This is a followup on a topic from yesterday — the one about Phil Noble’s attempts to hang the NRA around James Smith’s neck in the wake of last week’s school shooting in Florida.
Have you seen the bogus “NRA Report Card” Noble’s campaign created for Smith? It’s above. Phil tweeted it out with a volley of the angry, chip-on-the-shoulder, self-righteous rhetoric that has become the calling card of South Carolina’s own Bernie Sanders: “I’m dismayed by hollow, hypocritical words of condolences by politicians like James Smith. Smith has voted over and over again with the NRA, getting A ratings and now tries to fool people that he is on the right side….” And so forth.
Yep, James Smith has gotten good ratings from the NRA a couple or three times, generally because of voting on a noncontroversial bill along with pretty much everyone else in the Legislature, including Democrats Noble has supported in the past. One such item he mentioned when I asked him about it yesterday was a bill (I think it was this one) that said it you build a house way out in the country next to an existing shooting range, you can’t bring a nuisance action for noise against the owners and operators. That sort of thing.
The thing is, James Smith isn’t someone who blanches at the site of a firearm. He knows exponentially more about assault rifles with large magazines than most of the people who own AR-15s because he’s used them himself — in combat (you know, for the purpose for which such weapons were intended). The Democratic Party used to be full of guys like him. Not so much anymore. And no, the GOP doesn’t have a lot of room to brag on that score, either.
But still, there was something fishy about that “report card.” Rep. Mandy Powers Norrell, a Smith ally (which is to say, a normal, mainstream Democrat) decided to dig into those “grades.”
The phony report card cited two sources. One was the NRA itself, and since you had to be a member to look up the scores, she turned to the other source, VoteSmart.org. There, on the James Smith ratings page under the “Guns” heading, you’ll find the apparent source material for Noble’s “report card.”
The site said that in 2012, the NRA gave Smith a rating of 79 percent — which Noble recorded as an “A-minus.” I know South Carolina recently watered down the values of letter grades, but I hadn’t seen anything this lenient.
But that was nothing compared to Noble’s generosity in 2016. That year, the NRA rated Smith at 43 percent. Noble called that a “C.”
Rep. Norrell tweeted, “My kids would love it if those were C’s and A-‘s, but I know of nowhere that that’s the case.”
Yeah… I don’t know of any place like that, either…
Related Posts
For his own part, rather than respond to Noble, Smith put out this release talking about what he thought should happen in response to the latest school shooting:
For whatever reason, it took Noble a whole day to claim that HE had forced Smith to take a stand. That boy’s kind of slow on the draw. Of course, he did it in his usual crabby, ungracious way: “While I am glad @jamessmithsc has finally come around to an assault weapons ban, he has failed to lead on this issue for over a decade in the legislature. Only now, when the public is crying for change and his A ratings from the NRA are exposed does he try to lead?”
You can’t please this guy….
Well, there is a bit of truth in Noble’s statements. What has Smith done up to this point in terms of pushing for all the things he mentions? And why do we have to wait for “When I’m governor…”? Let’s see some of that leadership that will have to cross party lines NOW. If he hasn’t got the ability to lead today, why should we wait until next year to see if he can do it with just a job title change – one that is not guaranteed? Do it now!
I do agree with this statement from James:
“While our words of condolence and comfort are heartfelt, we show the strength and fullness of our hearts through our actions. ”
Actions do speak much louder than words.
“And why do we have to wait for “When I’m governor…”
Rep. Smith is a Democrat in the House. The House in South Carolina is in firm control of one party. If party leadership isn’t interested in a bill, that bill is dead regardless of its merits.
The South Carolina Republican Party controls all nine of the nine statewide offices and holds large majorities in the South Carolina Senate and the South Carolina House of Representatives. Republicans also hold both of the state’s U.S. Senate seats and six of the state’s seven U.S. House of Representatives seats.
Political control of South Carolina state offices in 2016 is under Republican trifecta control. As a result of the 2016 election, South Carolina remained under Republican control. Republicans have held the trifecta since 2003.
Oh, Doug, give it a rest, all right? Stop condemning people for failing to be God Almighty and make the world over in six days.
James Smith IS leading, all the time. Yesterday, while all this back and forth was going on, the Legislature was taking up his eminently smart bill to lift the cap on solar energy. You know, DOING something instead of just griping and bitching about SCANA.
The bill, by the way, which has significant bipartisan support, was carried over to next week.
Meanwhile Phil Noble, who has never held office, hasn’t done squat, except criticize…
Ok, I’ll wait til next year to see if he has the chops to stop gun violence. Apparently it’s too big of a challenge to address now. Good to know his limitations.
Or instead of using this tragedy for political purposes, he could stand up now and say “Here’s my bill with these specific items, who is opposed to it?” and then publicly take them on. Nope, gotta think long term.. gotta think about November and crossover votes… gotta think strategically, not morally.
Your proposal is ridiculous and isn’t serious.
If he, as a Democrat in a House totally controlled by
Republicans, proposes anything g on guns, it’s a DEAD STOP issue.
You’ll be spouting off about how his proposal is just theatrical stunts because nothing he proposes can be passed.
That one statement, “Make it a crime to threaten use of a weapon on school grounds,” is unclear to me. Does he mean making it a crime to threaten anywhere (eg. at home, hanging out with friends) to use a weapon on school grounds, or does he mean making it a crime to use such a threat while on school grounds? Does the treat have to be credible (a teen threatening to “nuke” his teacher is not credible)?
Smith is getting annoying with this constant bragging he does about his military service. We get it James you served in the military. You don’t have to constantly beat us over the head with it.
He didn’t say anything about it, bud. I did. I’m sorry his service irritates you so…
Check out his website:
“James is a graduate of the University of South Carolina and University of South Carolina School of Law. As a Major in the South Carolina Army National Guard, his twelve (12) month combat tour in Afghanistan makes him one of a small number of public officials nationwide who have served the United States in combat. Smith’s military service shaped his outlook on civic service, as well as his appreciation for those who sacrificed before him. ”
I count 4 references to his military service in this one paragraph. In the previous paragraph he went on about his family’s long history of serving in the military.
