Wow... Вот уж сюрприз так сюрприз

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-G...ards-In-Schools

Newtown Sides with NRA: Votes for Armed Guards In Schools
Не ожидал после их дружных танцев на костях заодно с Обамерами.

Alternate headline: "Piers Morgan Hit Hardest."

When the rubber hits the road, when the stark and very real choice is either empty political posturing with useless gun control laws or doing something practical to protect your children, the only people laughing at the NRA are a media determined to protect anything and everything involving Barack Obama. Today the Newtown Board of Education made the only choice any parent can: It voted to put armed guards in its schools:

The vote, for now, only represents a request - it still needs to clear budget and logistical boundaries since the guards would come from the town's police resources as opposed to the school board itself. But the plan 'would put two eyes and ears -- one armed, one unarmed -- at each Newtown school,' reports Bronxville Patch's Davis Dunavin. The guards, officially called school resource officers (SROs), were already a fixture at all Newtown schools in the wake of the shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary, but until this vote they were budgeted only to be a presence at middle and high Schools, according to NBC Connecticut.

The current push for gun controls by The State and its media is nothing more than another front in the relentless culture wars against Red State Americans and Bitter Clingers. None of the proposed laws would have stopped the Sandy Hook murderer, which should tell you everything you need to know.

Meanwhile, in Democrat-run Chicago, there's a Newtown every month. But the only solution to that problem would be admitting harsh gun control laws and liberalism run amok have failed. So the media would rather Chicago's monthly Sandy Hook goes on than ever admit to such an inconvenient truth.

The NRA proposed putting armed guns in schools, and now the school board closest to this tragedy agrees.

Keep laughing and ignoring Chicago, media. You're only fooling your corrupt selves.

Я не знаю как к таким мерам относиться, я не большой сторонник вооруженной охраны, мне гораздо больше нравится идея разрешения ношения оружия лицами с лицензиями.

Охранник будет сидеть у входа, и дремать. Если кто-то что-то задумал то он его сможет легко завалить - не будет страж постоянно на готове. А начнись что-то в классах - пока он добежит.

Скажем так - если охранник в дополнение к разрешению ношения - то я ЗА. Если нет - то вижу как полумеру.

Еще такой момент. Видя как стреляют многие носящие оружие, я считаю что чтобы давать им право носить в школе они должны сдать экзамен на улучшеное владение оружием.

Недостаточно уметь попасть в ростовую мишень с 7 метров, медленно и стоя как запятая, ибо толку от такого "защитника" точно не будет. К ним, на мой взгляд, должны применяться оценки как к охранникам, как минимум.

Думаю что большинство учителей - носителей лицензии с удовольствием пройдет некоторые курсы тактической стрельбы, особенно если это будет сделано удобно и за разумные деньги - скажем, один курс для всех в данной школе, выездным инструктором. Кто не сдал - пусть потренируется.

Foxbat
Я не знаю как к таким мерам относиться, я не большой сторонник вооруженной охраны, мне гораздо больше нравится идея разрешения ношения оружия лицами с лицензиями.

Охранник будет сидеть у входа, и дремать. Если кто-то что-то задумал то он его сможет легко завалить - не будет страж постоянно на готове. А начнись что-то в классах - пока он добежит.

Это так. Но. Совсем недавно те же люди (или из этого же гадюшника) и от идеи вооружённой охраны бились в истерике и давились латте.

Foxbat
Думаю что большинство учителей - носителей лицензии с удовольствием пройдет некоторые курсы тактической стрельбы

Ранее читал что курсы NRA для учителей уже шли нарасхват как горячие пирожки.

V1
Ранее читал что курсы NRA для учителей уже шли нарасхват как горячие пирожки.

Да, тоже слыхал, но у меня было впечатление что курсы были очень начальные, для людей совсем не владеющим оружия. Может ошибаюсь, но звучало как-то так.

Соглаен что все равно явление положительное.

FoxbatОхранник будет сидеть у входа, и дремать.

что-то я не вижу нигде в Канаде дремлющих охранников. конечно завалить их не составит труда, но слжбу свою они несут исправно.

железячник
конечно завалить их не составит труда, но слжбу свою они несут исправно.

Тут как бы явный конфликт... кому нужна такая служба?

Видел охранников треплющихся.

