Category: Education & Schools

Governor wants money to arm teachers, staff inside Mississippi schools

JACKSON, Miss. — Gov. Tate Reeves said he wants Mississippi lawmakers to put up more money to put armed teachers and staff inside schools.

The governor released his 2024 Executive Budget recommendation Tuesday for the coming legislative session. Included in the recommendations is a program called the Mississippi School Safety Guardian Program, which Reeves said is in response to a rash of school shootings across the nation.

Under the proposal, teachers or staff members would be nominated by the school district to undergo a thorough training program on active shooter situations and issued a gun, holster and bullets. The Mississippi Department of Public Safety would train the selected staff members.

“While law enforcement is the best-case scenario, having someone who is on the scene trained with a firearm that could possibly stop a shooter before more lives are lost is a good thing to have,” said Public Safety Commissioner Sean Tindell.

The governor’s plan pays $500 a month to the personnel who are trained for the enhanced safety role.

Akemi Stout, president of the Jackson Federation of Teachers, doesn’t support the proposal.

“How can this be to be so important to arm educators? People are afraid of their guns, so imagine if there is an instant where there is an armed intruder in the school and that person freezes, or the gun is taken from them,” Stout said.

Supporters point to the Pearl High School shooting, where an assistant school principal retrieved his weapon from his car to stop the shooter.

Also included in the governor’s budget recommendations are eliminating the state income tax, advancing the “new pro-life agenda,” giving Mississippi children “a first-rate education,” lowering health care costs and building a “high-quality” workforce.

“Our ultimate aim is straightforward: to advance responsible policies that lay the foundation of a strong society and allow Mississippians to flourish,” Reeves said in a statement. “We will maximize freedom, we will protect your rights and safety, and we will build a future that every Mississippian can be proud of. In other words, my budget continues to put you – the taxpayer – first.”

Lawmakers return to the Capitol in January for the start of the session.

List: 11 solutions to thwart school shootings

George Washington University legal advocate John Banzhaf has long led fights for public health, including on smoking, obesity, and discrimination.

But few knew he also has expertise in security, as a former security officer and consultant, career highlights he tapped today to call for major changes in school security to thwart shootings such as the one that killed three at the University of Virginia Sunday night.

While an advocate for arming some teachers, Banzhaf said he realizes that is a sensitive topic in some cities, so he has prepared a list of 11 solutions that are quick to deploy to stop the next shooter from harming students in classrooms.

“Most schools — including many which, like the one in Uvalde (Texas), had been ‘hardened’ — are ill-prepared for an armed intruder, lacking even such basic precautions as classrooms which can be locked from the inside, simple magnetic door-open sensors linked to a WiFi system of the type used in millions of homes,” he said in an email.

Banzhaf passed along his new security list of easy fixes that he published last month in University World News. “Those in charge of educational institutions, as well as those who teach there, should carefully consider taking some simple, proven, and inexpensive steps to substantially improve safety and reduce the chance that they and-or their students will be injured — or possibly even killed — by an active shooter on campus,” he wrote.

The Banzhaf Security List:

  1. Install classroom doors that can be locked from the inside.
  2. Mark each room with an easy-to-find identification and make up-to-date floor plans easily available for first responders.
  3. Provide all administrators and campus police officers with master keys.
  4. Get police door-opening tools such as the Halligan carried by firefighters.
  5. Install magnetic door-open sensors so administrators can see which doors are open or properly closed in schools.
  6. Make it easy to text via cellphone in an emergency.
  7. Distribute kits to help quickly stop the type of bleeding left by standard AR-15 rounds.
  8. On school apps, make sure it’s easy to find ways to contact police and officials in an active shooting case.
  9. Install one-way peepholes in office and other doors.
  10. Make a limited availability of guns and post signs stating, “Warning, some professors are armed.”
  11. Supply nonlethal weapons, such as bear spray or poles.

“To limit the carnage caused by active shooters, as well as the massive resulting potential legal liability, colleges, and universities, both in the U.S. and abroad, should consider taking a number of simple and inexpensive (and therefore reasonable) steps to reduce the risk, and the harm which is expected to be caused this year by active shooters,” said Banzhaf.

Virginia: Fairfax Co. Schools Push Anti-Gun Propaganda on 5th Graders

USA – -(AmmoLand.com)-  A concerned parent, Darcey Geissler, has brought attention to an assignment that her son received in a Fairfax County school.

