Arkansas Senator for Arming and Deputizing Teachers Shoots One with Rubber Bullet

An Arkansas state senator in favor of arming teachers and using them as private security officers in school took part in a training session for such personnel, in which he shot a teacher who was confronting a 'bad guy' in the exercise, with a rubber bullet. Said senator, who doesn't seemed to have learned anything from the experience is still in favor of enabling schools to arm and use teachers in this fashion. Bet you'll never guess in a million years to which party said senator belongs: surprise, surprise -- Republican. Who would'a thunk???

Sen. Jeremy Hutchinson, R-Benton, is interested in exploring whether state law allows school districts to make decisions on school safety. If a legal avenue does not exist, he hopes the Legislature will change the law.

After the shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Connecticut, Hutchinson became interested in arming school personnel, he said. He was invited to attend an “active shooter” training and - using a rubber bullet-loaded pistol - he mistakenly shot a teacher who was confronting a “bad guy.”

The experience gave Hutchinson some pause, but he still supports giving schools the authority to decide how best to secure their campuses.

Arkansas Online

related link:

Slate

edit on 29-8-2013 by MrInquisitive because: (no reason given)

reply to post by MrInquisitive

Bet you'll never guess in a million years to which party said senator belongs: surprise, surprise -- Republican. Who would'a thunk???

Ever been hit by a rubber bullet? I have, and they hurt like hell. So what if he hit a teacher,and so what if he is a Republican.

reply to post by MrInquisitive


from op link

He was invited to attend an “active shooter” training and - using a rubber bullet-loaded pistol - he mistakenly shot a teacher who was confronting a “bad guy.” The experience gave Hutchinson some pause, but he still supports giving schools the authority to decide how best to secure their campuses.

Guess it's good he isn't a teacher Idiots are everywhere, what difference does it make of his political affiliation?

Not to be a wise a$$ here, but isn’t that the point of a “training session”. It is to give people a chance to experience the possible situations and to make a mistake without deadly consequences. It’s a place where you can make mistakes, learn from them, and not repeat them if a real life situation did happen.

If everyone can be expected to make all the right decisions in the heat of a confrontation right off the bat, then what would be the point of any training sessions. They would be totally redundant.. That would mean we should allow anyone to carry in the school without any requirement for any training.

…..edit……
Not to mention the fact that most training sessions are designed to be complicated and to confuse the person under test. They are intentionally designed to make it likely for the person to make the wrong decision. That way, they have a teachable experience that will aid them if they ever have a confrontation in real life..

Originally posted by Kreyvic
reply to post by MrInquisitive

 

Bet you'll never guess in a million years to which party said senator belongs: surprise, surprise -- Republican. Who would'a thunk???

Ever been hit by a rubber bullet? I have, and they hurt like hell. So what if he hit a teacher,and so what if he is a Republican.

So what? Well he failed the exercise -- that's what. A legislator who wants to arm teachers takes part in an exercise for armed teachers and ends up shooting a teacher/good guy, but said legislator is still for this program. And said legislator is a pro-gun-to-solve-any-problem Republican. That's the other point. It seems rather obvious to me.

Originally posted by StoutBroux
reply to post by MrInquisitive

 

from op link

He was invited to attend an “active shooter” training and - using a rubber bullet-loaded pistol - he mistakenly shot a teacher who was confronting a “bad guy.” The experience gave Hutchinson some pause, but he still supports giving schools the authority to decide how best to secure their campuses.

Guess it's good he isn't a teacher

Idiots are everywhere, what difference does it make of his political affiliation?

What does his political affiliation have to do with it? The Republicans -- far more than the Democrats -- are pro-NRA and have been pushing for this NRA-suggested program of arming teachers. And here we have a case of one such Republican lawmaker who is a proponent of this program, and he takes part in the exercise and shoots the teacher, rather than the simulated bad guy, which shows just what can happen if such program goes into affect. And yet this Republican lawmaker is still all in favor of said program. It says a whole lot about the intellect and ideology of Republican lawmakers. In fact I would call this a microsmic moment for Republicans and those who think more guns in more people's hands will solve gun-related violence.

Originally posted by Mr Tranny
Not to be a wise a$$ here, but isn’t that the point of a “training session”. It is to give people a chance to experience the possible situations and to make a mistake without deadly consequences. It’s a place where you can make mistakes, learn from them, and not repeat them if a real life situation did happen.

If everyone can be expected to make all the right decisions in the heat of a confrontation right off the bat, then what would be the point of any training sessions. They would be totally redundant.. That would mean we should allow anyone to carry in the school without any requirement for any training.

…..edit……
Not to mention the fact that most training sessions are designed to be complicated and to confuse the person under test. They are intentionally designed to make it likely for the person to make the wrong decision. That way, they have a teachable experience that will aid them if they ever have a confrontation in real life..

