After Va. Tech tragedy, conservative radio hosts called for arming teachers, students in schools
Summary: Within a day of the April 16 mass murder at a Virginia university, conservative Colorado radio hosts Dan Caplis, "Gunny" Bob Newman, Gail Fallen, and Amy Oliver referenced the tragedy to disparage gun control and to suggest that teachers and students be armed in schools.
Following the shooting rampage that killed 32 people April 16 on a Virginia university campus, Virginia Gov. Tim Kaine (D) stated, ''I think that people who want to take this within 24 hours of the event and make it their political hobby horse to ride ... I've got nothing but loathing for them." Referring to the tragedy at Virginia Tech in Blacksburg, Kaine pleaded, "To those who want to try to make this into some little crusade, I say take that elsewhere." Yet within a day of the mass murder, four conservative Colorado radio hosts -- 630 KHOW-AM's Dan Caplis, Newsradio 850 KOA's "Gunny" Bob Newman, Fox News Radio 600 KCOL's Gail Fallen, and 1310 KFKA's Amy Oliver -- referenced the attack to speak out against gun control and to call for arming teachers and students in schools.
- After stating on the April 16 broadcast of The Caplis & Silverman Show that "[t]he only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun," Caplis added that "the best plan that I can come up with" is to allow "qualified volunteers from faculty and staff at different schools to be trained to protect themselves and the children. That means training in weapons, training in tactics, really professionally trained."
- On the April 16 broadcast of The Gunny Bob Show, Newman claimed that the "anti-Second Amendment crowd, the anti-Bill of Rights crowd" planned to "exploit" the tragedy "for their personal and political gain." But later he asked, "If Hillary or Obama get elected and the Congress remains under Democratic Party control, do you think liberals in full power of our government -- do you think that they will attempt to disembowel the Second Amendment even more so than what we've seen today?
- During a discussion with guest Larry Pratt on the April 17 broadcast of Mornings with Keith and Gail!, Fallen asked, "Will this be the incident that finally enables us to turn the corner ... because how many mornings will we have to wake up to hear of yet another senseless, malicious, hateful, cruel school shooting in which 10, 20, 30 people lose their lives and we wring our hands and ask why?" Pratt, executive director of Gun Owners of America, replied that "gun control has not been effective" and that mass shootings have been stopped only "when there was one of the potential victims who had a gun." He also asserted, "I mean, what happened yesterday on the Virginia Tech campus is an example of gun control at its best."
- On the April 17 broadcast of The Amy Oliver Show, Oliver promoted the arming of school personnel, stating that if "teachers and administrators were properly trained," a threat "could be neutralized." She further stated, "The key here is ... we've got to teach kids how to defend themselves, and it isn't always running away and going to call 911. It isn't always running away and finding an adult to help you. Maybe that works when you're 5 years old, maybe it even works when you're 10, but as we get older, we have to realize that there are bad people in the world." Oliver added, "[O]ur kids -- we do them a disservice by not teaching them how to defend ... themselves. "
From the April 16 broadcast of 630 KHOW-AM's The Caplis & Silverman Show:
CAPLIS: Listen, we knew this was gonna happen. We were talking about it a few weeks ago on the show. It was just a question of where. We know it's gonna happen again. We know that there are evil killers among us. We know that they prey on our children because they're defenseless and they're easy targets. We know they're not gonna stop coming for our kids. In -- in my view, just blaming the evil people who do this while we bury the dead isn't good enough. I think what we have to do is, we have to do more to protect our kids. We cannot less -- let mass murderers have their way with our children. The only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun. The best police force in the world can't be there to fight back for at least five to 10 minutes. By then you could have a hundred-plus dead. We know all these things. We've known all these things for a long, long time. And, and what that means is, we have two choices. We either sit back and say, well, you know, you can only do so much. We're just gonna play Russian roulette with our kids' lives. To me, that isn't good enough. Or else we move forward and we find an aggressive, sensible way to protect our children. Whether they're sittin' in a kindergarten classroom two blocks from here, or whether they're across the country, they're still kids, and I include college students as kids. And, and so bottom line is, the best plan that I can come up with is I think -- and I've been saying this for a while -- we've got to allow qualified volunteers from faculty and staff at different schools to be trained to protect themselves and the children. That means training in weapons, training in tactics, really professionally trained.