In a “lesson” on persuasive writing, students were given an anti-gun essay to evaluate, rather than something with more neutral content, so that the students could focus on the persuasive writing aspect. There was no sample essay with an opposing viewpoint presented.

Though this sample essay is ostensibly meant to be just a learning tool, it does parrot many worn-out talking points that disarmament radicals have used over the years. It claims that the Second Amendment is about hunting, that the existence of modern police forces makes the Second Amendment obsolete, and that citizens defending themselves from imminent danger while police are, at best, minutes away is somehow “tak[ing] the law into their own hands.”

It even mentions the Brady Campaign and simply describes it as “an organization to prevent violence,” without any mention of their radical policy proposals, such as gun bans and restricting the right to self-defense, or their junk lawsuits that attempt to bankrupt the firearms industry. Most recently, Brady partnered with the Mexican government against the rights of law-abiding Americans.

All this is not surprising, coming from a school system in a county that is hostile to the Second Amendment rights of its own citizens.

In 2020, the county banned firearms in many county-owned and operated locations, including its extensive public parks. While disarming law-abiding citizens, the ordinance they passed was not about safety or security. There were no measures ordered to prevent armed criminals from ignoring the arbitrary boundaries (as criminals do), such as metal detectors or increased police presence. This carry ban is currently the subject of an NRA-backed lawsuit.

This situation underscores the value of parents and guardians being involved in passing on American values, such as respect for the Second Amendment, to the next generation. Government schools in Fairfax County, despite being funded with taxpayer dollars, certainly will not.

Underfunding? New York can’t teach kids to read on $30,000 a year

Syracuse Students Not Interested or Engaged in Mandatory Diversity Course: Report

Requiring students to talk about ‘identities’ and ‘stereotypes’ not a big hit at Syracuse

Syracuse University students are not interested in a mandatory diversity course, with some criticizing it as too focused on finger pointing and singling out individuals.

“While Syracuse University structures its First-Year Seminar 101 course around students sharing their experiences with their cultures and identities, students taking the course said nobody wants to speak,” The Daily Orange reported. “In some classes, students said they don’t know each other’s names.”

One student raised concerns that the focus on privilege and identity alienates students.

The campus paper reported:

First-year finance major Julia Moreno said many of the ways the course attempts to engage experience-based discussion end up having a negative effect. Questions revolving around exploring identities can make students feel singled out, she said.

“Every single question is about you,” Moreno said. “‘What are your identities? What are your privileges? What stereotypes do you have in your brain? What do you think about?’ But nobody wants to share that because a lot of it’s really personal.”

Another student questioned why the course, focused on new Syracuse students, does not help them with socializing or “navigating” the university.

“Gita Goldberg, a transfer student and junior communications and rhetorical studies major, said the class doesn’t achieve what she would expect from an introductory course intended for new students,” the paper reported. “She said FYS has not covered subject matters focused on introducing students to SU and helping them navigate their first semester at university like she expected it would.”

Other universities have struggled to deliver an engaging diversity course. For example, Saint Joseph’s University in Philadelphia had to mandate its diversity course due to low enrollment.

The faculty senate voted in favor of requiring students to take the course and the university will likely approve that request. Enrollment flourished in fall 2021 when students were told they would need to take the class but dropped in the following semester once the requirement fell through, as previously reported by The College Fix.

Michigan Supreme Court kicks campus carry ban case back to lower court

A challenge to the University of Michigan’s ban on firearms on campus is still underway after the state’s Supreme Court sent the case back to the Court of Appeals with instructions to re-consider its ruling in light of the Bruen decision.

At first glance, this looks like a relatively easy case. The Supreme Court said that “schools” were among those few “sensitive places” where there’s a historical tradition of banning firearms, so that must mean that the university’s gun ban is in-line with the Constitution, right? As Michigan Supreme Court Justice David Viviano wrote in a concurrence to the order sending Wade v. University of Michigan back to the court of appeals, it’s not nearly as cut and dried an issue.

To support its threshold analysis, the Court of Appeals relied on the statement in Dist of Columbia v Heller, 554 US 570, 626-627 (2008), that the Second Amendment did not disturb “longstanding prohibitions on . . . laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings . . . .” In the present case, the Court of Appeals’ entire “historical analysis” was to examine one dictionary from 1828 to determine whether universities were considered “school[s]” in 1868.