You mean his bio on his website lists his biographical information? Crazy. What kind of man lists his biography on his website and prioritizes his public and military service? Has to be a first……. ahem…….
Obviously the military, his service, and the military service of his family is important to him.
Bragging? No.
Bragging is talking constantly about how smart you are and how you are the “smartest and greatest” and everything you do is “the biggestL and “best”……
And so called conservatives have proven they absolutely love ❤️ that style.
That’s right, Bud. Do you have a problem with that? If so, why? It is a HUGE part of who he is.
James Smith didn’t just “serve in the military.” He was a JAG officer who, after 9/11, wanted to fight. He sought a transfer to the infantry, but they told him he couldn’t do that. Finally someone said OK, you can resign your commission as an officer, enlist and go through all the basic training and see if you can handle it. He did that. He was, I think, 38 years old humping it through basic with 18-year-olds. He made it through, went through advanced infantry training, regained his commission along the way, then went to fight in Afghanistan.
I honestly don’t know of anyone else who did something like that. It was extraordinary, and possibly the first thing any reasonable person would mention in trying to describe who James Smith is.
I’m sorry you don’t get that. Really sorry…
He almost never mentions it unless asked or one of his fellow service members brings it up to him.
Btw, my dad served in the Army for 22 years. He never ran for office. He talks about his experiences all the time. Doesn’t seem to bother anyone that I know of. Hs asked about it all the time from friends. The conservatives I know are always bragging about military service members and their sacrifices.
Maybe Phil Noble can explain what NRA ratings have to do with a shooting where the armed officer on site hid outside the whole time.
The armed officer has now become the scapegoat for the NRA. Sure he should have attempted to confront the shooter, that was his job. But he was heavily outgunned. A semi-automatic AR-15 vs a 10 shot Glock doesn’t sound like much of a contest. Put’s lie to the obnoxious meme that the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun. What’s next? An armed cadre of math teachers carrying Tommy guns? With the NRA in charge that’s coming.
Pretty much.
But even being outgunned (and he sure was), it sounds like they saw him on video hid8mg out in the parking lot or near there so I don’t think the guy can get away from that.
But yes, he didn’t have a chance. Agree.
A trained officer lost his nerve, but there are fools out there who think a teacher with a Bachelor’s degree in Humanities and a handgun will be able to stop an intruder with an AR-15. Right.
Are you saying that a teacher with a BA in the Humanities is incapable of defending himself/herself and their class? It’s about mindset. The principles for self-defense and the defense of others are as follows (From Jeff Cooper) not me:
1. Alert: “A commander may be forgiven for being defeated, but never for being surprised.” This maxim is among the first to be impressed upon new lieutenants. It is equally applicable to individuals who aspire to a degree of physical security in today’s embattled society. Alertness is, to some extent, an inherent personality trait, but it can nonetheless be learned and improved. Once we accept that our familiar and prosaic environment is in fact perilous, we automatically sharpen our senses.
2. Decisive: When it becomes evident that you are faced with violent physical assault — your life (or others in your charge) depends upon your selecting a correct course of action and carrying it through without hesitation or deviation. There can be no shilly-shallying. There is not time. To ponder is quite possibly to perish.
3. Aggressive: In defense we do not initiate violence. We must grant our attacker the vast advantage of striking the first blow, or at least attempting to do so. But thereafter we may return the attention with what should optimally be overwhelming violence.The victory of an explosive response by an obviously weaker party against superior force is easy to observe in the animal world. A toy poodle runs a German Shepherd off his property. A tiny kingbird drives off a marauding hawk. A forty-pound wolverine drives a whole wolf pack away from a kill that the wolves worked hours to bring down. Aggressiveness carries with it an incalculable moral edge in any combat, offensive or defensive. And the very fact that the assailant does not expect aggressiveness in his victim usually catches him unaware.
4. Speed: Napoleon said, “I may lose a battle but I will never lose a minute.” Personal defense speeds this up. We must say, “I may lose this fight, but I will not lose this second!” Apparently overwhelming strength is of no importance if it is not brought to bear before it is preempted. The perfect defense is a counterattack that succeeds before the assailant discovers that he has bitten off more than he can chew. Therefore, if you are attacked, retaliate instantly. Be sudden. Be quick. Speed is your salvation.
5. Coolness; The ability to remain cool under pressure comes more easily to some people than to others. But it is in no sense out of anyone’s reach. In fact it is the first qualification of a man that Kipling calls for in his immortal poem If. It is illustrated beautifully every time you see a quarterback calmly select and hit his receiver while under the threat of more than one thousand pounds of rock-hard, cat-quick muscle only a step away. It’s a matter of will. If you know that you can keep your head, and that you must keep your head, you probably will keep your head.
6. Ruthlessness: Anyone who willfully and maliciously attacks another without sufficient cause deserves no consideration. While both moral and legal precepts enjoin us against so-called “overreaction,” we are fully justified in valuing the life and person of an intended victim more highly than the life of a pernicious assailant The attacker must be stopped. At once and completely. Just who he is, why he has chosen to be a criminal, his social background, his ideological or psychological motivation, and the extent of injury he incurs as a result of his acts — these may all be considered at some future date.
7. Surprise: y doing what our assailant least expects us to do, we may throw him completely off. As we have seen, what he usually least suspects is instant, violent counterattack, so the principle of aggressiveness is closely tied to threat of surprise.
It’s mindset. If you have the right mindset, you will be prepared. If you train, you will be trained. No one “rises to the occaision” in a situation like this. You fall back to the level of your training. This is why training and mindset are paramount. Long way of saying: I’ll take a humanities teacher with a sidearm who volunteered to take that sidearm to protect himself and his students if they have the right mindset over some law enforcement officer who is assigned to a school because he’s too slack for patrol work, and only goes to the range once a year to qualify with his sidearm after 15-20 shots. I’ll take the humanities teacher who practices, trains, and has the right mindset.