From the April 16 broadcast of Newsradio 850 KOA's The Gunny Bob Show:
NEWMAN: The anti-Second Amendment crowd, the anti-Bill of Rights crowd, heard of the attack and immediately began their plans to exploit it for their personal and political gain. Is the gun the killer used to blame? Well, the guns. Or is the killer to blame? Liberals opposed to the Bill of Rights, and opposed to the Second Amendment in particular, will now and are now using this tragedy to again attempt to strip you of your constitutional rights, blaming the weapon rather than the person who used the weapon. If Hillary or Obama get elected and the Congress remains under Democratic Party control, do you think liberals in full power of our government -- do you think that they will attempt to disembowel the Second Amendment even more so than what we've seen today?
From the April 17 broadcast of Fox News Radio 600 KCOL's Mornings with Keith and Gail!:
PRATT: Yet we have put up with so much gun control and confiscation in our own country, and we -- we're seeing the fruit of it. It, it's rotten fruit. I mean, what happened yesterday on the Virginia Tech campus is an example of gun control at its best. It reduces people to being defenseless, and it doesn't stop the bad guys from getting guns.
FALLEN: Will this be the incident that finally enables us to turn the corner, though? That's the question, because how many mornings will we have to wake up to hear of yet another senseless, malicious, hateful, cruel school shooting in which 10, 20, 30 people lose their lives and we wring our hands and ask why?
PRATT: Gail, I hope it does. I mean, I -- I hope that we as, you know, that our society realizes that, you know, gun control has not been effective. I, I hope that we do like the citizens of Texas did in realizing that, you know, it wasn't banning guns that, that was working, it was that we needed more guns out there in good people's hands to create that deterrent. You know, you guys are absolutely right; there's folks on the Hill that just don't get it, and they're already crying for more gun control. But, you know, let's hope -- I mean, that's one reason why I think it's important for us to be talking about this. You know, to talk about the, the real-life examples out there. How -- how do you stop this kind of thing? Well, well, the only places they've been stopped, again, is when there was one of the potential victims who had a gun.
From the April 17 broadcast of 1310 KFKA's The Amy Oliver Show:
OLIVER: Immediately what I thought was, somebody has told him that, has said we don't have guns in school because some child will accidentally get a hold of one and shoot you. Whereas in reality, if the gun were put in a safe place, and peo -- and teachers and administrators were properly trained, the minute a shooting occurred, the minute that somebody came in and threatened a school, that threat could be neutralized. Possibly before more lives are lost, or before any.
[...]
OLIVER: The key here is -- I've heard this repeatedly on the show today -- we've got to teach kids how to defend themselves, and it isn't always running away and going to call 911. It isn't always running away and finding an adult to help you. Maybe that works when you're 5 years old, maybe it even works when you're 10, but as we get older, we have to realize that there are bad people in the world and our kids -- we do them a disservice by not teaching them how to defend -- to defend themselves. What about a curriculum that taught -- what if hunter safety was actually taught in schools?
—T.S.P. & J.F.B.
to listen to this audio clip
Comments (18) Show
1 - 18 |
I find this let's-arm-students-teachers argument to be total B.S., and so do these talk-show hosts, I suspect. Look, workplace shootings happen pretty frequently as well. We all hear the reports about someone (usually a disgruntled employee or vindictive boyfriend/husband) going into an office building and shooting a bunch of people (It happened a few weeks ago at CNN). Therefore, the logic of this argument dictates that anyone who works in an office building should arm themselves too, because this happens. Now, I would imagine that if you asked Dan Caplis if he is armed when he's on the ait or if he would like to see everyone at KHOW packing heat, he'd backtrack and say something like, 'oh, well it's not practical for me or my coworkers to do that for a number of reasons, blah, blah, blah.' Hence, these let's-arm-everyone commentators aren't even willing to put their money where their mouth is, probably because with all the emotional dynamics and human drama that happens in most workplaces, people would be nervous as hell - not more secure - knowing that everyone's carrying a loaded gun. Hence, unless those people above are ready to start carrying a loaded gun to work and encouraging their coworkers to do the same (even the ones they don't like), they are hypocrites.