Even if one concludes that the Court of Appeals reached the correct result, this paltry review of the main question is inadequate. Moreover, it is not at all apparent that Heller’s brief discussion of sensitive places was intended to establish a rule that all entities historically known as “schools” could permissibly ban firearms, meaning the only question that would remain for future cases is whether the entity at issue was considered a “school.” Nor is it even clear that the Court meant to include universities and colleges in its reference to “schools,” let alone to say that such locations can completely ban firearms. See Note, Guns on Campus: Continuing Controversy, 38 J C & U L 663, 667-668 (2012) (noting that Heller did not address guns on university campuses or define “schools” to include higher education).

Viviano went on to describe two different areas of historical analysis that he’d like to see from the appellate court. First, whether there were any similar regulations dealing with bearing arms on university and college campuses at the time the Second and Fourteenth Amendments were ratified. Viviano notes that in his own initial analysis he’s found some laws that contain “partial restrictions”, but none that come close to the complete ban in effect on the University of Michigan campus.

The second line of historical analysis suggested by Viviano is whether or not traditional college campuses are even a good historical analogue for “large modern campuses like the University of Michigan’s.” Viviano wonders whether modern campuses are “so dispersed and multifaceted that a total campus ban would now cover areas that historically would not have had any restrictions?”

The University of Michigan itself occupies nearly one-tenth of Ann Arbor. Many areas on campus, such as roadways, open areas, shopping districts, or restaurants, might not fit the “sensitive place” model suggested by Heller—they may instead be more historically analogous to other locations that did not have gun restrictions. And because the campus is so entwined with the surrounding community, the ban might also burden carrying rights on locations outside campus, as many individuals will regularly go from campus to off-campus environments, even in a single trip; because they cannot bring a gun on campus, they will not feasibly be able to bring the gun to the off-campus locations either.

It’s an excellent point, and one that strikes at the heart of several of the post-Bruen restrictions on the right to carry that we’ve seen implemented or introduced in blue states over the past four months. Bans on concealed carry in public transportation, for example, not only prevent those who rely on it from being able to bear arms while on a city bus or subway, but throughout the course of their daily routine as well.

With the case going back to the court of appeals it will likely be several months before we get a decision, and Justice Viviano’s concurrence suggests that upholding the U of M gun ban won’t be as easy as gun control activists are hoping for. We’ll keep an eye on this case for any future developments, but in the meantime Michigan gun owners should be aware that the ban remains in effect for the time being.

Federal Judge Strikes Down Biden Student-Loan ‘Forgiveness.’

A federal judge in Texas on Thursday blocked President Biden’s student-loan “forgiveness” plan in response to a lawsuit from the Job Creators Network Foundation (JCNF).

The conservative advocacy group filed a suit in October arguing that the Biden administration violated federal procedures by not allowing borrowers to provide public comment before the program was unveiled.

Judge Mark Pittman of the Northern District of Texas called the plan an “unconstitutional exercise of Congress’s legislative power” and noted the program failed to go through standard regulatory processes.

“No one can plausibly deny that it is either one of the largest delegations of legislative power to the executive branch, or one of the largest exercises of legislative power without congressional authority in the history of the United States,” Pittman wrote in a 26-page opinion.

Continue reading “”

With States Hands-Off, Homeschooling Takes Off.

South Dakota epitomizes the rapid growth of homeschooling in America.  Guided by the principle that parents, not the government, have the right to determine what and how their kids are taught, homeschooling families have overturned existing rules and batted down attempts over the last decade to impose new ones in many states, including South Dakota. 

What’s left in much of the United States today is essentially an honor system in which parents are expected to do a good job without much input or oversight. The rollback of regulations, coupled with the  ill effects of remote learning during the pandemic, have boosted the number of families opting out of public schools in favor of educating their kids at home.  

Reflecting a national trend, the number of children homeschooled in South Dakota rose more than 20% in both of the last two school years. 
Homeschoolers in the Mount Rushmore state advocated for a new law that strips away key pieces of the state’s oversight and eases the way for parents leave public schools. Last year Senate Bill 177 ended the requirement that parents provide annual notice to a district of their intent to homeschool their child. More significantly, homeschool students no longer must take standardized tests, as public schoolers do, or face possible intervention by the school board if they fail.

“It was a big win for parental rights,” says Dan Beasley, then a staff attorney at the influential Home School Legal Defense Association (HSLDA), which helped craft and pass the legislation. “It cut out unnecessary regulation and streamlined the process so parents can invest their time in providing the best education they can for their children.” 