Никакого сюрприза, Ньютаун задолбали любители запрета оружия, они уже шарахаются от журналистов с вопросами, как ещё наказать страшные ружья. Из 26 погибших, только 11 родственников продолжают пляски с правительством, остальные отказались участвовать. В последние месяцы пара сотен жителей подали заявление на ношение.

Толку 0. Бюджет прокатили.

Foxbat

Тут как бы явный конфликт... кому нужна такая служба?

Видел охранников треплющихся.

А что Вы предлагаете? Ввести войска, поставить на улицах танки? Снайперов на крыши? Да конечно можно все что угодно, вопрос только в том сколько общество согласится платить.

И потом, охранники - не солдаты в карауле. Им разговаривать не запрещено.

Недостаточно уметь попасть в ростовую мишень с 7 метров, медленно и стоя как запятая, ибо толку от такого "защитника" точно не будет. К ним, на мой взгляд, должны применяться оценки как к охранникам, как минимум.

В спину у нас категорически нельзя. Но в обстоятельствах теракта могут смягчить вину.

PAULIUS
В спину у нас категорически нельзя.

Если он в данный момент кого-то мочит, то можно. Ибо обычно разрешается для предотвращения преступления тоже... но может у вас штат совсем пидаровый?

железячник
А что Вы предлагаете?

Я в посте #2 написал.

В спину у нас категорически нельзя. Но в обстоятельствах теракта могут смягчить вину.

Foxbat

Я в посте #2 написал.

Ха! Я тоже за это руками и ногами, но сами учителя против. Тут уж ничего не поделаешь если эти лево-радикальные изнеженные трутни сами отказываются вооружаться.

Мы живем в век аутсорсинга и менталитет у всех искаженный. Подавляющее большинство населения считает, что на любой вид деятельности требуется:
1. Государственное одобрение в виде лицензии
2. Установившийся большой бизнес
У людей изчезла концепция самодостаточности, самоценности и простой самостоятельности. Сознание что ты сам являешься независимой единицей, которая может считать себя личностью или бизнесом в зависимости от обстоятельств, которое двигало прогресс нашей цивилизации примерно до 60х годов, утрачено.
Именно поэтому мне первым делом по телефону говорят - частным лицам не продаем. И уже потом спрашивают "так вы от лица компании звоните?".
Ну и с самозащитой абсолютно та же история: до тех пор, пока это государством лицензированные охранники в униформе - это соответствует долгосрочной платформе учителей и их учительской бюрократии, которую они все вколачивают в учеников. А защищаться самостоятельно пойдет вразрез с их же учением. Не выйдет, батенька, как говаривал паскуда Ленин.

http://thechronicleherald.ca/o...biding-citizens

The New York Times, that bastion of progressive thought, couldn't have been clearer.

National Rifle Association (NRA) executive vice-president Wayne LaPierre was 'delusional' to suggest, a week after the Newtown, Conn., massacre of elementary-schoolchildren and staff in December, that putting armed security guards in schools should be part of the solution, said the Times.

'Any town officials or school principals who take up the NRA on that offer should be fired,' thundered the Times' editorial page on Dec. 21.

Well, guess what the Newtown school board board did? In February, citing widespread community support, including the local PTA, they unanimously requested funding from the town to put armed security guards in the community's four elementary schools. Armed resource officers apparently already patrol the town's middle and high schools.

Don't think anyone was fired.

There you have, in a microcosm, the disconnect in thinking between gun-control advocates and those defending gun rights, along with, arguably, those simply trying to deal with the world as it is. One side sees arming schools as unhinged, the other sees being armed as a defence against criminals and disturbed individuals.

As I said last week, the demonization and heated rhetoric normally surrounding debate on U.S. gun control, about which many Canadians hold strong opinions, interferes with finding sensible middle ground.

From gun-rights defenders' point of view, criminals don't care about gun-control laws. They point to Chicago and Washington, D.C., cities with both the toughest gun-control laws and highest gun-homicide rates in America. To them, gun-control advocates, driven by emotion, keep proposing measures that end up targeting legal gun owners while doing nothing about criminal gun use.

Why do U.S. gun owners own guns? In a 2005 Gallup poll, protection against crime was the top reason cited, by 67 per cent.

In that light, it's interesting that U.S. police have shifted their advice to anyone caught in a mass attack. Experts at a recent meeting of the non-profit Police Executive Research Forum in Washington, D.C., noted police departments no longer urge people to remain uninvolved and passive (except for calling 911). Instead, citizens should now 'flee, hide or fight back.'