Are you suggesting that training exercises are more chaotic and confusing than real-life situations? And rubber bullets do hurt and they can still blind people, yet they're using them in this exercise, and allowing some cretin of a lawmaker to join in as a PR stunt. That says a lot about how well this exercise was thought out -- not to mention the whole idea of 'training' teachers to be armed security guards.

And the take-away for this lawmaker, who mistakenly shot the teacher/good guy, is that the program should go ahead. That says it all right there.

Originally posted by Mr Tranny
Not to be a wise a$$ here, but isn’t that the point of a “training session”.

Absolutely correct... People seem to forget school is also a training session for the students...

With that being said im in support of arming teachers, with one caveat. They are to lock themselves in their classroom and use that weapon only to defend themselves and the students. They are NOT to go through the hallways looking for the shooter.

Having teachers with guns roaming the hallways of an active shooting while wearing clothes that most likely will not allow them to be identified as a teacher / faculty member from a distance does nothing but make them into targets when law enforcement arrives.

Columbine changed the manner in which law enforcement responds to those types of situations. Most agencies moved away from securing the perimeter while waiting for a swat team to arrive. Now days (and in general), the moment a second officer arrives on scene with the first they go hunting for the threat. In these scenarios (active shooter / suicide bomber / terrorist action) the goal is to stop the threat as quickly as possible, which means the number of verbal warnings given are dramatically reduced, if used at all, when confronting what is believed to be the threat.

Secondly, its not enough to allow a person to be armed, especially when it comes to high stress situations. Just because a person can shoot the bull's-eye at the range does not mean the same will hold true when faced with a person wanting to kill people, including faculty members and students.

The fight or flight response kicks in, forcing a dramatic change in how ones body and thinking work.

People do not rise to the occasion, they fall back to their level of training. If that training only consists of range time, then its a bad idea.

Just my 2 cents.

reply to post by MrInquisitive


Of course this guy was a republican. Democrats are quite content with being caught dead without a gun.

The good news is this state senator is never going to be armed in a school, so you can rest easy.

I think arming teachers is a good idea.

Originally posted by MrInquisitive
Are you suggesting that training exercises are more chaotic and confusing than real-life situations?

I have listened to many of the podcast on the gun rights radio network over the years.

gunrightsradio.com...

And on many of the podcast they have had instructors from various defense training schools talking about various stuff related to self defense and stuff that they do in their training classes.

The thing I remember one of them saying several years ago that is most pertinent to your question, From memory, it goes something along the lines of…

If you have not shot a little pony tailed child by the time the course is through, then I have failed you as an instructor. That is because I haven’t pushed you to your limits. My job is to push you to your limits, and past them. That way, you will recognize when you are approaching those limits if you are involved in a shooting out there in the real world. And you will recognize when you are getting yourself in over your head, to the point that you may hurt an innocent life because you do not have control over the situation, or yourself.

Now everyone will have a different limit they can push it too. But my job is to find your limit, and let you become familiar with it.

Once I have found your limits, then I can train you to be the best you can be within those limits. And I can teach you how to recognize when you are exceeding those limits, and it’s time to back out of the situation to reassess your options.

.........edit........
something along the lines of...
gunforhire.com...

reply to post by MrInquisitive

In fact I would call this a microsmic moment for Republicans and those who think more guns in more people's hands will solve gun-related violence.

Your incident is a bit funny and ironic....but.

A Harvard Study titled "Would Banning Firearms Reduce Murder and Suicide?" looks at figures for "intentional deaths" throughout continental Europe and juxtaposes them with the U.S. to show that more gun control does not necessarily lead to lower death rates or violent crime.

Because the findings so clearly demonstrate that more gun laws may in fact increase death rates, the study says that "the mantra that more guns mean more deaths and that fewer guns, therefore, mean fewer deaths" is wrong.

For example, when the study shows numbers for Eastern European gun ownership and corresponding murder rates, it is readily apparent that less guns to do not mean less death. In Russia, where the rate of gun ownership is 4,000 per 100,000 inhabitants, the murder rate was 20.52 per 100,000 in 2002. That same year in Finland, where the rater of gun ownership is exceedingly higher--39,000 per 100,000--the murder rate was almost nill, at 1.98 per 100,000.

The murder rate in Russia, where handguns are banned, is 30.6; the rate in the U.S. is 7.8

Study: No Correlation Between Gun Control and Less Violent Crime

The Study pdf

The detailed statistics are in the pdf link



And,
Good Luck getting all the guns !!



Number of guns per capita by country

Originally posted by seabag
reply to post by MrInquisitive

 

Of course this guy was a republican. Democrats are quite content with being caught dead without a gun.

The good news is this state senator is never going to be armed in a school, so you can rest easy.

I think arming teachers is a good idea.