This freedom stands in contrast to outraged parents who feel powerless over how their  kids are taught in public schools. In high-pitched battles at school board meetings, some take aim at the easing of admissions standards, others at what they see as the promotion of critical race theory and transgender rights, and still others at segregated classrooms and the presence of police officers on campus. And almost everyone is concerned with the sharp decline in already low reading and math scores of students in nearly every state during the pandemic, according to the National Assessment of Educational Progress released in late October.  

For a growing number of parents, homeschooling is the answer to the institutional barriers to the education they believe in. Beyond requirements that homeschooling parents teach a few core subjects like math and English, they are free to pick the content. 

American history, for example, can be all about the glory of the Founding Fathers and the prosperity of free markets, or the oppression of Native Americans and people of color and the struggle for equality. For many homeschoolers, history is taught through a Christian lens, while others follow a standard public school curriculum. 

Home School Legal Defense Association
The regulatory burden on homeschooling, by state.
Home School Legal Defense Association

Parents’ Rights vs. State Control

Continue reading “”

Missouri 7th Congressional District Representative, Billy Long:

2 + 2 = 3 In New COVID Math

On Monday, the National Assessment of Educational Progress was released, and it’s not good. Known as the nation’s report card, this is considered the authoritative exam on how America’s schools are performing in specific subjects. Based on the results of this exam, math and reading scores are down significantly since the pre-COVID days. This is a concerning development for our students and shows that the lessons of COVID policy are still being learned.

Let’s start with math. All but one state saw declines in math scores since 2019. And this isn’t a small decrease either. For eighth graders, only 26% are considered proficient at math, down from 34% in 2019. Fourth graders did slightly better, with 36% being proficient in math compared to 41% in 2019. These numbers are concerning because of America’s current standing in the world. How are we supposed to compete against China and remain a world superpower if only 26% of eighth graders and 36% of fourth graders are proficient at math? We can all agree that competing against China will be a major issue in the years to come, and to do so our students must be proficient in math, it’s that simple. When it comes to reading scores, the results aren’t much better. More than half of the states saw declines in reading, with only 33% of fourth graders and 31% of eighth graders reading at grade level.

It’s not hard to find the cause of these drops. Schools were closed for months, or in some cases more than a year, due to COVID, and we’re clearly seeing the impacts of this decision. The pandemic has drastically hurt our students’ performance and that poses a serious problem for the future. President Biden and the Democrats want you to forget who did this to our students. They want you to forget that it was their idea to close schools for so long, and it was the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention under the Biden Administration that took direction from teacher’s unions on when to reopen schools. They put the interests of unions above the interests of our students, and now they want you to forget that it ever happened.

Closing schools was obviously a terrible decision, one that will have long lasting impacts far beyond our education system. We need our students to be leading the world in math and science if we are going to compete in the 21st century. Failing to compete here would give a serious advantage to China, and that should concern all of us. If we are going to compete against China, we have got to make sure our schools never close again. There is simply too much on the line.

And people wonder why #teamheadsonpikes is getting noticed

BLUF
The brutal and vengeful behavior of these school officials should not surprise us. Many government officials nationwide — most of whom are generally on the left — now seem to think they are should be immune from any criticism at all. To their minds, any dissent is the equivalent of violence that must be squelched by any means necessary.

May the next few elections remove such people from power, forever.

Today’s blacklisted American: School officials in Florida and Michigan retaliate against parents for being involved in their kids’ schooling.

As I did last week on October 20 and 21, today’s blacklist column will cover two stories, both of which are similar and show a pattern of abuse by those in power.

The October 20th story focused on hospitals blacklisting nurses, either for being white or Christian. The October 21st story told the story of teachers being fired for opposing the introduction of the queer agenda in toddler daycare and in elementary schools.

Today’s story describes how school officials in two different states instigated investigations designed solely to destroy the livelihood of parents, simply because those parents questioned the way those officials were doing their job.

Note that in all three cases, the nurses, teachers, and parents were blacklisted simply because they had expressed in public a disagreement with the policies of those in charge. Apparently, to those now in charge, the first amendment has been suspended, so that any dissent against them can be punished harshly.

Continue reading “”

Arizona Defies CDC, Will Not Require COVID-19 Vaccine for Public School Students

Arizona will not require students to receive the COVID-19 vaccine in order to attend public schools in the state, the legislature announced in a statement.

