This is what passes for journalism these days USA Today: “132 hours to train teachers on guns: Is it enough?” 

A proposal to arm teachers, administrators and school staff in Florida causes widespread concern about the minimal firearms training they would get — 132 hours — less than that of basic police recruits…

Because the idea is not to be cops but to shoot a killer in the face repeatedly and accurately. The bill even says it: Teachers have no arrest powers nor they can be law enforcement duties. But apparently Greg Toppo, the author of this assortment of idiotic thoughts could not bother himself with reading the proposed law.

 

The training is modeled after a course developed by Polk County, Fla., Sheriff Grady Judd, who told lawmakers last month that the average response time for police in active-shooter incidents is five minutes.

Sheriff Grady Judd is hated by the Florida Liberals. He is a no-nonsense LEO who has no problems doing what is right and damn the bad press.

 

Authorities said the Parkland shooting was over in three minutes.

Hiding behind cars and edifications while “setting a perimeter” is not what anybody would call a “response.”

 

“911 does not work when there is an active shooter,” Judd said.

True dat. Calling 911 does not make cops appear magically,

Under the proposed law, schools could use state funding to hire school resource officers (SROs) or police —

Which is the reason most Chief of Police do not want teachers armed. They are creaming their little uniform pants at the idea they can lay their hands on a piece of that almost half a billion dollars of pork of the Guardian program.

or train gun-toting “school guardians.”

Do I detect a bias against arming teachers and school personnel?

Among the training school guardians would be required to complete:
80 hours of firearms instruction, requiring an 85% pass rate on the final exam.
16 hours of instruction in precision pistol shooting.
8 hours of shooting instruction using state-of-the-art simulators.
8 hours of instruction in active-shooter or assailant scenarios.

Jesus, I have to say that is overkill and then some. I can have a newbie shooter with six to ten IDPA matches under his or her belt outshoot 99% of the rank and file cop from any department and probably embarrass the crap out of their SWAT teams too.  And no, I am not blowing unicorn bubbles up your ass, it has happened more times than you can imagine.

Applicants must pass a psychological evaluation and drug test (as well as subsequent random drug tests) and commit to ongoing training, weapon inspections and annual firearm qualification.

You guys love your shrinks, OK fine.  Annual quals? How about every quarter to make sure they do not lose their skills? Send them to competitive shooting matches, plenty of those every month in Florida.

Basic police recruits must do more to carry a gun, according to the Florida Department of Law Enforcement.
They must complete an 80-hour course in defensive tactics and another 80 hours in firearms. They must show proficiency in 41 “defensive tactics” techniques and understand the legal application of the use of deadly force. They must know how to handle handguns, shotguns, rifles and semiautomatic weapons — and they must practice, among other skills, survival shooting techniques.

Yo Mr. Toppo, if the teachers are just going to carry a sidearm, they won’t be needing the shotgun or rifle instruction, would they? And as for “defensive tactics” I know that covering the difference of concealment versus cover, slicing the pie and a few other items is all they need and again, it can be taught in a couple of IDPA matches. And as for the “legal application of the use of deadly force” that is quite simple: You see bad guy shooting kids, shooting in the face till he stops. You are allowed by the State of Florida to use Deadly force to stop a Forcible Felony and shooting kids clearly is one.

Curt Lavarello, executive director of the School Safety Advocacy Council and a former SRO in Broward County, Fla., where the Parkland shooting took place, said 132 hours is not nearly enough to entrust educators with guns.

I forgot. Teachers are low-level, barely functional humans that cannot operate simple mechanical devices while in school property. How come we allow them to educate kids is a mystery.

“It’s absolutely ridiculous to think that in 132 hours of training, you’re going to be prepared to take on a well-armed gunman who comes onto a campus to kill children,” he said.
Richard Myers, executive director of the Major Cities Chiefs Association, which represents 75 big-city police forces in the USA and Canada, said he has discussed arming teachers with many of the group’s members. “I’ve yet to hear a police chief think that’s a good idea,” he said.

Two things: Sheriff Grady Judd is a Chief LEO so you are full of it and second, see the above comment related to pork.

Myers said cops aren’t trained just to use firearms but to know when not to use them. “It’s not just about shooting holes in targets,” he said. “It’s about de-escalation. It’s about ‘Shoot, don’t shoot.’ “

Hmmm… lemme think: Bad guy is inside the school with a rifle and shooting at kids, should I shoot him or should I try to de-escalate the situation by maybe singing lullabies? offering him pudding? reading him a bedtime story? Is this jackass for real?

He worries that armed teachers could themselves become targets of police when law enforcement responds to an active school shooter. “I see some real crises in the making,” Myers said.

And now cops are too effing dumb to differentiate between the guy shooting at students and the guy or gal shooting at the guy shooting the students.  How do plainclothes detectives even make it out of the precinct without being shot by uniformed cops ?

Lavarello, the former SRO, agreed: “I would not want to be the officer dispatched to a school and being told over the radio that we have one ‘bad’ armed person and 25 ‘good’ armed people.

If the ratio is one bad guy versus twenty-five good guys, the dispatched officer will arrive to see a very perforated body of somebody who chose the wrong school. Is he making shit up as he goes?

The problem is we’re truly going to be setting up an ‘O.K. Corral’ scenario. I’d rather have the officers that we know who can address the situation.”

Correct me if I am wrong, but the OK Corral happened near a  corral, not a school (what gave it away?) and was not an active shooter situation. But mentioning the OK Corral does make for good copy, doesn’t it?