PoliceOne, an online service for police officers worldwide, asked 15,000 U.S. police officers in a March survey what difference legally armed civilians would have made in Newtown or in the July 2012 Aurora, Col., theatre shooting. Casualties would have been reduced, replied 80 per cent.

As the saying goes: When seconds count, police are only minutes away.

That survey held other interesting nuggets. Police were asked about different proposals for reducing gun crime. Banning large ammunition magazines? No effect, said 97 per cent. An assault weapon ban? No effect, said 71 per cent. A national database to track gun sales? No effect, said 70 per cent. Gun buybacks? No effect, said 81 per cent.

What measures would work? Ninety-one per cent favoured stiff mandatory sentences, and no plea bargains, for using firearms while committing a crime. Fifty-nine per cent believed tougher penalties for gun trafficking, including straw purchasers (people with clean records who buy guns legally, then give or sell them to criminals), would reduce gun crime. Seventy-seven per cent said legally armed civilians were important to reducing the crime rates overall.

Asked what they believed was the biggest cause of gun violence in the U.S., 38 per cent - the most for any answer - cited a decline in parenting and family values.

Now, let's turn to the theme, leaned on heavily by gun-control advocates like U.S. President Barack Obama, that despite 80 to 90 per cent support among Americans for wider background checks, the cowardly U.S. Senate recently couldn't pass even that modest gun-control measure.

The politicians who voted against were accused of selling out to the gun lobby - i.e., the NRA and gun manufacturers. There's no question politicians were under pressure from pro-gun lobbyists. But politicians, like moths to light, are irresistibly drawn to where the votes are, since most want to get re-elected.

So why would they oppose a measure with 90 per cent support? Perhaps because that number was pretty soft.

A new poll last week by The Washington Post and Pew Research Center found fewer than half of Americans (47 per cent) said they were disappointed or angry the Senate failed to support wider background checks. That seems incongruous, unless the earlier number only measured a general feeling, one not strongly held. A Gallup poll earlier in April did find that only four per cent of Americans said controlling guns was the most important problem facing the nation.

In other words, politicians most likely voted the way they did because they believed that's what their constituents wanted.

Here's one more. A Washington Post poll recently found a majority of Americans (51 per cent) say having a gun in the house makes it a safer place to be - versus 29 per cent who say it makes it more dangerous. Like it or not, most Americans apparently believe guns make them safer.

Ещё один приятный сюрприз:
http://www.therightscoop.com/m...jihadi-bombers/

http://schoolsofthought.blogs....-in-classrooms/

June 12th, 2013
11:50 AM ET

In response to Newtown shootings, some states move to put guns in classrooms

By Lauren Russell, CNN

(CNN) - While most of the nation's students are enjoying summer break, teachers in a handful of states are studying - not their fall curriculum, but how to take out an assailant.

In Ohio, Buckeye Firearms Association, a gun rights PAC, has launched a program to educate teachers on how to take down a gunman.

"We were mocked when we first said we wanted to teach this class," Jim Irvine, president of Buckeye, said. "People doubted if we could fill the class."

States tighten, loosen gun laws after Newtown

Yet more than 1,400 school staff members applied for the 24 spots first offered in late December, he said.

Interest in arming teachers has grown among some school staff, gun rights groups and lawmakers in the aftermath of the mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School, in which 20 students - ages 6 and 7 - and six adults were killed in Newtown, Connecticut, on December 14.

Photos: Teachers pose with their guns

Gun rights groups have sponsored classes for teachers in a number of states from Texas to Ohio.

In the six months since the mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary, legislators in at least 30 states have proposed laws allowing teachers and other school staff to carry firearms on primary and secondary school campuses, according to Lauren Heintz, a research analyst at the National Conference of State Legislatures. In most states the bills have failed, but laws have been enacted in South Dakota, Alabama, Arizona, and Kansas. Texas, which already allows staff to carry firearms with school approval, passed two new laws creating a "school marshal" program and addressing training teachers.

Some bills proposed in the past six months require only that the school employee have a concealed-firearm permit, but many of the bills include training provisions. For example, South Dakota's new law requires law enforcement-approved training for every appointed school sentinel.

The week after Sandy Hook, NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre told the media that all schools in the United States should have armed security, and an NRA-backed task force proposed training and arming adults at schools.

Six months since Sandy Hook: Newtown residents find their voice

"Will you at least admit it's possible that 26 innocent lives might have been spared?" LaPierre asked. "The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun," he said.