The state’s Senate Majority Leadership Team, via an email press release, pointed to HB 2086, a now-signed law, that “clearly and explicitly states that COVID-19 vaccinations cannot be a requirement for school attendance in Arizona.”

Last week the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) voted unanimously to add the COVID-19 vaccine to the adult and childhood immunization schedules. The ACIP recommended the receipt of four shots in total, beginning at six-months-old.

Consequently, some states will now legally require that students receive the vaccine in compliance with CDC recommendations, but Arizona will not be among them. A majority of states use the ACIP vaccination schedule as a reference for their own laws. The CDC itself does not determine state policy on public school admissions in relation to vaccination status.

“This is just another example of how out of touch the federal government and its agencies are with everyday families. With Republicans currently in control of our state government, we can promise that we will never subject Arizonans to the requirement of an experimental vaccine that has raised questions over long-term health implications,” Republican Senate President Karen Fann said of the ACIP vote.

Now, we’ve all heard from those people who don’t even want armed, in uniform, police resource officers in schools. These people are pro-criminal.
Of course, even if you do have armed security in a school, they have to have the fortitude to use their arms, not just stand around.

Good Guys with Guns End Monday Morning Attack at St. Louis School

A shooting at Central Visual and Performing Arts High School (CVPA) Monday morning shortly after nine was “quickly stopped” by police inside the school.

Fox2Now points out that “an adult female” and a teenager were killed in the shooting. The shooting suspect is deceased as well.

Police indicate there were seven active officers on the campus and there was “an exchange of gunfire” between the suspect and police. KMOV reports that the shooting suspect had a long gun and was “a man around 20 years old.”

At 9:47 a.m. St. Louis Public Schools tweeted: “Police are on site at Central Visual and Performing Arts this morning following reports of an active shooter and both CVPA and Collegiate are on lockdown. The shooter was quickly stopped by police inside CVPA. We have reports of 2 students injured and on the way to the hospital.”

The St. Louis Post-Dispatch notes,  “David Williams, a math teacher at the school, said the school principal came over the loudspeaker around 9 a.m. and said the code word that indicates a school shooter is in the building.”

Williams said he then heard gunshots outside of his classroom.

The Progressive Socialist War on American Children

The time has come that we — as constitutional conservatives and Republicans — stop playing this absurd adherence to the Marquis of Queensberry’s rules. It is imperative to understand the strategy, goals, plans, and objectives of the radical leftists and Marxists; that is why I have a copy of Saul Alinsky’s “Rules for Radicals” in my home. The leftists in America have no issue with wrongly castigating and demonizing their political opposition in the most despicable and heinous terms. We need not lower ourselves to such a level of depravity, but we must simply tell the truth. As we head into the final stretch of this midterm election cycle it is no longer debatable: the progressive socialists have declared war against American children. After this past week, what else should we deduce?

I am committed to ensuring that the unalienable rights of our children, born and unborn, are not violated. America is looking for courageous adults who will stand upon the ramparts for our children.

This past week we witnessed 15 unelected bureaucrats of the Centers for Disease Control advisory board unanimously voted that the COVID shot be included in child immunization requirements. So, 15 individuals – who, behind the anonymity of their vote — decided that our children, as young as 6 months, must be given a shot to get an education in a public school. You can bet that most Democrat-controlled states will then mandate all children must adhere to the CDC guidance (Never forget that it was Karl Marx who listed state control of education as one of the Marxist planks). This decision was met with unrestricted angst and anger from our youngest daughter who blatantly refuses to have such an injection go into little Jaxton Bernard’s body.

COVID is not a disease–it is a virus; therefore, the so-called mandated “vaccine” is not such. A vaccine eradicates a disease. It has been proven that this COVID shot does not prevent this viral infection. As a matter of fact, in young people, the COVID shot has proven to have adverse effects. Furthermore, COVID was most dangerous for those with specified comorbidities — heart disease, hypertension, diabetes, and obesity. The demographic that was the least impacted by COVID was the 0-17-year-old group. So, why mandate this ineffective shot, and leverage education, rather indoctrination, on its inoculation?

It kind of reminds me of Joe Biden threatening to cut off school lunch programs for school districts that refused to adopt the LBGTQ+ and gender dysphoria agenda.