Oh, I feel so much better with your comforting words -- like teachers aren't likely to make the same mistake, or have their gun stolen. The whole point is: this incident in the exercise is going to be repeated in real life, but not with rubber bullets. Some armed teacher/janitor/cafeteria lady is going to end up shooting innocents. But you folk, who think there is no problem that can't be solved by throwing more guns at it, refuse to acknowledge this. You have just as much sense as this legislator who shot the teacher.

reply to post by xuenchen


What exactly does murder rate have to do with deaths by guns? Provide statistics involving gun-related deaths, not murders total. Also, many of those countries have their own particular social problems, so there are likely other variables affecting those murder rates besides how guns are regulated.

Furthermore, i am not arguing for gun control; I am saying that arming teachers is a bad idea. More guns in schools is not going to lead to good results, to wit: the mishap in this exercise I cite.

Heck, why not insist that everyone entering a bar must be armed. No doubt that would cut down on gun related deaths...


As to the poster quoting some gun instructor on a pro-gun radio show: I don't find it a terribly compelling argument. Just read about a case involving some gun instructor of many years who ended up wounding an instructee because the instructor thought a pistol was unloaded and pulled the trigger, and the bullet ricocheted and hit the instructee. With idiot gun instructors like this clown I mention here, I am not going to be swayed by what some supposed gun instructor says on some pro-gun radio show.

reply to post by MrInquisitive

Oh, I feel so much better with your comforting words -- like teachers aren't likely to make the same mistake, or have their gun stolen.

The whole point is: this incident in the exercise is going to be repeated in real life, but not with rubber bullets. Some armed teacher/janitor/cafeteria lady is going to end up shooting innocents.

Your lack of logic is stunning. You're worried about the possibility of friendly fire (an accidental shooting) and ignoring the 12,000+ intentional murders per year. If the average school shooter kills 20, would it be worth the risk of accidentally loosing one to friendly fire to save 19 others? You seem to forget that the most affective way to stop an armed killer is with a firearm, and the quicker you can respond with deadly force the quicker the killing will stop.

Nobody is proposing arming Mr Magoo.

But you folk, who think there is no problem that can't be solved by throwing more guns at it, refuse to acknowledge this. You have just as much sense as this legislator who shot the teacher.

Fallacious argument! Is that all you've got?

You don't like the solution so you throw out a ridiculous, baseless charge (as if anyone thinks all our problems can be solved with a gun) and then attack our intelligence. Come on! You can do better!

Please respond to the question in the picture I posted. If you were a predator, would you prefer your prey shot back? I think not.

By the way, did you know that most cops don't receive training for indoor active shooter scenarios? Yet you wouldn't hesitate to call the police even though they will respond with guns and the same possibility for friendly fire exists.

reply to post by MrInquisitive


Doesn't seen like its his fault as much as the fault of the people running the drill. Using rubber bullets is completely ignorant and unneccesary. Blanks would have been much safer.

Statistically even if we expect errant rounds to hit bystanders the benefits of neutralizing an attacker far outweigh the potential collateral damage.

Like it's totally cool for one nut to blast 50 kids but the world would stop spinning if a teacher or guard hit one even though the attacker was stopped after just one victim of his own.

These situational and relative values people place on deaths mystify me.

The same people who portray death by being shot somehow worse than death by knife or strangulation.

Originally posted by MrInquisitive

Sen. Jeremy Hutchinson, R-Benton, is interested in exploring whether state law allows school districts to make decisions on school safety. If a legal avenue does not exist, he hopes the Legislature will change the law.

After the shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Connecticut, Hutchinson became interested in arming school personnel, he said. He was invited to attend an “active shooter” training and - using a rubber bullet-loaded pistol - he mistakenly shot a teacher who was confronting a “bad guy.”

The experience gave Hutchinson some pause, but he still supports giving schools the authority to decide how best to secure their campuses.

Arkansas Online

I feel the point you are missing is "Sen. Jeremy Hutchinson, R-Benton, is interested in exploring whether state law allows school districts to make decisions on school safety. If a legal avenue does not exist, he hopes the Legislature will change the law."

Nowhere in there, did I see anything more than his desire to give school districts the authority to decide for themselves. If local school districts hold open meetings to hear the public's opinion, consider the legal, emotional, and physical ramifications, that is their decision to make. Unless you live and pay taxes in that district, it's really none of your business.

I am willing to compromise in my local school district. Certain schools would be designated Gun Free Schools. The other schools will be designated as Gun Friendly Schools. My twin son's will be attending the schools that allow designated individuals to carry weapons. You can send your kid's to the others. There, feel better now?

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
Statistically even if we expect errant rounds to hit bystanders the benefits of neutralizing an attacker far outweigh the potential collateral damage.

Like it's totally cool for one nut to blast 50 kids but the world would stop spinning if a teacher or guard hit one even though the attacker was stopped after just one victim of his own.

These situational and relative values people place on deaths mystify me.

The same people who portray death by being shot somehow worse than death by knife or strangulation.

It reminds me of the mindset people had when it was discussed on allowing pilots to be armed. People debated the pros and cons, yet no one realized that if a pilot wants to kill people, they only have to crash the plane.