Heck, if he’s a humanities teacher, he’ll probably very easily grasp the right mindset.
I can’t think of a teacher who wouldn’t do everything they could to protect their kids–exactly what the teachers at MSD High did. They took bullets, provided safe havens, and hid and comforted kids during the attack. But it’s not what we signed up to do. We signed up to educate other people’s kids–to provide academic and emotional support. Ask around, and you’ll be hard pressed to find a teacher who hasn’t also provided monetary support to a student in the form of a lunch or maybe a field trip fee. We didn’t sign up to die for other people’s kids. Most of us would, but it’s not a part of the job description.
Mindset’s not the problem. Training is. How many hours of engagement training do law enforcement officers receive? How many are you going to provide to teachers? We have 5 in-service days in our contract, which are supposed to be enough to keep us all trained and informed about trends, policies and methods, and now we’re going to squeeze in what? maybe 6 hours of handgun safety and use. Maybe society will foot the bill for providing these teachers with an extra 5 days of engagement training. Maybe. I’m not holding my breath for that. Many of these people aren’t gun people–they’re not going to go to the range and practice on their own time just because they enjoy it. And when the next attack comes, they’re supposed to stand their ground, and draw a bead on a moving target amid chaos–while kids are running TOWARD them for protection. The shooter doesn’t care who or what he hits. The teacher has only one target. Find a public high school and stand in a hallway during a class change–when there’s NO panic.
Where do the teachers keep these guns? On their hip? In their desk drawer? In a locked gun cabinet? Doesn’t matter. Sooner or later a kid’s going to steal a gun on campus. And then what? Another teacher with a gun has to take out one of their own kids?
Maybe being able to carry a gun will attract more people to the profession. Maybe that’s just what we need in the classroom–some authoritarian bozo who couldn’t make it at the police academy, but just really wants a job where he can carry a gun and tell people what to do.
Nope. That’s not my job. That’s not our job.
“Mindset’s not the problem. Training is. How many hours of engagement training do law enforcement officers receive? How many are you going to provide to teachers?”
The ones who volunteer to carry out of a sense of wanting to protect others? As much as we can. We’re down to a funding issue? Okay, cool. Maybe not so many iPads for Kindergartners, but some range time for teachers. Heck, you’ll probably have ranges donate the time, so you’re only talking cost of the ammo, which I bet you could probably get donated.
“Maybe society will foot the bill for providing these teachers with an extra 5 days of engagement training. Maybe. I’m not holding my breath for that.”
I think you might be surprised at what society is willing to pay for to keep kids safe.
“Many of these people aren’t gun people–they’re not going to go to the range and practice on their own time just because they enjoy it.”
A fair point. But I’m not proposing we draft all teachers. I’m proposing we ask for volunteers. We’ll get some folks.
“Where do the teachers keep these guns? On their hip? In their desk drawer? In a locked gun cabinet?”
On their person.
“Maybe being able to carry a gun will attract more people to the profession. Maybe that’s just what we need in the classroom–some authoritarian bozo who couldn’t make it at the police academy, but just really wants a job where he can carry a gun and tell people what to do.”
My law partner (who used to be a prosecutor) raised this exact point. I doubt that someone who wants to be bossy will make the sacrifice necessary to be a teacher simply to carry a sidearm. If you want to carry a sidearm concealed, you can do it right now without having to go through all the work and make all the sacrifices of time and energy that it takes to be a teacher. Cops get to boss other citizens around if they get into a situation. A teacher with a sidearm won’t have the power to arrest someone. They’re not becoming a sworn officer of the law. I think the chance that you’ll get police academy wannabes applying to teach 4th grade social studies because they’ll get the chance to do something they can already do as a citizen.
However, I’d like to empower the 4th grade social studies teacher who wants to be trained.
It is sad to say, but in my experience I have definitely encountered teachers who are in it for the power… for the ability to yell at someone less powerful than them whom they have control over. Yes those people may well volunteer to carry a gun.
In fact, I suspect it is highly likely that they will be the ones to volunteer.
And precisely because of those personality traits, I will feel less safe, not more, when they now have a gun in school.
I agree. The responsibility of having a firearm isn’t for people who become teachers just to yell at someone. I totally agree.
How would you prevent that from being what happens in a proposal like this. If you ask for volunteers, those are the ones you will likely get.
Arming teachers means we’ve given up trying to stop the shootings before they begin. On the News Hour last night even David Brooks called it the opposite of a good idea.
Maybe not so many iPads for Kindergartners, but some range time for teachers.
Maybe this doesn’t sound to you the way it does to me, but you’re basically saying trade academic resources for weapons training. That’s giving up. Frankly, I’d rather restrict the sales of AR-15s.
I think you might be surprised at what society is willing to pay for to keep kids safe.
I might be. I’m surprised by how little they’re willing to pay to get them educated.
Cops get to boss other citizens around if they get into a situation.
I think you’d be surprised how often we have second career people with something of an authoritarian attitude come into the profession thinking they can “fix” the kids’ behaviors. Many don’t make it through their first year. I had one who criticized me (at the time I had about 15 year’s experience) because I was too friendly with the students. He didn’t make it to Thanksgiving.
Sounds like the poor teachers who are there for the wrong reasons wash out after a year or so. I’d be fine with limiting volunteers to veteran teachers. Probably a good idea to let teachers get the hang of teaching before we let them ask for extra responsibilities.
I’m sure some of them don’t stick around, but a lot of them do. I still think the people who would volunteer would be the ones you least want to have armed. And I would not feel safe.
Also, if mass shooters are often suicidal, why would having more armed people in a school be a deterrent to them? I don’t know that that argument even makes sense.
I believe that there is more potential for harm from unintended consequences and that it is not necessarily a deterrent and these things together make it just not a good idea.
Teachers aren’t lieutenants. They’re not even cadets, or midshipmen. Not even squeakers. They’re not even civilian passengers. They’re more like Sophie Aubrey — nurturers, not warriors.