As well, we have a new abhorrent assertion emanating from the progressive socialists. Murdering unborn babies in the womb is now an economic issue. Yes, so says Stacey Abrams, and even Joy Reid of MSNBC. It appears, according to Abrams, that if women dismember their babies in the womb, they lessen their economic concerns. Talk about a creepy take on budget cuts. Now leftists, in the need to make abortion relevant, have reduced unborn babies to a budget line item . . . and they want veto power. Our children are a gift from God, and they are endowed with the very first unalienable right: life.

The leftist position goes beyond anything reasonable or moral and, instead, promotes infanticide. Ralph Northam referred to a born child as “it.” Maryland and California have legislation advancing the idea that a born child can still be left to die. This is a demonic evil.

As well, there is an abominable drive towards child gender modification, mutilation, and surgeries along with life-altering hormonal therapies and puberty blockers. Parental rights, in this instance, are not part of the leftist ideological agenda. After all, leftists believe that our kids are not ours, but the property of the State. A leftist judge here in Dallas County, Texas, has ruled that a mother can, against the dad’s wishes, take her 10-year-old son to California so he can undergo gender modification surgery because she wants him to be a girl.

We have the American Medical Association asking the DOJ to investigate anyone speaking out against child gender modification surgery. Planned Parenthood has now added child gender modification surgery to its business plan. There are medical centers now seeing this as a lucrative, profitable endeavor and are pushing for these procedures, which the American Psychiatric Association designated as child abuse. Yes, we are chemically and physically castrating our kids. In Virginia, a progressive socialist elected official wanted to introduce legislation that parents who did not “affirm” their child’s chosen gender should lose custody. She has since back-peddled, no doubt due to the outcry when the story broke, including members of her political party who shunned her . . . and rightfully so.

Perhaps collusion exists between the medical-industrial complex and the educational-indoctrination complex. The CDC is mandating the COVID shot to attend public school. Some cannot afford private schooling. Children are then forced into public, government indoctrination centers, especially since Randi Weingarten and the leftists despise educational freedom and parental choice in education. The children are therefore indoctrinated, having drag queens paraded before them, while they are told, against parental knowledge, that they can choose their gender . . . and the teachers will enable them to do so.

Never forget, the medical-industrial complex makes the money from this purposeful and intentional grooming.

The progressive socialists do not talk about child sex trafficking. They are redefining pedophilia to be “minor-attracted persons.” They are sexualizing our children. Remember the Netflix series “Cuties?”

There is a progressive socialist war on our children. I am reminded of Jesus, who said:

“It would be better for them to be thrown into the sea with a millstone tied around their neck than to cause one of these little ones to stumble.” (Luke 17:2)

Metaphorically speaking, there are a lot of progressive socialists who do not realize that they have a millstone tied around their necks.

Steadfast and Loyal.

BLUF
Our deep dive into the numbers continues to expose the anti-gun crowd’s lack of evidence sufficient to warrant erosion of the 2nd Amendment.

Guess How Many Violent Crimes in the USA Involve a Gun

Harvard health policy expert Dr. David Hemenway routinely uses statistics like “250 people were shot each day in the US” and “Children aged 5–14 … are more than 13x more likely than children in other high-income populous countries to be murdered with a gun” to support a myth.  That myth is that America is one of the most violent nations on the planet because its citizens possess firearms.  Domestically, this myth survives by focusing on U.S. homicide rates where guns are used 74% (FBI 2019) of the time, and it thrives internationally because the U.S. outranks most all other nations for the same reason.  But is the rationale rational?

Domestically speaking, citing firearm homicides to prove that America is a violent nation fails for two primary reasons: 1) homicides are 1% of U.S. violent crime (FBI 2019) invalidating it as a metric for national violence; and 2) 78% (FBI 2019) of total violent crime is committed without a gun.  This bears repeating: nearly 8 in 10 violent crimes in America don’t involve a gun.

Internationally speaking, as one of the few nations that permits citizens to possess firearms, it’s unsurprising the U.S. has more firearm deaths.  After all, who would be surprised to learn that Egypt has the highest international ranking for people falling to their deaths from atop a large pyramid?  (Yes, it does happen.)  However, in this debate, the lethality of the weapon is not at issue, but rather its relation to violence.  Moreover, because proposed solutions to gun violence focus on changes to national public policy, national violence is most relevant.

Continue reading “”

Murphy Blocking Cruz School Security Bill Says It All

United States Senate – -(AmmoLand.com)- The next time some anti-Second Amendment extremist claims that those of us who object to gun control aren’t trying to prevent school shootings, the objection of Senator Chris Murphy to Ted Cruz’s School Security Enhancement Act should be thrown in their face.