Before Sandy Hook, no state's law explicitly permitted firearms on school campuses, though some states had exemptions, according to the NCSL.

For 12 years, Utah's concealed weapon law has permitted a person to have, on his or her person or in a secure lockbox, a weapon inside a school. As concealed firearm permit holders, they are not required to tell parents or school officials.

But in Texas and Ohio, for instance, a person must get permission from the school district to bring a concealed weapon on school grounds.

The Harrold Independent School District board in rural Texas approved a plan to arm certain staff members in 2007. Under the so-called Guardian Plan, identities of armed staff members aren't divulged. This way, a shooter can't target them, the superintendent wrote in a column for CNN's "Schools of Thought" blog after Newtown.

"At the end of the school day, we at Harrold want to know we've done everything possible to protect our children from people who are intent on harming them," David Thweatt wrote.

The Union Grove Independent School District and Van Independent School District, both in East Texas, in January became the second and third districts in the state to authorize teachers with concealed handgun licenses to carry firearms on campus.

At Colt's Connecticut factory, no apologies for arming America

Ohio allows school boards to vote on whether teachers and administrators can carry concealed weapons into schools, a stipulation that was largely overlooked until Sandy Hook. The exception has existed since at least 2008 when the law was last amended.

Dick Caster, head of the Ohio School Board Association, said school safety plans are private documents, so there isn't a list of all the school districts that have armed employees. Though not required to disclose it, a few Ohio school districts have made headlines by voting to allow teachers to carry guns. Sidney City Schools announced in March it would be arming staff, and the school board in Montpelier approved arming its custodial staff in January.

But Bill Bond, a former principal who once confronted a shooter, isn't so sure arming teachers is the answer. In 1997, a student shot eight of his peers at Kentucky's Heath High School, where Bond was principal at the time. Three of those students were killed in the shooting. Looking back, Bond said he wouldn't have wanted a gun. "It could have made the situation worse," he said. "The potential for wrongful accidental killing is greater than the potential for saving," he said about arming school personnel.

He supports having trained school resource officers on campus, but educators have enough on their plates without the responsibility of a deadly weapon, he said.

"Anytime you have divided or added responsibilities, it distracts from primary responsibilities," he said. "From an educational standpoint, I'm against it."

Bond worked 29 years in schools and has been the school safety expert with the National Association of Secondary School Principals for 12 years. He's heard talk of arming school personnel before, but it wasn't seriously considered until after Sandy Hook, he said.

"I do realize that the only thing that would have been able to stop (the shooter) was gunfire," he said, "but that particular situation is an anomaly."

He also points out that an armed educator would have had only one gun with a few rounds, while the shooter had multiple firearms and 30-round magazines.

"Teachers will hesitate and that will cause teachers to be killed, and if they don't hesitate they'll make the wrong decision," Bond said. "It's wracked with danger."

Ken Trump, a school safety consultant who runs his own firm, agrees that it's a high-risk, high-liability proposal. He thinks only a law enforcement officer should carry weapons on campus.

"There's a huge difference between saying, 'I can protect my family and my home,' versus 'I'm prepared to protect the masses,'" he said.

There's also the question of whether teachers want to carry guns. Nearly three-fourths of teachers said they would not bring a firearm to school even if allowed, a February School Improvement Network survey showed. However, the survey showed most educators believed armed guards would improve safety.

John Benner, president and chief instructor at the Ohio-based Tactical Defense Institute, has trained school resource officers for years. He taught his first class to teachers this spring.

The three-day class, sponsored by Buckeye Firearms Association, examined mass shootings and taught school personnel how to predict a killer's behavior and shoot on the run amid obstacles like narrow hallways and stairwells. Police officers and SWAT commanders help teach the course. Participants had to have a concealed weapons permit before registering.

Buckeye paid about $1,000 per teacher, which includes tuition, room and board, and ammunition. The group will cover tuition and board for the six courses offered this summer.

Benner would like to see all school employees - teachers, resource officers, administrators - learn to use firearms.

"I hate the idea of arming teachers, but we have to," Benner said. Signs and locks won't deter an attacker and police can't respond quickly enough, he said. "It's the only thing that's going to work."

Asked if training law enforcement officers to patrol schools was a better idea than arming teachers, Caster, who was the executive director for the National Association of School Resource Officers before joining the Ohio School Board Association, said it's not possible.

