular teacher is a participant or not - and choose whether or not they want their child in that teacher's classroom.
But we live in a nation of 315 million. The number of mass killings in schools is not large, but they are heavily reported, generating sensationalist emotional reactions that drive audience numbers. Both this bill and the cries for gun control are based on emotional reactions rather than careful thought.
I am, on the whole, in favor of the bill because it puts the decision at the local school board level. I also think the overwhelming majority of school boards will pass on this option because it isn't worth the hassle given the actual low threat environment, so we are not in any imminent danger of having teacher-vigilantes trying to quick draw on each other in the hallways as students dive for cover. So if the state Senate kills it, I won't cry too loudly.
PNR,
I'm guessing that you're claiming that the "fear" is from the side of those of us opposing civilian pistoliers in schools. This bill sprang from an irrational fear that there are hordes of people planning to attack children in Prairie City, South Dakota. If fear mongering is a valid charge for those of us who oppose the bill, then it's a valid charge to make against supporters as well.
I oppose this bill because I believe that there are spaces that should be gun free, schools and churches chief among them. I walk down the halls of my school every day without fear. I expect to do so if this bill becomes law even though I think the increased presence of guns reduces safety. As you say, however, the risks will be minimal.
My biggest fear this bill and subsequent discussion has produced is that I may have been subscribing to an incorrect worldview for most of my adult life. I tend to believe that Jung and his archetypes provide a clearer method of viewing the world than Freud and his analysis. The desire of gun advocates to insert guns into every public space, however, makes me wonder if some of Freud's analysis may not have been correct.
LK,
No. The fear is on all sides. That's why I said, "Both this bill and the cries for gun control are based on emotional reactions rather than careful thought." I also point out that the actual threat level is really very low.
What I like about the bill is that it puts the decision at the local level, where the folks who make the decision will have to live with the consequences of it most directly. But I do not think it will do much of anything to either increase the danger, or reduce the threat, because I believe most school boards will think the hassle of arming and training teachers, coupled with increased liability and the difficulties of controlling the weapons (making sure only authorized people have access to them), is just too great given that minimal threat level. It would be like buying full coverage for a car that never leaves the garage.
Conservative christian nationalist types are chortling that the country is under attack from inside: think of it as confirmation bias.
Having hacked a nation from someone else's ancestral lands it should come as no shock that red states compare their struggles with Israel's own security apparatus.
We are killing ourselves because we are hated by our own and making schools prisons ensures the end of days.
I am wondering why are we spending so much time on this? Gun free zones don't work. Dis-arming law abiding people doesn't work. Gun bans don't work. How many people must die before it is understood? The only way a gun free zone will work, is if you remove all guns, from the world, from everyone.
Having a someone who has the same firearm training as law enforcement who is armed in the school would be the very last line of a defense from armed intruder looking to kill as many as possible before taking their own life. There is much more that needs to be done. We also need to address reporting of mental health issues, streamline social services so the correct services get to the people that need them, when they need them, improve firearm safety through education, partner with our law enforcement to make our communities safer.
I have been trying to avoid a 'What if' situation Please consider this possibility:
Mr. and Mrs. A lived in rural South Dakota farm. Their kids B, C, and D all went to XYZ High school. The school is in an outlaying part of the county, a good ½ hour from the county seat. When the economy tanked they both lost their good paying jobs. Mr. A seemed to have found a good job in the manufacturing and distribution field. Mrs. A didn’t ask many questions. There was money coming in and the bills were getting paid. Mr. A started to legally buy a number of hand guns and semi-automatic rifles for personal and home defense. Early in the school year, Mr. A is arrested for making and selling drugs and sent away to prison for long, long time. Mrs. A, who has no idea of what was going on, is not arrested and after a brief investigation allowed to continue to live in her home. To protect the children, Social Services remove the children from the home, and place them in foster care; they are still allowed to attend the same school. The Sheriff informs the school of the situation. They have come to an agreement that the best course of action is to limit access to the school through a single access point and the school will call the sheriff directly on his cell phone if there is any problems.
