I Was a Marine. I Don’t Want a Gun in My Classroom.

[mystery-ak]

I Was a Marine. I Don’t Want a Gun in My Classroom.

By ANTHONY SWOFFORDFEB. 24, 2018

Before the United States Marine Corps allowed me to carry a live M-16 assault rifle, I went through hundreds of hours of firearms training. Classroom sessions devoted to nomenclature, maintenance and basic operation accounted for more than two weeks of study before I even set eyes on ammunition. For weeks, I carried an M-16 without a magazine — a dummy weapon, basically. I secured it with a padlock overnight while I slept in the barracks, and unlocked it each morning before chow.

Only at the shooting range was I allowed to check out magazines and ammo from the armory. The first day at the range I spent 12 hours disassembling, cleaning and reassembling the weapon. I had to do this blindfolded. I had to do this while a drill instructor hurried me, yelling that enemies were at the gate. I had to do this while fellow Marines wept nearby from doing hundreds of burpees as punishment for not being able to reassemble their weapons fast enough.

The military issue M-16 is the model for the AR-15 assault rifle that the accused shooter used to kill 17 people this month at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Fla. The shooter bought the weapon lawfully. He received zero hours of mandated training. There is no reason that any civilian, of any age, should possess this rifle.

[Elderberry]

Link?

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/24/opinion/sunday/marine-gun-classroom.html

[mystery-ak]

Link?

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/24/opinion/sunday/marine-gun-classroom.html

How did I forget that...thanks for getting it.

[Elderberry]

Last month, the State Legislature in West Virginia, where my university is located, introduced the Campus Self-Defense Act. This would prohibit colleges and universities from designating their campuses as gun-free zones. If this act becomes law, I will resign my professorship. I will not work in an environment where professors and students pack heat.

Hopefully, He'll find another profession soon.

[RoosGirl]

At the White House on Wednesday, President Trump suggested that if a football coach at the high school, Aaron Feis, had been armed, he would have saved even more lives than he did, perhaps even his own, because rather than simply shielding students from gunfire, he could have drawn his weapon, fired and killed the assailant — putting a tidy end to the rampage.

This is absurd. More likely, had Mr. Feis been armed, he would not have been able to draw his weapon (a side arm, presumably) quickly enough to stop the shooter, who with an AR-15 would have had the coach outgunned. Even if the coach had been able to draw his weapon — from where? his athletic shorts? — any shots he managed to fire would have risked being errant, possibly injuring or killing additional students. As some studies have shown, even police officers have missed their targets more than 50 percent of the time. In firing a weapon, Mr. Feis would have only added to the carnage and confusion.

So, there's an active shooter in the school, as far as we know trying to kill as many people as possible, and I shouldn't be armed because I *might* not be able to hit the guy?  Or because I *might* have a stray that hits someone unintentionally?  Yes, we should live in fear of what *might* happen and do nothing instead of trying to prevent what we see happening right in front of our eyes.   

[goatprairie]

So, there's an active shooter in the school, as far as we know trying to kill as many people as possible, and I shouldn't be armed because I *might* not be able to hit the guy?  Or because I *might* have a stray that hits someone unintentionally?  Yes, we should live in fear of what *might* happen and do nothing instead of trying to prevent what we see happening right in front of our eyes.   

That quote from the Slimes writer was so incredibly stupid, it doesn't dignify an answer. But to be a NY Slimes columnist is to be a stranger to reality.
But I'll have at it. The writer assumes the nut shooting is an expert who can hit anything but another person would not be. At close quarters a handgun is an excellent weapon. It doesn't matter if the rifle bullet can travel three times faster than a bullet from a handgun.  At close quarters neither shooter could dodge an accurate shot.
The writer assumes that a teacher or trained person/guard with a handgun (or shooters) could not sneak up on the shooter and kill him.
In short, the writer is assuming that everybody armed with just a handgun is an incompetent boob, while the nut will be able to hit anything that moves.
But moreover, what we do know is that most of teachers and students at Parkland were sitting ducks!!! If one person has a gun and lots of ammo and the people he is hunting have none, it is like shooting fish in a barrel for the nut.
Just one person firing back at the nut, whether he hits the nut or not, might cause the shooter to stop for  a while before proceding or maybe even stop altogether and leave the building.
It is also entirely possible the person or person with handguns might kill or disable the nut.
In the final analysis, what scenario would you want if a nut entered the building no matter how well-armed......totally defenseless or a few people with handguns?
Without a doubt I think  the overwhelming majority of sane people would be happy to have people in the school armed with any kind of gun, handgun or flintlock rather than being totally defenseless.

[Meldrew]

I Was a Marine. I Don’t Want a Gun in My Classroom.

Then don't have one in your classroom.  See, easy.

Why not just stop there?  Where in the rights this Marine fought for does he find the right to make everyone else conform to his inner progressive?

Can't we all just get along?    /sarc

[RoosGirl]

Then don't have one in your classroom.  See, easy.

Why not just stop there?  Where in the rights this Marine fought for does he find the right to make everyone else conform to his inner progressive?

Can't we all just get along?    /sarc