People who are not warriors can play a useful role in society, too…
“People who are not warriors can play a useful role in society, too…”
I completely agree. However, I would be surprised if 100% of teachers turn down the opportunity to be trained to protect their students with a sidearm if necessary. I’m just a civilian. I’m a simple ol’ lawyer here in town. But I also (somehow) came to the decision that I am responsible for my personal safety and the safety of my wife and two children. I think you would be surprised that beneath the nurturing instinct is a deep desire to safeguard.
I guess I think of teachers as more than one-dimensional people than Sophie.
My wife is a teacher. She is not comfortable around guns. And quite frankly, they have enough to do already without adding monthly firearms training and practice to their list of duties.
the teachers that really wanted to have a firearm would be the ones I’d be most concerned about just like the guys I know with a CWP that like to let everyone know they have their pistol on them. (I have my CWP)
I think this discussion is pretty pathetic.
I asked my 8th grader what he thought about it and he said if kids knew a teacher might have a gun he knew kids that would spend every day trying to find the gun at school.
I would be ok with select administrators having a pistol in a locked safe in their office but only those that agreed to attend regular firearms training.
I can think of many reasons why arming teachers is a such a bad, even demented idea, but only one that makes it a “good” idea: people such as yourself standing in the way of adequate gun-control.
“But yes, he didn’t have a chance. Agree.”
Hogwash. You go in. That’s what you do. If you’re a uniformed, sworn officer of the law, it’s your freakin’ job. Hell, if you’re a person with a conscience and ability, you go in. The bystander at Sutherland Springs did exactly that and probably saved lives.
Sure, you’re at a disadvantage in the scheme of long gun vs. sidearm. But so what? The guy is in there shooting people! YOU GO IN. The lesson that the vast majority of America will take away from this is that you’re responsible for your personal security.
Of course, you’re right. There is no acceptable alternative to going in.
There’s no excuse for any man not doing what he can to save kids.
In fact, I may go so far as to accuse this officer of being… shy.
At the same time, what we’re condemning the man for is failure to be a hero. And do I have that right? I think — in fact, I’m as sure as someone can be who hasn’t been in such a situation — that I would have rushed in.
But do I KNOW that?
“At the same time, what we’re condemning the man for is failure to be a hero. And do I have that right?”
I get your hesitancy to pass judgment. I really do. It’s your charitable nature. However, this man swore to serve and protect his fellow citizens. That was his job. That was his sole purpose for existing at the school that day and all the days before. We’re not talking about a cafeteria worker who hung back rather than confront the shooter – we’re talking about someone we count on to do exactly that.
He was paid. By the county. For years. To stand around and (basically) do nothing. ON THE OFF CHANCE that something like this happened. Just in case.
Well, the incredibly unlikely event happened, and it turns out that it made no difference that this guy was there, because instead and being a man, he froze and listened to teenagers being slaughtered instead of doing his job.
I have little sympathy.
I think I pretty much agree with you here. I do understand the argument that nobody knows what they will really do until the time comes, and I certainly might have my own issues in that situation. But I also would know better than to take that job because of that. If it was your job and you took it knowing that this was what you would be asked to do – it is hard to have too much sympathy.
Uh, I didn’t say he shouldn’t go in.
I said he had no chance. He should have tried. He’d likely be dead, but he should have done it.
Trained police officers, when under fire themselves, have a small chance of hitting their target. http://www.forcescience.org/articles/naiveshooter.pdf
And we want to arm school teachers. LOL. It’s so pathetic.
“YOU GO IN.”
Easy to say, harder to do when you know you’re heavily outgunned and likely going to get killed doing it. This isn’t like in the movies where the cafeteria cook used to be a Navy SEAL.
“Under Siege!”
Which is why the suggestion to arm teachers is so stupid. And why gun regulation is needed.
You don’t have to be a Navy SEAL. The cop in Garland, Texas killed the TWO jihadists who were armed with rifles. Cop had his standard issue sidearm.
Here’s how the gun discussions I have with anti-gun people:
1. We should make schools safer by having additional armed law enforcement and/or metal detectors like we do in countless other government buildings: NO, IT WILL COST TOO MUCH, and FEEL LIKE A PRISON!
2. Okay…maybe we could give teachers who want to protect schools the ability and training to do so. That might be more cost effective NO, GUNS ARE SCARY,AND TEACHERS WHO WANT TO PROTECT STUDENTS WITH THEM ARE NUTS! IT WILL BE LIKE A WARZONE IN OUR SCHOOLS! WE CAN’T TRUST TEACHERS WITH FIREARMS, THEY’RE NOT CAPABLE OF BEING SAFE WITH THEM!
3. Okay, how about, we could have a system that comports with due process where courts can remove someone’s firearms for a limited period based on evidence at a hearing, like we do with domestic violence: NO, I WANT TO LIVE IN A MAGICAL FAIRY-TALE WHERE GUNS DON’T EXIST! WE DON’T HAVE TO GIVE CITIZENS DUE PROCESS BECAUSE THE CONSTITUTION IS SUPER OLD, AND NOT RELEVANT TO THIS ISSUE!
4. Hey, maybe the cops should have done more than simply secure the perimeter while the bad guy walked around the school slaughtering kids like cattle. COPS ARE UNABLE TO DO ANYTHING IF A BAD GUY HAS A SCARY LOOKING RIFLE. THEY’RE POWERLESS IN THE FACE OF THIS MAGICAL GUN. PEOPLE JUST GET SLAUGHTERED AND THEIR BLOOD IS ON YOUR HANDS BECAUSE YOU’RE AN EVIL PERSON WHO WON’T AGREE TO BAN THESE EVIL THINGS.
Okay…nice talking to you. Bye.
WHY WON’T YOU HAVE A NATIONAL CONVERSATION ON THIS ISSUE WHERE YOU ADMIT YOU HAVE BLOOD ON YOUR HANDS!?
Yeah, I’m sort of done here.
I’m replying as an anti-semi-automatic weapon person, not an anti-gun person, and I think you’ve misrepresented some of the comments that have been made.
Thinking on the fly, here’s what I propose:
1. Any discussion begins with the understanding that nobody law-abiding gun owner has any guns confiscated, regardless of what type they are.