Time passes, Mrs. A’s bills are piling up, she is holding down several part time jobs. She is attempting to work with Social Services for the return of her children. So far Social Services are reluctant to return the children to the spouse of a confessed drug dealer. For some reason unknown to Mrs. A, Social Services have become increasingly difficult to work with. The Sheriff's department has made several ‘health and welfare’ checks on Mrs. A in the past several months, just to make sure she is doing okay. During those visits found nothing that indicated she was any more or any less of a threat to the public. While there has been no mention of the firearms, the Sheriff knew she had them. He even stop by while she was practicing with the handguns.
The Sheriff’s department has been hit with some major budget cuts; they have had to furlough half the staff and farm out their phone support. They currently have one sheriff and two deputies. Because there hasn't been any problems recently in XYZ High School beyond some parking disputes. They felt there wasn't much of a threat, thus no need to make any changes.
Mrs. A has a court hearing to determine if she is fit enough to get custody of her children, or at least some visitation. There was some back and forth, the judge finally rules against Mrs. A. The sheriff says some encouraging words and mentions he might stop by later for a cup of coffee; however he has to tend to a situation on the far side of the county. He calls the school to let them know what the judge ordered on his way out to a traffic accident When Mrs. A gets home, she is greeted with a notice that house is being foreclosed on by the bank.
No kids, no home, debt piling up, and in her mind her wonderful family is fractured, and her life has been left out to dry. After some time thinking it over, she believes there is only one way out. But how could she leave her kids to live with that shame; she would have to take them with her.
At this point no law has been broken, however, all the pieces for a disaster are there. This is the time to intercede, this is the time step in and say 'S T O P'
Mrs A drives to the school and takes out the telephone/internet pedestal in the front by parking her car on it. Then walks into the school, the school staff won't buzz her in, so she shatters the glass in the front door with the pistol hand grip. It take a few minutes for staff to realize the phones don't work. They go for their cell phone, by that time Mrs. A has already shot them all.
She is not hysterical, or frantic, rather Mrs. A is calm, cool, in control and on a mission. Anyone trying to stop her is shot, sometimes twice. Mrs. A would enter a classroom, kill everyone, reload then move on to the next one. She knows there is no turning back, and she is not leaving the building alive. Mrs. A has seen enough media reports of previous events, she knows how this will end. She may have even sent a letter to a newspaper or video to a news station explaining why. The word travels through the school to go to lock down. That does not stop her. In one class room a teacher jumps in front of her, she empties a magazine into him. A student (who is later shot and killed) snaps a cell phone picture of the event and later leaked to the news.
A few minutes later, because of crappy cell service, the Sheriff finally figures out that there is something is happening at the school, and he a good 30 minutes away. He calls for assistance only to find they are just as far. By the time he get to the school over 75% of the staff, students and visitors are dead or drying, and Mrs. A finished her mission, all three of her kids are dead, saving the last round for herself.
Yes, it can happen here. It would more tragic.
What would be your answer to the parents of those students? “They were teachers, they have no business trying to protect the students from a rampaging intruder”
Awesome post.
Have you evesr considered writing an e-book or
guest authoring on other websites? I have a blog based on the same topics you discuss
and would really like to havge you share soome stories/information.
I know my subscribers would enjoy your work. If you are
even remotely interested, feel free to send me an e-mail.
The house buyer haven't been left behind they too are feel the
same thing happen for the buyer and they may be struggling to buy house.
Always double-check your projects before sending
it out. Online lenders may offer you free quotes and great terms,
despite having poor credit. Just look for a good contracting website so you will get the contractor calculator somewhere
on the main page.
mc, every time there is a mass murder the same comments are re-hashed over and over again, yet nothing changes.
Every day somewhere in the U.S. there is a murder. The weapons used range from a motor vehicle, firearms, knives, hard objects, bare hands, poisoning, and etc., but there is not as much outcry or anything about those.
What needs to be done to reduce murders/killing? Putting firearms in everyone's hands is not going to reduce the number of mass or individual murders.
Violence and killings have become an acceptable form of entertainment and a way to cope with anger, frustration, fear, and so forth.
Unless we start addressing the culture of violence, so to speak, and teaching people how to cope effectively with the negative things that happen in life, I don't think there is any hope in reducing the number of mass or individual murders.