Some of these comments remind me of the movie Next of Kin. [Eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth...[
Even better - why don't give each of these useless right-wing talk show hosts a gun, and let them blow each others' brains out? The world would be a far better place as a result......
what a visual, sniffer as a "trained volulnteer", skulking down the school hallways, donned in jungle cammies, headbanded, face blackened in camoflauge, armed to the teeth. in that sniffer elected not to serve in the united states military and apparently got his only combat training at a 1977 boulder campus disturbance swinging flagpoles wildly at women, somehow the thought of him protecting our children while at school isn't very comforting.
Just one question: What is the best chance you have to defend yourself against a person using a gun?
Answer: Wether you like it or not, be armed and shoot back! I welcome any better ideas (Closing your eyes really, really tight and wishing really, really hard that you don't get shot dosen't count.)
just 6 questions: from what personal experience are you coming from? how many situations like vt have you been the gun totin' hero in? how often has it been neccessary for you to "close your eyes really tight and wish really, really hard you won"t get shot"? what gives you the idea that everyone armed, cocked, and locked makes our kids safe? are you weapons qualified? is the guy driving next to you? it's none of my business if you go around heavy, i just hope you know what you're doing. close quarter combat people agree that if a person isn't close enough to disarm an assailant, best to retreat. if everybody's heavy we have a firefight. nobody's advocating you can't keep your guns. just grow up and use your head.
Answer my original (and modified) question first and I'll be happy to address your points.
If you're too far away to disarm and have no where to retreat to, what is the best CHANCE (read: course of action) you have to defend yourself against a person targeting you and firing a gun?
"if you're too far away to disarm, and have no where to retreat, what is the best chance (i don't understand what you meant by read: course of action) you have to defend yourself against a person targeting you and firing a gun?" you have me there. and that circumstance did in fact occur at vt. in that very limited scenario, while having a firearm would not have insured a person's survival, it would have greatly improved his or her odds, presuming everything went well. i won't argue the obvious. but before we end this conversation, please tell me this: are you advocating that firearm permits be available to all students and faculty or just those willing to jump through hoops to get concealed carry permits? is there any firefight training to be included in the permit process, in that the probable scenario will involve many innocent people in close proximity? and what will be the rules for innocent bystanders' injuries? insurance providers aside, liability will be an issue here also, albeit nothing compared to the life/death factor. what about possible assault charges if a person mistakes someone's intentions as hostile and fires? do you have to wait until fired upon to fire? lots of questions to a very complicated situation. with permission to carry a firearm in public there should also come the acceptance and understanding of great personal responsibility. a person should be ready to answer for his or her actions and decisions........great topic!
Yes. If you're going to jump through all the hoops and receive the training necessary to obtain a Conceal/Carry Permit, you should be allowed to carry your weapon wherever you want to. Including schools at all levels. Criminals and crazies don't bother with this stuff, so why should they have the advantage in an encounter you might have with them?
Everyone armed? Of course not. Not everyone WANTS to be...
As far as all the possible unintended consequences: Yes. Bullets flying around will more than likely result in more than a few, but you have a greater chance of being alive to face them. Although, I freely admit that if I killed an innocent by mistake in the course of defending myself, I might not want to survive. That's what the training is for.
Quick true story. Not an anecdote. I was at a ceremony a couple weeks ago honoring local law enforcement, some members of the public and other emergency responders for their acts of heroism. A large hotel ballroom was filled with, among others, hundreds of cops. All in uniform and all armed with hundreds of guns...
(Not aiming (no pun intended) the following at you LKM, but at the emotionally-based "guns kill people" types out there...)