Second Amendment supporters are all too aware of how anti-Second Amendment extremists weaponize mass shootings in general and mass shootings at schools in particular against our rights. Cruz’s legislation would allow current Student Support and Academic Enrichment grant programs to be used to improve the security at schools.

This sort of thing is – or should be – a no-brainer all around. Who doesn’t want safe schools? Chris Murphy, for one, it seems. What could he find so objectionable about Cruz’s legislation, which doesn’t even permit the use of the grants to arm teachers or train them?

We can quibble whether or not Cruz should have allowed the grants to be used to arm teachers. On the one hand, arming teachers does generate controversy (a voluntary program really shouldn’t, but we’re not in an ideal world). On the other hand, if Murphy won’t even support measures to improve school security that don’t involve guns… what do we have to gain by taking armed teachers off the table? That can be discussed later.

The topic for now, must be Murphy’s decision to object to even bringing such a measure up for debate. This is a no-lose proposition for Second Amendment supporters, especially if we make a lot of noise about it now. If we are seen working on efforts to deter, prevent, or mitigate mass shootings – including efforts that don’t involve guns – we have a chance to head off attacks.

As has been discussed on these pages earlier, Murphy has pushed legislation that would prohibit any sort of federal funding for law enforcement in schools. In other words, what he is proposing would actually make repeats of Sandy Hook, Parkland, and Uvalde not only much more likely to happen but also to rack up the kind of body counts that force us into a major action in defense of our rights.

Why would he remove something that could deter or mitigate attacks? That is a question we’d see him asked if the vast majority of media outlets were honest. We don’t have that world today, so much of it could end up needing to be done by Second Amendment supporters at town meetings. Those in Connecticut should press Murphy on this and demand an explanation.

Remember the time it took for cops to arrive at Sandy Hook? It was ten minutes – 600 seconds. The long periods of inaction by law enforcement at Parkland and Uvalde also should be kept in mind. Murphy’s past track record of smearing Second Amendment supporters means he has forfeited any claim to receiving the benefit of the doubt from Second Amendment supporters on this matter as well.

One final thing: Working to prevent school shootings with legislative proposals like what Senator Cruz proposed is not being a “Fudd.” The fact is, we should be trying to head off these shootings – it’s in our interest to do so, just look at the aftermath of Parkland.

Second Amendment supporters have a chance to immunize themselves to some degree from attacks in the wake of the next school shooting. If they can seize this chance, it will help efforts to defeat anti-Second Amendment extremists at the federal, state, and local levels via the ballot box.

“I Surprised Myself with My Openness and Enjoyment of the Activity” (Fall 2022 Student Range Visit Reflection #2)

This is the second of several student gun range field trip reflection essays from my fall 2022 Sociology of Guns seminar (see reflection #1). The assignment to which students are responding can be found here. I am grateful to these students for their willingness to have their thoughts shared publicly.

Sociology of Guns student at the range, Fall 2022. Photo by Sandra Stroud Yamane

By Audrey Dorfman

Prior to the field trip to Veterans Range, I would classify my view of guns in the US as predominantly negative. As I had previously never directly interacted with a gun before, I only associated the use of guns with the violence seen in the media in horrific crimes like mass shootings. I did not understand the need or desire to be a gun owner. However, the experience at the range definitely altered my prior understanding of guns in the US as I surprised myself with my openness and enjoyment of the activity.

When I first arrived at the gun range and gathered with the other students in my group to wait outside the fenced area, I was initially startled by the sound of the AR-15 being fired nearby. Hearing just how loud the gun was made me realize the true power of the weapon I was about to be interacting with. While I was a little bit nervous to handle the guns, I felt mostly excited; I seemed to be the most eager in my group to volunteer to shoot first. I wanted to approach the experience with an open mind, and I think this attitude allowed me to relax and appreciate my time at the range much more.

The part of the field trip that surprised me the most was how much I truly enjoyed it. I walked away feeling a sense of exhilaration and as if I had been relieved of the day’s tension and stress. I immediately contacted my family to tell them how great of a time I had with the different types of guns – however, this unexpected enjoyment also confused me. I was wrestling with the idea of how I could have so much fun with these different guns when they are the same objects I know are used to kill people every single day.

Continue reading “”