It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
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.
Bet you'll never guess in a million years to which party said senator belongs: surprise, surprise -- Republican. Who would'a thunk???
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.
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.
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?
Originally posted by Mr Tranny
Not to be a wise a$$ here, but isn’t that the point of a “training session”. It is to give people a chance to experience the possible situations and to make a mistake without deadly consequences. It’s a place where you can make mistakes, learn from them, and not repeat them if a real life situation did happen.
If everyone can be expected to make all the right decisions in the heat of a confrontation right off the bat, then what would be the point of any training sessions. They would be totally redundant.. That would mean we should allow anyone to carry in the school without any requirement for any training.
…..edit……
Not to mention the fact that most training sessions are designed to be complicated and to confuse the person under test. They are intentionally designed to make it likely for the person to make the wrong decision. That way, they have a teachable experience that will aid them if they ever have a confrontation in real life..
Originally posted by Mr Tranny
Not to be a wise a$$ here, but isn’t that the point of a “training session”.
Originally posted by MrInquisitive
Are you suggesting that training exercises are more chaotic and confusing than real-life situations?
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
Fallacious argument! Is that all you've got?
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.
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
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.