2. Going forward, we ban the sale and manufacture of semi-automatic weapons that can be used with such devastating efficiency by mas murderers.
3. We offer a buy-back program so that gun owners who want to turn in their semi-automatic weapons can do so and then use the money to buy another gun, ammunition or flowers.
4. We take other measures to prevent these mass shootings from starting in the first place. That might mean better mental health care access, it might mean removing guns from a home or owner’s possession, it might mean something like metal detectors and screening every student and adult who walks into the building–a logistical nightmare, but it’s pro-active.
5. We have a serious national discussion about the limits of the 2nd Amendment. The Constitution has been revised and amended before. It belongs to us, and we get to decide what it means and what its limits are.
* (#4) Removing guns through due process…
“1. Any discussion begins with the understanding that nobody law-abiding gun owner has any guns confiscated, regardless of what type they are.”
Okay.
“2. Going forward, we ban the sale and manufacture of semi-automatic weapons that can be used with such devastating efficiency by mas murderers.”
Every semi-automatic firearm? So, all firearms except bolt action rifles, revolvers, and pump shotguns? That’s like a ban on everything. You mean banning guns that have been in existence since WWI? Are you being unintentionally over-broad here, or am I accurately understanding your position?
“3. We offer a buy-back program so that gun owners who want to turn in their semi-automatic weapons can do so and then use the money to buy another gun, ammunition or flowers.”
Voluntary? That’s cool. I’m not sure you’ll get many takers, but I’m cool if you want to try that.
“4. We take other measures to prevent these mass shootings from starting in the first place. That might mean better mental health care access, it might mean removing guns from a home or owner’s possession, it might mean something like metal detectors and screening every student and adult who walks into the building–a logistical nightmare, but it’s pro-active.”
As long as you give people due process before removing private property, I’m cool with that.
“5. We have a serious national discussion about the limits of the 2nd Amendment. The Constitution has been revised and amended before. It belongs to us, and we get to decide what it means and what its limits are.”
I’m unlikely to change my position that the 2A protects a private citizen’s right to personally own firearms, but I’m willing to hear you out. Always love talking law. It’s my day job. 🙂
Every semi-automatic firearm? So, all firearms except bolt action rifles, revolvers, and pump shotguns? That’s like a ban on everything. You mean banning guns that have been in existence since WWI? Are you being unintentionally over-broad here, or am I accurately understanding your position?
I assume I’m being unintentionally over-broad, and I would bow to those whose knowledge of such weapons is greater than mine. I’m thinking of the class of weapons that are so often used in these shootings, and any that later become the weapon of choice for these incidents.
I’m unlikely to change my position that the 2A protects a private citizen’s right to personally own firearms, but I’m willing to hear you out. Always love talking law. It’s my day job. 🙂
I agree with that interpretation, and I wouldn’t want to change that aspect of it. I’m talking about what types of firearms it allows.
And I always love talking schools. It’s my day job. 😉
1. Okay
2. Never going to happen… what are you going to do with the tens of millions already on the street? Oh, I should read ahead.
3. Have you ever witnessed a gun buy-back event? You don’t have people showing up with AR-15’s, AK-47’s… you have single shot shotguns that look like they’ve been dragged behind a pickup for 20 miles, guns that have been dug out of the ground, guns that have parts missing and guns that don’t even make good scrap metal. Who’s going to fund this buyback? Are you willing to pay me $4000 for my AR-15? What about $500 for my .22LR that I paid $60 for back in 1978? Because that’s what I want, if you’re going to pay me $50 per rifle I’ll just keep them.
4. Good ideas, now find funding to put metal detectors and staffing at every entrance in every school in America. Rebuild mental hospitals and institutions. It’d be cheaper to set up at home teleconferencing for students.
5. There are over 500 senators and legislators on Capitol Hill, prepare for over 500 plans with no one willing to budge from their personal plan.
An NRA member misrepresenting someone else’s argument?
That is in their DNA
Okay, here’s more a timeline of what actually is being reported as happening that day and what the SRO did. Apparently he didn’t cower in the fetal position like many want to believe. It sounds like he took control of the situation from what he believed was happening. There was information (right or wrong) going around that the shootings actually started in a parking lot prior to him going into the school building.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2018/02/26/florida-deputy-denies-he-coward-during-school-shooting/373385002/
The armed officer has now become the scapegoat for the NRA. Sure he should have attempted to confront the shooter, that was his job. But he was heavily outgunned. A semi-automatic AR-15 vs a 10 shot Glock doesn’t sound like much of a contest. Put’s lie to the obnoxious meme that the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun. What’s next? An armed cadre of math teachers carrying Tommy guns? With the NRA in charge that’s coming.
Not Tommy guns. Too inaccurate, going against someone with an AR-15. But yeah, I agree with your point…
I saw Cadre of Math Teachers open for They Might Be Giants at the Carolina Coliseum in 1988.
I could never get into them. They were one of those gimmicky bands. They wore gowns and mortarboard caps on stage, and their guitar picks were shaped like pieces of chalk.
It’s not surprising they were a one-hit wonder. After they cracked the Top Ten with “Square of the Hypotenuse,” it was all downhill…
Nice.
Oh come on! Particle Man! Instanbul was Constantinople! Birdhouse in my Soul! The Sun Is a Mass of Incandescent gas, a gigantic nuclear furnace!
Ok, I’m weird. (not as weird as them) but I enjoyed them.
Agree.
You’re not the boss of me!
Okay… that joke is about worn out. It was humorous the first dozen times you told it.
We still like it.
You still like Milton Berle…
Nah, Milton Berle was before my time…
This is more like “Laugh-In,” with certain gags, taglines and themes repeated (“Verrry in-ter-esting…,” “Sock it to me!” “Blow in my ear and I’ll follow you anywhere…”)….
Richard and I saw Worn-Out Jokes open for the Monkees in 1968….
“But he was heavily outgunned. A semi-automatic AR-15 vs a 10 shot Glock doesn’t sound like much of a contest. Put’s lie to the obnoxious meme that the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.”
