Seattle shooting victim speaks out against more firearms regulations

http://www.komonews.com/news/local/...her-gun-control-not-the-answer-186392431.html

Surprise surprise, the victim who survived that attack doesn't believe more gun regs will help, and to boot she's a "self described liberal." (You can read this in her comments posted below the article)

It's too bad she thinks "arming teachers is crazy." I guess she'd have to survive a school shooting before she changed her tune on that one but hey, you can't win em all.

We need more shooting victims to speak out, they are some of the only people that the anti-gun crowd will listen to, although they'll probably try to shut them up fast.

Alpine said:

It's too bad she thinks "arming teachers is crazy."

Click to expand...

Actually, the idea is more crazy than you think. I have a Daughter who works for a local School District in listening to her and observing many of he Teachers that might end up being armed I'd be alarmed with the idea.

Now if the proposal was for "Arming QUALIFIED school personnel" then great. This might also be considered a promotion criteria for those who get promoted to administrative positions and roam the school rather than being confined to a single classroom.

Obviously they'd have required extensive training and evaluation before being allowed to be armed. With an 8%+ unemployment rate I think we could easily train and arm all/most teachers and purge the ones who couldn't make the cut. It's not such a bad requirement to have if we're serious about protecting our children and believing that they're valuable to us. It would probably be two birds with one stone by getting rid of the indoctrinating ones who hate liberty and brainwash kids too.

amlevin said:

Actually, the idea is more crazy than you think. I have a Daughter who works for a local School District in listening to her and observing many of he Teachers that might end up being armed I'd be alarmed with the idea.

Now if the proposal was for "Arming QUALIFIED school personnel" then great. This might also be considered a promotion criteria for those who get promoted to administrative positions and roam the school rather than being confined to a single classroom.

Click to expand...

I don't want them to carry to get a pay raise, I want them to carry to protect themselves, if they happen to protect the children that is an awesome bonus. We already have too many folks like park rangers and such getting a firearms endorsement to get a raise.

So you think that getting a CPL should be "may issue" or that the State gets to add "training" requirements to who can receive it? Do I think training is a good idea, yes; do I think the state should get to decide when I have enough, no.

amlevin said:

Actually, the idea is more crazy than you think. I have a Daughter who works for a local School District in listening to her and observing many of he Teachers that might end up being armed I'd be alarmed with the idea.

Click to expand...

Who is proposing that all teachers be forced to carry a gun? All that anybody is proposing is that teachers who want to be armed and who go through the CCW licensing process (and possibly also get some advanced training) should be allowed to carry concealed in the school. Would any of those alarming teachers display that level of responsibility and effort?

I agree, there should not be any employment incentives behind this. The decision should be one made on the basis of responsibility, not economics.

Vitaeus said:

I don't want them to carry to get a pay raise, I want them to carry to protect themselves, if they happen to protect the children that is an awesome bonus. We already have too many folks like park rangers and such getting a firearms endorsement to get a raise.

So you think that getting a CPL should be "may issue" or that the State gets to add "training" requirements to who can receive it? Do I think training is a good idea, yes; do I think the state should get to decide when I have enough, no.

Click to expand...

Park Rangers are required to be armed while on duty, unless they were hired prior to 1994, at which point carrying a firearm is optional, but they're on the same pay schedule.

The thing that worries me with this idea is that if the district allows CCW, what will L&I think or do? What we consider to be a simple act, L&I will make into a complicated one by any means possible

EMNofSeattle said:

Park Rangers are required to be armed while on duty, unless they were hired prior to 1994, at which point carrying a firearm is optional, but they're on the same pay schedule.

The thing that worries me with this idea is that if the district allows CCW, what will L&I think or do? What we consider to be a simple act, L&I will make into a complicated one by any means possible

Click to expand...

Cite, please. I had understood that they were given extra pay by qualifying as an armed officer, but no cite to back that up.

Vitaeus said:

Cite, please. I had understood that they were given extra pay by qualifying as an armed officer, but no cite to back that up.

Click to expand...

I'll find one, but a park ranger at manchester state park in Port Orchard told me that, I specifically asked her because she WAS NOT carrying a gun, she said she was qualified and could carry, but chose not to and had that option. becuase she was hired in 1993, she said all park ranger 2s (her job class) were required to carry a gun after 1994 but that the ranger 2s hired prior to 1994 had a choice as to whether or not to carry.

Now I see job descriptions from the state parks service.

Park Ranger 2 the job description includes have to pass law enforcement academy and specifically mentions firearm training will be provided for that job. there is no open positions for park ranger 1 so I can't find the job description for it... I've been following state jobs for some time, years, and I've NEVER even seen a job posting for ranger 1, it may not even exist anymore for all I know, but I'll try to find out what ranger 1 is for you.


http://agency.governmentjobs.com/wa...></string></var></struct></data></wddxPacket>

I strongly support the concept of having armed teachers/staff in our schools with professional training for their environment and proficiency testing upon completion.
If they received additional pay for being trained and carry daily then by all means I find this acceptable, even for the ones who start out choosing to do it for additional pay as long as they have the additional training and pass a proficiency testing.

John Hardin said:

Who is proposing that all teachers be forced to carry a gun? All that anybody is proposing is that teachers who want to be armed and who go through the CCW licensing process (and possibly also get some advanced training) should be allowed to carry concealed in the school. Would any of those alarming teachers display that level of responsibility and effort?

I agree, there should not be any employment incentives behind this. The decision should be one made on the basis of responsibility, not economics.

Click to expand...

What would be the purpose of training and CCW license process? Public PR?

I would say a teacher has a right to bear arms just as much as the rest of us with no impairments or infringements.

sudden valley gunner said:

What would be the purpose of training and CCW license process? Public PR?

I would say a teacher has a right to bear arms just as much as the rest of us with no impairments or infringements.

Click to expand...

I agree, but there is no way we could swing uninfringed carry in schools today.

Our rights have been infringed incrementally, we will have to work to restore them incrementally. If we can get CCW-licensed teachers and faculty in schools and show that there aren't problems, then we have improved the situation.

John Hardin said:

I agree, but there is no way we could swing uninfringed carry in schools today.

Our rights have been infringed incrementally, we will have to work to restore them incrementally. If we can get CCW-licensed teachers and faculty in schools and show that there aren't problems, then we have improved the situation.

Click to expand...

I understand and my question was a sincere one.

If it was for simple PR, and tax payers didn't have to pay for it it would be step.

I personally don't think incrementalism is a two way street, they have been trying it for over a hundred years. It never seems to work for liberty....tyranny is on a one way track, may seem to get a win here and there which is good but it keeps going down those tracks.

amlevin said:

Actually, the idea is more crazy than you think. I have a Daughter who works for a local School District in listening to her and observing many of he Teachers that might end up being armed I'd be alarmed with the idea.

Click to expand...

Definitely.

During my public school years, I was often the target of bullying, but I only had to go for stitches three times. Two of those three times, the attacker was a teacher. If they'd had a gun instead of their bare hands, I might not be here now.

Just being a teacher doesn't make you a saint.