A funny thing happened at this ceremony: No one got shot! No guns worked their way out of their holsters in an attempt to start a murderous rampage in defiance of their owners. No one was even threatened with the site of a barrel pointing at them. In fact, it was the safest room in town. I was in the midst of hundreds of loaded and chambered guns owned by hundreds of people trained in their responsible use, and I was in absolutely NO danger!
It would have been the wrong room for Cho or Harris or Klebold or any other damn nut to enter for whatever damn twisted reason. They target innocents in places where innocents aren't allowed to carry weapons of ANY kind. Not even a pocket knife! A target-rich, totally submissive environment in which to operate in any way they choose.
Until those who want to be legally armed in such environments can be, acts like Columbine and VT will continue to occur...
there are 2 venues ccw holders cannot bring their weapons....schools of all levels and our courts. until ccw training includes specific training in confined, close quarter urban tactics for qualified, experienced individuals who show physical and psychological ability to perform while armed under firefight stress, nothing will ever change law-wise. if people are willing to do the work and are deemed qualified by law enforceent and/or military experts, they just might be of positive value in a situation. but i repeat...taking responsibility for a person's actions and accepting consequences for mistakes, overreactions, and poor judgement obviously outweighs the emotional feeling that a person should be able to go heavy anywhere. also, how about answering those questions from my previous posts.
OK. I'm back. Got your message and you're right. I did stop checking....
It's never been necessary for me to helplessly wish that I wouldn't get shot by an armed nut with a gun. But why should the laws, and my obeying them, FORCE me into such a situation if I found myself in the wrong place at the wrong time? Again, the nut dosen't care about the law. He just walks right past the "No Weapons Allowed" sign with his gun and instantly has superiority over everyone else and can act at will. His law abiding, unarmed victims still end up just as dead.
Again. Everyone dosen't WANT to be armed. But those who are willing to jump through all the hoops to legally be armed should be allowed to be.
Kids safe? I can't remember the school. Back east somewhere a few years ago. Armed student enters with a gun, shoots several students and is stopped, yes killed, by the PRINCIPAL who went out to his truck, (parked 1000 feet away with a firearm in it to comply with the law) and returned to defend the remaining innocents. Kudos to him. I can find the story if you really want me to.
Am I "weapons qualified?" If you're asking if I have a CWP, yes. I do. Do I know how to fire a TOW missle? No. Do I know how to shoot someone pointing a TOW missle at me? Yes. Bad example. Likely I wouldn't survive in such a match-up as a TOW missle is an anti-tank weapon with a range of several miles...
Close quarters: Again. Lots of consequences possible, but at least you have a better chance of surviving to face them.
I'll check back here, but probably not until Satruday.
Ta!
i've never eard of a cwp permit but am very familiar with ccw quals, although i don't have one. currently the ccw training, in my opinion does not include training for close quarter situations including classroom type encounters. i remember that situation in a salt lake city mall a couple/3 months ago where the off duty cop basicly saved at least 4 people but probably many more by his instant recognition, cool response, professional and controlled reaction and response. perfect example of an armed citizen, well trained, doing what you're advocating. but please remember that he also said that after he fired and killed the assailant his first concern was that he needed to identify himself to responding officers or probably would have been shot himself. his excellent training saved many people and his own life. to me it's more about qualifications, accepting responsibility for foulups, and temperment than just the right to carry a piece. SB, i actually don't think we're that far apart on this. where we disaggree doesn't seem to be phylosophical. let me know.
CWP: Concealed Weapons Permit. Issued by any sheriff's office and good anywhere in the state except for places like schools, federal buildings, anywhere where there are permanent security features like metal detectors, DIA Rocky Mountain National Park, any private business that posts a "No Weapons Allowed" sign, and lots of other places.
And to get a CWP, you need to receive training on how to use your weapon. That training includes the proper use of it in close quarters, darkened conditions, etc...
And a criminal with a gun dosen't care about ANY of this and can act at will in an environment where everyone else obeys the law.
Therefore, coming full circle and for the 500th time, a place like a school, where BY LAW no weapons are allowed, is at the COMPLETE mercy of someone who dosen't care about obeying the law and is carrying and firing a gun.