A couple of points:
1. The sheriff’s deputy knew where the shooter was, but the shooter did not know where the sheriff’s deputy was. Tactical advantage for the deputy.
2. The sheriff’s deputy is a trained shooter, and therefore more proficient. Tactical advantage for the deputy.
3. The sheriff’s deputy is there to engage the shooter. That’s his job. That’s the reason he’s there. There are no guns anywhere else in the school because he’s the guy who’s supposed to be protecting everyone.
4. Doesn’t matter if he’s outgunned. Sure, it would be nice if he wasn’t but it doesn’t matter. He can’t just sit there and do nothing while the shooter goes around and kills people. You rush in, taking cover where you can. This is the lesson we learned from Columbine. Ideally, it’s great to have a squad of guys, but if you’re alone you still go in. He’s a sworn, uniformed officer of the law, sworn to serve and protect life. That’s his freakin’ job. There’s a reason that the military punishes people who refuse to perform their duty in the face of the enemy. You can’t tolerate it.
Even if the sheriff’s deputy could have occupied the shooter with concern simply by firing in his direction. It’s a whole heck of a lot harder to shoot people when someone is shooting at you. That may have bought time and saved lives. This sheriff’s deputy wasn’t a “good guy” with a gun. He was a potted plant with a gun. He was irrelevant. I wish the football coach who died protecting kids and the JRTOC kids who were ready to fight back had a gun rather than this sheriff’s deputy.
The Broward County sheriff’s dept. failed their community at every single level.
They failed to investigate diligently. They failed to follow up. They failed to proactively do anything with this guy. They failed to enforce existing laws that he was breaking. And finally, most tragically, they failed to protect life when it was being extinguished.
And people want me to voluntarily surrender my rights because a madman who should have never been allowed to have a gun killed a bunch of people and the sheriff’s deputy stood by and let it happen? Nah, no thanks.
The “the Government will protect you” crowd, took a real beating this week.
Among your other positives, apparently you are a mind reader. I was thinking pretty much the same thing and had written most of it before I had to leave my office. After reading your input, deleted mine, you said it all and expresses my sentiments exactly.
I agree with you in all this, Bryan. But there’s another group that took a beating here–the “the only defense against a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun” crowd.
So a paid agent of the government chose to cower in fear instead of doing the job taxpayers used to pay him to pretend to do.
If paid agents of the state specifically assigned to carry guns to defend citizens won’t do so, then it’s up to every private citizen to arm himself in order to protect himself.
or
i.) the only way to stop school shootings is to make guns harder to buy!
ii.) While this will leave innocent people less protected, that’s okay, because the cops are there to defend you!
iii.) Well, not necessarily. They may cower outside while you get slaughtered like an animal.
Rebuttal
1. Did he?
2. Was he?
3. Agree
4. Disagree. I do think it matters. A lot. That’s the reason 19 year olds should not be allowed to own these powerful weapons of war.
“That’s the reason 19 year olds should not be allowed to own these powerful weapons of war”
Would you allow 19 year olds to own non-black rifles such as the Ruger Mini-14? Also known as a “ranch rifle”?
https://ruger.com/products/mini14RanchRifle/images/5801.jpg
Did the sheriff’s deputy know where the shooter was? Obviously, yes. I’m sure he couldn’t mistake the sounds of the shots coming from inside the building he took cover from.
Was he trained? Yes, obviously. Sworn officers of the law are required to have training.
You support the deputy’s decision not to go protect life, even if it put him in danger? You’re really saying that you’re okay with the fact that he sat there and decided to hang back while the shooter slaughtered children at his leisure because it might have been dangerous for him to do so?
Also, as we all know, conventional sidearms don’t stand a chance against scary black rifles. The strictly superior scary black rifle grants a near impervability to small arms fire and by virtue of merely by holding one, compensates for years of tactical training and practice.
No, silly. The garland traffic cop that took out the AK-47 jihadist with his handgun proves the point that trained shooter with a Glock can take out rifle wielder.
Obviously yes? That’s entirely unknown. The shooter could have been on the move. The sound from gunfire may echo. It is absolutely NOT known that the shooters location was KNOWN. You’re asserting something that may not be true.
Hey, don’t take my word for it. Listen to the elected sheriff.
From this piece at the USA Today courtesy of my google machine: “Department protocols being one thing, Sheriff Israel was clear Peterson’s duty was to act. When asked what Peterson should have done, the sheriff didn’t hesitate in answering, “went in, addressed the killer, killed the killer.”
You support the deputy’s decision not to go protect life, even if it put him in danger? You’re really saying that you’re okay with the fact that he sat there and decided to hang back while the shooter slaughtered children at his leisure because it might have been dangerous for him to do so?
-Bryan
This is something that gets Brad annoyed. You attribute words to me that I absolutely did not say. You said: “The sheriff’s deputy is there to engage the shooter. That’s his job. ” My response was “agree”. How does that translate into “You support the deputy’s decision not to go protect life, even if it put him in danger?” What is clear in this whole tragic episode are these 3 things:
1. A good guy with a gun is the best way to stop a bad guy with a gun is simply not supported. And it’s not just this. Reagan was shot even though he was protected by a team of well trained, well armed secret service agents and police. Armed guards were present at the Gabby Gifford shooting. Ft. Hood was a freaking army base for crying out loud. And now this.
2. AR-15s and other semi-automatic weapons are very dangerous and have no business in the hands of young people.
3. The NRA is a very dangerous cult and the nation is beginning to understand that.
What is most assuredly not under any discussion by me or anyone else is this constant meme that liberals want to take guns away from law abiding citizens. I’ve never advocated that. Never. That is so damn annoying and needs to stop. The part of the second amendment that we should pay more attention to are the two words “well regulated”. Let’s find something, anything we can agree on and come together as a community to make the country safer. Liberals, especially teachers, won’t agree to arming teachers. Conservatives aren’t ready to ban semi-automatic guns. I suggest the banning of bump stocks as a measure we can all embrace to show good faith. Who could possibly argue against that?