Lavarello said arming teachers with so little training presents other problems: “The reality of it is, they still have a gun, and what they deem extreme on a campus is going to vary across the scale. A very bad fight, maybe with a kid with a knife, could trigger an extreme reaction to someone who’s not well-versed in the training.”

OK, this guy is an idiot. Only a high-grade imbecile will say that somebody using a knife as a weapon is not a threat that may require deadly force. One question, what do cops do when facing a man attacking somebody or them with a knife? They shoot his ass dead.

Joanne McCall, president of the Florida Education Association (FEA), said the union discourages schools from participating. “I don’t believe that’s what we should be doing,” she said. “We should be providing the funds to provide resource officers in every school.”

Yes, we already know most school boards will not allow the program to be implemented. Hell, 17 dead kids made the state pony over 600 million dollars. Dead kids are good business for school boards!

The union hand-delivered a letter to Scott this week, asking him to veto the “guardians” section of the bill, she said.

Too late, the weak-ass signed the bill into law already.

McCall noted that several of the state’s largest districts — including Broward County — said they’d opt out of the “guardians” program. The bill would otherwise provide $97 million for SROs — the FEA calculated that it would take about $115 million to put an SRO in every school that needs one.

Ding-ding-ding! come get your pork!

A recent survey of teachers and school staff statewide found that about 70% don’t want to arm school employees. “We are trained to be educators,” McCall said. “We are not trained to handle those kinds of situations. Having a concealed weapon and shooting at target practice is different than those intense moments when you have an active shooter.”

I wonder how they were able to be trained to drive a car or operate an electric can opener without collapsing into a heap of nervous breakdown.  It is good to know that at least 30% of teachers and school staff thought being armed is a good idea but unfortunately they will be forced by the school board to remain potential victims.

There is money in corpses as all of you can see.

And we are the blood thirsty ones.

And the media celebrates calling it a Gun Control Law. 

So I wonder who has chance to challenge Bill Nelson’s Senate seat.

Just drop by the park, wave the cash and have a pick of the litter. I believe Miami PD will not be happy, but it is legal.

To be on the safe side, use the FDLE Stolen Gun database search.

Hat Tip to Steven & Derek…. pair of frigging clowns that want me to go buy guns for them! 🙂

I have seen far too many calls to declare the NRA a terrorist organization and its members terrorists. I have seen too many public opinions demanding that the NRA and its spokespeople be silenced and denied the right to broadcast their opinions.  I have seen too many Facebook posts and Tweets calling for the criminalization, mass incarceration, and even murder or execution of NRA members or law abiding gun owners.

Let me make this clear.  If you believe that you need to silence, imprison, or murder large numbers of fellow citizens to achieve your goals, your beliefs are wrong.  Your Utopian vision is garbage if it is built on the mass graves of dissenters.

When your definition of a political victory is the stripping of rights from other people, your position is evil.

Whether it is push back against the election of Donald Trump or the push to impose new heavy anti-gun laws, I am convinced that this is the ultimate fantasy of the Progressive Left.

It’s been said before that “the Second Amendment protects the First.”

I’d agree with that statement.  But I believe that the Second Amendment and the first Amendment have an even closer tie than that.

One of the great Supreme Court decisions of the 20th Century was National Socialist Party of America v. Village of Skokie.  The Nazis wanted to march in Skokie because it had the highest per capita percentage of holocaust survivors of any city in America.  The Village of Skokie denied the Nazis a permit to march.  The Supreme Court eventually decided that the Nazis had the right to free speech and to march in the public square.  Simply espousing their ideas was not enough of a threat to the public to justify denying them their civil rights.

What fell out of that decision was the idea that the First Amendment exists to protect unpopular speech.  Speech that is popular, that is not inflammatory or controversial needs no protection as no one is (generally) trying to silence it.  Unpopular speech, statements that are offensive or controversial, need to be protected because it is princely those words that people try to ban.

This idea is paramount in classical liberalism – the belief in individual liberty.  It has been referenced many times, to protect the rights of bakers who don’t want to bake cakes for gay weddings, to protect Milo Yiannopoulos’ right to speak on a college campus,  to protect the rights of anybody to say controversial speech.

Hate speech is free speech.

I would argue that the same idea applies to the Second Amendment.

The Second Amendment exists to protect unpopular guns.  It is the duty of the Second Amendment to protect the guns that politicians hate.   When a politician says he or she is not going to take away your deer rifle or duck gun, then those guns don’t need Second Amendment protection.  It is AR-15’s, handguns, and every sort of controversial weapon that the Second Amendment exists to protect, because they need protection.

When a pundit says the AR-15’s are not protected by the Second Amendment, he is arguing that hate speech is not protected by the First.

Left Wing lower courts have said that the AR-15 is not protected by the Second Amendment and they are wrong.  These are also the same courts that forced a baker to bake a cake against his will.

This is completely clear in the popular culture.  It is exactly the same culture and group of people who shut down Christina Hoff Sommers’ speech at Lewis & Clark Law School, shut down Ben Shapiro at Berkeley, who burned Berkeley over Milo Yiannopoulos, and have deplatformed conservative speakers.

Not to equate Sommers, Shapiro, or even Yiannopoulos with actual Nazis, but these Progressives think they are.

It’s not just the First Amendment but the Second and all the rest of the Amendments that exist to protect what is unpopular, precisely because what is unpopular is what needs protection.

The more a type of gun is maligned, the more the Second Amendment applies to it.  Without that, this nation devolves into mob rule.