And consequences or not, the best chance of stopping such a person on such a rampage is to CHANGE THE LAW. Have trained, LEGAL firearms carriers in that environment willing to risk getting killed to stop the killing.
And if mistakes are made in that process, again for the 500th time, you have a better chance of being ALIVE to face the consequences of those mistakes...
AND... If you have any better ideas on how NOT to get shot in such a situation, BESIDES wishing really, really hard that a bullet won't find you, I'd LOVE to hear them...
Have we gone around in circles enough yet?
nope, that won't work. there's no doubt you are "embellishing" concerning your "cwp". that aside my point was and remains that simply because you feel you should be able to go heavy because you should get to do any thing you want, it probably won't do anything to change our current reg's. you haven't and probably won't address the major sticking point.....you are the only person i correspond with (and i know many people with ccw permits including law enforcement ie; adams county sherriff's dept, cshp, and arvada police) who believe a wannabe "packin' that heat 'cause that's my right" who hasn't been trained ........pay attention here....over and above current ccw quals will do anything more than muddy the waters in an extreme situation. the idea that you are going to read the situation, react, and make all the right decisions in some "shootout" is ridiculous. aint gonna happen. law enforcement work these scenarios constantly, continually, allways changing up and still admit that even they see new scenarios all the time. you are so hung up on this ill-conceived notion that someone should get to carry anywhere just 'cause you should is simply not as impacting as the damage you could and will cause as you panic when the confusion unfolds. you really do seem more concerned with getting to do what you want to do than addressing the point.......and that is precisely why the laws won't change, no matter how much you stomp your feet, hold your breath, and point to the constitution. by the way, did you ever read that pesky little part in the 2nd amendment concerning a well regulated militia? jack bauer doesn't exist and 24 is just a made up tv show. real life doesn't allow you to sit back, get the plot, and go in knowing all the answers. but we are going in circles. we should just agree to disaggree.
Oh, man...
I guess I should feel lucky that I don't live in Adams County or Arvada...
You've already admitted above that I "got you" when I asked my original question. It's the core point of all this and something you have NO idea how to answer. Each and every victim at Virginia Tech was shot three times in the head in a cold, meticulous and calculated manner. WHAT EXACTLY, is your proposal for dealing with a similar situation in the future to prevent the killing of innocents.
You state people who obey the laws "muddy the waters." Brilliant. People who don't care about the laws are free to bloody them. WHAT EXACTLY is your plan to STOP them?!
First of all, I have been trained in use of my firearm. Who are you to judge it? After 2004, (I think) it's a requirement to get a CWP in Colorado and no one was grandfathered in. So once your CWP expires, as mine had twice before, you MUST get trained! Consequence: No training. No CWP. There is no standard level of enhanced training, but there is a standard. You'll just have to trust me when I tell you that I've had training slightly above and beyond the "standard" level through a private company. And no, I won't be publicizing them in this forum. Not urban warefare tactics or with rocket launchers or anything like that. I'd best describe it as "enhanced basic training." One senario we dealt with was an armed intruder in your home in the middle of the night intent on doing harm...
Side note: How many times have you heard or read about a "home invasion robbery" in the news in Denver this week? My answer is three and I guarantee the news outlets in this town haven't heard about all of them. Where were all the police practicing all their senarios to stop all these home invasion robberies? HOW DO YOU STOP ONE unless a cop just happens to be driving by and SEES the masked suspects breaking down the door? HOW?!
Back to the senario: It's dark, your family is inside, there is not a lot of room to manuver. Don't point the weapon at anything you don't intend to destroy. Check your targets, keep your finger off the damn trigger until you are ready to shoot, and mind the background. A child shot a point-blank range is probably just as dead as one hit by a round coming through drywall. Enough "embellishment" for you?
And it IS my right, damnit! Yours too. No one is holding a gun to the heads of those who do not wish to be armed, FORCING them to become CW carriers (although after surviving such an experience, some might change their minds) Don't want to be armed? Don't be! Don't want me to be armed? Too bad. Don't like it? Change the Second Ammendment or move someplace else where it IS illegal! I'm sure you'll feel much safer. And I've never seen an episode of "24."
