45th President of the United States, Donald Trump. (Vol 4)
Discussion
Schiller, Trumps ex bodyguard, who women have said was the contact between them and Trump for their liasons, who testified about the moscow hotel visit and amazingly left from guarding trumps door in moscow on the night of offered prostitutes, when he guarded it everywhere else, left Trumps employment last september as he was restricted to his $160,000 a year salary.
Seems the RNC are paying him $15,000 a month as a consultant, for someone who could be a potential witness?
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/02/21/trumps-ex-bodyguar...
Seems the RNC are paying him $15,000 a month as a consultant, for someone who could be a potential witness?
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/02/21/trumps-ex-bodyguar...
Blackpuddin said:
How hard would it be to install airport-style scanners in schools?
As mentioned before, scanners aren't barriers, they are detectors; they just become the start line for an attack rather than preventing one. Good perhaps for security theatre/reassurance, but not much use in practise.Student David Hogg calls out trump jnr for his retweet of the crisis actor claims
http://www.kansascity.com/news/nation-world/articl...
True pundit website again mentioned. There's more to come from that, with trumps sons involved in that beauty of fake news, pizza gate, the links to information given from the NY FBI office. Connections to Bannon, Giuliani, Prince Trump Jr etc
http://www.kansascity.com/news/nation-world/articl...
True pundit website again mentioned. There's more to come from that, with trumps sons involved in that beauty of fake news, pizza gate, the links to information given from the NY FBI office. Connections to Bannon, Giuliani, Prince Trump Jr etc
k that.Post from elsewhere from Jim Wright replying to gun(g)-ho nutcase:
“We have got to wake up, wake up and understand that we have to have… specially trained people that have concealed firearms that can run to the threat and protect our children.”
"specially trained"
By ... who?
Who designs the training. On what criteria? To what standards? No, don't just say, "the local police department" or something similar. This training would have to specially designed because you're talking about non-professionals with guns in a building full of panicked children AND those "specially trained people" will be very likely facing a CHILD with a gun who is killing other children. We don't train soldiers for that. We don't train cops for that. So we're going to need special training, including not just the mechanics and theory of combat arms, but the psychology of killing a CHILD in an active shooter situation. If you don't understand why this is a problem, then you're very likely unqualified to be in this conversation in the first place. It takes years of training to condition a soldier to kill another human being on command, let alone a child. And when that killing occurs, it's usually in a warzone, alongside your squadmates, and while that engagement is very, very often chaotic, it can't be compared to the confusion and chaos of a building packed with screaming running children that you are supposed to be protecting. In a warzone, if your bullets hit a civilian, even a child, well, that's collateral damage. It happens. It can't NOT happen. That's war. But a school? Full of American kids? You starting to see why you'd need some VERY, VERY specific training?
Who pays for it? Combat arms is a perishable skill, so how often is refresher training and re-qualification mandated?
Who do these "specially trained people" answer to? Are they trained to work together? Or are they Lone Wolf McQuade?
How do you insure the school in this situation?
Because you going to HAVE to insure the school.
Are the specially trained people personally liable for their fire? If they hit an innocent kid, if they kill an innocent kid or cripple him or her for life? Who's responsible for that?
Moreover, is the "specially trained person" responsible for failure to stop an active shooter?
Well?
No. No. Don't roll your eyes. You live in America (most of you). We are a litigious society. Somebody has to be responsible. You were trained. You had a gun. You failed to stop the shooter, when the grieving parents sue you, will the school board pay your legal fees? Or will the the school, school board, state take responsibility?
SOMEBODY has to be legally responsible.
What weapons?
It makes a difference, you know. Larger, high velocity rounds can penetrate body armor, but also walls, doors, etc, meaning increased chance of collateral damage in a building full of children. We made the cockpit doors on commercial aircraft bullet proof, are we going to do that with classrooms? If not, well, we're back to that question of who's responsible when the school gets sued for not protecting the students from stray bullets fired by their own teachers.
So, do you mandate acceptable weapons? Ammunition? Fields of Fire? Zones of responsibility. Or is it the Wild West?
How do the cops know who the licensed and qualified "specially trained people" are?
This hole is bottomless.
You are essentially talking about turning teachers into soldiers and schools into warzones. You would do everything, EXCEPT address the actual problem. Easy availability of high powered weapons of war.
Now look, I did not say there shouldn't be armed guards in schools. I didn't say there should.
