Oakland’s 4/02 School Shooting, What Nobody Is Talking About
About two days after an event that makes the conservative views look bad the right wing media start the, “what nobody is taking about… line of “reasoning.”
I’ve mocked these kind of statements before, but what occurs to me is that it is a construction that does have some utility.
How would this apply to the current Oakland shooting?
What nobody is talking about is that this is NOT about wanting to protect kids, it’s really about wanting a lethal response.
The solution suggested by the NRA gun lobby–having armed teachers–still does NOT stop the non-law abiding and “crazy person.” Just like the guns everywhere people claim that having a gun ban and no guns signs don’t stop crazy people.
Because unless the teachers are quick draw experts with extensive training they aren’t going to stop the shooter. If four highly trained armed cops, one a SWAT instructor, can be shot in a coffee shop before getting off a shot do we really think an 8 hour weapons course will give these teachers the skills needed?
This is not about wanting to protect kids from gun violence.
Because if they really wanted to protect kids in schools from harm they could demand money be spent on metal scanners, bulletproof glass, hardened security doors. They could unleash the TSA personnel on school buildings. The buildings could be treated like planes. When was the last time some, “crazy person” who didn’t “follow the rules” got on a plane and shot people up? Sure it would cost money, but aren’t our children worth it?
What nobody is talking about is that the Gun lobby has decided that all other solutions are worthless, so they will do nothing. And by worthless I mean they can’t make money on the solutions. Maybe Skeletor, should start talking about school safety so he can sell a few billion more nude scanners.
In fact, based on the gun lobby’s actions, and a multimillion dollar marketing and legislation budget, the gun lobby won’t act to prevent people from getting guns whom their own majority of members agree shouldn’t be getting guns.
They make it easy for criminals to get guns.
They oppose actions that let terrorists get guns.
They work to pass laws making it easy for people to carry weapons but difficult to stop them from getting weapons after they become non-law abiding citizens .
They don’t demand that there be a record of people with mental illness problems or who “just snap”. (So much for their claim they can’t do anything about crazy people. They can, but don’t, make sure crazy people are entered into a gun check database.)
There are things that they could do, but don’t. Because defending people is boring and doesn’t give the defender a sense of control and power.
They are convinced that their solution is the right solution, they turn other solutions into stawmen solutions.
Now as a thought experiment, what if we if we drilled down into their solution and ask what are they really willing to do, what won’t they be willing to do?
Spocko’s Fun Facts:
To get a cosmetology license in Oklahoma you need 1500 of training.
To get a conceal care license in Oklahoma you need 8 hours of training.
Let’s say that we decide to Arm Teachers as you want, what steps are you going to demand in exchange for putting more armed people in these situations? And by demand I mean, will you beef up current laws and implement better ones? After all, in lots of states like Oklahoma, the need for training in minimal. A few questions:
1) Will your law require Mandatory Psychological screening?
2) Will you implement live Paint-ball gun drills to see how well they react?
3) Will you demand 1500 hours on weapons training or is that only for cosmetologists?
4) Will there be quick draw training?
5) Will there be a review board that will repeal your new “Armed Teacher” law following the first 13 accidental shootings?
6) Will staff that aren’t quick enough on the draw to defend their students be fired?
7) How will you fund the defense of teachers who make mistakes? What about the pay offs for the student who reaches into their bag in a a threatening way?
How many examples would it take you to admit this is a bad idea and it doesn’t work? 4, 10, 1,000? None?
The answer is none, right? Because the idea of arming teachers with guns in schools never fails, only the teachers who are actually carrying the guns fail. And the people will fail because the ideal scenario is more rare than the usual scenario.
What nobody is talking about is the people pushing guns everywhere aren’t really concerned about protecting your kids. They care about getting more guns out there, no matter what.
Follow me around on twitter @spockosbrain
Want to hear Mike Stark and I discuss activism and the media? Listen to us on Virtually Speaking. Link