School resource officers are typically funded by either the school or the local law enforcement agency.

"This is what it boils down to: Can you afford to have an officer in every school?" Caster said. "It's not in the budget."

In any event, he said, emotions should not drive the discussion.

"This isn't about guns, it's about a possible tactic," Caster said. "My plea is that we have a rational, logical discussion (about arming teachers) as an additional possible tool."

http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/s...730-103219.html

Arkansas high school arming some teachers

Teachers at an Arkansas high school will be carrying 9mm guns when they return to school this fall.
Clarksville High School has created a new Emergency Response Team, made up of 20 teacher volunteers, the local Fox TV station reported.

The school board approved the program in May and the teachers recently started training.

The ERT, which also includes school custodians and other staff, is learning tactics similar to those police learn, including defensive techniques and appropriate use of force, the news station reported.

The program was created in response to the massacre of students and teachers at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, CT last December.

The ERT will work with local police, the station reported.

Clarksville is located 160 km from Little Rock, and has a population of 9,200.

http://translate.google.com/

Obama, Holder Take NRA Advice & Place Good Guys with Guns in Schools
Published on Monday, September 30, 2013
Tags:AWR Hawkins | Eric Holder | Obama Hates Guns | School Shootings | Wayne LaPierre

Good Guys with Guns in Schools

Obama, Holder Take NRA Advice & Place Good Guys with Guns in Schools
AmmoLand Gun News

Washington DC - -(Ammoland.com)- CNN reports that President Obama is 'putting millions of dollars into funding armed police officers in schools around the country, an idea not far removed from a National Rifle Association proposal.'

According to CNN, on September 27 the DOJ announced $45 million in funding meant to 'create 356 new school resource officer positions.'

The $45 million will be distributed in the form of Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) grants. One of the earliest grants will be to Newtown, Connecticut, to create two new officers for Newtown schools.

In a statement corresponding with the announcement of COPS grants, Attorney General Eric Holder said, 'In the wake of past tragedies, it's clear that we need to be willing to take all possible steps to ensure that our kids are safe when they go to school.'

On December 21st-eight days after the heinous crime at Sandy Hook Elementary-NRA executive director Wayne LaPierre put forth the need for a stronger armed presence in schools.

He pointed out that we 'protect our banks: airports, office buildings, power plants, [and] sports stadiums' with 'armed security,' yet leave our kids unprotected in gun free zones.

He said this situation needs to change, adding: 'The only things that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.' Obama's new funding will put more good guys with guns in schools.

AWR Hawkins on Twitter @AWRHawkins.

About:
AWR Hawkins writes for all the BIG sites, for Pajamas Media, for RedCounty.com, for Townhall.com and now AmmoLand Shooting Sports News.

His southern drawl is frequently heard discussing his take on current events on radio shows like America's Morning News, the G. Gordon Liddy Show, the Ken Pittman Show, and the NRA's Cam & Company, among others. He was a Visiting Fellow at the Russell Kirk Center for Cultural Renewal (summer 2010), and he holds a PhD in military history from Texas Tech University.

http://www.ammoland.com/2013/0.../#ixzz2gTIAvtVh

http://translate.google.com/

Ну и из нашего мурaвейника:

University of Calgary gun club to focus on safety
Student association says the club is more than welcome to bring a debate about firearms to campus

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/...1858292?cmp=rss

PS Простите грешного, на богомерзкое СВС ссылку дал. 😀

пф, так это в альберте. в онтарио, например, всё по-другому 😀

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/...lenced-1.640898

тоже простите за ссылку на cbc 😀

Антимиры, бля, существуют.

ps Badaboom6, досвидания.

железячник
что-то я не вижу нигде в Канаде дремлющих охранников. конечно завалить их не составит труда, но слжбу свою они несут исправно.

Обращаю внимание, что первая часть вашей мысли ПРОТИВОПОЛОЖНА второй.
Ибо если охранник не дремлет, а просто "бдительно" ходит, то разницы от спящего практически нет.
Если кто захочет пострелять, то просто будет начинать с охранника, т.к. противопоставить внезапному нападению у охранника нечего.

Foxbat
Охранник будет сидеть у входа, и дремать. Если кто-то что-то задумал то он его сможет легко завалить - не будет страж постоянно на готове. А начнись что-то в классах - пока он добежит.

Скажем так - если охранник в дополнение к разрешению ношения - то я ЗА. Если нет - то вижу как полумеру.