Likewise, I didn't say teachers shouldn't be armed. Or that they should.
Instead, I asked some VERY basic questions regarding the proposed idea of allowing or even mandating armed teachers and school personnel.
I used to do this for a living. I've had advanced training and extensive experience in this area. I was trained by both military and civilian schools. I taught combat arms. I'm a gun owner. I have a concealed carry permit. I'm hardly anti-gun. I didn't suggest anything, one way or the other. Instead, I'm asking BASIC questions about this idea of arming up teachers and putting amateurs with guns in schools. Questions that any competent gun operator should ask.
You want to put more guns, carried by amateurs, into a building packed full of children. I don't think I'm being unreasonable here.
“We have got to wake up, wake up and understand that we have to have… specially trained people that have concealed firearms that can run to the threat and protect our children.”
"specially trained"
By ... who?
Who designs the training. On what criteria? To what standards? No, don't just say, "the local police department" or something similar. This training would have to specially designed because you're talking about non-professionals with guns in a building full of panicked children AND those "specially trained people" will be very likely facing a CHILD with a gun who is killing other children. We don't train soldiers for that. We don't train cops for that. So we're going to need special training, including not just the mechanics and theory of combat arms, but the psychology of killing a CHILD in an active shooter situation. If you don't understand why this is a problem, then you're very likely unqualified to be in this conversation in the first place. It takes years of training to condition a soldier to kill another human being on command, let alone a child. And when that killing occurs, it's usually in a warzone, alongside your squadmates, and while that engagement is very, very often chaotic, it can't be compared to the confusion and chaos of a building packed with screaming running children that you are supposed to be protecting. In a warzone, if your bullets hit a civilian, even a child, well, that's collateral damage. It happens. It can't NOT happen. That's war. But a school? Full of American kids? You starting to see why you'd need some VERY, VERY specific training?
Who pays for it? Combat arms is a perishable skill, so how often is refresher training and re-qualification mandated?
Who do these "specially trained people" answer to? Are they trained to work together? Or are they Lone Wolf McQuade?
How do you insure the school in this situation?
Because you going to HAVE to insure the school.
Are the specially trained people personally liable for their fire? If they hit an innocent kid, if they kill an innocent kid or cripple him or her for life? Who's responsible for that?
Moreover, is the "specially trained person" responsible for failure to stop an active shooter?
Well?
No. No. Don't roll your eyes. You live in America (most of you). We are a litigious society. Somebody has to be responsible. You were trained. You had a gun. You failed to stop the shooter, when the grieving parents sue you, will the school board pay your legal fees? Or will the the school, school board, state take responsibility?
SOMEBODY has to be legally responsible.
What weapons?
It makes a difference, you know. Larger, high velocity rounds can penetrate body armor, but also walls, doors, etc, meaning increased chance of collateral damage in a building full of children. We made the cockpit doors on commercial aircraft bullet proof, are we going to do that with classrooms? If not, well, we're back to that question of who's responsible when the school gets sued for not protecting the students from stray bullets fired by their own teachers.
So, do you mandate acceptable weapons? Ammunition? Fields of Fire? Zones of responsibility. Or is it the Wild West?
How do the cops know who the licensed and qualified "specially trained people" are?
This hole is bottomless.
You are essentially talking about turning teachers into soldiers and schools into warzones. You would do everything, EXCEPT address the actual problem. Easy availability of high powered weapons of war.
Now look, I did not say there shouldn't be armed guards in schools. I didn't say there should.
Likewise, I didn't say teachers shouldn't be armed. Or that they should.
Instead, I asked some VERY basic questions regarding the proposed idea of allowing or even mandating armed teachers and school personnel.
I used to do this for a living. I've had advanced training and extensive experience in this area. I was trained by both military and civilian schools. I taught combat arms. I'm a gun owner. I have a concealed carry permit. I'm hardly anti-gun. I didn't suggest anything, one way or the other. Instead, I'm asking BASIC questions about this idea of arming up teachers and putting amateurs with guns in schools. Questions that any competent gun operator should ask.
You want to put more guns, carried by amateurs, into a building packed full of children. I don't think I'm being unreasonable here.
Digger said:
Has anyone asked the Teachers?
Speaking as someone who is married to a teacher, I heartily recommend that teachers are NOT armed, as this will have an immediate impact ona) pupils
b) other teachers
c) me
All joking aside, if teachers were to be armed, how long before parents start demanding that pupils are also armed.
andy_s said:
Blackpuddin said:
How hard would it be to install airport-style scanners in schools?