This is something that gets Brad annoyed. You attribute words to me that I absolutely did not say. You said: “The sheriff’s deputy is there to engage the shooter. That’s his job. ” My response was “agree”. How does that translate into “You support the deputy’s decision not to go protect life, even if it put him in danger?”
My mistake. I misunderstood. We are in agreement, then.
“A good guy with a gun is the best way to stop a bad guy with a gun is simply not supported. And it’s not just this. Reagan was shot even though he was protected by a team of well trained, well armed secret service agents and police. Armed guards were present at the Gabby Gifford shooting. Ft. Hood was a freaking army base for crying out loud. And now this.”
So do you support having the United States Secret Service protect the President? Do they make him less safe, more safe, or make no difference?
Oh, and Ft. Hood (along with many other of our other military bases) are gun-free zones.
So do you support having the United States Secret Service protect the President?
Yes. But it’s not a panacea. And I think there job would be easier if there were fewer crazies with guns.
Why do you support having the President protected by men with guns?
Reagan was shot with literally 20 men around him with guns, some being visible.
No one argues that the highest trained people around can’t carry guns, or don’t serve as protection.
School shooters usually dont expect to live past the incident. In other words, if they are shot and killed when they are carry8mg out their plan, it’s ok with them. The Columbine shooters killed themselves. They didnt care if someone shot back. They targeted their school because it was their school. It didn’t matter that a police officer was on duty.
Want to fix this? Start at the root of the problem… the shooter’s home life.
Bryan, I don’t think anyone’s asking you to surrender anything. That’s a hyperbolic assertion.
That’s the Fox News level of the argument now.
If you propose anything at all, you want to take guns away.
This issue makes otherwise reasonable people use 1st grade arguments.
The Government will protect you crowd took a beating this week.
That’s the lesson you take away from this??? Of course the NRA is taking a huge beating with multiple companies canceling NRA member perks. It’s about time. The NRA is far more dangerous than all terrorist organizations combined. The idea that the best way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun is a hideous assault on logic.
And to add insult to injury, to use this tragedy to assault government officials is a mean spirited, broad brush attack on thousands of brave law enforcement officers everywhere. Maybe the NRA will hold sway this time like it has in previous incidents. But one day common sense will prevail. I’m an eternal optimist.
via GIPHY
There is no evidence the officer knew where the gunman was at. The acoustics of a high powered rifle inside a building doesn’t lend itself to being sure where the gunman is located.
Even some of the students interviewed said they couldn’t tell where the gunman was at. Some thought he was outside their door when he was already past their door.
The deputy was trained, but as posted above, even trained officers engaged in gun battles are terrible shots. http://www.forcescience.org/articles/naiveshooter.pdf
I totally agree that lots of people in law enforcement are poor shots because they don’t train. No one magically becomes a crack shot by virtue of putting on a uniform.
But don’t tell me this deputy had “no chance”. Having a rifle doesn’t give you a cloak of invincibility. He knew what building the shooter was in. That’s “knowing where he is”. That’s enough. You run towards the sound of the gunfire taking cover where you can.
That’s the actual procedure.
“You run towards the sound of the gunfire taking cover where you can.”
Because we all know there’s so much cover to hide behind in a high school hallway.
I can’t help but wonder how many of these armchair Rambo’s have actually have experience exchanging gunfire with someone.
I don’t know what experience the average school resource officer has, but I know of a couple school resource officers… one is only been in uniform less than 3 years, the other is about six months from retiring. Neither are exactly what I’d consider SWAT material. Also we don’t know what protocol was for that department, I’ve been reading in some schools protocol is to not immediately engage, but to wait for backup.
“Because we all know there’s so much cover to hide behind in a high school hallway.”
Doors, corners, walls, etc.
“I don’t know what experience the average school resource officer has, but I know of a couple school resource officers… one is only been in uniform less than 3 years, the other is about six months from retiring. Neither are exactly what I’d consider SWAT material.”
This sort of sounds like an indictment of the school resource officers you know. Isn’t the entire point of an armed SRO to protect the students in the gun-free zone of a school? The SRO is the only person with a gun by design, right? Are you saying that the SROs you know don’t have the training (in the former case of the new officer) or the motivation (in the latter case of the officer so close to retirement that he isn’t willing to risk himself) to protect the people that they are supposed to be protecting?
“Also we don’t know what protocol was for that department, I’ve been reading in some schools protocol is to not immediately engage, but to wait for backup.”
No, we DO know what the protocol is/was. The sheriff himself said that the deputy should have gone in without waiting. That’s the universal protocol in a school shooting situation post-Columbine. What more do you want?
And where is it the policy that an officer shows up to a school shooting IN PROGRESS and just says “Whoa, now. I’ll just secure the perimeter and wait for backup. Don’t want to go in where it’s dangerous.” Where exactly is that? Just curious, so I can know where it’s officially the policy for the police not to protect people.
“Doors, corners, walls, etc.”
Because we all know how a long narrow hallway will protect you when you round the corner with a guy holding an AR-15 and you have to retreat. If you’re lucky you’ll just get shot in the back and not the back of the head so you can have an open casket funeral. You’re assuming that these hallways will be empty, and not full of screaming kids running downstream as you’re heading upstream.
99.999% of the SRO’s job is to break up fights on the playground and to tell kids to stop running in the halls. No sheriff’s department is going to put their best officers guarding a school. If you want SWAT ready response teams in each school, I suspect your local property taxes will go up considerably.
What you want is the TSA equivalent for public schools. Tens of thousands of federal employees who can’t hack it working fast food putting on a badge and walking the hallways for all but maybe a handful will be bored out of their mind their entire career.
Maybe we can go the route of air marshalls, a friend’s brother was one for about three years… he said the job will make you lose your mind just from the sheer boredom. I suspect the same goes for an SRO.
Several departments have policies that stipulate what to do in dangerous situations. EMT’s dont’ go into dangerous situations without backup, firefighters don’t go into a fire if there’s someone popping off rounds at them. If you want to go up against a guy with an AR-15 with a Glock 9mm… here take mine and knock yourself out.
