I did not catch these headlines earlier.
The reaction of many who did not know about is unsurprising to old hands.
After all the sorrow this shooting has brought to the community, it is a good thing that the court decided the way it did because it has taught to some that they have been lied by certain political groups that keep promising full protection from evil if they are willing to submit.
But as it is human nature, this too will soon be forgotten and people will return to the happy-happy thoughts of 911 as a Harry-Potter-Like magic incantation that will keep or save them from danger instantly. It is easier to think of unicorns dancing in fields of multicolored daffodils than realize they are their own First Responder.
All these people that have been implicitly deceived into believing more than just the fact that government is obligated to protect them (protip: nope), but that government actually cares about your safety (protip 2: still nope). People aren’t conditioned to be their own first responders because of this deception gives them a warm and fuzzy feeling. By the time their brains register that disconnect between their feelings and the situation they are dealing with, it is already too late.
Those of us cynical enough to take history books and current events (Venezuela, Nigeria, South Africa, many others) at face value already know better.
I’m surprised by neither the ruling nor the response.
Do I agree with “No duty to protect?” Well, actually, I kind of do, because the opposite side of the coin is that the police can be ripped to shreds in the courtroom for trying but failing. I would agree with “obligated to make an effort” with some minimum threshold defined, maybe, but that’s tricky too.
And, yes, I think the same people who are wailing about this now, are likely to forget about it by the time we’re all back from the holidays.
Perhaps some of them will even realize the hard truth that many of us do – no one is going to help you but yourself. You are responsible for your own safety.
In the Miami Herald wall, I posted the SCOTUS cases and a link to get Florida’s Concealed Weapons Permit pointing out that coming January, an elected liberal anti gunner may be messing up the system.
The rest is up to them.
We in this community have all known for a long time that we are responsible for our own safety and that of our family. That being said, students in public schools are at the mercy of individuals like the coward of Broward because their parents are not allowed the means to protect them at school and they are not able to protect themselves. I like Boris can see the police side as well, they can not be held responsible for every incidence of stupid that happens. That being the facts of this issue, it falls to us to protect our families, often without tools or access. It surely sounds difficult if not impossible at times. I am not able to see a clear, workable answer, but as sure as the sun rises there has to be an answer found, and very soon.
If you allow teacjers to be armed, we could protect your kids if for no other reason than self preservation. How many teachers that day ran to the sound of the guns while the cops hid?
More (unarmed) teachers, than (except Coral Gables PD) cops.
Makes it simple to pick the heroes from the donut grazers.
Great reply, after all you can not legislate morality, and you can not beat the kind of dedication it takes to teach in today’s society. I agree let the dedicated teachers have the training and tools they require to protect their students and themselves. They may not have the legal duty but they have the moral duty and many would choose to protect even without the tools and training.
More than just allowing teachers to be armed is ending Gun Free Zones, so parents like me can carry. Another layer of defense.
And students.
So you think it is a good idea to arm high school students?
The ones on the rifle team or the trap squad? If there is an incident in progress, yes, in fact I would be happy to let the team access the arms locker.
Of course that assumes the school has a team, et cetera.
I teach, and can tell you this is a bad idea. Children at that age are too immature to handle the responsibility, as a rule. We have two or three fistfights a week. So many that they have a dedicated Youtube channel for posting videos of the fights. Those fights often include our ROTC students.
I made it through highschool perfectly fine, on a rifle team, often with my rifle in my car, without even coming close to getting into a single fight my entire 4 years.
I’m not saying having kids being able to arm themselves is good but man you can’t paint with that broad of a brush.
How long ago was that? You have no idea what high schools are like today. The rapper thug culture has taken over.
I graduated in 2006 from an “urban” school district. 40% of my school was Puerto Rican. I say this because my experience was the black and Puerto Rican kids were disproportionately the ones doing the thug culture thing. My city was also the leader for teen pregnancies in the area. There were gang members in my school. I have no idea how many fights there were a day, as a student that wasn’t information I had access to, but I can only think of between one and five fights I witnessed throughout four years; and that is heavily speculating and reaching into the fuzzies for some scrap of a memory.
I would add, if anything I may have been a better first responder when I was younger. While much less experienced and knowledgeable, I had that sureness of oneself that only comes with youth. Today I know my biggest self created obstacle to overcome is analysis paralysis; luckily my experience has shown that to only really been an issue when I have time to think and not just time to react.
All of that said, it is still beside the point. Not all kids, regardless of how much thug culture exists (or even their participation in it), are so immature they cannot handle serious tasks and responsibilities and there are plenty of kids you are unaware of that have much greater responsibilities already than you know.
So since you are advocating allowing children to carry guns to school, what criteria would they have to meet in order to do so? Would there be a minimum age? A test?
In order to be legal, it can’t be based upon some vague rule like the opinion of an administrator. There have to be some quantifiable, articulable set of requirements. What would those be?
Can you put a quote from me in here where I said kids should carry guns in school or have access to an arms locker? In fact I specifically say that is not what I am saying in my first post. “I’m not saying having kids being able to arm themselves is good but man you can’t paint with that broad of a brush.”
My only point is and was you are painting with so broad a brush that it is foolish. That you are generalizing so much based solely on your experience that is discounts any other possibility. I offered myself and my experience as a living breathing example that there were/are responsible kids who aren’t thugs and know how to not get into fights and mind their own business.
Then you questioned my “qualifications” so I explained them.
If you want my opinion on having kids arm themselves like that, it is probably not a good idea because 99% of shooting threats are insider threats. I.E. from a student or former student who often looks like they could still be a student. I think there is significant risk of mistaken identity for any responder. I could be wrong, but that’s my opinion.
Sad, but true. There is no “Constitutional Right” of a civilian to protect another civilian. Cops are civilians, though they may be government employees.
There is a “Constitutional Right” that actually is in the Constitution, er, actually the Bill of Rights. Last time I looked, I do believe it’s the Second.
Everything else, all those gun control measures that the government is using against us, are against the Constitution. But no one believes this anymore, well, at least those in the government. Like a self-fulfilling prophecy in a bad way.