GIVE ME YOUR PLAN! Details please.
And after a little time to reflect on what you've written, can we simply cut to the heart of this and have you admit that you would like to see private ownership of firearms in this country prohibited? Isn't that what we should be agreeing to disagree on?
thanks for answering. but that dog just aint gonna hunt. you completely changed the subject from schools and courts to the home, because the home scenario is a red herring for you. but some news for you. having legally registered weapons in your home doesn't require a ccw. i would have thought you would know that. i not only support but strongly urge everyone to keep a legal, registered firearm in their home. and to keep it safely placed for maximum protection as well as, obviously, out of unqualified hands. i also support maximum firearm training for the particular firearm or firearms the homeowner owns. home invasion is our worst nightmare and our laws protect our right to defend our homes. back to schools and courts. people with no military or law enforcement training have no business carrying in schools or courts. period. end of story. sorry you can't accept that but it's the way it is and the laws won't change. my solution, and this is one i would think you'd love.: professional, for hire security. not wackenhut or any of these two bit rent-a-cop outfits, but highly paid armed professionals.....i.e: ex military type personnel with strict command structure, tactical response capabilities and communications with local, state and federal authorities. ability to turn on a dime, handle multiple scenarios simultaneously. you may think the cost would be excessive but a university will pay out substantially in lawsuits to the families of victims shot accidentally by a panicing,wannabe toughguy who mistook someone as an assailant, or fired and wounded the assailant but killed a bystander as the round pinged around or any one of a hundred other scenarios. the lawyers will claim that the university or college or whatever entity was negligent in allowing unqualified people to be heavy on property (sorry, current ccw training doesn't qualify) and the plaintiff will win. long story short is either go with that above scenario OR develop a new for profit cottage industry that specializes in training for extreme close quarter armed/unarmed gun/knife and issues quals certificates recognized locally, statewide and hopefully reciprocly by multiple states. frankly, most people would flunk out of serious training like this. but most people don't think or calculate or process or move quickly enough to be more than another problem to be dealt with in an extreme situation. but for those few who could qualify, a permit to carry on school grounds would be sanctioned by the school. but i simply don't think you can see past wanting to carry because you want to carry. i knew you'd given up when you trotted out the phony whine about the imaginary people wanting to take away your guns. one other thing.... the second ammendment is fine as it stands. it works. the only thing missing from it's original intent is that part about enlistment in a well regulated militia as the reason for owning firearms, but i don't have a problem with folks who didn't serve our country owning firearms. i just hope they use their heads and know their limits. so get trained and maybe you'll understand.
Some news for you: Having "legally registered" firearms in your home proves you don't know what the hell you're talking about. There is NO firearms registration requirement, or even the procedure for one, in Colorado.
Funny how all your vast law-enforcement contacts throughout the north metro didn't let you know that. Color me skeptical of your claims.
Also funny how you don't deny wanting all private firearms ownership in this country prohibited. It would be easier for you to be proud of your position and make the arguements for it.
Hmmm. And how could your "wannabe tough guy" mistake someone shooting innocents in a classroom as anyone but an armed assailiant? How much analysis would you like before someone is allowed to act?
And how can lawyers sue a dead person? They're dead. As in shot in the head multiple times by someone who could care less about the law.
Point of agreement: Fine. A SWAT member in every school. Great! I'm all for it. Good luck getting the schools to pay for it or having the teachers union sign off on it or having the ACLU not sue them because of it.
A perfect solution that will never be implemented.
So. Back in the REAL world now, and for the 502nd time, WHAT IS YOUR PLAN?!?
Finally, regarding the Second Ammendment. The Supreme Court disagrees with you. And most recently, a Federal Court of Appeals, in WASHINGTON D.C. of all places, overturned a ban on firearms ownership by private citizens there. One of the toughest gun laws in the country struck down and a vindication of MY interpretation of the Right to Bear Arms in the Constitution. Not yours.
1 - 20 |