Many experienced law officers have never been in a gun battle. NO ONE can predict how they will respond.
The general public has no clue regarding these issues. Some watch too much tv.
This whole argument is disgusting and perverse. It shouldn’t even need to have occured.
But as to the SRO: It’s pretty damn easy – those are “your” people in there. You go. It’s your duty. And, no, it is not difficult to find a mass shooter. For one, you can follow the bodies – in this case they were found outside the entry door. Which brings up my second point; there is no effective “hardening” of a school. It is by it’s very definition a porous structure. Especially, and this is important, to a mass shooter with a freakin’ gun. What are we going to do, have armored doors, limited windows and protected concrete walls? No, we are not. let’s get real.
Talk to me about gun regulations that will lead to a safer society. That’s the bogey – and not one that is hard to miss.
You should become a resource officer, instead of someone who prosecutes them.
It’s easy for someone to tell someone what they should have done, when they haven’t faced anything close to what happened. It’s a little different than walking into the shooting range at Shooter’s Choice.
Night all. Good discussion. Be safe out there.
We need better risk assessment tools to determine which angry people will abuse their children, their spouses, their neighbors, their communities. It is not simply a mental health issue; it is an anger issue.
That’s certainly a factor. Have you seen the proposal for a Gun Violence Restraining Order? (GVRO).
Basically, someone can petition a court for an order allowing law enforcement to temporarily take away someone’s guns. The respondent would have an opportunity to contest the claim, and a court could make a decision based on specific evidence as to whether that person should have their firearm rights revoked for a certain period of time.
It’s a pretty simple process, and we use it all the time in the context of restraining orders for domestic violence. It would target the right people, comport with due process, and not target 99% of people who own guns and are no danger.
I would support a GVRO system.
Thoughts?
Angry people usually act quickly and impulsively. That said, GVROs may be part of the solution.
In my mind, mass killings are much like airplane crashes; there are a series of failures that lead to a very bad outcome, the loss of the lives of many “innocent” people. I support studying each mass murder with a commission of experts. The tasks include reports with findings and recommendations, along with some power to present the recommendations publicly to decision makers.
This is a “wicked problem,” a term coined within the policy arena to describe challenges defying ordinary solutions. It calls for an approach of “this must be done” with the ability to enact changes continuously as we learn more about solutions.
I do agree with Mark that the NRA is not helping solve the problem; I was disgusted by their rhetoric and how POTUS adopted their talking points. I do not want the Second Amendment repealed, but changes in interpretation must be on the table. As a country, we will NEVER take away everyone’s weapons, including firearms. I served to protect that right and would again serve to protect that right.
I do understand that some would prefer the repeal of the Second Amendment, and the NRA’s response is a reaction to those people. A pox on both of their houses; let’s find the middle and stop these mass killings.
Sounds reasonable to me. Like EVERY suggestion in this debate it would not be a panacea. As a former highway safety guy these tough problems are generally best addressed incrementally over long periods of time. The result is a mileage death rate on our highways about 1/5 what it was in the early 70s.
I am tired of the nonsense that the only way to stop guns is with more guns.
This is the issue. It has nothing to do with the Second Amendment. We have a culture that fetishizes guns – specifically military-style weapons as some kind of panacea to an individual’s lack of feeling of control. It’s a misplaced, fear-based reaction to social anxiety.
And the other part which we all know is that handguns are far and away the most indescriminantly dangerous weapons; hardly ever are they fired (for effect) as intended. Instead, they are a magnet for senseless death, most often unintentional.
I listened to the head of the NRA’s speech at the CPAC rally. I thought “that IS the evil that walks among us.” We need a new paradigm; and gun control – not illimination – is where we a society needs to head. I have no sympathy for the weak, anxiety-based arguments of those who push more guns as the answer.
Elimination. That was the word I was going for… and didn’t reach.
I work with a woman who is the most anti-gun person I know. If she had her way weapons would be banned for our military… according to her thinking everything can be solved by sitting down and talking. If you look at her Facebook page it’s multiple anti-gun post and reposts from anti-gun sites daily.
“…military-style weapons as some kind of panacea to an individual’s lack of feeling of control.”
I think you’ve hit on a very important point. For a whole range of reasons, having generally to do with an increasingly complex society, a certain type of person may feel overwhelmed and at a gut level conclude they can “take control” of their own lives in some way by taking up guns. Plus, I suppose some fantasize themselves as potential heroes, pulling out their weapons to save the day.
George Zimmerman, for example, more than likely felt himself more empowered by having a gun than he would have without one.
I know CWP holders who are extremely responsible.
I know some that have not shot any gun in years and walk around with a huge chip on their shoulder because they have a CWP in their pocket. I wouldn’t trust them under any circumstance.
Yeah, and I’ve always had trouble understanding that phenomenon — people who feel threatened. But I feel like that’s at the root of a lot of our political problems, particularly the atomization of society.
People seem threatened by “big” things — big government, big business, what have you.
It’s at the root of all sorts of things, ranging from libertarianism to populism, an apparent feeling of being put upon, if not outright threatened, by forces greater than themselves….
We have a culture that fetishizes guns –
-Mark
Perhaps if people fetishized shoes instead of guns we’d be safer. No one would be arguing about the need to have a background check to purchase 6 inch Stilettos or the toe capacity for flip-flops.
Isn’t the entire point of an armed SRO to protect the students in the gun-free zone of a school?
Ostensibly, the presence of an SRO is to improve community relations. Most of them are very good at that job–I get the feeling that they may be screened for certain traits in order to be placed in the schools.
One more comment on this thread…
The first school shooting that I recall hearing about–that made an impression on me–was the 1988 shooting in Greenwood.
That shooter did not have access to semi-automatic weapons, and only two students in a crowded cafeteria died. In the Townville shooting a couple of years ago, the shooter also had only a handgun, and only one child died. One child is far too many children to die while at school, but restricting access to these weapons would go a long way toward restoring schools to the safe havens they should be.