As mentioned before, scanners aren't barriers, they are detectors; they just become the start line for an attack rather than preventing one. Good perhaps for security theatre/reassurance, but not much use in practise.zygalski said:
Blackpuddin said:
How hard would it be to install airport-style scanners in schools?
I think the problem is that many of these school shooters just turn up & start blasting away. I don't think they'd be deterred by a scanner by a turnstile.Unless you have well trained armed guards all around the sites I'm not sure there's an answer.
Next up, standard issue kevlar body armour for all staff and pupils. Guns for pupils. SWAT teams at all schools. Mandatory home schooling for all over Skype and closure of schools.
Anything to avoid actually addressing the root cause.
Blackpuddin said:
Eric Mc said:
Massively, massively hard and prohibitively expensive.
That shouldn't matter though. If they want the luxury of gun freedom in their society they should be willing to pay any price for it in dollars rather than childrens' lives. There are thousands and thousands of schools in the US. It would be impossible and stupidly expensive to put such security measures in every school - and the vast bulk of parents and teachers would not want it, despite these horrific events.
RobDickinson said:
He has the best memory you'd be amazed at how great his memory is.
Seen that he's been defended by a few for having a crib sheet for the session, apparently a lot of politicians have them for meetings etc given the large amount of info that they often require during Q&A's on varying topics which is fair enough IMHO.However, having a crib sheet for an open listening / discussion session where he should know his talking points / limits and having to carry it openly where it can be seen read? That looks pathetic.
The standout phrase "I hear you" is of course simply a cop-out answer that can be given to someone asking a direct question, about say banning sale of guns to people with record of mental health issues, without actually saying yes or no to the question. That's why it's written down, not so he can sound empathetic as some have suggested, but so that he doesn't screw up and actually answer a question in a way that will cause problems for him later on (Mexicans paying for the wall etc).
I'm impressed that he actually had the meeting but note that the most vociferous campaigners from Stoneman Douglas were not in the room...
I'd imagine his NRA buddies are giving him a little leeway to make some changes (banning bumpstocks for example) just for PR reasons but they won't allow him to get too radical like making any meaningful changes to an obviously flawed system.
One of the issues for the USA is that the right to bear a weapon is integrated in its bill of rights, as a consequence there are many, many guns in private ownership in the US. Not much different to Soviet bloc countries, where you can buy an automatic weapon in the local supermarket.
As we have discovered in the UK a ban on guns does not really do much to reduce gun crime, because it only really penalized law abiding, registered and responsible gun owners,( a lot like several other laws in the UK) whilst doing little or nothing towards keeping guns out of the hands of those who want to use guns for criminal activities.
Even if a ban on guns was introduced in the US today, it would have little actual effect on gun crime for decades if not longer..
Some years back I was talking to a friend who moved to Florida, (and who has now moved back to the UK) who told me that the school his kids went to in Miami had signs by the door saying Do Not bring `LOADED' guns into the school. It appears they have quite a job ahead of them.
As we have discovered in the UK a ban on guns does not really do much to reduce gun crime, because it only really penalized law abiding, registered and responsible gun owners,( a lot like several other laws in the UK) whilst doing little or nothing towards keeping guns out of the hands of those who want to use guns for criminal activities.
Even if a ban on guns was introduced in the US today, it would have little actual effect on gun crime for decades if not longer..
Some years back I was talking to a friend who moved to Florida, (and who has now moved back to the UK) who told me that the school his kids went to in Miami had signs by the door saying Do Not bring `LOADED' guns into the school. It appears they have quite a job ahead of them.
ferrisbueller said:
The American arms industry must be massive and the players must have some very interesting ties. We'd rather let our kids die than get our snouts out the trough.
It's a pretty good game when you can see your product start to circle the drain and then you manage to spin things so another 100,000 of your product has to be bought by teachers instead...More American Guns Again.
Pan Pan Pan said:
One of the issues for the USA is that the right to bear a weapon is integrated in its bill of rights, as a consequence there are many, many guns
No, it isn’t. Read the Second Amendment. It’s just interpreted by the NRA and gun people as being that way.In reality, the Second Amendment is an anachronistic hangover from Independence days designed to allow local militias to resist tyranny. It is not and never was int need to allow the proliferation of guns América has today.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff