The NRA speaks...

[DumbedDownUSA]

Arm Teachers says their spokesperson and president of the doofUS.

--
Trump: If there is a shutdown I think it would be a tremendously
negative mark on the president of the United States. He’s the one that
has to get people together.

[Clave]

On 2/22/2018 3:32 AM, DumbedDownUSA wrote:
> Arm Teachers says their spokesperson and president of the doofUS.
>

Yes, smart and insightful leadership that was!

[-hh]

On Thursday, February 22, 2018 at 5:32:42 AM UTC-5, DumbedDownUSA wrote:
> Arm Teachers says their spokesperson and president of the doofUS.

That's a great idea if you want even more innocent bystanders get hit.

Case in point, the Rand Study commissioned by the NYPD to assess
their police force's shooting performance:

<http://www.pointshooting.com/1arand.htm>

BLUF: Average P(h) = 18%

Hint: that means 82% of rounds fired missed their intended target.



-hh

[Alan Baker]

Not to mention the terrible tragedies that will result when police come
on the scene and shoot the armed gunmen they encounter...

[michae...@gmail.com]

From your link:

"Bill Burroughs, in his paper of several years ago: Components and Considerations for Combat Shooting, said that "Shooters miss at close ranges because of faulty, incomplete and, yes, negligent training."

He also said that combat shooting is actually quite simple and anyone can learn it.

In a span of less than two hours and with shooting fewer than 100 rounds of ammunition, an Officer can be taught The Applegate System method and reproduce it during periods of stress. And marksmanship levels are high inside the distances where the method was designed to be used - close quarters."



FYI: That report was from 2007. Got anything more recent. See what you can Cherry pick.

[-hh]

On Thursday, February 22, 2018 at 3:10:09 PM UTC-5, michae...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Thursday, February 22, 2018 at 2:16:26 PM UTC-5, -hh wrote:
> > On Thursday, February 22, 2018 at 5:32:42 AM UTC-5, DumbedDownUSA wrote:
> > > Arm Teachers says their spokesperson and president of the doofUS.
> >
> > That's a great idea if you want even more innocent bystanders get hit.
> >
> > Case in point, the Rand Study commissioned by the NYPD to assess
> > their police force's shooting performance:
> >
> > <http://www.pointshooting.com/1arand.htm>
> >
> > BLUF: Average P(h) = 18%
> >
> > Hint: that means 82% of rounds fired missed their intended target.
>
>

> From your link:
>
> "Bill Burroughs, in his paper of several years ago: Components and
> Considerations for Combat Shooting, said that "Shooters miss at close
> ranges because of faulty, incomplete and, yes, negligent training."

But of course training is a factor. Performance is proportionally
related to how much (time & money) is invested in training. Point
here is that the amount that the NYPD provides is only adequate to
get you up to this ~18% P(h) value. If you want teachers to be
better than that, then they need (substantially) more firearms
training than the NYPD receives.

> He also said that combat shooting is actually quite simple and
> anyone can learn it.

Sure, but there's a difference between learning it and performing
at some proficiency level ... and because shooting is a perishable
skill, there's also the recurring cost in training (& facilities)
to then stay at that level of proficiency.

> In a span of less than two hours and with shooting fewer than
> 100 rounds of ammunition, an Officer can be taught The Applegate
> System method and reproduce it during periods of stress.

Even 2 hours and 100rds has a non-zero cost (multiplied by however
many teachers are in the USA), but this duration is far too brief
to be able to instill longer term muscle memory. The classical
rule of thumb is that at least five (5) repetition sessions are
required over a multi-week period for adequate retention rates.

> And marksmanship levels are high inside the distances where the
> method was designed to be used - close quarters."

Yes, ~95% in ideal (static range) conditions, which is better
than the likes of the 70% PD qualification tests. But the
concern here isn't how well PD performs while unstressed in
an ideal setting, but in real life - - the Rand study shows
that that 70% degrades to less than 20%. There's been claims
that Rex Applegate's method is ergonomically superior, but
where's there the published performance data?

Where "high" is quantified as being of just what P(h) value?

> FYI: That report was from 2007. Got anything more recent.
> See what you can Cherry pick.

There doesn't appear to be any more recent large sample size
systematic research reports since the Rand. There are a few
"2015" era annual reports which have a single year's data,
but that doesn't appear to show any meaningful difference
while also being thinner.

FWIW, you can find reports such as this one:

<http://www.nyc.gov/html/nypd/downloads/pdf/analysis_and_planning/nypd_annual_firearms_discharge_report_2011.pdf>

Which contains the following (& interesting) statement:

"OBJECTIVE COMPLETION RATE ...the Department does not calculate
average hit percentages. Instead, the objective completion rate
per incident is employed as it is both more accurate and more
instructive. Like combat itself, the objective completion rate
per incident is pass/fail. When an officer properly and lawfully
adjudges a threat severe enough to require the use of his or her
firearm, and fires at a specific subject, the most relevant measure
is whether he or she ultimately hits and stops the subject. This is
the objective completion rate, and it is determined irrespective of
the number of shots the officer fired at the subject."

Translation: don't count how many rounds are fired, but look at
what percentage of engagements had (a) LEO lawful fire conducted;
which then (b) also had one or more rounds hit the target (out of
no specified number of attempts); which then (c) resulted in target
incapacitation.

Continuing:

"In these 36 incidents, officers hit at least one subject per
incident 28 times, for an objective completion rate of 78 percent."

This means that 22% of the time, they never even hit (out of
an unknown number of attempts).

And interestingly, it continues:

"When officers were being fired upon, however, they struck
subjects two thirds of the time (six out of nine incidents)."

FWIW, it does look like the latter pages of this style of
report does contain the discharge rate values from which a
traditional P(h) percentage can be arrived at.

Bottom line is that the training will cost time & money.
When teachers are buying their own classroom supplies, its
pretty damn clear that the current resources are inadequate.

-hh

[Silvio]

On 22-02-18 11:32, DumbedDownUSA wrote:
> Arm Teachers says their spokesperson and president of the doofUS.
>

That should work out great when a teacher snaps...

Only a fool can believe that a gun problem can be solved with more guns.

[-hh]

On Thursday, February 22, 2018 at 5:05:09 PM UTC-5, Silvio wrote:
> On 22-02-18 11:32, DumbedDownUSA wrote:
> > Arm Teachers says their spokesperson and president of the doofUS.
> >
>
> That should work out great when a teacher snaps...

Apparently, something akin to that may have just happened in
West Virginia:

<https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/education/wp/2018/02/22/i-dont-think-people-recognize-how-dire-it-is-west-virginia-teachers-strike-closing-all-public-schools/>


-hh

[-hh]

A tangent while on this subject - - extracts from some offline
conversations with some friends who currently work as public
school teachers.

Quite direct and poignant:


"Buying wasp spray, and learning about using my flag as a spear
were not covered in my teacher training..."

"I know entirely too well what those parents face, and it's
rebreaking my own heart. If our school gets attacked, I will die
charging at the attacker. I cannot watch my students get hurt,
or face their parents should I survive and their kids not. But
by golly I will HURT the bastard before I go down."


"Our principal just called with a notification of a shooting
threat at [school] tomorrow, over 100 students reported it.
They traced the phone to an address in Indiana, seems to be bogus,
so come on in tomorrow. It's all my students want to talk about,
so we do. They are sadly very mature and cynical. and scared."



-hh

[Clave]

On 2/22/2018 12:16 PM, -hh wrote:
> On Thursday, February 22, 2018 at 5:32:42 AM UTC-5, DumbedDownUSA wrote:
>> Arm Teachers says their spokesperson and president of the doofUS.
>
>
> That's a great idea if you want even more innocent bystanders get hit.

Bullshit fear-mongering.

> Case in point, the Rand Study commissioned by the NYPD to assess
> their police force's shooting performance:
>
> <http://www.pointshooting.com/1arand.htm>
>
> BLUF: Average P(h) = 18%
>
> Hint: that means 82% of rounds fired missed their intended target.
>
>
>
> -hh

So fucking what?

18% is better than 0%, dumbass.

[Clave]

Oh boo fucking hoo, shitstain!

[Clave]

On 2/22/2018 2:53 PM, -hh wrote:
> Bottom line is that the training will cost time & money.
> When teachers are buying their own classroom supplies, its
> pretty damn clear that the current resources are inadequate.
>
> -hh

So we allocate some resources, done.

Next!

[Clave]

On 2/22/2018 3:05 PM, Silvio wrote:
> On 22-02-18 11:32, DumbedDownUSA wrote:
>> Arm Teachers says their spokesperson and president of the doofUS.
>>
>
> That should work out great when a teacher snaps...

And the incidence of that is:_______________________________???

> Only a fool can believe that a gun problem can be solved with more guns.

Right, cops and the military never solve anything...

You IDIOT!

[Clave]

Predictable lib anecdotes.

Which is a frightening way to form your world view, btw.

But you lot always do it.

Reductionism ad absurdum.

That's why your policies tend to fail, badly.

[michae...@gmail.com]

Care to voice your solution?

[-hh]

Clave writes:
> -hh wrote:
>> On Thursday, February 22, 2018 at 5:32:42 AM UTC-5, DumbedDownUSA wrote:
>>> Arm Teachers says their spokesperson and president of the doofUS.
> >
> > That's a great idea if you want even more innocent bystanders get hit.
>
> Bullshit fear-mongering.

Hallway full of innocents trying to flee, and only one valid hostile
target somehow doesn’t equal a very high downside risk on taking
a shot? Come again?

The pragmatic reality is that your defender staff needs to be trained up
to “Hostage team rescue” proficiency level+, which is very expensive.

>> Case in point, the Rand Study commissioned by the NYPD to assess
>> their police force's shooting performance:
>> <http://www.pointshooting.com/1arand.htm>
>>
>> BLUF: Average P(h) = 18%
>>
>> Hint: that means 82% of rounds fired missed their intended target.
>
>

> So fucking what?
>
> 18% is better than 0%, dumbass.

Not when the fraction of those 82% misses results in more hits
on innocents, increasing the casualty count higher than it otherwise
would have been.


-hh

[Clave]

But they don't necessarily do that.

And with the kids in duck and cover mode the incidence goes WAY down.

So stop your gutless leftard whining and accept that the game has
changed and we need armed personnel in schools now.

Sucks.

But that is reality.

[Carbon]

Unfortunately the world is full of fools. There are a lot of true
believers who think that having more guns must lead to less crime, when it
is blindingly obvious that the US has the most guns and the most gun
deaths per capita in the first world.

Abstract
Background
Violent death is a serious problem in the United States. Previous research
showing US rates of violent death compared with other high-income
countries used data that are more than a decade old.

Methods
We examined 2010 mortality data obtained from the World Health
Organization for populous, high-income countries (n = 23). Death rates per
100,000 population were calculated for each country and for the
aggregation of all non-US countries overall and by age and sex. Tests of
significance were performed using Poisson and negative binomial
regressions.

Results
US homicide rates were 7.0 times higher than in other high-income
countries, driven by a gun homicide rate that was 25.2 times higher. For
15- to 24-year-olds, the gun homicide rate in the United States was 49.0
times higher. Firearm-related suicide rates were 8.0 times higher in the
United States, but the overall suicide rates were average. Unintentional
firearm deaths were 6.2 times higher in the United States. The overall
firearm death rate in the United States from all causes was 10.0 times
higher. Ninety percent of women, 91% of children aged 0 to 14 years, 92%
of youth aged 15 to 24 years, and 82% of all people killed by firearms
were from the United States.

Conclusions
The United States has an enormous firearm problem compared with other
high-income countries, with higher rates of homicide and firearm-related
suicide. Compared with 2003 estimates, the US firearm death rate remains
unchanged while firearm death rates in other countries decreased. Thus,
the already high relative rates of firearm homicide, firearm suicide, and
unintentional firearm death in the United States compared with other
high-income countries increased between 2003 and 2010.

http://www.amjmed.com/article/S0002-9343(15)01030-X/fulltext

[Carbon]

On 02/22/2018 07:15 PM, -hh wrote:
> Clave writes:
>> -hh wrote:
>>> On Thursday, February 22, 2018 at 5:32:42 AM UTC-5, DumbedDownUSA
>>> wrote:
>>>> Arm Teachers says their spokesperson and president of the doofUS.
>>>
>>> That's a great idea if you want even more innocent bystanders get hit.
>>
>> Bullshit fear-mongering.
>
> Hallway full of innocents trying to flee, and only one valid hostile
> target somehow doesn’t equal a very high downside risk on taking a shot?
> Come again?
>
> The pragmatic reality is that your defender staff needs to be trained up
> to “Hostage team rescue” proficiency level+, which is very expensive.

Obviously the answer is to require all children to pass BUD/S every year
in order to graduate. They should view this as a refreshing change after
all the non-stop drilling to pass standardized tests.

[-hh]

Clave writes:
> So we allocate some resources, done.
> Next!

Easy to claim...

But we’re in now-increases deficit spending, there is no free
money laying around. What taxes do you raise, and by how
much to cover at least what’s minimally necessary?


-hh

[-hh]

On Thursday, February 22, 2018 at 7:25:25 PM UTC-5, Clave wrote:
> On 2/22/2018 5:15 PM, -hh wrote:
> > Clave writes:
> >> -hh wrote:
> >>> On Thursday, February 22, 2018 at 5:32:42 AM UTC-5, DumbedDownUSA wrote:
> >>>> Arm Teachers says their spokesperson and president of the doofUS.
> >>>
> >>> That's a great idea if you want even more innocent bystanders get hit.
> >>
> >> Bullshit fear-mongering.
> >
> > Hallway full of innocents trying to flee, and only one valid hostile
> > target somehow doesn’t equal a very high downside risk on taking
> > a shot? Come again?
> >
> > The pragmatic reality is that your defender staff needs to be trained up
> > to “Hostage team rescue” proficiency level+, which is very expensive.
> >
> >>> Case in point, the Rand Study commissioned by the NYPD to assess
> >>> their police force's shooting performance:
> >>> <http://www.pointshooting.com/1arand.htm>
> >>>
> >>> BLUF: Average P(h) = 18%
> >>>
> >>> Hint: that means 82% of rounds fired missed their intended target.
> >>
> >>
> >> So fucking what?
> >>
> >> 18% is better than 0%, dumbass.
> >
> > Not when the fraction of those 82% misses results in more hits
> > on innocents, increasing the casualty count higher than it otherwise
> > would have been.
>
>

> But they don't necessarily do that.

We're addressing the general case, not that there will be exceptions.
The general case will be a conventional flight response ... i.e., running.

> And with the kids in duck and cover mode the incidence goes WAY down.

Only if they've been very specifically trained to know the differences
in defensive response postures appropriate for which types of threats.

Or did you not know that "hitting the deck" actually has a higher risk of
significant injury vs other actions from certain threats?

> So stop your gutless leftard whining and accept that the game has
> changed and we need armed personnel in schools now.

It technically is an option, but not a cheap one. Go ask a Vet just how many
soldiers it takes to adequately secure a FOB the size of last week's high school.

Then do the math for how much that will cost.

And then how large of a percentage increase that will incur on your local taxes.

And then if you're now willing to beg your politicians to raise your taxes by that much to pay for it.

> Sucks.
> But that is reality.

Yup.

-hh

[michae...@gmail.com]

2nd request:

Care to voice your solution?

Possibly you will find a fault with every solution. It seems headed that way.

Or will you duck the issue again?

Your solution....

[-hh]

On Thursday, February 22, 2018 at 7:43:57 PM UTC-5, michae...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Thursday, February 22, 2018 at 7:34:51 PM UTC-5, -hh wrote:
> > Clave writes:
> > > So we allocate some resources, done.
> > > Next!
> >
> > Easy to claim...
> >
> > But we’re in now-increases deficit spending, there is no free
> > money laying around. What taxes do you raise, and by how
> > much to cover at least what’s minimally necessary?
> >
> >
> > -hh
>
> 2nd request:
>
> Care to voice your solution?

Oh, I have some ideas - - but I do want to see "Clave" here come up
with the financials to his claimed solution.

> Possibly you will find a fault with every solution. It seems headed that way.

Every solution does have faults. The trick is in recognizing the least bad choice.
For example, one approach is to make sure that the costs to Society are balanced
amongst the different interests, with those who benefit from a certain approach
subsequently provide compensate to those in Society who suffer from the same.

> Or will you duck the issue again?
> Your solution....

In time. Others have already been proposed their own, so they need to both
defend theirs as well as to quantify the costs for those that clearly require
throwing a lot of money (which we don't have) at the problem.


-hh

[DumbedDownUSA]

-hh wrote:

> Clave writes:
> > -hh wrote:
> >> On Thursday, February 22, 2018 at 5:32:42 AM UTC-5, DumbedDownUSA
> wrote: >>> Arm Teachers says their spokesperson and president of the
> doofUS.
> > >
> > > That's a great idea if you want even more innocent bystanders get
> > > hit.
> >
> > Bullshit fear-mongering.
>

Isn't fear mongering what is driving the idea to put a million weapons
into schools... as if that were safer than having none.

> Hallway full of innocents trying to flee, and only one valid hostile
> target somehow doesn’t equal a very high downside risk on taking
> a shot? Come again?
>
> The pragmatic reality is that your defender staff needs to be trained
> up to “Hostage team rescue” proficiency level+, which is very
> expensive.
>

Perhaps kindergardens needs to start recruiting from special forces?

This whole concept is driven by the NRA and their funding.

Any civilised society would be looking at taking tens of millions of
weapons off the streets and out of private individuals hands.

[DumbedDownUSA]

Of course that is just deaths. You have tens of thousands of injuries
to deal with also.

...and yet in the US this is a political debate; why is that?

Why is it that one political party touts more weapons while the other
proposes solutions more in line with civilised countries? Other than
funding?

[michae...@gmail.com]

IOW, NO, you don't have a suggestion. But you want to bash anyone else's.

It's your usual smoke and hot air dance.

Look up the definition of "mealy mouthed".

[michae...@gmail.com]

It looks like you're in your glory trolling here, and using 17 dead kids as your venue.

You and Shitstain...birds of a feather.

[-hh]

> IOW, NO, you don't have a suggestion. But you want to bash anyone else's.
>
> It's your usual smoke and hot air dance.

Except that my above comment, as broad as it is, is already evidence
that I do actually have an approach to suggest.

And similarly, the same also identifies the logical rationale by which
I'll be challenging the suggested solutions of others.

> Look up the definition of "mealy mouthed".

As if "What taxes do you raise, and by how much...?" isn't clear.


-hh

[michae...@gmail.com]

More hot air.

What you are doing is using dead kids to troll, just like your Butt Buddy, Shitstain Baker.

You are a pathetic, little man.

[Clave]

On 2/22/2018 5:27 PM, Carbon wrote:
> Conclusions
> The United States has an enormous firearm problem

No we don't.

We have an enormous leftard statist un-Constitutional problem.

[Clave]

On 2/22/2018 5:33 PM, Carbon wrote:
> Obviously the answer is to require all children to pass BUD/S

Obviously an anvil applied to your head might restore reason to you.

[Clave]

On 2/22/2018 5:34 PM, -hh wrote:
> Clave writes:
>> So we allocate some resources, done.
>> Next!
>
> Easy to claim...

And do!

> But we’re in now-increases deficit spending, there is no free
> money laying around.

So fucking what?

We've been a debtor nation for freaking ever!

> What taxes do you raise,

None.

Reallocation.

> and by how
> much to cover at least what’s minimally necessary?
>
>
> -hh

Whatever it takes, cupcake.

Now bugger off with your leftarded nay saying.

[Clave]

That's the sound of YOU moving the goalposts to service YOUR embedded
biases, leftard.

"We" will speak to what _I_ say "we" will, got it yet assbag?

> not that there will be exceptions.

Hiding under a desk is NOT an "exception".

In fact if one is in the library or a classroom it's literally what kids
are TAUGHT to do, you moron!

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/national/activeshooter/

HIDE

If you can’t immediately leave a building or room, you want to buy time
— time to plan another way out, time to prepare in case the shooter
forces his way in, time for the police to arrive.

Block doors

Don’t just lock them, barricade them with desks, chairs, bookcases —
anything big and heavy. Wedge objects under them at the farthest points
from the hinges. Prop or wedge something under door handles to keep them
from turning all the way. Tie hinges and knobs with belts or purse
straps. A shooter doesn’t want to work hard to enter a room.
Turn off lights, silence phones

Make sure someone has alerted 911 with as many details as you can about
your location and anything you know about the shooter's whereabouts.
Cover windows if you have time; if not, make sure you can't be seen
through the glass.

Choose a hiding place

If you know you will hide and stay hidden, don’t count on particle-board
furniture to stop bullets. Get behind something made of thick wood or
thick metal if you can, or stack several layers of thinner material.
Make yourself as small a target as possible, either curling into a ball
or lying flat on the ground.
Make a plan

Don’t just get under a desk and wait. Plan how you will get out or what
you and the other people who are with you will do if the shooter gets
into the room.

> The general case will be a conventional flight response ... i.e., running.

There is no "general case" you lying asshat!

A school campus is a diverse environment with many options, not ht least
of which is hide in place.

>> And with the kids in duck and cover mode the incidence goes WAY down.
>
> Only if they've been very specifically trained to know the differences
> in defensive response postures appropriate for which types of threats.

Oh you mean like the specific training Homeland Security offers, yes:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/national/activeshooter/

What would you do if someone walked into the building you are in right
now and started shooting? Through training programs and public awareness
campaigns, law enforcement experts are asking people to consider this
question so that they will be prepared to act rather than freeze if the
unthinkable happens. Here are the basics of the “Run, Hide, Fight”
program created by the Department of Homeland Security, with additional
details from active-shooter survival trainers, law enforcement officers
and a Special Forces veteran.

> Or did you not know that "hitting the deck" actually has a higher risk of
> significant injury vs other actions from certain threats?

Please take your alleged "expertise" to DHS and be sure and remind them
what a fucking lying sack of shit you are, mmm'k?

>> So stop your gutless leftard whining and accept that the game has
>> changed and we need armed personnel in schools now.
>
> It technically is an option, but not a cheap one.

So fucking what!?!?!?

We throw money down the black hole of 'edukayshun' for even less results
in actual 'book leraning'.

> Go ask a Vet just how many
> soldiers it takes to adequately secure a FOB the size of last week's high school.

Go ask a vet if a "field of battle" is analogous to a slaughterhouse,
asshole!

> Then do the math for how much that will cost.

It would be spendy to arm _all the kids_ but might be interesting to try...

> And then how large of a percentage increase that will incur on your local taxes.

Blah, blah, blah...

Looks like you want dead kids.

You twisted bastard!

> And then if you're now willing to beg your politicians to raise your taxes by that much to pay for it.

All we need is reallocation of funds.

We can start by shitcanning all that bullshit diversity training!

https://www.cga.ct.gov/2003/olrdata/ed/rpt/2003-R-0661.htm

Several state laws either require or encourage public schools to
incorporate aspects of diversity-related information in their
instructional programs for students and in professional development and
in-service programs for teachers. In addition, state law requires school
boards to take diversity into account when assessing textbooks and
instructional materials and makes diversity a component of state teacher
preparation programs. Some of the diversity training laws are voluntary,
merely giving local school boards the option to provide of training or
specific topics in school curricula and teacher professional development
programs.

This report summarizes the state laws on diversity training and
instruction in schools. We include laws requiring or encouraging
training in appreciation of gender, racial, ethnic, or cultural
differences; that refer to instruction in issues surrounding specific
ethnic, racial, or religious groups; or that are designed to make
teachers more aware of students with disabilities.

>> Sucks.
>> But that is reality.
>
>
> Yup.
>
> -hh
>

Grow a pair.

[Clave]

Leftard cowards always duck the issue.

[Clave]

On 2/22/2018 5:57 PM, -hh wrote:
> On Thursday, February 22, 2018 at 7:43:57 PM UTC-5, michae...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Thursday, February 22, 2018 at 7:34:51 PM UTC-5, -hh wrote:
>>> Clave writes:
>>>> So we allocate some resources, done.
>>>> Next!
>>>
>>> Easy to claim...
>>>
>>> But we’re in now-increases deficit spending, there is no free
>>> money laying around. What taxes do you raise, and by how
>>> much to cover at least what’s minimally necessary?
>>>
>>>
>>> -hh
>>
>> 2nd request:
>>
>> Care to voice your solution?
>
> Oh, I have some ideas - - but I do want to see "Clave" here come up
> with the financials to his claimed solution.

I already did - reallocate funds away from bullshit diversity training
programs:

https://www.cga.ct.gov/2003/olrdata/ed/rpt/2003-R-0661.htm

Several state laws either require or encourage public schools to
incorporate aspects of diversity-related information in their
instructional programs for students and in professional development and
in-service programs for teachers. In addition, state law requires school
boards to take diversity into account when assessing textbooks and
instructional materials and makes diversity a component of state teacher
preparation programs. Some of the diversity training laws are voluntary,
merely giving local school boards the option to provide of training or
specific topics in school curricula and teacher professional development
programs.

This report summarizes the state laws on diversity training and
instruction in schools. We include laws requiring or encouraging
training in appreciation of gender, racial, ethnic, or cultural
differences; that refer to instruction in issues surrounding specific
ethnic, racial, or religious groups; or that are designed to make
teachers more aware of students with disabilities.

http://www.online-distance-learning-education.com/diversity-training.html

There are several factors crucial for a diversity training program to
succeed in the twenty-first century. First, the most important factor
deals with obtaining top-level leadership support from the organization.
For a diversity program to succeed, it requires the enthusiastic support
and involvement of the superintendent and top administrators, who must
clearly enunciate the importance of diversity as a business value and
goal. The diversity program needs to be tied in directly with the
mission and objectives of the school district. If the training program
fails to stay in line with the important values of the organization,
employees will lose interest and become non-responsive to changing their
behavior following training. Finally, the organization needs to research
and conduct an adequate needs assessment to insure the training material
coincides with current diversity issues within the organization. Failure
to keep abreast of the major diversity issues in the organization will
cause employees to lose faith in the overall purpose of the diversity
training program. Taking the time to appreciate the diversity of each
employee in an organization will help produce a confident and committed
workforce.

>> Possibly you will find a fault with every solution. It seems headed that way.
>
> Every solution does have faults. The trick is in recognizing the least bad choice.

Of which you are blatantly incapable of doing.

No matter, DHS has it handled:

https://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/active_shooter_booklet.pdf

Good practices for coping with an
active shooter situation
• Be aware of your environment and any
possible dangers
• Take note of the two nearest exits in any
facility you visit
• If you are in an office, stay there and
secure the door
• If you are in a hallway, get into a room
and secure the door
• As a last resort, attempt to take the active
shooter down. When the shooter is at
close range and you cannot flee, your
chance of survival is much greater if you
try to incapacitate him/her.
CALL
911
WHEN IT IS SAFE TO DO SO

> For example, one approach is to make sure that the costs to Society are balanced
> amongst the different interests, with those who benefit from a certain approach
> subsequently provide compensate to those in Society who suffer from the same.

Fuck you, taxatious gutless coward!

>> Or will you duck the issue again?
>> Your solution....
>
> In time. Others have already been proposed their own, so they need to both
> defend theirs as well as to quantify the costs for those that clearly require
> throwing a lot of money (which we don't have) at the problem.
>
>
> -hh
>

Oh we have plenty of money to reallocate:

https://www2.ed.gov/about/overview/budget/history/index.html

http://www.politifact.com/virginia/statements/2015/mar/02/dave-brat/brat-us-school-spending-375-percent-over-30-years-/

"Our own government statistics show that over 30 years, federal spending
on education has grown by 375%, but test scores have remained flat," he
wrote. "That proves that just throwing more money at education is not
the solution."

Uncle Sam spent $40.8 billion on public schools last year. When you
divide that by enrollment, it comes to $816 a student. Adjusted for
inflation, that’s a 117 percent increase in federal spending per student
over 30 years ago.

That said, the increase in per-student spending is still significant and
Brat has valid point on the test results. Average NAEP scores for
17-year-olds have barely budged during the last 30 years of testing.

So we rate the totality of Brat’s statement Mostly True.

[Clave]

On 2/23/2018 3:31 AM, DumbedDownUSA wrote:
> -hh wrote:
>
>> Clave writes:
>>> -hh wrote:
>>>> On Thursday, February 22, 2018 at 5:32:42 AM UTC-5, DumbedDownUSA
>> wrote: >>> Arm Teachers says their spokesperson and president of the
>> doofUS.
>>>>
>>>> That's a great idea if you want even more innocent bystanders get
>>>> hit.
>>>
>>> Bullshit fear-mongering.
>>
>
> Isn't fear mongering what is driving the idea to put a million weapons
> into schools... as if that were safer than having none.
>
>> Hallway full of innocents trying to flee, and only one valid hostile
>> target somehow doesn’t equal a very high downside risk on taking
>> a shot? Come again?
>>
>> The pragmatic reality is that your defender staff needs to be trained
>> up to “Hostage team rescue” proficiency level+, which is very
>> expensive.
>>
>
> Perhaps kindergardens needs to start recruiting from special forces?

Are kindergartens being shot up?

Shit, I musta missed that, assbag.

> This whole concept is driven by the NRA and their funding.

Uber patriots all!

> Any civilised society would be looking at taking tens of millions of
> weapons off the streets and out of private individuals hands.

Says a raving statist fascist shitpile.

FUCK YOU TO HELL.

[Clave]

Because we have raving statist socialist DemoTrads who make it so.

They hate our liberties and Constitutional rights.

Always have.

Always will.

> Why is it that one political party touts more weapons

Becasue Republicans venerate our Constitutional rights.

> while the other
> proposes solutions more in line with civilised countries?

Because DemoTards despise individual liberties, favor a jack booted
fascist state, anmd want to eliminate the US Constitution.

> Other than funding?

Oh that?

Here:

http://www.politifact.com/virginia/statements/2015/mar/02/dave-brat/brat-us-school-spending-375-percent-over-30-years-/

[Clave]

...totally...

[Clave]

Bullshit, you have NOTHING of the slightest value to "suggest" you
gutless statist jack boot.

> And similarly, the same also identifies the logical rationale by which
> I'll be challenging the suggested solutions of others.

Fuck you and your gutless challenges.

>> Look up the definition of "mealy mouthed".
>
> As if "What taxes do you raise, and by how much...?" isn't clear.
>
>
> -hh
>

REALLOCATE A BLOATED DOE BUDGET, dipshit!

https://www2.ed.gov/about/overview/budget/history/index.html

https://www2.ed.gov/about/overview/budget/history/edhistory.pdf

https://education.cu-portland.edu/blog/news/10-year-spending-trends-in-u-s-education/

K-12 Spending Postsecondary
Spending Total
Appropriation
2005 $37.5 $28.2 $71.4
2006 $39.7 $55.9 $100
2007 $36.8 $23.8 $67.1
2008 $37.9 $24.4 $68.5
2009 $38.8 $4.5 $39.8
2009 $79.8 $17.4 $98.2
2010 $38.9 $8.3 $63
2011 $37.9 $685 $43.9
2012 $37.3 $4.1 $40.5
2013 $35.3 $2.6 $39.8
2014 $37.2 $11.3 $55.2
2015 $37.1 $43.5 $87.4

[-hh]

Just because you can't see it, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Oh, and it also isn't 'statist', when public opinion polls are
showing that Society wants more, not less, gun control. Case
in point:

"Spring 2017 surveys show 89% of Americans — including gun-owners
and non-gun owners — tend to agree on one thing: the mentally ill
should be prevented from purchasing guns."

<http://www.businessinsider.com/americans-gun-control-beliefs-las-vegas-shooting-polls-surveys-2017-10>

"Quinnipiac’s poll of 1,249 voters found 97 percent of respondents
want universal background checks. Voters want by a two-to-one margin
support a ban on sales of assault weapons, and by a five-to-one margin
want a mandatory waiting period for all gun purchases. Even among
firearm owners, 50 percent support stricter gun laws, while 44 percent
oppose."

<https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-02-20/u-s-gun-control-support-at-highest-level-measured-poll-shows>

> > And similarly, the same also identifies the logical rationale by which
> > I'll be challenging the suggested solutions of others.
>
> Fuck you and your gutless challenges.

You volunteered yourself. No one chained you to a keyboard to
write a post. That you're unable/unwilling to now materially
support your own claims shows just who is being 'gutless'.

> >> Look up the definition of "mealy mouthed".
> >
> > As if "What taxes do you raise, and by how much...?" isn't clear.
>

> REALLOCATE A BLOATED DOE BUDGET, dipshit!
>
> https://www2.ed.gov/about/overview/budget/history/index.html
>
> https://www2.ed.gov/about/overview/budget/history/edhistory.pdf
>
> https://education.cu-portland.edu/blog/news/10-year-spending-trends-in-u-s-education/
>
> K-12 Spending Postsecondary
> Spending Total
> Appropriation
> 2005 $37.5 $28.2 $71.4
> 2006 $39.7 $55.9 $100
> 2007 $36.8 $23.8 $67.1
> 2008 $37.9 $24.4 $68.5
> 2009 $38.8 $4.5 $39.8
> 2009 $79.8 $17.4 $98.2
> 2010 $38.9 $8.3 $63
> 2011 $37.9 $685 $43.9
> 2012 $37.3 $4.1 $40.5
> 2013 $35.3 $2.6 $39.8
> 2014 $37.2 $11.3 $55.2
> 2015 $37.1 $43.5 $87.4

Well, that's a start at least.

But this $87.4B/yr is the entire budget for the DoE, not
the allegedly "bloated" part. For example, you singled out
some 'diversity' initiative - just how many dollars per year
is this of the above overall budget?

In the meantime, your approach also means that you need to
scope out the magnitude of the effort to figure out how much
you need to ask for. To this end:

1 How much is it going to cost to train-up a new teacher?

2 How much is it going to cost to maintain qualification?

3 How much do the guns cost? And are they going to be GFE'ed,
or are teachers going to be reimbursed?

4 Since this is an additional responsibility, by how much are
their pay going to be increased? For that matter, just how
does contemporary teacher pay compare today to a LEO in the
same community?

5 How is the local community going to address their liability
for accidental shootings? Will the private insurance industry
write such policies, or does this need to be a self-insurance
pool handled at the State level? In either case, how much per
year will this cost to insure?

For example, on #1 and #2, consider the training classes currently
offered by BSR as a baseline:

<https://www.bsr-inc.com/training-courses/training-coursesfirearms-training/>

Figure that initial qualification is Basic + Intermediate + Advanced,
and the annual requalification is equivalent to just the Advanced:

1: ($300 + $118) + ($550 + $236) + ($800 + $354) = $2358.
Plus 6 Man-Days, which with +1 day for travel to/from the training
facility is 7 Man-Days that you need to pay your employee in
addition to their time in the classroom. Figure in round numbers
a $50K salary (180 day school year) @ 100% overhead for $555/day,
so 7 Man-Days costs $3885, and the total cost for initial
qualification is roughly $6243.

2: ($800 + $354) = $1154 + 2220 = $3374/yr

Now multiply those by 20% of the 3.2M teachers, plus some TBD of
the non-teaching administrators and staff who also work in schools,
so call it 20% of 5M for a conveniently round 1M.

Initial Qual: $6243M = $6.2B
Annual Requal: $3374M = $3.3B/yr

Figure simplistically that the Initial Qual's can be spread
out over a ten year period, and your budgetary needs are $4B/yr
for this portion of the startup & sustainment costs.

#3: Figure a million guns at $1K each, with a ten year useful
life (to simplistically ignore gunsmithing costs for rebuilds
and maintenance), that's another $0.1B/yr expense.

#4: Let's benchmark this as a 20% pay increase for the
increased responsibility incurred: 1M*(.20)($50K) = $10B/yr

#5: I forget offhand how much a $10K term life insurance policy
is for a minor; think its roughly $50/yr? Going with that,
with over 50M kids enrolled in just public schools, that's
another $2.5B/yr expense.

Rolling up, you're already at $16.6B/yr in expenses, for which
you'll need to find arguably "useless"/"waste" programs to cut
to start to pay for your project. Good luck!


-hh

[-hh]

Wrong: the general use case addresses the majority outcome.

> "We" will speak to what _I_ say "we" will, got it yet assbag?

Which means that you'll try to use the fact that a couple of
people have survived falls out of airplanes without dying to
then claim that jumping out of an airplane without a parachute
is a "smart" strategy? Wrong. Just because there's been some
rare exceptions does not change the fact that the generally
expected outcome of such a freefall is a deadly "splat!".

> > not that there will be exceptions.
>
> Hiding under a desk is NOT an "exception".

But its not even the first choice in what you cited:

> In fact if one is in the library or a classroom it's literally
> what kids are TAUGHT to do, you moron!
>
> https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/national/activeshooter/

What you cut out:

"RUN

The first — and best — option is to get out if you possibly can."

And flight is emphasized again in what you did leave in:

> HIDE
>
> If you can’t immediately leave a building or room, you want to buy time

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

> — time to plan another way out, time to prepare in case the shooter

> forces his way in, time for the police to arrive...

>
> > The general case will be a conventional flight response ... i.e., running.
>
> There is no "general case" you lying asshat!

Your own choice of cite listed "RUN" as the first choice.

> A school campus is a diverse environment with many options, not
> ht least of which is hide in place.

But "RUN" is listed - by your choice of cite - as the first choice.

> >> And with the kids in duck and cover mode the incidence goes WAY down.
> >
> > Only if they've been very specifically trained to know the differences
> > in defensive response postures appropriate for which types of threats.
>
> Oh you mean like the specific training Homeland Security offers, yes:
>
> https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/national/activeshooter/

That's the simplified version. The DoD training has more details
and does differentiate by threat which defensive response postures
is appropriate for which.

> > Or did you not know that "hitting the deck" actually has a higher risk
> > of significant injury vs other actions from certain threats?
>
> Please take your alleged "expertise" to DHS and be sure and remind them
> what a fucking lying sack of shit you are, mmm'k?

Non-response noted.

> >> So stop your gutless leftard whining and accept that the game has
> >> changed and we need armed personnel in schools now.
> >
> > It technically is an option, but not a cheap one.
>
> So fucking what!?!?!?

Cost - Benefit Analysis.

> We throw money down the black hole of 'edukayshun' for even less results
> in actual 'book leraning'.
>
> > Go ask a Vet just how many
> > soldiers it takes to adequately secure a FOB the size of last week's high school.
>
> Go ask a vet if a "field of battle" is analogous to a slaughterhouse,
> asshole!

Non-response noted.

> > Then do the math for how much that will cost.
>
> It would be spendy to arm _all the kids_ but might be interesting to try...
>
> > And then how large of a percentage increase that will incur on your local taxes.
>
> Blah, blah, blah...
>
> Looks like you want dead kids.
>
> You twisted bastard!

Nope, that's your lame strawman attempt. I'm more interested in
ways which reasonably maintain the balance of societal interests
which cost the general public a lot less than what you're trying
to be the proponent of.

> > And then if you're now willing to beg your politicians to
> > raise your taxes by that much to pay for it.
>
> All we need is reallocation of funds.
>
> We can start by shitcanning all that bullshit diversity training!
>
> https://www.cga.ct.gov/2003/olrdata/ed/rpt/2003-R-0661.htm
>
> Several state laws either require or encourage public schools to
> incorporate aspects of diversity-related information in their
> instructional programs for students and in professional development and
> in-service programs for teachers. In addition, state law requires school
> boards to take diversity into account when assessing textbooks and
> instructional materials and makes diversity a component of state teacher
> preparation programs. Some of the diversity training laws are voluntary,
> merely giving local school boards the option to provide of training or
> specific topics in school curricula and teacher professional development
> programs.
>
> This report summarizes the state laws on diversity training and
> instruction in schools. We include laws requiring or encouraging
> training in appreciation of gender, racial, ethnic, or cultural
> differences; that refer to instruction in issues surrounding specific
> ethnic, racial, or religious groups; or that are designed to make
> teachers more aware of students with disabilities.

Too bad there's no data on what you provided that documents its budget.

> >> Sucks.
> >> But that is reality.
> >
> >
> > Yup.
> >
> > -hh
> >
>
> Grow a pair.

Already have, which is why you're whining so loudly.


-hh

[Silvio]

On 23-02-18 11:50, DumbedDownUSA wrote:

> Carbon wrote:
>
>
> Of course that is just deaths. You have tens of thousands of injuries
> to deal with also.
>
> ...and yet in the US this is a political debate; why is that?
>
> Why is it that one political party touts more weapons while the other
> proposes solutions more in line with civilised countries? Other than
> funding?
>

To be honest I think that you are being too cynical. I don't believe
this is a matter of funding. I think the US really has too many
individuals who truly believe that guns are a solution. Note the earlier
reaction of a simple soul who does not see the difference between the
police and guns.

Yes, police and military are institutions who are supposed to stop
extreme behavior of citizens. And to do that they may have to resort to
using arms. Having armed citizens limits the effectiveness of said
institutions.

But there are idiots who think that citizens can be their own police or
army if properly armed. This has worked out perfectly until now. And it
will continue to do so in the future.

It is primarily NOT a gun problem. It is an ignorance problem. Too many
US citizens are too stupid for their own good. But that is old news.

[Clave]

See it?

I see your leftarded swill for just what it is, gun-grabbing statist.

> Oh, and it also isn't 'statist', when public opinion polls are
> showing that Society wants more, not less, gun control.

It precisely is as these "polls" are push-polled, rigged, corrupted and
fed by a rapacious rights-hating lamestream media!

> Case
> in point:
>
> "Spring 2017 surveys show 89% of Americans — including gun-owners
> and non-gun owners — tend to agree on one thing: the mentally ill
> should be prevented from purchasing guns."
>
> <http://www.businessinsider.com/americans-gun-control-beliefs-las-vegas-shooting-polls-surveys-2017-10>

Oh now there's a non-starter!

Of course k00ks shouldn't have guns, duh.

> "Quinnipiac’s poll of 1,249 voters found 97 percent of respondents
> want universal background checks.

Quinnipiac is push polling by libitards - DISMISSED!

> Voters want by a two-to-one margin
> support a ban on sales of assault weapons, and by a five-to-one margin
> want a mandatory waiting period for all gun purchases. Even among
> firearm owners, 50 percent support stricter gun laws, while 44 percent
> oppose."
>
> <https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-02-20/u-s-gun-control-support-at-highest-level-measured-poll-shows>

"Michael Bloomberg, founder of Bloomberg News parent Bloomberg LP,
serves on the advisory board of Everytown for Gun Safety, which
advocates for stiffer legislation regarding firearms. The survey of
1,249 likely voters has a margin of error of plus or minus 3.4
percentage points."

IT'S RIGGED, FOOL.

https://poll.qu.edu/images/polling/us/us02202018_demos_ugbw51.pdf/

"Quinnipiac Polls are
funded entirely by Quinnipiac University. The Quinnipiac University
Poll is part of the Department of Public Affairs."

Mind control.

>>> And similarly, the same also identifies the logical rationale by which
>>> I'll be challenging the suggested solutions of others.
>>
>> Fuck you and your gutless challenges.
>
> You volunteered yourself.

What????

> No one chained you to a keyboard to
> write a post.

Indeed.

> That you're unable/unwilling to now materially
> support your own claims shows just who is being 'gutless'.

My claims are unassailed.

>>>> Look up the definition of "mealy mouthed".
>>>
>>> As if "What taxes do you raise, and by how much...?" isn't clear.
>>
>> REALLOCATE A BLOATED DOE BUDGET, dipshit!
>>
>> https://www2.ed.gov/about/overview/budget/history/index.html
>>
>> https://www2.ed.gov/about/overview/budget/history/edhistory.pdf
>>
>> https://education.cu-portland.edu/blog/news/10-year-spending-trends-in-u-s-education/
>>
>> K-12 Spending Postsecondary
>> Spending Total
>> Appropriation
>> 2005 $37.5 $28.2 $71.4
>> 2006 $39.7 $55.9 $100
>> 2007 $36.8 $23.8 $67.1
>> 2008 $37.9 $24.4 $68.5
>> 2009 $38.8 $4.5 $39.8
>> 2009 $79.8 $17.4 $98.2
>> 2010 $38.9 $8.3 $63
>> 2011 $37.9 $685 $43.9
>> 2012 $37.3 $4.1 $40.5
>> 2013 $35.3 $2.6 $39.8
>> 2014 $37.2 $11.3 $55.2
>> 2015 $37.1 $43.5 $87.4
>
> Well, that's a start at least.

That's BLOAT and all for declining test scores too!

> But this $87.4B/yr is the entire budget for the DoE, not
> the allegedly "bloated" part.

SFW?!?!

> For example, you singled out
> some 'diversity' initiative - just how many dollars per year
> is this of the above overall budget?

Just enough to get started!

And there's MORE too!

> In the meantime, your approach also means that you need to
> scope out the magnitude of the effort to figure out how much
> you need to ask for. To this end:
>
> 1 How much is it going to cost to train-up a new teacher?

Depends on what their skill level is and firearms background.

> 2 How much is it going to cost to maintain qualification?

How much do these murders cost?

> 3 How much do the guns cost?

Why do you care?

> And are they going to be GFE'ed, or are teachers going to be reimbursed?

As long as it stops murders does it matter?

> 4 Since this is an additional responsibility, by how much are
> their pay going to be increased?

So we need extra pay to save lives?

huh?

Do they get a bonus for performing the Heimlich manuver?

You asshole.

> For that matter, just how
> does contemporary teacher pay compare today to a LEO in the
> same community?

Why would that even matter?

Obfuscation.

> 5 How is the local community going to address their liability
> for accidental shootings?

Have you ever heard of insurance?

> Will the private insurance industry
> write such policies, or does this need to be a self-insurance
> pool handled at the State level?

Does it matter?

> In either case, how much per
> year will this cost to insure?

who cares?

Dead kids are not acceptable.

> For example, on #1 and #2, consider the training classes currently
> offered by BSR as a baseline:
>
> <https://www.bsr-inc.com/training-courses/training-coursesfirearms-training/>
>
> Figure that initial qualification is Basic + Intermediate + Advanced,
> and the annual requalification is equivalent to just the Advanced:
>
> 1: ($300 + $118) + ($550 + $236) + ($800 + $354) = $2358.
> Plus 6 Man-Days, which with +1 day for travel to/from the training
> facility is 7 Man-Days that you need to pay your employee in
> addition to their time in the classroom. Figure in round numbers
> a $50K salary (180 day school year) @ 100% overhead for $555/day,
> so 7 Man-Days costs $3885, and the total cost for initial
> qualification is roughly $6243.
>
> 2: ($800 + $354) = $1154 + 2220 = $3374/yr
>
> Now multiply those by 20% of the 3.2M teachers, plus some TBD of
> the non-teaching administrators and staff who also work in schools,
> so call it 20% of 5M for a conveniently round 1M.
>
> Initial Qual: $6243M = $6.2B
> Annual Requal: $3374M = $3.3B/yr

Here's a hint - we also have plenty of off duty cops, ex-military
retirees, etc. who may be very willing to volunteer.

And:

http://pgh.pgpic.com/PoliceGrantsHelpLasershotFirearmsSimulato%20ResourceGuide.pdf

Federal Grants
US Department of Homeland Security
8
•
Law Enforcement Terrorism Activity (LEPTA-SHSP)
•
Law Enforcement Terrorism Activity (LEPTA-UASI)
•
Metropolitan Medical Response System (MMRS)
•
Operation Stone garden Grant Program (OPSG)
•
State Homeland Security Program (SHSP)
•
Transit Security Grant Program (TSGP)
•
Tribal Homeland Security Grant Program (THSGP)
•
Urban Areas Security Initiative Program(UASI)
Urban Areas Security Initiative (UASI)
Purpose: The UASI program focuses on enhancing regional preparedness
in major
metropolitan areas. The UASI program directly supports the National
Priority on
expanding regional collaboration in the Nation
al Preparedness Guidelines and is intended
to assist participating juri
sdictions in developing integrated regional systems for
prevention, protection, response, and recovery. Consistent with the
9/11 Act, states are
required to ensure that at least 25 percent of UASI appropriated funds
are dedicated
towards law enforcement terrorism prevention-oriented planning,
organization, training,
exercise, and equipment activities, includ
ing those activities which support the
development and operation of fusion centers.
US Department of Justice/Office of Justice Programs
•
Justice Assistance Grant (JAG)
•
COPS Grants
•
US Department of Transportation (OTS Grants)
•
SAFETEA-LU overall funding grant
Edward Byrne Memorial Just
ice Assistance Grant (JAG)
Funds available in FY 2011: $519 million. Byrn
e funds support a broad range of activities
to prevent and control crime and to improv
e the criminal justice system, including
equipment and operations. JAG funds support
all components of th
e criminal justice
system, from multijurisdictional drug and ga
ng task forces to crime prevention and
domestic violence programs, courts, corrections, treatment, and justice
information
sharing initiatives. Sixty percent allocation is awarded to the State
and 40 percent is set
aside for units of local governments. The proc
edure for allocating JAG funds directly to
local units of government is a formula based on population and crime
statistics
submitted to the State to report into the UCR database. Each state
handles their
allocation differently, most through a compet
itive application at different times of the
year.
COPS Community Policing Development Grants
Funding Available in FY 2011: $18 million.
Community Policing funds can be used for
training and technical assistance and to fu
nd a variety of innovative projects and
9
knowledge resource products that support the integration of community
policing
strategies throughout the la
w enforcement community. This will enable officers and
community members to more effectively address emerging law enforcement and
community issues. Community Policing grants are awarded through a
competitive
application process.
Project Safe Neighborhoods (PSN)
PSN is a strategy designed to reduce gun and gang crime in the United
States, focusing
on aggressive and coordinated enforcement of
existing gun laws
in federal and state
courts, and effective strategies to reduce and prevent gang crime. The
PSN strategy
focuses on the implementation of five elements that are integral to a
comprehensive,
coordinated gun and gang crime reduction and prevention program. These
elements are
partnerships, strategic planni
ng, training, community outrea
ch, and accountability. Over
the past several years, BJA has supported these five PSN elements
through both direct
grant funds to local communities and the delivery of nationwide training
and technical
assistance (TTA). The PSN TTA Program is desi
gned to deliver TTA services to state and
local law enforcement, criminal justice partne
rs, and communities in areas of the nation
that are experiencing gun and gang violence.
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA)
For years, USDA has operated its Community
Facilities Program.
Under this program,
law enforcement can access financial assistan
ce to purchase equipment, and construct
or renovate their station. The
program offers four types of assistance: a direct grant, a
direct loan, a combination grant and loan, and a loan guarantee. These
programs are
available to departments in communities that have a population of 20,000
or less and
whose median household income is at or
below their states figure. To access
information about the Community
Facilities Program, contac
t the nearest USDA office.
You can get more information, including
local contact information, by going to
www.usda.gov
.
Community Development Block Grants (CDBG)
This program was established in 1974 and
is administered by the Department of
Housing and Urban Development. Most municipa
lities that have a population of over
4,000 residents receive CDBG money either directly from HUD as an
entitlement
community or through their state government. Under CDBG up to 15% of the
funding
received by the municipality can be used fo
r public services. Through this program,
communities have funded a number of police activities including the
purchase of new
vehicles, new equipment and the renovation or
construction of stations. The application
process normally starts locally
in January or February of each year and is handled
through your local government unit.
10
State Funding Resources
•
State Emergency Management Department
•
State Homeland Security Department
•
State Department of Justice
•
State Department of Transportation
Foundation Grants
•
Community Foundations
•
Private Foundations
•
Corporate Foundations
Some Examples:
o
Wal-Mart Foundation
o
State Farm Foundation
o
Nationwide Insurance Foundation
Across the nation there are thousands of fo
undations that annually grant millions of
dollars to eligible organizations for projects
in their communities. If you are aware of a
foundation in your area, the first step is to
call the foundation director and explain who
you represent and the type of project you are
seeking funds for. From this conversation
you can determine if your application is e
ligible and what the process is to access
funding. If you are not aware of any foundations, you can access The
Foundation
Directory at your local library
or the Foundation Center (
foundationcenter.org/
), which
are both excellent sources that detail foundation grantmaking
activities. Once you have
targeted a foundation or foundations, start by
calling them to see if your project meets
their eligibility guidelines or not and
what their application process entails.
Direct Funding
•
Local business: many local business
es will sponsor the equipment for law
enforcement
•
Local banks: contact your local bank presid
ent or community liaison to inquire about
funding for firearms simulators
•
Local school districts: partner with your
school district for funding for firearms
simulators
•
Local nonprofits: partner with local nonprofits for funding for firearms
simulators
•
Partner with civic clubs for funding
•
Develop a community service project for fi
rearms simulators fundraising with high
school or college students for community service credit
11
•
Partner with your city, town
or county for municipality grants which fund firearms
simulators
Community Reinvestment Act (CRA)
Under federal regulations, fina
ncial institutions must show that they are investing money
back into the communities in which they do bu
siness. This activity is monitored at least
every three years by the federal government. Financial institutions can
meet their
obligation by making grants, low interest loans or donations to
community organizations.
If you are interested in this program you should contact your bank
either at the end of
the year or at the start of the New Year. Banks operate on a calendar
year budget and
they will be adopting their budg
et at this time. For the best
chance of getting funded,
you want to be included in
that budget. Your project sh
ould have visibility and an
opportunity for the bank to get public recognition.
Potential Community Partners for Cost Sharing
•
State and Federal Elected Officials
•
City/County Administration
•
Probation and Parole Departments
•
District Attorney Offices
•
Justice Offices
•
Corporations
•
Bank community reinvestment programs
(contact the local bank president)
•
Other law enforcement agencies

> Figure simplistically that the Initial Qual's can be spread
> out over a ten year period, and your budgetary needs are $4B/yr
> for this portion of the startup & sustainment costs.
>
> #3: Figure a million guns at $1K each, with a ten year useful
> life (to simplistically ignore gunsmithing costs for rebuilds
> and maintenance), that's another $0.1B/yr expense.

Figure NO such thing!

My God!

http://www.handgunsmag.com/reviews/featured_handguns_top_5_bargain_9mm_handguns/

Bersa Thunder 9 UC Kel-Tec PF-9 Stoeger Cougar Taurus PT709 Slim

Price

$465 $333 $469 $483

> #4: Let's benchmark this as a 20% pay increase for the
> increased responsibility incurred: 1M*(.20)($50K) = $10B/yr

Let's NOT!

Teachers already save kids lives regularly at NO additional cost!

> #5: I forget offhand how much a $10K term life insurance policy
> is for a minor; think its roughly $50/yr? Going with that,
> with over 50M kids enrolled in just public schools, that's
> another $2.5B/yr expense.

Children's insurance policies are the responsibility of their PARENTS,
you moron!

> Rolling up, you're already at $16.6B/yr in expenses, for which
> you'll need to find arguably "useless"/"waste" programs to cut
> to start to pay for your project. Good luck!
>
>
> -hh

You wrote your own self-defeating parameters and actually priced out the
lives of our children.

Your ghoulish death-o-nomics paint you as a severely sick old fart.

But to play along with your self-crafted NO game let's see what we might
save if we allocated some funds away from protecting Yurop and much of
this insane planet from itself:

http://fpif.org/the_cost_of_the_global_us_military_presence/

The United States spends approximately $250 billion annually to maintain
troops, equipment, fleets, and bases overseas.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/q-a-how-much-do-u-s-military-bases-in-japan-and-korea-cost-1461822624

Q: How much does the U.S. presence in Japan cost the U.S. each year?

A: Including personnel costs, the U.S. is set to spend roughly $5.5
billion on its Japan presence in the year beginning Oct. 1, 2016,
according to President Barack Obama’s budget proposal released in February.

As for the DOE's needless pork, it is seemingly endless:

https://ed.gov/about/overview/budget/budget17/budget-factsheet.pdf

$120 million for a new Stronger Together Grants program, which would
encourage the development of innovative, ambitious plans to increase
socioeconomic diversity through voluntary, community-supported
strategies, and expand existing efforts in States and communities.

$128 million for Promise Neighborhoods, an increase of $55 million, to
support communities that seek to break the intergenerational cycle of
poverty through a continuum of coordinated services from birth through
college.

$138million, an increase of $31 million over the 201 6enacted level
,for more vigorous enforcement of our Nation’s civil rights laws by the
Department’s Office for Civil Rights, which ensures equal access to
education

$53 million, a $30 million increase over the 2016 enacted level
,for Native Youth Community Projects, which support community
-driven, comprehensive strategies to improve the college-and career
-readiness of Native youth.

Provide$60.8 billion in mandatory funding over the next decade for
America's College Promise(ACP), which would create a new partnership
with States to make two years of community college free for responsible
students

[Clave]

BULLSHIT!

There is no "majority outcome".

As I proved.

School campuses are to diverse for that, but...

Logic dictates that during most of the day classrooms are where the
"majority" of kids are located.

Locked and non-breachable doors with bulletproof glass and buzz to enter
systems save ALL those lives - every one of them.

>> "We" will speak to what _I_ say "we" will, got it yet assbag?
>
> Which means that you'll try to use the fact that a couple of
> people have survived falls out of airplanes without dying

Non sequitur!

Next!.>

>>> not that there will be exceptions.
>>
>> Hiding under a desk is NOT an "exception".
>
> But its not even the first choice in what you cited:

The first choice is wholly dependent on the location of the victims, period.

Stop lying, you florid asshole.

>> In fact if one is in the library or a classroom it's literally
>> what kids are TAUGHT to do, you moron!
>>
>> https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/national/activeshooter/
>
> What you cut out:
>
> "RUN
>
> The first — and best — option is to get out if you possibly can."

"if you can'!

Do you think exiting a classroom into a hall with a shooter is the BEST
option, turrdbrain?

> And flight is emphasized again in what you did leave in:

So fucking what?

This is not a specific to school course, now is it?

It's more "generalized" as you seem to favor, isn't it?


"FIGHT

This is the last resort, a dangerous option to be used only if your life
is at risk and you are trapped with a gunman. Different situations call
for different strategies, but all of these turn the element of surprise
against the shooter.


Create chaos

Throw books, coffee mugs — anything you can grab. Make noise. Keep
moving. A moving target is much harder to hit than a stationary one.
Greg Crane, founder of the ALICE Training Institute, which has worked
with nearly 3,000 schools, said that even children can be taught to
move, make noise and distract so they can buy time to get away.
Swarm

Some experts teach a Secret Service-style technique in which people wait
beside the door and grab the shooter as he enters. At least one person
goes for the arm that holds the gun, one wraps his legs and others push
him down. Using their body weight, a group of smaller people can bring a
large man to the ground and hold him there.


Move the weapon away

Once the gun is separated from the shooter, cover it with something such
as a coat or a trash can. Don’t hold the weapon, because if police storm
in, they may think you are the shooter.
Attack

This is last even among last-resort options. The ALICE program doesn't
even suggest this for adults, and none recommend it for children. But if
you try to fight, choose a weapon and aim for vital areas such as the
head, eyes, throat and midsection. Don’t quit."

Now I think we can "generally" concur that having kids "swarm", "throw
books" or "attack" would not be the first best choice either, can't we?

>> HIDE
>>
>> If you can’t immediately leave a building or room, you want to buy time
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> — time to plan another way out, time to prepare in case the shooter
>> forces his way in, time for the police to arrive...
>>
>>> The general case will be a conventional flight response ... i.e., running.
>>
>> There is no "general case" you lying asshat!
>
> Your own choice of cite listed "RUN" as the first choice.

Read it again, shit for brains:

"The first — and best — option is to get out _if_ you possibly can."

IF, motherfucker - IF!

>> A school campus is a diverse environment with many options, not
>> ht least of which is hide in place.
>
> But "RUN" is listed - by your choice of cite - as the first choice.

Read it again, shit for brains:

"The first — and best — option is to get out _if_ you possibly can."

IF, motherfucker - IF!

>>>> And with the kids in duck and cover mode the incidence goes WAY down.
>>>
>>> Only if they've been very specifically trained to know the differences
>>> in defensive response postures appropriate for which types of threats.
>>
>> Oh you mean like the specific training Homeland Security offers, yes:
>>
>> https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/national/activeshooter/
>
> That's the simplified version.

That's mopre than YOU psoted, asshle!

> The DoD training has more details
> and does differentiate by threat which defensive response postures
> is appropriate for which.

Indeed it does, so?

Why didn't YOU post it then., asshole?

>>> Or did you not know that "hitting the deck" actually has a higher risk
>>> of significant injury vs other actions from certain threats?
>>
>> Please take your alleged "expertise" to DHS and be sure and remind them
>> what a fucking lying sack of shit you are, mmm'k?
>
> Non-response noted.

No sensible query posed.

You get what you earn, asshole.

>>>> So stop your gutless leftard whining and accept that the game has
>>>> changed and we need armed personnel in schools now.
>>>
>>> It technically is an option, but not a cheap one.
>>
>> So fucking what!?!?!?
>
> Cost - Benefit Analysis.

On the lives of innocent children????

Seriously?!!?!?!???

>> We throw money down the black hole of 'edukayshun' for even less results
>> in actual 'book leraning'.
>>
>>> Go ask a Vet just how many
>>> soldiers it takes to adequately secure a FOB the size of last week's high school.
>>
>> Go ask a vet if a "field of battle" is analogous to a slaughterhouse,
>> asshole!
>
> Non-response noted.

Illogical rhetorical query DISMISSED!

The "field of battle" does not apply to a school zone, unless you're
talking Chicago.

>>> Then do the math for how much that will cost.
>>
>> It would be spendy to arm _all the kids_ but might be interesting to try...
>>
>>> And then how large of a percentage increase that will incur on your local taxes.
>>
>> Blah, blah, blah...
>>
>> Looks like you want dead kids.
>>
>> You twisted bastard!
>
> Nope, that's your lame strawman attempt.

Oh no, you went right in and crafted your own impossibly high cost
scenario in your last post just to demagogue this out.

You vermin!

> I'm more interested in
> ways which reasonably maintain the balance of societal interests

Fuck "societal interests" and all your leftarded PC thought-speak.

> which cost the general public a lot less than what you're trying
> to be the proponent of.

There is no 'cost' on a child's life.

Just as a grieving parent, you ghoulish freak.

>>> And then if you're now willing to beg your politicians to
>>> raise your taxes by that much to pay for it.
>>
>> All we need is reallocation of funds.
>>
>> We can start by shitcanning all that bullshit diversity training!
>>
>> https://www.cga.ct.gov/2003/olrdata/ed/rpt/2003-R-0661.htm
>>
>> Several state laws either require or encourage public schools to
>> incorporate aspects of diversity-related information in their
>> instructional programs for students and in professional development and
>> in-service programs for teachers. In addition, state law requires school
>> boards to take diversity into account when assessing textbooks and
>> instructional materials and makes diversity a component of state teacher
>> preparation programs. Some of the diversity training laws are voluntary,
>> merely giving local school boards the option to provide of training or
>> specific topics in school curricula and teacher professional development
>> programs.
>>
>> This report summarizes the state laws on diversity training and
>> instruction in schools. We include laws requiring or encouraging
>> training in appreciation of gender, racial, ethnic, or cultural
>> differences; that refer to instruction in issues surrounding specific
>> ethnic, racial, or religious groups; or that are designed to make
>> teachers more aware of students with disabilities.
>
> Too bad there's no data on what you provided that documents its budget.

Addressed partly in my prior reply.

We have a LOT of DOE pork that can be reallocated, a lot!

https://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/1999/12/08/15pork.h19.html

The San Bernardino County, Calif., superintendent of schools issued a
news release last week proudly announcing a $3 million federal grant to
underwrite program development for a "virtual" high-tech high school.

Senate Appropriations Committee Chairman Ted Stevens of Alaska, a
Republican, and the ranking Democrat, Sen. Tom Harkin of Iowa, were
among the many lawmakers to issue statements outlining specific
education projects for their states funded in the final budget deal. Mr.
Harkin, for example, secured $10 million for Iowa school construction
projects and $4 million for a statewide educational technology initiative.

Scott Fleming, the Education Department's assistant secretary for
legislation, said the department understands that Congress has the
prerogative to earmark funds. "Whether it's the best thing to do, I'm
not prepared to judge that," he said. "We all hope that indeed the
judgments will reflect projects that do prove beneficial for education."

The day the Senate approved the final budget bill, Sen. John McCain,
R-Ariz., blasted what he saw as loads of pork in the $385 billion
omnibus spending plan. Mr. McCain, a candidate for the Republican
presidential nomination in 2000, was one of 24 senators who voted
against the bill.

https://www.academia.org/2010-education-pork/

The 2010 Congressional Pig Book, released by Citizens Against Government
Waste (CAGW) is out, and it exposes the considerable pork given to academia.

“Sen. [Tom] Harkin [D-Iowa] has long been a determined crusader for
pork,” states the Pig Book summary (pdf). “In a November 25, 2006 New
York Times article, he claimed, ‘I happen to be a supporter of earmarks,
unabashedly. But I don’t call them earmarks. It is “Congressional
directed spending.”’”

Harkin, who chairs the Senate Labor/HHS Appropriations Subcommittee,
earmarked approximately $7.29 million “for the Iowa Department of
Education” to run a grant program named after himself, the Harkin Grant
program, according to the CAGW summary book. “($32,633,000 has been
earmarked for this program since 2005…” it states. The long name for the
grant program, which funds local school construction projects, is “The
Iowa Demonstration Construction Grant Program.”

“The purpose of the program is to help school districts correct fire
safety problems and to help school districts leverage local resources to
construct new schools or remodel, modernize existing buildings.
Approximately 35 percent of the available funds have been allocated each
year for addressing fire safety issues and 65 percent for construction,”
according to the Iowa Department of Education website.

Here’s just a few of the other education-related earmarks outlined in
the 2010 Pig Book summary. (Many more are listed there.)

Sen. Harkin:

“$400,000 to the AIB College of Business in Des Moines to continue
recruiting and training captioners and court reporters and to provide
scholarships to students;…”

Sen. Thad Cochran (R-Miss.):

“…$450,000 for preserving and digitizing recordings at the modern
political library archives at the University of Mississippi;”
“$300,000 for Delta State University for music education in rural
areas; $300,000 for the American Music Archives at the University of
Mississippi; … $100,000 to archive newspaper and digital media at
Mississippi Gulf Coast Community College” (emphasis added); and
“$200,000 by Senate Appropriations Committee Ranking Member Thad
Cochran (R-Miss.) for the Washington National Opera in Washington, D.C.
for set design, installation, and performing arts at libraries and
schools”(emphasis added).

“The Washington National Opera had a fund balance of $19,547,622 as of
June 30, 2008,” states the Pig Book summary.

Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.)

“…$500,000 for purchasing equipment and curriculum development at
Fairleigh Dickinson University (which has an endowment of $23,150,084);…”
“…and $150,000 for the West New York Board of Education to launch
an alternative fuel education program and to purchase equipment”
(emphasis added).

Sen. Arlen Specter (D.-Penn.):

“…$100,000 for science education programs and equipment purchasing
at Cedar Crest College (which has an endowment of $18,138,926);…”
“….and $100,000 for internet-based foreign language programs at
Carnegie Mellon University (which has an endowment of $1,061,625,145)”;

Sen. Robert Bennett (R-Utah):

“$…600,000 for curriculum development at Western Governors University…”
“ …and $250,000 for the I Won’t Cheat Foundation in Salt Lake City
for an anti-steroids education program and awareness campaign” (emphasis
added).

Rep. Jo Bonner (R-Ala.)

“$100,000…for exhibits and education outreach at the Gulf Coast
Exploreum Science Center in Mobile.”

“Federal taxpayers could have avoided the tab for this earmark if each
of Mobile’s 191,022 residents had explored their bank accounts for an
extra 53 cents,” it states.

Rep. Diane Watson (D-Calif.)

“$100,000 …for career exploration and training for at-risk youths
for jobs in filmmaking at the Duke Media Foundation in Hollywood.”

>>>> Sucks.
>>>> But that is reality.
>>>
>>>
>>> Yup.
>>>
>>> -hh
>>>
>>
>> Grow a pair.
>
> Already have, which is why you're whining so loudly.
>
>
> -hh
>

No, you're a gutless gun-grabbing leftarded traitor to all our rights!

[Clave]

On 2/23/2018 12:33 PM, Silvio wrote:
> On 23-02-18 11:50, DumbedDownUSA wrote:
>> Carbon wrote:
>>
>>
>> Of course that is just deaths. You have tens of thousands of injuries
>> to deal with also.
>>
>> ...and yet in the US this is a political debate; why is that?
>>
>> Why is it that one political party touts more weapons while the other
>> proposes solutions more in line with civilised countries? Other than
>> funding?
>>
>
> To be honest I think that you are being too cynical. I don't believe
> this is a matter of funding. I think the US really has too many
> individuals who truly believe that guns are a solution.

Of course, we can use squirt guns and party favors to subdue crazed
shooters, you infantile OAF!

> Note the earlier
> reaction of a simple soul who does not see the difference between the
> police and guns.
>
> Yes, police and military are institutions who are supposed to stop
> extreme behavior of citizens. And to do that they may have to resort to
> using arms. Having armed citizens limits the effectiveness of said
> institutions.

Bullshit lie.

America has had militias for our entire history!

> But there are idiots who think that citizens can be their own police or
> army if properly armed.

Rhetorical bullshit!

No proof at all.

> This has worked out perfectly until now.

Yes the libitards haven't completely taken away the one final means we
as Americans have to redress grievances with a fascist state.

> And it will continue to do so in the future.

Not with scum like you gnawing away at our liberties and Constitutional
rights!

> It is primarily NOT a gun problem.

It is obvious that tools of any type are not sentient - one thing you
share on common with them.

> It is an ignorance problem.

Yes you are.

> Too many
> US citizens are too stupid for their own good.

Yes, there is a far too large media-brainwashed contingent that wishes
to surrender ALL of our rights.

They WILL be stopped, dead in their Goddamned tracks if need be!

> But that is old news.

As is seedy Euro trash bashing the land of the free.

FUCK OFF AND DIE YOU BASTARD!

[-hh]

Gosh, just look at that: Clave has done a complete 180 from
claiming that there was no suggestions to a "really bad" one.

> > Oh, and it also isn't 'statist', when public opinion polls are
> > showing that Society wants more, not less, gun control.
>
> It precisely is as these "polls" are push-polled, rigged, corrupted and
> fed by a rapacious rights-hating lamestream media!

Translation: when the Will of the People doesn't align with what
Clave wants, make up excuses for why the source data couldn't have
possibly been correct/true.

> > Case
> > in point:
> >
> > "Spring 2017 surveys show 89% of Americans — including gun-owners
> > and non-gun owners — tend to agree on one thing: the mentally ill
> > should be prevented from purchasing guns."
> >
> > <http://www.businessinsider.com/americans-gun-control-beliefs-las-vegas-shooting-polls-surveys-2017-10>
>
> Oh now there's a non-starter!
>
> Of course k00ks shouldn't have guns, duh.

Except that there has been literally decades of deliberate obstructionism
from simply implementing just such a policy ... including Trump's EO
this past year to explicitly deny the use of SSA data (on people who
have formally been determined to be incompetent) in the background system
database.

> > "Quinnipiac’s poll of 1,249 voters found 97 percent of respondents
> > want universal background checks.
>
> Quinnipiac is push polling by libitards - DISMISSED!

Interesting claim - - but what credible source has shown your
claim to be true: please provide a relevant cite that clearly
proves there to be any meaningful degree of bias of this source.

> > Voters want by a two-to-one margin
> > support a ban on sales of assault weapons, and by a five-to-one margin
> > want a mandatory waiting period for all gun purchases. Even among
> > firearm owners, 50 percent support stricter gun laws, while 44 percent
> > oppose."
> >
> > <https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-02-20/u-s-gun-control-support-at-highest-level-measured-poll-shows>
>
> "Michael Bloomberg, founder of Bloomberg News parent Bloomberg LP,
> serves on the advisory board of Everytown for Gun Safety, which
> advocates for stiffer legislation regarding firearms. The survey of
> 1,249 likely voters has a margin of error of plus or minus 3.4
> percentage points."
>
> IT'S RIGGED, FOOL.

That real or perceived conflicts of interest were disclosed? No,
that's the ethical standard as applied in responsible scientific
research.

> https://poll.qu.edu/images/polling/us/us02202018_demos_ugbw51.pdf/
>
> "Quinnipiac Polls are
> funded entirely by Quinnipiac University. The Quinnipiac University
> Poll is part of the Department of Public Affairs."

Again, a listing of the research sponsor, which aligns with the
ethical standards for conducting good research. And thus informed,
just where is there any potential for conflicts of interest?
Be specific.

> >>> And similarly, the same also identifies the logical rationale by which
> >>> I'll be challenging the suggested solutions of others.
> >>
> >> Fuck you and your gutless challenges.
> >
> > You volunteered yourself.
>
> What????

> > No one chained you to a keyboard to
> > write a post.
>
> Indeed.

Yup!

> > That you're unable/unwilling to now materially
> > support your own claims shows just who is being 'gutless'.
>
> My claims are unassailed.

Your claims are unsubstantiated.

> >>>> Look up the definition of "mealy mouthed".
> >>>
> >>> As if "What taxes do you raise, and by how much...?" isn't clear.
> >>
> >> REALLOCATE A BLOATED DOE BUDGET, dipshit!
> >>
> >> https://www2.ed.gov/about/overview/budget/history/index.html
> >>
> >> https://www2.ed.gov/about/overview/budget/history/edhistory.pdf
> >>
> >> https://education.cu-portland.edu/blog/news/10-year-spending-trends-in-u-s-education/
> >>
> >> K-12 Spending Postsecondary
> >> Spending Total
> >> Appropriation
> >> 2005 $37.5 $28.2 $71.4
> >> 2006 $39.7 $55.9 $100
> >> 2007 $36.8 $23.8 $67.1
> >> 2008 $37.9 $24.4 $68.5
> >> 2009 $38.8 $4.5 $39.8
> >> 2009 $79.8 $17.4 $98.2
> >> 2010 $38.9 $8.3 $63
> >> 2011 $37.9 $685 $43.9
> >> 2012 $37.3 $4.1 $40.5
> >> 2013 $35.3 $2.6 $39.8
> >> 2014 $37.2 $11.3 $55.2
> >> 2015 $37.1 $43.5 $87.4
> >
> > Well, that's a start at least.
>
> That's BLOAT and all for declining test scores too!

Are you claiming a correlation?
Unsubstantiated! Cite please.

> > But this $87.4B/yr is the entire budget for the DoE, not
> > the allegedly "bloated" part.
>
> SFW?!?!
>
> > For example, you singled out
> > some 'diversity' initiative - just how many dollars per year
> > is this of the above overall budget?
>
> Just enough to get started!

Which is how much, exactly?
Yes, you've made YA unsubstantiated claim. Cite please.

> And there's MORE too!

Possibly, but you need to cite facts, not spew opinion.

> > In the meantime, your approach also means that you need to
> > scope out the magnitude of the effort to figure out how much
> > you need to ask for. To this end:
> >
> > 1 How much is it going to cost to train-up a new teacher?
>
> Depends on what their skill level is and firearms background.

Dodge.

> > 2 How much is it going to cost to maintain qualification?
>
> How much do these murders cost?

Dodge.

> > 3 How much do the guns cost?
>
> Why do you care?

Dodge.

> > And are they going to be GFE'ed, or are teachers going to be reimbursed?
>
> As long as it stops murders does it matter?

Dodge

(and from a liability/insurance standpoint, the choice IMO probably
will make a difference in cost)

> > 4 Since this is an additional responsibility, by how much are
> > their pay going to be increased?
>
> So we need extra pay to save lives?
> huh?

Its an increase in the job's scope and responsibilities.

> Do they get a bonus for performing the Heimlich manuver?

They should, if they've been trained and certified and have
that responsibility added to their job's responsibilities.



> You asshole.

Ad Hominem attempt ... FAIL!

>
> > For that matter, just how
> > does contemporary teacher pay compare today to a LEO in the
> > same community?
>
> Why would that even matter?
>
> Obfuscation.

Oh, its an interesting sidebar question, when one is proposing
an increase in their responsibilities, particularly when they
very well may be materially higher than the local police.

> > 5 How is the local community going to address their liability
> > for accidental shootings?
>
> Have you ever heard of insurance?

Such as what immediately follows!

> > Will the private insurance industry
> > write such policies, or does this need to be a self-insurance
> > pool handled at the State level?
>
> Does it matter?

If the private insurance industry refuses to write policies...

> > In either case, how much per
> > year will this cost to insure?
>
> who cares?
>
> Dead kids are not acceptable.

And just how much should the family of each dead kid
be paid for when you fail to protect them while they
are in your Duty of Care?

> > For example, on #1 and #2, consider the training classes currently
> > offered by BSR as a baseline:
> >
> > <https://www.bsr-inc.com/training-courses/training-coursesfirearms-training/>
> >
> > Figure that initial qualification is Basic + Intermediate + Advanced,
> > and the annual requalification is equivalent to just the Advanced:
> >
> > 1: ($300 + $118) + ($550 + $236) + ($800 + $354) = $2358.
> > Plus 6 Man-Days, which with +1 day for travel to/from the training
> > facility is 7 Man-Days that you need to pay your employee in
> > addition to their time in the classroom. Figure in round numbers
> > a $50K salary (180 day school year) @ 100% overhead for $555/day,
> > so 7 Man-Days costs $3885, and the total cost for initial
> > qualification is roughly $6243.
> >
> > 2: ($800 + $354) = $1154 + 2220 = $3374/yr
> >
> > Now multiply those by 20% of the 3.2M teachers, plus some TBD of
> > the non-teaching administrators and staff who also work in schools,
> > so call it 20% of 5M for a conveniently round 1M.
> >
> > Initial Qual: $6243M = $6.2B
> > Annual Requal: $3374M = $3.3B/yr
>
> Here's a hint - we also have plenty of off duty cops, ex-military
> retirees, etc. who may be very willing to volunteer.

Volunteer? No you don't.

> And:
>
> http://pgh.pgpic.com/PoliceGrantsHelpLasershotFirearmsSimulato%20ResourceGuide.pdf
>
> Federal Grants
> US Department of Homeland Security

> [...]

Lame copy & paste.
Please summarize just what your point is.

> > Figure simplistically that the Initial Qual's can be spread
> > out over a ten year period, and your budgetary needs are $4B/yr
> > for this portion of the startup & sustainment costs.
> >
> > #3: Figure a million guns at $1K each, with a ten year useful
> > life (to simplistically ignore gunsmithing costs for rebuilds
> > and maintenance), that's another $0.1B/yr expense.
>
> Figure NO such thing!
>
> My God!
> http://www.handgunsmag.com/reviews/featured_handguns_top_5_bargain_9mm_handguns/

Keyword being "BARGAIN"

> Bersa Thunder 9 UC Kel-Tec PF-9 Stoeger Cougar Taurus PT709 Slim
> Price
> $465 $333 $469 $483

Commercial source for an M9 pistol: $999.99
(9mm Beretta 92F, 5.2" barrel, 10rd mag)

<http://www.cabelas.com/product/Beretta-M-Pistols/1097039.uts>

> > #4: Let's benchmark this as a 20% pay increase for the
> > increased responsibility incurred: 1M*(.20)($50K) = $10B/yr
>
> Let's NOT!
>
> Teachers already save kids lives regularly at NO additional cost!

But it isn't currently in their _job description_ to do so,
where they can be fired (like the FL security guard) for failing.

> > #5: I forget offhand how much a $10K term life insurance policy
> > is for a minor; think its roughly $50/yr? Going with that,
> > with over 50M kids enrolled in just public schools, that's
> > another $2.5B/yr expense.
>
> Children's insurance policies are the responsibility of their PARENTS,
> you moron!

This is for the liability incurred by the school due to the Duty of Care
principle for the time of day that they are responsible for the children.

> > Rolling up, you're already at $16.6B/yr in expenses, for which
> > you'll need to find arguably "useless"/"waste" programs to cut
> > to start to pay for your project. Good luck!
>

> You wrote your own self-defeating parameters and actually priced out the
> lives of our children.

Yes, I put out some basics - because you failed to do so for your own proposal.

> Your ghoulish death-o-nomics paint you as a severely sick old fart.

Ad Hominem attempt to dodge. Again.

> But to play along with your self-crafted NO game let's see what we might
> save if we allocated some funds away from protecting Yurop and much of
> this insane planet from itself:

Spoken like a true 1930's Isolationist. How did that work out back then?

> As for the DOE's needless pork, it is seemingly endless:
>
> https://ed.gov/about/overview/budget/budget17/budget-factsheet.pdf
>

> $120 million for...
> $128 million for...
> $138 million, an increase...
> $53 million, ...

All of these don't even add up to the first $1B you need for your "plan".

> Provide $60.8 billion in mandatory funding over the next decade for
> America's College Promise(ACP),...

$60B/10 years = $6B/yr. Better, but you're still way short. Keep trying!


-hh

[B...@onramp.net]

On Fri, 23 Feb 2018 13:04:00 -0800 (PST), -hh
<recscub...@huntzinger.com> wrote:

>On Friday, February 23, 2018 at 3:12:43 PM UTC-5, Clave wrote:

<clip>

>Gosh, just look at that: Clave has done a complete 180 from
>claiming that there was no suggestions to a "really bad" one.
>

The work of a true simpleton. Who is this idiot?
>
>

[Clave]

On 2/23/2018 2:04 PM, -hh wrote:

>> I see your leftarded swill for just what it is, gun-grabbing statist.
>
> Gosh, just look at that:

Yes, we see you for who and what you truly are.

> Translation: when the Will of the People doesn't align

The sheople are being push-polled and manipulated.

And George Soros is a major reason why.

https://conservativefiringline.com/soros-funded-john-kasich-called-an-anti-gun-wolf-in-sheeps-clothing/

https://www.ammoland.com/2012/06/the-george-soros-anti-gun-agenda/#axzz57y4Jvw9M

Read more:
https://www.ammoland.com/2012/06/the-george-soros-anti-gun-agenda/#ixzz57yBr5RGB
Under Creative Commons License: Attribution
Follow us: @Ammoland on Twitter | Ammoland on Facebook

New York Mayor and billionaire-playboy Michael Bloomberg wants to ban
guns in your town.

That may sound hard to believe if you’re not from New York or New England.

But Bloomberg is hell-bent on spending his $18 billion fortune to push
his radical agenda, even where you live. The problem is, he’s succeeding
even in rural states and small towns.

Over 600 Mayors in 40 states have joined Bloomberg’s “Mayors Against
Illegal Guns,” and they’re not concerned about crime. They just want to
make your guns illegal. Period.

Profiling gun owners like sex offenders and outlawing self-defense in
public places are at the top of their to-do list.

Mayors of notorious anti-gun cities like Chicago and Washington, D.C.,
are key members of Mayors Against Guns. They are successfully exporting
their unconstitutional gun control schemes to towns all across the U.S.

We must prove that MILLIONS of gun owners oppose Bloomberg’s massive
anti-gun operation.

Mayors Against Guns is ALREADY forcing New York-style gun bans on state
and local governments, nationwide. I need you to go on record right now
in order to defeat their tireless crusade against the Second Amendment.

Mike Bloomberg is one arrogant character. His New York-style gun control
is a miserable failure, but this self-styled “independent leader on
national issues” is determined to force his agenda on YOUR town.

Here are just two in a long list of devious anti-gun schemes he is
pushing in city councils and state legislatures nationwide:

Banning self-defense in city parks, dark library parking lots and
numerous other public places.
Thanks to Mayors Against Guns, the urge to inflict so-called “gun free”
zones is spreading like cancer among city politicians and bureaucrats.

Mayors Against Guns is bragging that Seattle, WA, and Atlanta, GA,
recently created a host of “gun free” zones. Under pressure from
Bloomberg, Sioux Falls, South Dakota, and Cheyenne, Wyoming, did the
same. And if it can happen in these pro-gun states, it can happen anywhere.

In reality, “gun free” zones disarm only the law-abiding while
gun-toting thugs are free to fire at will. That’s why I call them
“criminal safe-zones.”

Registering gun owners like sex-offenders.
Bloomberg is pushing “gun offender registration,” which entraps
law-abiding gun owners for nothing more than possessing a loaded handgun.

Own a semi-auto or a twelve-round magazine? You’re a criminal, and must
register with the police every six months or spend a year in jail.

Think this can’t happen to you? Think again. Anti-gunners in Colorado
recently tried to convert the concealed pistol permit list into a
state-wide gun owner registry. It’s happening in other states, too.

Without your help, Bloomberg and Mayors Against Guns will continue
destroying the Second Amendment city by city and state by state.

But this is just the tip of the iceberg. Bloomberg and “Mayors Against
Guns” have found a new ally in the National League of Cities.

Billed as a “social welfare” organization, the League is a multi-million
dollar machine funded both by your tax dollars and by arch-liberal
George Soros.

Yes, I’m talking about the left-wing, America-hating billionaire George
Soros who funds the leftist agenda, worldwide.

Little wonder that the National League of Cities’ is ACTIVELY pushing
rabid anti-gun measures:

• Registration of all handguns
• Banning semi-automatic firearms
• Cracking down on gun shows
• A thirty-day waiting period on all gun purchases
• Ending the manufacture of magazines holding more than 10-rounds
• Turning parks, libraries and other public places into so-called
“gun free” zones.

The National League of Cities is made up of 49 affiliated state
Municipal Leagues, who are ACTIVELY working in state legislatures and
city councils nationwide.

One of their primary goals is to create an entangling web of “criminal
safe-zones,” where law-abiding gun owners can be arrested and jailed for
defending themselves.

Just within the last few months, a parade of taxpayer-funded municipal
stooges showed up to support city-level gun bans in New Hampshire.

In South Dakota, the state Municipal League is using tax dollars to push
for sweeping self-defense bans in city parks, libraries, transit buses
and numerous other public places.

The League has also been caught pushing a similar agenda in
Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Illinois, Connecticut, Delaware, North
Carolina, Oklahoma, Wyoming and Virginia.

These gun rights battles in state capitols and city council chambers
nationwide are fierce enough. But we’re also facing increasing attacks
in Washington, D.C., from the National League of Cities and Mayors
Against Guns.

They are pushing Congress for a federal “cannot buy registry,” which
would strip citizens of their Second Amendment rights at the whim of a
Justice Department bureaucrat.

They’re also calling for a new so-called “Assault Weapons Ban,” that
targets ALL semi-automatic rifles that NEVER expires, and scheming to
shut down gun shows.

> Except that there has been literally decades of deliberate obstructionism
> from simply implementing just such a policy ... including Trump's EO
> this past year to explicitly deny the use of SSA data (on people who
> have formally been determined to be incompetent) in the background system
> database.

https://www.ammoland.com/2017/01/president-trump-readies-pen-reverse-anti-gun-executive-orders/#axzz57y4Jvw9M

Read more:
https://www.ammoland.com/2017/01/president-trump-readies-pen-reverse-anti-gun-executive-orders/#ixzz57y4WPHDY
Under Creative Commons License: Attribution
Follow us: @Ammoland on Twitter | Ammoland on Facebook

In one of the first pro-gun actions of his administration, President
Donald Trump is expected to shortly move to revoke Barack Obama's
illegal actions to effectively outlaw gun collecting.

Obama's anti-gun “executive action” was announced on January 6, 2016 —
in the wake of Obama's unsuccessful attempt to scapegoat law-abiding gun
owners for the actions of a Muslim terrorist in San Bernardino.

Obama's action was implemented as a “clarification” because he knew that
his lawless moves could never pass muster under the rule-making
procedures of the Administrative Procedures Act.

Under Obama's now-moribund “clarification,” a gun owner could have been
imprisoned for up to five years and fined $250,000 for “only one or two
[firearms] transactions,” according to a White House fact sheet.

Note that, under Clinton, tens of thousands of licensees lost their
licenses because they didn't have “brick-or-mortar” stores.

Now, in a Clinton/Obama Mutt-and-Jeff routine, Obama proposed to
imprison hobbyists who didn't have licenses because the government
refused to issue licenses to them.

Hence, a hobbyist who bought a firearm one day and sold it the next day
at a profit could go to prison for five years. Obviously, the intent was
to create such a cloud of ambiguity that gun owners would refrain from
constitutionally protected activity (private firearms sales), for fear
that they would run afoul of Obama's amorphous rules.

Tragically, in some cases, Obama's unlawful actions had exactly the
intended effect.

But, thanks to President Donald Trump, Obama's unlawful action will soon
be repealed — as one of the priority actions of the incoming administration.

Gun Owners of America is optimistic that this is only the first in a
series of Trump actions overturning illegal Obama actions.
We are also asking for Trump administration action:

Removing the U.S. from the Anti-Gun UN Arms Trade Treaty;
Repealing bullet and gun import bans going from Obama back to
George H. W. Bush's semi-auto import ban;
Repealing the suspension of health privacy laws with respect to gun
owners;
Repealing executive actions encouraging doctors to inquire about
gun ownership and to enter this information into a federal health database;
Restoring gun rights for 257,000 law-abiding veterans;
Repealing Obama's efforts to strip Social Security recipients of
their guns, merely because a guardian processes their checks.

There is an old joke that goes: “What do you call 10,000 lawyers at
the bottom of the ocean? Answer: A good start.”

The work of restoring the Second Amendment to its God-given status has
only just begun.

But the important thing is that it has begun.

>> Quinnipiac is push polling by libitards - DISMISSED!
>
> Interesting claim - - but what credible source has shown your
> claim to be true: please provide a relevant cite that clearly
> proves there to be any meaningful degree of bias of this source.

https://www.ammoland.com/2017/08/quinnipiacs-propaganda-polls/#axzz57y4Jvw9M

Read more:
https://www.ammoland.com/2017/08/quinnipiacs-propaganda-polls/#ixzz57y593D3v
Under Creative Commons License: Attribution
Follow us: @Ammoland on Twitter | Ammoland on Facebook

Polls cost money, and the folks paying the bills usually have an agenda.
Pollsters know that if they come up with results that are contrary to
what their patrons are looking for, they are not likely to get more
funding from those sources in the future. And even if the bias is
unintentional, it is almost always present, for the simple reason that
the pollsters and researchers are human. They have their own
preconceived ideas, opinions, and feelings.

They also often have limited knowledge about the subject matter, so
they might not even realize that their questions are leading.

For people well-versed on a given subject, the flaws and biases in polls
are usually pretty obvious. Use of emotionally loaded words and phrases
can have dramatic impacts on results, as can inaccurate or misleading
information framing a question.

Couching questions about abortion in terms of a woman's right to control
what happens in her own body will yield very different results than the
same basic questions couched in terms of protecting the life of a baby.
Similarly, questions about guns will get very different responses if
they use terms like “assault weapon,” as opposed to references to
“popular sporting rifles.”

The obvious inaccuracy in Quinnipiac's “background check” poll suggests
that they are not producing polls so much as they are producing
propaganda. The mainstream media's faithful regurgitation of these
polling results from organizations that have so thoroughly discredited
themselves, is further testament that the “news” organizations are also
in the propaganda business.

Figures don't lie, but liars do figure, and nowhere is that more obvious
than in twisted and misleading polls.

>> IT'S RIGGED, FOOL.
>
> That real or perceived conflicts of interest were disclosed? No,
> that's the ethical standard as applied in responsible scientific
> research.

Read more:
https://www.ammoland.com/2017/08/quinnipiacs-propaganda-polls/#ixzz57y5IGFT3
Under Creative Commons License: Attribution
Follow us: @Ammoland on Twitter | Ammoland on Facebook

Conservative in Exile says:
August 7, 2017 at 6:28 PM

I get people calling me to take polls over the phone all the time. I
tell them I’ll take the poll. I also tell them I’m going to lie at
multiple points in the poll. Never had any one refuse to administer the
poll and I lie like crazy. So any poll I’ve ever taken has corrupted
data in it. I encourage you to do the same and ask your friends to do
this also. The more corrupt the data the more useless polling becomes
and maybe they’ll quit doing it. When some one asks me about a poll they
just saw the outcome on asks me what I think, I tell them, “Oh Yeah, I
took that poll. The data is corrupted, I lied.” You should see the
shocked look on their faces when they realize how easy it really would
be to corrupt these stupid polls.

> Again, a listing of the research sponsor, which aligns with the
> ethical standards for conducting good research. And thus informed,
> just where is there any potential for conflicts of interest?
> Be specific.

https://www.ammoland.com/2017/08/quinnipiacs-propaganda-polls/#axzz57y4Jvw9M

Read more:
https://www.ammoland.com/2017/08/quinnipiacs-propaganda-polls/#ixzz57y593D3v
Under Creative Commons License: Attribution
Follow us: @Ammoland on Twitter | Ammoland on Facebook

Polls cost money, and the folks paying the bills usually have an agenda.
Pollsters know that if they come up with results that are contrary to
what their patrons are looking for, they are not likely to get more
funding from those sources in the future. And even if the bias is
unintentional, it is almost always present, for the simple reason that
the pollsters and researchers are human. They have their own
preconceived ideas, opinions, and feelings.

They also often have limited knowledge about the subject matter, so
they might not even realize that their questions are leading.

For people well-versed on a given subject, the flaws and biases in polls
are usually pretty obvious. Use of emotionally loaded words and phrases
can have dramatic impacts on results, as can inaccurate or misleading
information framing a question.

Couching questions about abortion in terms of a woman's right to control
what happens in her own body will yield very different results than the
same basic questions couched in terms of protecting the life of a baby.
Similarly, questions about guns will get very different responses if
they use terms like “assault weapon,” as opposed to references to
“popular sporting rifles.”

The obvious inaccuracy in Quinnipiac's “background check” poll suggests
that they are not producing polls so much as they are producing
propaganda. The mainstream media's faithful regurgitation of these
polling results from organizations that have so thoroughly discredited
themselves, is further testament that the “news” organizations are also
in the propaganda business.

Figures don't lie, but liars do figure, and nowhere is that more
obvious than in twisted and misleading polls.

Conservative in Exile says:
August 7, 2017 at 6:28 PM

I get people calling me to take polls over the phone all the time. I
tell them I’ll take the poll. I also tell them I’m going to lie at
multiple points in the poll. Never had any one refuse to administer the
poll and I lie like crazy. So any poll I’ve ever taken has corrupted
data in it. I encourage you to do the same and ask your friends to do
this also. The more corrupt the data the more useless polling becomes
and maybe they’ll quit doing it. When some one asks me about a poll they
just saw the outcome on asks me what I think, I tell them, “Oh Yeah, I
took that poll. The data is corrupted, I lied.” You should see the
shocked look on their faces when they realize how easy it really would
be to corrupt these stupid polls.


> Yup!

Non sequitur.

>> My claims are unassailed.
>
> Your claims are unsubstantiated.

Bullshit lie!

>>>>>> Look up the definition of "mealy mouthed".
>>>>>
>>>>> As if "What taxes do you raise, and by how much...?" isn't clear.
>>>>
>>>> REALLOCATE A BLOATED DOE BUDGET, dipshit!
>>>>
>>>> https://www2.ed.gov/about/overview/budget/history/index.html
>>>>
>>>> https://www2.ed.gov/about/overview/budget/history/edhistory.pdf
>>>>
>>>> https://education.cu-portland.edu/blog/news/10-year-spending-trends-in-u-s-education/
>>>>
>>>> K-12 Spending Postsecondary
>>>> Spending Total
>>>> Appropriation
>>>> 2005 $37.5 $28.2 $71.4
>>>> 2006 $39.7 $55.9 $100
>>>> 2007 $36.8 $23.8 $67.1
>>>> 2008 $37.9 $24.4 $68.5
>>>> 2009 $38.8 $4.5 $39.8
>>>> 2009 $79.8 $17.4 $98.2
>>>> 2010 $38.9 $8.3 $63
>>>> 2011 $37.9 $685 $43.9
>>>> 2012 $37.3 $4.1 $40.5
>>>> 2013 $35.3 $2.6 $39.8
>>>> 2014 $37.2 $11.3 $55.2
>>>> 2015 $37.1 $43.5 $87.4
>>>
>>> Well, that's a start at least.
>>
>> That's BLOAT and all for declining test scores too!
>
> Are you claiming a correlation?

Are you obfuscating the obvious again?

> Unsubstantiated! Cite please.

Wow.

http://www.educationnews.org/education-policy-and-politics/study-finds-no-relationship-between-ed-spending-and-results/

A new study from State Budget Solutions finds that the approach that
many have long considered a panacea to academic ills – more spending and
increased financial resources – doesn’t actually translate to
improvements in student achievement as measured by standardized test scores.

Analysis of spending by the states between the years of 2009 and 2011
showed that states that spend the most on education as a portion of
their total budget didn’t graduate students at a higher rate, nor did
their students score better on the ACT than their peers.

Bob Williams, President of the SBS, said that the United States spent
more than $800 billion on education during 2010, which exceeds the
totals spend by several European and North American countries combined.
In return for that expenditure the country isn’t seeing the results
demanded by both the taxpayers and parents, which is a certain
indication that raising spending without a clear understanding about how
to spend most effectively won’t solve America’s academic woes.

State Budget Solutions researchers analyzed the national trends in
education from 2009 to 2011 by conducting a state-by-state analysis of
education spending as a percentage of total state spending, and a
comparison of average graduation rates and average ACT scores per state.
The study focused on the percentage of total spending that each state
allocates towards education. Education spending includes the funding
that state and local governments generate, as well as additional federal
contributions.

Although the overall spending on education as part of the total budget
fell by .7% — from 30% to 29.3% — the top three educational spenders,
Texas, Vermont and Arkansas, each spent 4% more than the national
average on various education initiatives. The states that rounded out
the bottom five were Alaska, New York, Hawaii, Tennessee and Massachusetts.

For states that spent the most, only Vermont saw significant
results from 2009 to 2011. In fact, four out of the five states
spending the most on education failed to produce correspondingly high
graduation rates or ACT scores. Arkansas remained in the top five states
in spending for all three years, yet Arkansas’ average ACT scores
consistently fell below the national average, and continue to decline
annually. In 2010 and 2011, Texas ranked first in the nation in
spending, 36.9 percent each year, but fell below the national average in
graduation and ACT scores.

States that have spent the least didn’t show any performance degradation
over the years studied. Although 45 states allocated a higher percentage
of their budget for education compared to Massachusetts, the state
topped the academic performance tables in almost every subject area
covered and had the highest average ACT scores in the country.

>> Just enough to get started!
>
> Which is how much, exactly?

Hundreds of millions of dollars.

> Yes, you've made YA unsubstantiated claim. Cite please.

Did and done.

https://www2.ed.gov/about/overview/budget/budget17/budget-factsheet.pdf

>>> 1 How much is it going to cost to train-up a new teacher?
>>
>> Depends on what their skill level is and firearms background.
>
> Dodge.

Yours.

>>> 2 How much is it going to cost to maintain qualification?
>>
>> How much do these murders cost?
>
> Dodge.

Yours.

>>> 3 How much do the guns cost?
>>
>> Why do you care?
>
> Dodge.

Yours.

>>> And are they going to be GFE'ed, or are teachers going to be reimbursed?
>>
>> As long as it stops murders does it matter?
>
> Dodge

Yours.

> (and from a liability/insurance standpoint, the choice IMO probably
> will make a difference in cost)

I do not care.

>>> 4 Since this is an additional responsibility, by how much are
>>> their pay going to be increased?
>>
>> So we need extra pay to save lives?
>> huh?
>
> Its an increase in the job's scope and responsibilities.

Nope.

Teachers all have kids' welfare to deal with daily.

Next!

>> Do they get a bonus for performing the Heimlich manuver?
>
> They should, if they've been trained and certified and have
> that responsibility added to their job's responsibilities.

Bullshit lie!

Teachers certify annually to be able to treat kids' emergencies.

https://www.americanbls.com/cpr-certification-for-teachers/

Some states such as Indiana and Virginia require all teachers to be
certified in CPR. New bills are being introduced nationwide to make CPR
certification for teachers mandatory. For this reason, American BLS+
offers online CPR/BLS certification and online First Aid Certification
for teachers along with it’s free courses.

>> You asshole.
>
> Ad Hominem attempt ... FAIL!

No fail - success!

Fuck you, scumsucker.

>> Obfuscation.
>
> Oh, its an interesting sidebar question,

No, it's cheap and transparent ploy to try and scare people with
allegedly high costs that do not exist nor matter.

>>> 5 How is the local community going to address their liability
>>> for accidental shootings?
>>
>> Have you ever heard of insurance?
>
> Such as what immediately follows

You getting your ass handed to you...

>> Does it matter?
>
> If the private insurance industry refuses to write policies...

They won't.

https://mynrainsurance.com/insurance-products/liability-personal-firearms

https://www.law360.com/articles/427224/what-to-know-about-gun-owner-liability-insurance

https://www.nraendorsedinsurance.com/no-cost-gun-owner-protection-plan

https://www.bankrate.com/finance/insurance/gun-owners-seek-self-defense-insurance.aspx

a newer version of a standard homeowners policy, written a little more
than a decade ago, contains an exception to the intentional acts
exclusion, typically called the “self-defense” or “reasonable force”
exception. It states that the exclusion does not apply “to bodily injury
resulting from the use of reasonable force by an insured to protect
persons or property.”

National Rifle Association coverage, underwritten by Lloyd’s of London
through the brokerage firm Lockton Affinity LLC, offers two options. For
$165 per year, an NRA member receives $100,000 in combined liability
coverage for civil defense costs plus criminal defense reimbursement, if
acquitted. For $254 annually, the combined coverage jumps to $250,000.

Self-Defense Shield protection from the U.S. Concealed Carry
Association, or USCCA, through Savers Property & Casualty Insurance Co.,
a subsidiary of the Meadowbrook Insurance Group, offers members three
benefit levels, with coverage limits ranging from $50,000 civil/$25,000
criminal to $300,000 civil/$75,000 criminal. Prices run from $127 to
$297 per year.

>> Dead kids are not acceptable.
>
> And just how much should the family of each dead kid
> be paid for when you fail to protect them while they
> are in your Duty of Care?

How much are they paid if their child has a deathly accident on a school
field trip?

>> Here's a hint - we also have plenty of off duty cops, ex-military
>> retirees, etc. who may be very willing to volunteer.
>
> Volunteer?

Yes.

> No you don't.

How would YOU know?

>> And:
>>
>> http://pgh.pgpic.com/PoliceGrantsHelpLasershotFirearmsSimulato%20ResourceGuide.pdf
>>
>> Federal Grants
>> US Department of Homeland Security
>> [...]
>
> Lame copy & paste.

Fact-based list of available grants for training.

> Please summarize just what your point is.

There are many state, local, and federal grants for firearm training.

>> My God!
>> http://www.handgunsmag.com/reviews/featured_handguns_top_5_bargain_9mm_handguns/
>
> Keyword being "BARGAIN"

Yes, some well-sorted and effective firearms are "bargains".

Why does that equate to a pejorative in your tiny biased mind?

>> Bersa Thunder 9 UC Kel-Tec PF-9 Stoeger Cougar Taurus PT709 Slim
>> Price
>> $465 $333 $469 $483
>
> Commercial source for an M9 pistol: $999.99
> (9mm Beretta 92F, 5.2" barrel, 10rd mag)
>
> <http://www.cabelas.com/product/Beretta-M-Pistols/1097039.uts>

SFW?

Any of the previously cited pistols will perform just as well.

I win again.

>> Teachers already save kids lives regularly at NO additional cost!
>
> But it isn't currently in their _job description_ to do so,

Yes it is.

> where they can be fired (like the FL security guard) for failing.

Uh, he "retired" you lying shitbag.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/02/23/police-officers-guard-home-deputy-assigned-to-florida-hs-who-never-went-in-during-shooting-report.html

Peterson resigned Thursday after video surveillance showed he never
entered the school, even though he “clearly” knew there was a shooting
taking place, officials said.

Officer Tim Burton of the Coral Springs Police Department, who responded
to the shooting, told the New York Times that Peterson “was seeking
cover behind a concrete column leading to a stairwell.”

>> Children's insurance policies are the responsibility of their PARENTS,
>> you moron!
>
> This is for the liability incurred by the school due to the Duty of Care
> principle for the time of day that they are responsible for the children.

https://mynrainsurance.com/insurance-products/liability-personal-firearms

https://www.law360.com/articles/427224/what-to-know-about-gun-owner-liability-insurance

https://www.nraendorsedinsurance.com/no-cost-gun-owner-protection-plan

https://www.bankrate.com/finance/insurance/gun-owners-seek-self-defense-insurance.aspx

a newer version of a standard homeowners policy, written a little more
than a decade ago, contains an exception to the intentional acts
exclusion, typically called the “self-defense” or “reasonable force”
exception. It states that the exclusion does not apply “to bodily injury
resulting from the use of reasonable force by an insured to protect
persons or property.”

National Rifle Association coverage, underwritten by Lloyd’s of London
through the brokerage firm Lockton Affinity LLC, offers two options. For
$165 per year, an NRA member receives $100,000 in combined liability
coverage for civil defense costs plus criminal defense reimbursement, if
acquitted. For $254 annually, the combined coverage jumps to $250,000.

Self-Defense Shield protection from the U.S. Concealed Carry
Association, or USCCA, through Savers Property & Casualty Insurance Co.,
a subsidiary of the Meadowbrook Insurance Group, offers members three
benefit levels, with coverage limits ranging from $50,000 civil/$25,000
criminal to $300,000 civil/$75,000 criminal. Prices run from $127 to
$297 per year.

>> You wrote your own self-defeating parameters and actually priced out the
>> lives of our children.
>
> Yes, I put out some basics - because you failed to do so for your own proposal.

No, you ginned up an absurdly high cost scare scenario, you lying
disinformation agent.

Who's paying you to deamgogue this anyway?

>> Your ghoulish death-o-nomics paint you as a severely sick old fart.
>
> Ad Hominem attempt to dodge. Again.

No, I call you subhuman shit!

>> But to play along with your self-crafted NO game let's see what we might
>> save if we allocated some funds away from protecting Yurop and much of
>> this insane planet from itself:
>
> Spoken like a true 1930's Isolationist.

Why does Japan need us there?

Germany?

Are we still at war with them?

> How did that work out back then?

Is "back then" identical to post war now?

My God you are an evil liar!

>> As for the DOE's needless pork, it is seemingly endless:
>>
>> https://ed.gov/about/overview/budget/budget17/budget-factsheet.pdf
>>
>> $120 million for...
>> $128 million for...
>> $138 million, an increase...
>> $53 million, ...
>
> All of these don't even add up to the first $1B you need for your "plan".

SFW?

As I said, it's a START!

>> Provide $60.8 billion in mandatory funding over the next decade for
>> America's College Promise(ACP),...
>
> $60B/10 years = $6B/yr. Better, but you're still way short. Keep trying!
>
>
> -hh
>

I don't need to hit YOUR target asshole.

You ginned that number up with unreasonably high costs (as I've
demonstrated) for one purpose - to SCARE folks out of considering this
response at all.

You're one very sick and twisted paid disinformation agent.

Now who's your master, toadie?

[-hh]

Gosh, that's a "majority outcome" approach ... which you just
claimed doesn't exist!

> Locked and non-breachable doors with bulletproof glass and buzz to
> enter systems save ALL those lives - every one of them.

And just how much would _that_ "solution" cost? Spec it out!

> >> "We" will speak to what _I_ say "we" will, got it yet assbag?
> >
> > Which means that you'll try to use the fact that a couple of
> > people have survived falls out of airplanes without dying
>
> Non sequitur!

Illustration of your fallacious logic.

> Next!.>
> >>> not that there will be exceptions.
> >>
> >> Hiding under a desk is NOT an "exception".
> >
> > But its not even the first choice in what you cited:
>
> The first choice is wholly dependent on the location of the victims, period.

And you don't think that the guide took that into account?

> Stop lying, you florid asshole.

Its not a lie to point out that you're bitching about the contents
of your own choice of citation.

> >> In fact if one is in the library or a classroom it's literally
> >> what kids are TAUGHT to do, you moron!
> >>
> >> https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/national/activeshooter/
> >
> > What you cut out:
> >
> > "RUN
> >
> > The first — and best — option is to get out if you possibly can."
>
> "if you can'!

It is still the #1 preferred choice. The 'if you can' refers to the
hierarchy of the flowdown logic.

> Do you think exiting a classroom into a hall with a shooter is the BEST
> option, turrdbrain?

Since a shooter can't be everywhere at once, many hallways will be
unoccupied by the shooter and thus, be a suitable escape path.

> > And flight is emphasized again in what you did leave in:
>
> So fucking what?
> This is not a specific to school course, now is it?
> It's more "generalized" as you seem to favor, isn't it?

The guidance is hierarchical, to support the outcome for
the majority in aggregate.


> "FIGHT
>
> This is the last resort..

Again, the guidance is hierarchical.

> Now I think we can "generally" concur that having kids "swarm", "throw
> books" or "attack" would not be the first best choice either, can't we?

And it isn't. While that approach does have the highest likelihood
of taking down the shooter(s), it is also the mode with the highest
expected average casualty rate.

> >> HIDE
> >>
> >> If you can’t immediately leave a building or room, you want to buy time
> > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >> — time to plan another way out, time to prepare in case the shooter
> >> forces his way in, time for the police to arrive...
> >>
> >>> The general case will be a conventional flight response ... i.e., running.
> >>
> >> There is no "general case" you lying asshat!
> >
> > Your own choice of cite listed "RUN" as the first choice.
>
> Read it again, shit for brains:
>
> "The first — and best — option is to get out _if_ you possibly can."
>
> IF, motherfucker - IF!

Which is a qualifier on the action of "get out". That's why
that section is titled "RUN".

> >> A school campus is a diverse environment with many options, not
> >> ht least of which is hide in place.
> >
> > But "RUN" is listed - by your choice of cite - as the first choice.
>
> Read it again, shit for brains:
>
> "The first — and best — option is to get out _if_ you possibly can."
>
> IF, motherfucker - IF!
>
> >>>> And with the kids in duck and cover mode the incidence goes WAY down.
> >>>
> >>> Only if they've been very specifically trained to know the differences
> >>> in defensive response postures appropriate for which types of threats.
> >>
> >> Oh you mean like the specific training Homeland Security offers, yes:
> >>
> >> https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/national/activeshooter/
> >
> > That's the simplified version.
>
> That's mopre than YOU psoted, asshle!
>
> > The DoD training has more details and does
> > differentiate by threat which defensive response
> > postures is appropriate for which.
>
> Indeed it does, so?
>
> Why didn't YOU post it then., asshole?

Even if I did post the link, you still wouldn't be able to log in to it.

> >>> Or did you not know that "hitting the deck" actually has a higher risk
> >>> of significant injury vs other actions from certain threats?
> >>
> >> Please take your alleged "expertise" to DHS and be sure and remind them
> >> what a fucking lying sack of shit you are, mmm'k?
> >
> > Non-response noted.
>
> No sensible query posed.
>
> You get what you earn, asshole.
>
> >>>> So stop your gutless leftard whining and accept that the game has
> >>>> changed and we need armed personnel in schools now.
> >>>
> >>> It technically is an option, but not a cheap one.
> >>
> >> So fucking what!?!?!?
> >
> > Cost - Benefit Analysis.
>
> On the lives of innocent children????
>
> Seriously?!!?!?!???

Like it or not, everything has a cost. And ultimately, it is
also able to be expressed as a dollar value.

<https://www.theglobalist.com/the-cost-of-a-human-life-statistically-speaking/>

> >> We throw money down the black hole of 'edukayshun' for even
> >> less results in actual 'book leraning'.
> >>
> >>> Go ask a Vet just how many
> >>> soldiers it takes to adequately secure a FOB the size of
> >>> last week's high school.
> >>
> >> Go ask a vet if a "field of battle" is analogous to a slaughterhouse,
> >> asshole!
> >
> > Non-response noted.
>
> Illogical rhetorical query DISMISSED!
>
> The "field of battle" does not apply to a school zone, unless you're
> talking Chicago.

You're merely revealing how little you really know about the
costs & limitations of physical security.

> >>> Then do the math for how much that will cost.
> >>
> >> It would be spendy to arm _all the kids_ but might be interesting to try...
> >>
> >>> And then how large of a percentage increase that will incur
> >> on your local taxes.
> >>
> >> Blah, blah, blah...
> >>
> >> Looks like you want dead kids.
> >>
> >> You twisted bastard!
> >
> > Nope, that's your lame strawman attempt.
>
> Oh no, you went right in and crafted your own impossibly high cost
> scenario in your last post just to demagogue this out.

As opposed to how you've tried to do a vague hand-waive and
claim that whatever the costs are, they must be acceptable?

Its your claim. Support it or retract it.


> You vermin!

YA lame Ad Hominem attempt.

> > I'm more interested in
> > ways which reasonably maintain the balance of societal interests
>
> Fuck "societal interests" and all your leftarded PC thought-speak.

Well, if that's the case, then we can simply just round all of
your type up and march them into the gas chambers. Problem of the
threat to Society from all of the irrational Gun Nuts ... solved! /S

> > which cost the general public a lot less than what you're trying
> > to be the proponent of.
>
> There is no 'cost' on a child's life.

Economic research says otherwise.

> Just as a grieving parent, you ghoulish freak.
>
> >>> And then if you're now willing to beg your politicians to
> >>> raise your taxes by that much to pay for it.
> >>
> >> All we need is reallocation of funds.
> >>
> >> We can start by shitcanning all that bullshit diversity training!
> >>
> >> https://www.cga.ct.gov/2003/olrdata/ed/rpt/2003-R-0661.htm
> >>
> >> Several state laws either require or encourage public schools to
> >> incorporate aspects of diversity-related information in their
> >> instructional programs for students and in professional development and
> >> in-service programs for teachers. In addition, state law requires school
> >> boards to take diversity into account when assessing textbooks and
> >> instructional materials and makes diversity a component of state teacher
> >> preparation programs. Some of the diversity training laws are voluntary,
> >> merely giving local school boards the option to provide of training or
> >> specific topics in school curricula and teacher professional development
> >> programs.
> >>
> >> This report summarizes the state laws on diversity training and
> >> instruction in schools. We include laws requiring or encouraging
> >> training in appreciation of gender, racial, ethnic, or cultural
> >> differences; that refer to instruction in issues surrounding specific
> >> ethnic, racial, or religious groups; or that are designed to make
> >> teachers more aware of students with disabilities.
> >
> > Too bad there's no data on what you provided that documents its budget.
>
> Addressed partly in my prior reply.

Cite the cost number then.

> We have a LOT of DOE pork that can be reallocated, a lot!
>
> https://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/1999/12/08/15pork.h19.html
>

> [...]

Spare us the lame copy & paste - how much does it all add up to?

(Hint: it takes over a thousand sub-$1M lines to sum to $1B).

> >>>> Sucks.
> >>>> But that is reality.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Yup.
> >>>
> >>> -hh
> >>>
> >>
> >> Grow a pair.
> >
> > Already have, which is why you're whining so loudly.
>
>

> No, you're a gutless gun-grabbing leftarded traitor to all our rights!

Just where & when did anyone actually said anything in favor of
confiscation in this thread? Provide the cite!



-hh

[Clave]

On 2/23/2018 2:04 PM, -hh wrote:

> $60B/10 years = $6B/yr. Better, but you're still way short. Keep trying!
>
>
> -hh

Wow, this anti-gun rights diatribe from someone allegedly serving our
very nation:

IP Address 143.85.5.18
Location United States, Arizona, Fort Huachuca
Latitude & Longitude of City 31.556460, -110.350560
ISP Headquarters USAISC
Domain army.mil
Net Speed (COMP) Company/T1
IDD & Area Code (1) 520
ZIP Code 85613
Weather Station Fort Huachuca (USAZ0073)

You, of all persons, should be ASHAMED of what you're doing here!

Fiend of Col. Hassan perhaps?

Or worse?

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread1069443/pg1

Long List of Government Agencies Stalking My Website...Along With A
Surprise Visitor?

5. Headquarters USAISC:

Here's what I know about them:

The USAISC is an Army military network that extends to many military
bases. So any person surfing your site out of a military installation
may show up in your analytics as a USAISC host hit. I have been informed
previously that the USAISC has been rolled into NETCOM, but apparently
their servers are still using the old USAISC host name which is why it
is showing up on your site analytics.


Here's what a blogger wrote about them when he realized they were
stalking his website, too:

Many files detailing the illegal monitoring of US citizens internet
activity by the NSA and other US terrorist organizations can be found
here. These programs, as well as many others which we don’t even know
about, are a consequence of the Patriot Act which basically removes the
4th Amendment from the US Constitution.

http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2831989/posts

My strange visitors
United States Army Information System Command headquarters visiting my
pro-family blog?
By Julio Severo

The Department of Homeland Security. The Human Rights Campaign. The
USAISC headquarters. These were some of my strange visitors in the last
six months.

On July 27 and 29, 2011, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS)
appeared in my tracking report visiting my English blog. About this
visit, WorldNetDaily, the most important conservative news website in
English, reported,

“The U.S. Department of Homeland Security has begun watching a blog
posted by a Christian who was forced to flee Brazil because of the
conflict between that nation’s pro-homosexual ‘hate crimes’ agenda and
his advocacy for traditional marriage. Exactly why the U.S. government,
which several times has linked Christians and conservatives with
terrorism, is watching Julio Severo’s unabashedly Christian Last Days
Watchman blog isn’t clear. A WND request to the DHS for comment did not
generate a response”.

DHS refused to answer regarding its intentions or visits to my blog. But
the intents of the Obama administration are not obscure. Last month, the
US government announced that advancing the homosexual agenda would be
one of its top foreign policy priorities, and directed all of its
embassies, consulates and other US government entities that operate
overseas to make this agenda a priority.

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/rec.photo.digital/ivA6iHjIn7U%5B76-100%5D

[Clave]

On 2/23/2018 2:35 PM, B...@Onramp.net wrote:
> The work of a true simpleton.

Yes you are.

> Who is this idiot?

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/rec.photo.digital/ivA6iHjIn7U%5B76-100%5D


<http://www.huntzinger.com/gallery/index.php/SAN>

> (If it supports that yet) Exposing your IP address with each post in
> your headers. NNTP-Posting-Host: 143.85.5.26 from your post..
>
> 1 143.85.5.26 Succeed USA - Arizona TSACS-NET
> Headquarters, USAISC 143.85.0.0 143.85.255.255
> 143.85.0.0/16 Yes Headquarters, USAISC
NETC-ANC CONUS
> TNOSC, Fort Huachuca 85613 disa.columbus.ns.mbx.arin-
> regist...@mail.mil disa.columbus.ns.mbx.arin-
> regist...@mail.mil +1-844-347-2457 ARIN

>
> Which tells me you're located in Sierra Vista, Arizona on an Army
> base.

Gosh, really? /S

Now aren't you the guy who gets soooooo offended by others who
have reportedly "doxxed" you? And you're now doing it to others?
Is that not called being a hypocrite?


> Google groups is great, if you don't give a shit about your own
> privacy.

Or know that attempts at anonymity are doomed to failure.

> And, in your case, you actually chose a domain name you control.
>
> From that we can get this:
> 1 huntzinger.com whois.networksolutions.com Succeed
> Registered 3/7/2018 3/7/2000 3/5/2017
H. Huntzinger
> No Slow...@ATT.NET +1.85848106048584816499
US
>
> Tech Name: Huntzinger, H
> Tech Organization: Huntzinger
> Tech Street: 1 Harmony Ln
> Tech City: Denville
> Tech State/Province: NJ

[-hh]

On Friday, February 23, 2018 at 4:35:33 PM UTC-5, B...@onramp.net wrote:

> On Fri, 23 Feb 2018 13:04:00 -0800 (PST), -hh wrote:
>
> >On Friday, February 23, 2018 at 3:12:43 PM UTC-5, Clave wrote:
> <clip>
> >Gosh, just look at that: Clave has done a complete 180 from
> >claiming that there was no suggestions to a "really bad" one.
>
> The work of a true simpleton. Who is this idiot?

They're posting from aioe.org, which is a pretty common server
which gets used with TOR by malevolent trolls.

Their choices of buzz words and how they're deliberately trying
to be insulting & rude to try to get people pissed off is a
pretty common behavioral pattern:

a paid Russian troll would be a fairly decent guess.


-hh

[B...@onramp.net]

I usually send unknows on RSG to my kill file but this one got past.
He's gone now.

What a dirtbag.

[-hh]

On Friday, February 23, 2018 at 4:49:49 PM UTC-5, Clave wrote:
> On 2/23/2018 2:04 PM, -hh wrote:
> > $60B/10 years = $6B/yr. Better, but you're still way short. Keep trying!
> >
> >
> > -hh
>

> Wow, this anti-gun rights diatribe ...

Translation: an unsubstantiated claim from an anonymous aioe.org troll.

> from someone allegedly serving our
> very nation:
>
> IP Address 143.85.5.18
> Location United States, Arizona, Fort Huachuca
> Latitude & Longitude of City 31.556460, -110.350560
> ISP Headquarters USAISC
> Domain army.mil
> Net Speed (COMP) Company/T1
> IDD & Area Code (1) 520
> ZIP Code 85613
> Weather Station Fort Huachuca (USAZ0073)

Translation: a lame doxxing attempt to try to win a topic.

> You, of all persons, should be ASHAMED of what you're doing here!

Ashamed to call out some lame kook for spewing bullshit? Never!

And the irony was that your defense wasn't to defend your work,
but to try to criticize your critic, claiming that they were
stupid and clueless/etc on security matters and so forth.

But now that you've learned - on your own - otherwise...whoops!

BLUF: you've not written a good proposal.

And for as long as you keep your cotton stuffing in your ears,
you will continue to not produce anything other than crap.

It is your choice to go "rearrange your cotton".


-hh

[Clave]

On 2/23/2018 2:42 PM, -hh wrote:


>> Logic dictates that during most of the day classrooms are where
>> the "majority" of kids are located.
>
> Gosh, that's a "majority outcome" approach ... which you just
> claimed doesn't exist!

I claimed YOUR choice does not exist as a majority or general outcome..

Which is "run".

Deal.

>> Locked and non-breachable doors with bulletproof glass and buzz to
>> enter systems save ALL those lives - every one of them.
>
> And just how much would _that_ "solution" cost? Spec it out!

WHO FUCKING CARES?

All you clearly want to do is cast cost aspersions on any proposed solution.

You are one sick puppy.

>> Non sequitur!
>
> Illustration of your fallacious logic.

Why are you wasting Army resources playing uselessnet?

Does your CO know you do this?

>> The first choice is wholly dependent on the location of the victims, period.
>
> And you don't think that the guide took that into account?

The guide is not solely schools-based, now is it?

>> Stop lying, you florid asshole.
>
> Its not a lie to point out that you're bitching about the contents
> of your own choice of citation.

Nope, just your misrepresentations.

>>> The first — and best — option is to get out if you possibly can."
>>
>> "if you can'!
>
> It is still the #1 preferred choice.

Nope.

The choice is situation-dependent.

> The 'if you can' refers to the
> hierarchy of the flowdown logic.

That's rancid obfuscation.

The specific situations are very clear within a grade school campus.

>> Do you think exiting a classroom into a hall with a shooter is the BEST
>> option, turrdbrain?
>
> Since a shooter can't be everywhere at once, many hallways will be
> unoccupied by the shooter and thus, be a suitable escape path.

Lacking full security cam intel in every classroom of every hallway the
risks for entering the halls are unacceptable if classrooms can be
completely secured from the shooter by enhanced doors and locks.

>> So fucking what?
>> This is not a specific to school course, now is it?
>> It's more "generalized" as you seem to favor, isn't it?
>
> The guidance is hierarchical, to support the outcome for
> the majority in aggregate.

Word salad signifying nothing.

I can not believe OUR ARMY PAYS YOU TO DO THIS BULLSHIT!

> Again, the guidance is hierarchical.

Again your obfuscation is REJECTED!

>> Now I think we can "generally" concur that having kids "swarm", "throw
>> books" or "attack" would not be the first best choice either, can't we?
>
> And it isn't.

Done.

>> IF, motherfucker - IF!
>
> Which is a qualifier

"IF"!

>> Why didn't YOU post it then., asshole?
>
> Even if I did post the link, you still wouldn't be able to log in to it.

Oh?

Why not?

And why would I even need to "log in"?

Are you incapable of posting open source links here?

Or are you admitting you're mainly on a military network?

>> There is no 'cost' on a child's life.
>
> Economic research says otherwise.

Only a ghoulish freak would dance to that bloody tune now.

>> Addressed partly in my prior reply.
>
> Cite the cost number then.

Read it again.

>> We have a LOT of DOE pork that can be reallocated, a lot!
>>
>> https://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/1999/12/08/15pork.h19.html
>>
>> [...]
>
> Spare us the lame copy & paste -

No.

>> No, you're a gutless gun-grabbing leftarded traitor to all our rights!
>
> Just where & when did anyone actually said anything in favor of
> confiscation in this thread? Provide the cite!
>
>
>
> -hh

Please don't pretend to be something other than you are.

And please quit wasting US Army resources trolling a fucking golf group!

[Clave]

On 2/23/2018 2:55 PM, -hh wrote:
> On Friday, February 23, 2018 at 4:35:33 PM UTC-5, B...@onramp.net wrote:
>> On Fri, 23 Feb 2018 13:04:00 -0800 (PST), -hh wrote:
>>
>>> On Friday, February 23, 2018 at 3:12:43 PM UTC-5, Clave wrote:
>> <clip>
>>> Gosh, just look at that: Clave has done a complete 180 from
>>> claiming that there was no suggestions to a "really bad" one.
>>
>> The work of a true simpleton. Who is this idiot?
>
> They're posting from aioe.org, which is a pretty common server
> which gets used with TOR by malevolent trolls.

Says the trolling dipshit misapropriating US Army resources to play
uselessnet!

> Their choices of buzz words and how they're deliberately trying
> to be insulting & rude to try to get people pissed off is a
> pretty common behavioral pattern:
>
> a paid Russian troll would be a fairly decent guess.
>
>
> -hh
>

Says the US Army mole:

[Clave]

Drop dead you slip-brained Euro trash!

[DumbedDownUSA]

-hh wrote:

> On Friday, February 23, 2018 at 4:35:33 PM UTC-5, B...@onramp.net
> wrote:
> > On Fri, 23 Feb 2018 13:04:00 -0800 (PST), -hh wrote:
> >
> > > On Friday, February 23, 2018 at 3:12:43 PM UTC-5, Clave wrote:
> > <clip>
> > > Gosh, just look at that: Clave has done a complete 180 from
> > > claiming that there was no suggestions to a "really bad" one.
> >
> > The work of a true simpleton. Who is this idiot?
>
> They're posting from aioe.org, which is a pretty common server
> which gets used with TOR by malevolent trolls.
>
> Their choices of buzz words and how they're deliberately trying
> to be insulting & rude to try to get people pissed off is a
> pretty common behavioral pattern:
>
> a paid Russian troll would be a fairly decent guess.
>
>

Lol, Moderate posts more like a Russian troll than Mikey, but then he
spends much more time reading and regurgitating their patter while
Mikey is obsessed with Canadians.

--
Trump: If there is a shutdown I think it would be a tremendously
negative mark on the president of the United States. He’s the one that
has to get people together.

[-hh]

On Friday, February 23, 2018 at 5:19:14 PM UTC-5, B...@onramp.net wrote:

The best case scenario would be some unemployed luzer sitting
around waiting for his working wife to come home, where he needs
to act like a dirtbag to get any attention from the outside world,
since he has no other meaningful social life.


-hh

[Clave]

On 2/23/2018 3:19 PM, -hh wrote:
> On Friday, February 23, 2018 at 4:49:49 PM UTC-5, Clave wrote:
>> On 2/23/2018 2:04 PM, -hh wrote:
>>> $60B/10 years = $6B/yr. Better, but you're still way short. Keep trying!
>>>
>>>
>>> -hh
>>
>> Wow, this anti-gun rights diatribe ...
>
> Translation: an unsubstantiated claim from an anonymous aioe.org troll.

Suck on it Sgt. Cupcake!

>
>> from someone allegedly serving our
>> very nation:
>>
>> IP Address 143.85.5.18
>> Location United States, Arizona, Fort Huachuca
>> Latitude & Longitude of City 31.556460, -110.350560
>> ISP Headquarters USAISC
>> Domain army.mil
>> Net Speed (COMP) Company/T1
>> IDD & Area Code (1) 520
>> ZIP Code 85613
>> Weather Station Fort Huachuca (USAZ0073)
>
> Translation: a lame doxxing attempt to try to win a topic.

Screw the "topic", you're a long time troll here!

WTF do you think you're going to get for wasting our government's
resources, flowers?

>> You, of all persons, should be ASHAMED of what you're doing here!
>
> Ashamed to call out some lame kook for spewing bullshit? Never!

No bullshit but your own, with your absurdly high cost scare scenarios,
Sgt. Cupcake.

> And the irony was that your defense wasn't to defend your work,
> but to try to criticize your critic, claiming that they were
> stupid and clueless/etc on security matters and so forth.

You have demonstrated a studied need to demagogue this incident, the
proposed solutions, and to do so with a crisply obvious agenda.

And frankly I should have peered under your 'hood' sooner...

> But now that you've learned - on your own - otherwise...whoops!

Learned what?

That some Ft. Huachuca troll is dancing in the blood of dead children?

My God man, WTF is wrong with you???

You people are supposed to care about protecting our nation and our rights.

> BLUF: you've not written a good proposal.

I'm not writing a proposal for a grant.

And neither are you.

I'm listing solutions that need to be examined and implemented, and quickly.

> And for as long as you keep your cotton stuffing in your ears,
> you will continue to not produce anything other than crap.

Oh I heard your wild-assed high cost nay-saying scenario loud and clear,
Sgt. Cupcake.

And I dismissed it for the hideously shallow ploy that it is.

Cope.

> It is your choice to go "rearrange your cotton".
>
>
> -hh

What say we have some words with your CO, Sgt. Cupcake?

[Clave]

On 2/23/2018 3:27 PM, DumbedDownUSA wrote:
> -hh wrote:
>
>> On Friday, February 23, 2018 at 4:35:33 PM UTC-5, B...@onramp.net
>> wrote:
>>> On Fri, 23 Feb 2018 13:04:00 -0800 (PST), -hh wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Friday, February 23, 2018 at 3:12:43 PM UTC-5, Clave wrote:
>>> <clip>
>>>> Gosh, just look at that: Clave has done a complete 180 from
>>>> claiming that there was no suggestions to a "really bad" one.
>>>
>>> The work of a true simpleton. Who is this idiot?
>>
>> They're posting from aioe.org, which is a pretty common server
>> which gets used with TOR by malevolent trolls.
>>
>> Their choices of buzz words and how they're deliberately trying
>> to be insulting & rude to try to get people pissed off is a
>> pretty common behavioral pattern:
>>
>> a paid Russian troll would be a fairly decent guess.
>>
>>
>
> Lol, Moderate posts more like a Russian troll than Mikey, but then he
> spends much more time reading and regurgitating their patter while
> Mikey is obsessed with Canadians.
>

You need to ram an icepick through your forehead, serf.

[Clave]

Why are you wasting US Army resources here, dirtbag?

[Clave]

On 2/23/2018 3:19 PM, -hh wrote:

> It is your choice to go "rearrange your cotton".

https://twitter.com/hhuntzinger

143.85.5.26 Succeed USA - Arizona TSACS-NET
Headquarters, USAISC 143.85.0.0 143.85.255.255
143.85.0.0/16 Yes Headquarters, USAISC
NETC-ANC CONUS
TNOSC, Fort Huachuca 85613 disa.columbus.ns.mbx.arin-
regist...@mail.mil disa.columbus.ns.mbx.arin-
regist...@mail.mil +1-844-347-2457 ARIN

From that we can get this:
1 huntzinger.com whois.networksolutions.com Succeed
Registered 3/7/2018 3/7/2000 3/5/2017
H. Huntzinger
No Slow...@ATT.NET +1.85848106048584816499
US

Tech Name: Huntzinger, H
Tech Organization: Huntzinger
Tech Street: 1 Harmony Ln
Tech City: Denville

Tech State/Province: NJ
Tech Postal Code: 07834-2421
Tech Country: US
Tech Phone: +1.9735862908
Tech Phone Ext:
Tech Fax: +1.9999999999
Tech Fax Ext:
Tech Email: hhunt...@verizon.net

Mr Hugh A Huntzinger...

Related to a Margaret E Huntzinger from Denville, NJ.

[michae...@gmail.com]

1 Harmony Ln, Denville, NJ is a single family home that contains 1,288 sq ft and was built in 1950. The Zestimate for this house is $339,909, which has increased by $5,005 in the last 30 days. The Rent Zestimate for this home is $2,300/mo, which has decreased by $135/mo in the last 30 days.

A MANSION!!!! But at least it's 3x bigger, and worth more than Shitstain Bakers run down shithole.

[Clave]

LOL!

So what's the story on Sgt. Cupcake?

The dumbass spends multiple screens here trying to fiscally scare
everyone off on training and equipping teachers to defend their schools.

And clearly I'm not the first one to note this fuckwit trolls using US
Army computer resources.

In a freaking golf group no less!

What is this world coming to....

<shakes head>

[-hh]

On Friday, February 23, 2018 at 5:33:56 PM UTC-5, Clave wrote:
> On 2/23/2018 3:19 PM, -hh wrote:
> > On Friday, February 23, 2018 at 4:49:49 PM UTC-5, Clave wrote:
> >> On 2/23/2018 2:04 PM, -hh wrote:
> >>> $60B/10 years = $6B/yr. Better, but you're still way short. Keep trying!
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> -hh
> >>
> >> Wow, this anti-gun rights diatribe ...
> >
> > Translation: an unsubstantiated claim from an anonymous aioe.org troll.
>
> Suck on it Sgt. Cupcake!

Aw, poor Private Bone Spurs has his feelings hurt!

> >> from someone allegedly serving our
> >> very nation:
> >>
> >> IP Address 143.85.5.18
> >> Location United States, Arizona, Fort Huachuca
> >> Latitude & Longitude of City 31.556460, -110.350560
> >> ISP Headquarters USAISC
> >> Domain army.mil
> >> Net Speed (COMP) Company/T1
> >> IDD & Area Code (1) 520
> >> ZIP Code 85613
> >> Weather Station Fort Huachuca (USAZ0073)
> >
> > Translation: a lame doxxing attempt to try to win a topic.
>
> Screw the "topic", you're a long time troll here!
>
> WTF do you think you're going to get for wasting our government's
> resources, flowers?

You sure about that, and it isn't my SDO where I'm VPN'ing in to
do a couple of chores? In any event, you'd also need to check the
AUP for what's allowed too. Better start doing more Googling!

> >> You, of all persons, should be ASHAMED of what you're doing here!
> >
> > Ashamed to call out some lame kook for spewing bullshit? Never!
>
> No bullshit but your own, with your absurdly high cost scare scenarios,
> Sgt. Cupcake.

Hey, its _your_ scenario, and you've not provided any more realistic cost estimates.
Try using solid logic and facts rather than stooping to the Ad Hominems of luzers.

> > And the irony was that your defense wasn't to defend your work,
> > but to try to criticize your critic, claiming that they were
> > stupid and clueless/etc on security matters and so forth.
>
> You have demonstrated a studied need to demagogue this incident, the
> proposed solutions, and to do so with a crisply obvious agenda.

Cute narrative attempt - - but the facts are that I've not been the OP, nor
the party that's been tossing out horribly bad 'solutions'?

> And frankly I should have peered under your 'hood' sooner...

Because it is so much easier to try to "Win" through blackmail! /S

> > But now that you've learned - on your own - otherwise...whoops!
>
> Learned what?
>
> That some Ft. Huachuca troll is dancing in the blood of dead children?
> My God man, WTF is wrong with you???
>
> You people are supposed to care about protecting our nation and our rights.

One Russian Troll at a time!

> > BLUF: you've not written a good proposal.
>
> I'm not writing a proposal for a grant.

And you're not even doing a decent job in making a rational proposal by the
very low quality standards of USENET conversations.

> And neither are you.

Not yet. And yet you've somehow already claimed its horrible.

> I'm listing solutions that need to be examined and implemented, and quickly.

No, you're getting all worked up when someone else tore your "idea" a new asshole.
Even to the point where you've stooped to doxxing.

> > And for as long as you keep your cotton stuffing in your ears,
> > you will continue to not produce anything other than crap.
>
> Oh I heard your wild-assed high cost nay-saying scenario loud and clear,
> Sgt. Cupcake.
>
> And I dismissed it for the hideously shallow ploy that it is.

Where "dismissed" = couldn't come up with a comparably quantified counter-argument.

> Cope.
> > It is your choice to go "rearrange your cotton".
> >
> >
> > -hh
>
> What say we have some words with your CO, Sgt. Cupcake?

Same as the last time. That turned out to be an employee shilling for his CEO,
who had gotten pissed off at an astute comment I made about his failing product.
Which is how I learned that as per regs, there's a "right to know" the accuser, which
is how it was determined that the shill was said employee. Hey, it wasn't my fault
that they were making a crappy product.


-hh

[-hh]

Oh, look: its now worth not merely more than braggart Tommy's grande estate, but
a good 10% margin more - - all while not being in the middle of Traffic Circle, Indiana.

> A MANSION!!!! But at least it's 3x bigger, and worth more than Shitstain Bakers run down shithole.

Which "Michael" is also quite obviously very jealous of too.


-hh

[Dene]

Dirtbag because he's on the right side.
He's a hell of lot smarter than dumbndrunk, whom you defend.
If you didn't have double standards, you'd have no standards at all.

[Alan Baker]

On 2018-02-23 4:47 PM, Dene wrote:
> On Friday, February 23, 2018 at 2:19:14 PM UTC-8, B...@onramp.net wrote:
>> On Fri, 23 Feb 2018 13:55:46 -0800 (PST), -hh
>> <recscub...@huntzinger.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Friday, February 23, 2018 at 4:35:33 PM UTC-5, B...@onramp.net wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 23 Feb 2018 13:04:00 -0800 (PST), -hh wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Friday, February 23, 2018 at 3:12:43 PM UTC-5, Clave wrote:
>>>> <clip>
>>>>> Gosh, just look at that: Clave has done a complete 180 from
>>>>> claiming that there was no suggestions to a "really bad" one.
>>>>
>>>> The work of a true simpleton. Who is this idiot?
>>>
>>> They're posting from aioe.org, which is a pretty common server
>>> which gets used with TOR by malevolent trolls.
>>>
>>> Their choices of buzz words and how they're deliberately trying
>>> to be insulting & rude to try to get people pissed off is a
>>> pretty common behavioral pattern:
>>>
>>> a paid Russian troll would be a fairly decent guess.
>>>
>> I usually send unknows on RSG to my kill file but this one got past.
>> He's gone now.
>>
>> What a dirtbag.
>
> Dirtbag because he's on the right side.

Dirtbag, because he's a dirtbag.

[Clave]

On 2/23/2018 5:32 PM, -hh wrote:

>> Suck on it Sgt. Cupcake!
>
> Aw, poor Private Bone Spurs has his feelings hurt!

Do your masters know you're abusing Army net resources here?

>
>>>> from someone allegedly serving our
>>>> very nation:
>>>>
>>>> IP Address 143.85.5.18
>>>> Location United States, Arizona, Fort Huachuca
>>>> Latitude & Longitude of City 31.556460, -110.350560
>>>> ISP Headquarters USAISC
>>>> Domain army.mil
>>>> Net Speed (COMP) Company/T1
>>>> IDD & Area Code (1) 520
>>>> ZIP Code 85613
>>>> Weather Station Fort Huachuca (USAZ0073)
>>>
>>> Translation: a lame doxxing attempt to try to win a topic.
>>
>> Screw the "topic", you're a long time troll here!
>>
>> WTF do you think you're going to get for wasting our government's
>> resources, flowers?
>
> You sure about that,

Mmn hmm.

> and it isn't my SDO where I'm VPN'ing in to
> do a couple of chores? In any event, you'd also need to check the
> AUP for what's allowed too. Better start doing more Googling!

Oh someone else is handling that aspect now.

>>>> You, of all persons, should be ASHAMED of what you're doing here!
>>>
>>> Ashamed to call out some lame kook for spewing bullshit? Never!
>>
>> No bullshit but your own, with your absurdly high cost scare scenarios,
>> Sgt. Cupcake.
>
> Hey, its _your_ scenario,

Nope.

You wrote your own - top to bottom.

> and you've not provided any more realistic cost estimates.

Nor do I need to as I am not charged with implementng this.

> Try using solid logic and facts rather than stooping to the Ad Hominems of luzers.

I did, you melted down.

>> You have demonstrated a studied need to demagogue this incident, the
>> proposed solutions, and to do so with a crisply obvious agenda.
>
> Cute narrative attempt -

Spot on conclusion.

> - but the facts are that I've not been the OP,

Doesn't matter.

> nor the party that's been tossing out horribly bad 'solutions'?

You demagogued out a deceitfully high cost run to try and scare the old
farts here off.

You sick bastard.

>> And frankly I should have peered under your 'hood' sooner...
>
> Because it is so much easier to try to "Win" through blackmail! /S

I ask for no remuneration.

>>> But now that you've learned - on your own - otherwise...whoops!
>>
>> Learned what?
>>
>> That some Ft. Huachuca troll is dancing in the blood of dead children?
>> My God man, WTF is wrong with you???
>>
>> You people are supposed to care about protecting our nation and our rights.
>
> One Russian Troll at a time!

Is that who got to you?

So we add treason in too?

>>> BLUF: you've not written a good proposal.
>>
>> I'm not writing a proposal for a grant.
>
> And you're not even doing a decent job in making a rational proposal by the
> very low quality standards of USENET conversations.

Ah but I have, and I identified plenty of DOE bloat to reallocate.

>> And neither are you.
>
> Not yet. And yet you've somehow already claimed its horrible.

There is something tragically wrong with you.

>> I'm listing solutions that need to be examined and implemented, and quickly.
>
> No, you're getting all worked up when someone else tore your "idea" a new asshole.

But you didn;t.

You made your own strawman proposal just to immolate it.

And everyone sees it too.

> Even to the point where you've stooped to doxxing.

Wah!

Stop wasting my tax dollars Sgt. Cupcake.

>>> And for as long as you keep your cotton stuffing in your ears,
>>> you will continue to not produce anything other than crap.
>>
>> Oh I heard your wild-assed high cost nay-saying scenario loud and clear,
>> Sgt. Cupcake.
>>
>> And I dismissed it for the hideously shallow ploy that it is.
>
> Where "dismissed" = couldn't come up with a comparably quantified counter-argument.

I did, you failed.

Just like you whiffed on 1,000$ per pistol cost estimates.

Ludicrous.

Esp. for an Army guy.

>> Cope.
>>> It is your choice to go "rearrange your cotton".
>>>
>>>
>>> -hh
>>
>> What say we have some words with your CO, Sgt. Cupcake?
>
> Same as the last time.

There is no 'last time".

> That turned out to be an employee shilling for his CEO,
> who had gotten pissed off at an astute comment I made about his failing product.

So you engage in libel too, unamazing that...

> Which is how I learned that as per regs, there's a "right to know" the accuser, which
> is how it was determined that the shill was said employee. Hey, it wasn't my fault
> that they were making a crappy product.
>
>
> -hh
>

You've been a sick troll here for quite some time...

Oh the wealth of data.

[Clave]

I think almost every person out here loathes you, and rightfully so!

[Clave]

On 2/23/2018 5:59 PM, Alan Baker wrote:
> Dirtbag, because he's a dirtbag.

Shaddup shitstain!

[B...@onramp.net]

On Fri, 23 Feb 2018 16:59:06 -0800, Alan Baker <alang...@telus.net>
wrote:

Actually DD is pretty damned smart and you don't think so because
you've been dusted by him often...and don't know it.

This low life is not and if he agreed with me on every point he'd
still be a dirtbag. You're projecting is showing Greg.

[DumbedDownUSA]

-hh wrote:

> On Friday, February 23, 2018 at 4:49:49 PM UTC-5, Clave wrote:
> > On 2/23/2018 2:04 PM, -hh wrote:
> > > $60B/10 years = $6B/yr. Better, but you're still way short.
> > > Keep trying!
> > >
> > >
> > > -hh
> >
> > Wow, this anti-gun rights diatribe ...
>

The only important gun right is the right not to be shot by some turd
carrying one.

Any other gun rights are the illusion of a broken and scared society
and the money makers who keep them scared.

[Alan Baker]

On 2018-02-23 11:01 PM, DumbedDownUSA wrote:
> -hh wrote:
>
>> On Friday, February 23, 2018 at 4:49:49 PM UTC-5, Clave wrote:
>>> On 2/23/2018 2:04 PM, -hh wrote:
>>>> $60B/10 years = $6B/yr. Better, but you're still way short.
>>>> Keep trying!
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -hh
>>>
>>> Wow, this anti-gun rights diatribe ...
>>
>
> The only important gun right is the right not to be shot by some turd
> carrying one.
>
> Any other gun rights are the illusion of a broken and scared society
> and the money makers who keep them scared.
>
>

I think that's going too far.

Property rights are an integral part of our heritage, and when there are
reasonable limits imposed, the right to own guns is just a part of the
right to own property.

But the idea that all rights are unfettered by any restrictions is
nonsense, and that doesn't just apply to firearms.

[DumbedDownUSA]

Alan Baker wrote:

> On 2018-02-23 11:01 PM, DumbedDownUSA wrote:
> > -hh wrote:
> >
> > > On Friday, February 23, 2018 at 4:49:49 PM UTC-5, Clave wrote:
> > > > On 2/23/2018 2:04 PM, -hh wrote:
> > > > > $60B/10 years = $6B/yr. Better, but you're still way short.
> > > > > Keep trying!
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > -hh
> > > >
> > > > Wow, this anti-gun rights diatribe ...
> > >
> >
> > The only important gun right is the right not to be shot by some
> > turd carrying one.
> >
> > Any other gun rights are the illusion of a broken and scared society
> > and the money makers who keep them scared.
> >
> >
>
> I think that's going too far.
>
> Property rights are an integral part of our heritage, and when there
> are reasonable limits imposed, the right to own guns is just a part
> of the right to own property.
>

That is a rather silly POV which you have only because you have been
permitted firearms; if not you could apply the same to many banned and
incogitable "properties". Would you really apply the same logic to
grenades for instance?

Why is it you think it is a right and so many other countries do not?

Smoking is part of your heritage but there has been a major u-turn in
it's social acceptability over the last thirty years. The only reason
that took so long was because of the billions invested in protecting
peoples 'right' to kill themselves and others and the huge amount of
false advertising, lobbying and corruption surrounding the industry.
There are parallels to be seen with gun ownership.

As for heritage, well many countries continue with barbaric practices
that are part of their heritage but I doubt many civilised countries
support those practices.

You are on the inside of a barbaric practice not seeing it for what it
really is and eschewing the statisitcs which prove that it is a
barbaric infringement on human rights.

> But the idea that all rights are unfettered by any restrictions is
> nonsense, and that doesn't just apply to firearms.

[michae...@gmail.com]

On Friday, February 23, 2018 at 7:59:08 PM UTC-5, Alan Baker wrote:
> On 2018-02-23 4:47 PM, Dene wrote:
> > On Friday, February 23, 2018 at 2:19:14 PM UTC-8, B...@onramp.net wrote:
> >> On Fri, 23 Feb 2018 13:55:46 -0800 (PST), -hh
> >> <recscub...@huntzinger.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Friday, February 23, 2018 at 4:35:33 PM UTC-5, B...@onramp.net wrote:
> >>>> On Fri, 23 Feb 2018 13:04:00 -0800 (PST), -hh wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> On Friday, February 23, 2018 at 3:12:43 PM UTC-5, Clave wrote:
> >>>> <clip>
> >>>>> Gosh, just look at that: Clave has done a complete 180 from
> >>>>> claiming that there was no suggestions to a "really bad" one.
> >>>>
> >>>> The work of a true simpleton. Who is this idiot?
> >>>
> >>> They're posting from aioe.org, which is a pretty common server
> >>> which gets used with TOR by malevolent trolls.
> >>>
> >>> Their choices of buzz words and how they're deliberately trying
> >>> to be insulting & rude to try to get people pissed off is a
> >>> pretty common behavioral pattern:
> >>>
> >>> a paid Russian troll would be a fairly decent guess.
> >>>
> >> I usually send unknows on RSG to my kill file but this one got past.
> >> He's gone now.
> >>
> >> What a dirtbag.
> >
> > Dirtbag because he's on the right side.
>
> Dirtbag, because he's a dirtbag.

Ummmm....you, have been labeled a "Dirt Bag". Can't get away from role reversal, can you?

You haven't been doing too well, Shitstain.

[michae...@gmail.com]

Still living in your fantasy world, Midget? I thank God that He didn't make me, you.

1288 sq. ft. seems to be adequate for a little man such as you.

And I'm sure that $340K is a YUGE amount of money, to you.

But I assume that living lies is what keeps you from offing yourself.

[DumbedDownUSA]

Moderate wrote:

> We know now that there was no chance Broward County Deputies were
> going to wound anyone.
>
> Complete failure by law enforcement.
>
> As someone who was forced to react to deadly force and prevailed I
> have complete disdain for the cowardice of Broward County
> Deputies and their cunt Sheriff.

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha...

You're priceless.

So you claim one act in your life where you weren't able to didn't back
away and you think you we are going to believe you are not a coward at
heart?

You are such a pussy you run from other peoples keyboards, you don't
have the courage to reply to words no matter bullets.

That police officer is an easy target and will have to defend his
actions or lack of them himself...

...but it gets may goat when pussies like Trump and now this spineless
shit put the boot in.

[Alan Baker]

On 2018-02-24 3:30 AM, DumbedDownUSA wrote:
> Alan Baker wrote:
>
>> On 2018-02-23 11:01 PM, DumbedDownUSA wrote:
>>> -hh wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Friday, February 23, 2018 at 4:49:49 PM UTC-5, Clave wrote:
>>>>> On 2/23/2018 2:04 PM, -hh wrote:
>>>>>> $60B/10 years = $6B/yr. Better, but you're still way short.
>>>>>> Keep trying!
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -hh
>>>>>
>>>>> Wow, this anti-gun rights diatribe ...
>>>>
>>>
>>> The only important gun right is the right not to be shot by some
>>> turd carrying one.
>>>
>>> Any other gun rights are the illusion of a broken and scared society
>>> and the money makers who keep them scared.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> I think that's going too far.
>>
>> Property rights are an integral part of our heritage, and when there
>> are reasonable limits imposed, the right to own guns is just a part
>> of the right to own property.
>>
>
> That is a rather silly POV which you have only because you have been
> permitted firearms; if not you could apply the same to many banned and
> incogitable "properties". Would you really apply the same logic to
> grenades for instance?

I said there need to be reasonable limits, didn't I?

[DumbedDownUSA]

Alan Baker wrote:

> On 2018-02-24 3:30 AM, DumbedDownUSA wrote:
> > Alan Baker wrote:
> >
> > > On 2018-02-23 11:01 PM, DumbedDownUSA wrote:
> > > > -hh wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > On Friday, February 23, 2018 at 4:49:49 PM UTC-5, Clave wrote:
> > > > > > On 2/23/2018 2:04 PM, -hh wrote:
> > > > > > > $60B/10 years = $6B/yr. Better, but you're still way
> > > > > > > short. Keep trying!
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > -hh
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Wow, this anti-gun rights diatribe ...
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > The only important gun right is the right not to be shot by some
> > > > turd carrying one.
> > > >
> > > > Any other gun rights are the illusion of a broken and scared
> > > > society and the money makers who keep them scared.
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > I think that's going too far.
> > >
> > > Property rights are an integral part of our heritage, and when
> > > there are reasonable limits imposed, the right to own guns is
> > > just a part of the right to own property.
> > >
> >
> > That is a rather silly POV which you have only because you have been
> > permitted firearms; if not you could apply the same to many banned
> > and incogitable "properties". Would you really apply the same logic
> > to grenades for instance?
>
> I said there need to be reasonable limits, didn't I?
>

Isn't that the point. What is reasonable to most affluent societies and
what is reasonable to Americans are chasms apart.

What is a reasonable number of grenades?
What is a reasonable number of guns?

What is a reasonable purpose for owning a gun?
What is a reasonable age for owning a gun?

Is it reasonable for the answers to be prejudiced by political
donations?

[Clave]

On 2/24/2018 12:01 AM, DumbedDownUSA wrote:
> The only important gun right is the right not to be shot by some turd
> carrying one.
>
> Any other gun rights are the illusion of a broken and scared society

Bugger off you limey sot-hole.

https://www.saf.org/


We are dedicated to promoting a better understanding about our
Constitutional heritage to privately own and possess firearms. To that
end, we carry on many educational and legal action programs designed to
better inform the public about the gun control debate .


https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/second_amendment

Second Amendment

In the 2008 case District of Columbia v. Heller, the Supreme Court held
that the "Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a
firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for
traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home."


Learn more...
Amendment II

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free
state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be
infringed.

[Clave]

On 2/24/2018 12:56 AM, Alan Baker wrote:
>> Any other gun rights are the illusion of a broken and scared society
>> and the money makers who keep them scared.
>>
>>
>
> I think that's going too far.
>
> Property rights are an integral part of our heritage, and

YOU are NOT an American, shitstain, so shut your servile canuckleheaded
piehole NOW!

[Clave]

On 2/24/2018 1:21 AM, Moderate wrote:
> -hh <recscub...@huntzinger.com> Wrote in message:
>> On Thursday, February 22, 2018 at 5:32:42 AM UTC-5, DumbedDownUSA wrote:
>>> Arm Teachers says their spokesperson and president of the doofUS.
>>
>>
>> That's a great idea if you want even more innocent bystanders get hit.
>>
>> Case in point, the Rand Study commissioned by the NYPD to assess
>> their police force's shooting performance:
>>
>> <http://www.pointshooting.com/1arand.htm>
>>
>> BLUF: Average P(h) = 18%
>>
>> Hint: that means 82% of rounds fired missed their intended target.
>>
>>
>>
>> -hh

>>
>
> We know now that there was no chance Broward County Deputies were
> going to wound anyone.
>
> Complete failure by law enforcement.
>
> As someone who was forced to react to deadly force and prevailed I
> have complete disdain for the cowardice of Broward County
> Deputies and their cunt Sheriff.
>

The guard was looking harder at "retirement" than he was for the lives
of the children.


Can you imagine him EVER living that down?

Wow - move to Cuber coward - buh bye!

[Clave]

On 2/24/2018 4:30 AM, DumbedDownUSA wrote:
> Why is it you think it is a right and so many other countries do not?

Because it IS our right, you insolent limey pig fucker!


https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/second_amendment

U.S. Constitution › Second Amendment

[Clave]

That and playing uselessnet on the taxpayers' dime with US army computer
resources...

[Clave]

On 2/24/2018 7:20 AM, DumbedDownUSA wrote:
> That police officer is an easy target and will have to defend his
> actions or lack of them himself...
>
> ...but it gets may goat when pussies like Trump and now this spineless
> shit put the boot in.

Fuck you serf, children are DEAD because a coward looked at retirement
more than their lives.

I so wish it'd been you and not them.

[Clave]

On 2/24/2018 8:37 AM, Alan Baker wrote:
> I said there need to be reasonable limits

Fuck you.

Fuck what you said.

Drop damned dead.

[Clave]

On 2/24/2018 9:05 AM, DumbedDownUSA wrote:
> What is reasonable to most affluent societies and
> what is reasonable to Americans are chasms apart.
>
> What is a reasonable number of grenades?

We don't allow grenades for private use.

> What is a reasonable number of guns?

As many as a man wants and can purchase.

> What is a reasonable purpose for owning a gun?

Collecting, self-defense, hunting, hobbying, defending the Constitution,
etc.

> What is a reasonable age for owning a gun?

18 - same as the age to enlist in the military and be issued one.

> Is it reasonable for the answers to be prejudiced by political
> donations?

Is human nature unreasonable?

If so how will you alter it, limey pig fucking turd.

[-hh]

On Saturday, February 24, 2018 at 11:05:28 AM UTC-5, DumbedDownUSA wrote:
> Alan Baker wrote:
> > On 2018-02-24 3:30 AM, DumbedDownUSA wrote:
> > > Alan Baker wrote:
> > > > On 2018-02-23 11:01 PM, DumbedDownUSA wrote:
> > > > > -hh wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > On Friday, February 23, 2018 at 4:49:49 PM UTC-5, Clave wrote:
> > > > > > > On 2/23/2018 2:04 PM, -hh wrote:
> > > > > > > > $60B/10 years = $6B/yr. Better, but you're still way
> > > > > > > > short. Keep trying!
> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Wow, this anti-gun rights diatribe ...
> > > > >
> > > > > The only important gun right is the right not to be shot by some
> > > > > turd carrying one.
> > > > >
> > > > > Any other gun rights are the illusion of a broken and scared
> > > > > society and the money makers who keep them scared.
> > > >
> > > > I think that's going too far.
> > > >
> > > > Property rights are an integral part of our heritage, and when
> > > > there are reasonable limits imposed, the right to own guns is
> > > > just a part of the right to own property.
> > >
> > > That is a rather silly POV which you have only because you have been
> > > permitted firearms; if not you could apply the same to many banned
> > > and incogitable "properties". Would you really apply the same logic
> > > to grenades for instance?
> >
> > I said there need to be reasonable limits, didn't I?
>
>
> Isn't that the point. What is reasonable to most affluent societies
> and what is reasonable to Americans are chasms apart.

Fair enough, but by the same token, there's also a more articulated
Constitutional basis to address. Fortunately, it does also contain
the specific phrase of "well regulated" to indicate that it is not
a totally unfettered situation (and the courts have ruled that the
1st Amendment's principles aren't unlimited either, even though it
doesn't have its own "regulated" qualifier).

> What is a reasonable number of grenades?
> What is a reasonable number of guns?
>
> What is a reasonable purpose for owning a gun?
> What is a reasonable age for owning a gun?

All are good questions, and in what's been referred to as
"reasonable to most affluent societies" has its own contribution,
as the risk tolerances can very well be different than in other
countries/regions.

Overall, an IMO reasonable approach is to make sure that all
stakeholders are considered and their diverse interests are balanced.
Doing this well can very well result in having solutions which
aren't at the all/nothing extremes. For example, it is still
permissible for a non-government entity to buy & use dynamite, but
that there are also very specific regulations by which the possessor
is held accountable for what they've been entrusted with. To this
end, an example of a potentially positive step towards AR owners
providing better accountability of their group's cost to society
(yes, including the bad apples) would be some sort of aggregated risk
pool from which the targets & victims of their higher violence level
would be compensated from. Otherwise, they're simply being selfish
as Society is forced to bear the costs for their choices.

> Is it reasonable for the answers to be prejudiced by political
> donations?

That's a tougher question to address, since political donations
are an integral part of individual representation and interests.
Overall, I think it is wiser to focus on the obvious but unsaid
portion of this, which is more of the 'big money' aspects which
can result in having a disproportionately oversized influence for
their beneficiary constituents: a notional step that could be
proposed here would be to impose a progressive tax on political
campaign contributions, including "issue ads" and other loopholes.
This approach would be very deficient in that it doesn't actually
decrease the potential influence of a certain magnitude monetary
contribution, but it at least makes that level more costly, and
results in a method of taxation that is voluntary.


-hh

[Clave]

On 2/24/2018 11:32 AM, -hh wrote:
>> What is reasonable to most affluent societies
>> and what is reasonable to Americans are chasms apart.
> Fair enough, but by the same token, there's also a more articulated
> Constitutional basis to address. Fortunately, it does also contain
> the specific phrase of "well regulated" to indicate that it is not
> a totally unfettered situation (and the courts have ruled that the
> 1st Amendment's principles aren't unlimited either, even though it
> doesn't have its own "regulated" qualifier).
>
>

Why are you such a vile anti-gun rights traitor?

[Clave]

On 2/24/2018 11:32 AM, -hh wrote:

>> What is a reasonable number of grenades?
>> What is a reasonable number of guns?
>>
>> What is a reasonable purpose for owning a gun?
>> What is a reasonable age for owning a gun?
> All are good questions,

No.

All are BULLSHIT leading questions, you American traitor!

[Clave]

On 2/24/2018 11:32 AM, -hh wrote:

> Overall, an IMO reasonable approach is to make sure that all
> stakeholders are considered and their diverse interests are balanced.

BULLSHIT!

Follow the Constitution - period!

Now FUCK OFF AND DIE!

[Clave]

On 2/24/2018 11:32 AM, -hh wrote:

> a notional step that could be
> proposed here

Fuck off rhetoric hound.

[-hh]

Specifically including the "well regulated" part.


-hh

[DumbedDownUSA]

-hh wrote:

> On Saturday, February 24, 2018 at 1:48:02 PM UTC-5, Clave wrote:
> > On 2/24/2018 11:32 AM, -hh wrote:
> > > Overall, an IMO reasonable approach is to make sure that all
> > > stakeholders are considered and their diverse interests are
> > > balanced.
> >
> > BULLSHIT!
> >
> > Follow the Constitution - period!
>

Which interpretation? If "dirtbag" thinks the right to bear arms was
intended so that school kids could shoot cans or their peers he is an
imbecile.

So if you can prove you intend to be part of a well regulated militia
and defend your country you may keep an appropriate weapon else you are
in breach of the constitution?

The truth is the world has moved on and America does not have use for
"militia". It is well past time when it was reasonable to let any
asshole own a gun. Your backward interpreatation is keeping you a
backwards country pandering to backwards voters and the people that
take their money off them.

> Specifically including the "well regulated" part.
>

Considering that "A well regulated militia" is no longer "necessary to
the security of a free state" anything dependent on that condition is
moot.

If only "America" had some common sense.

[Clave]

Fuck your "well-regulated" emphasis, you turd, try "shall not be infringed"!

https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/second_amendment

*the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.*

[Clave]

On 2/24/2018 1:20 PM, DumbedDownUSA wrote:
> -hh wrote:
>
>> On Saturday, February 24, 2018 at 1:48:02 PM UTC-5, Clave wrote:
>>> On 2/24/2018 11:32 AM, -hh wrote:
>>>> Overall, an IMO reasonable approach is to make sure that all
>>>> stakeholders are considered and their diverse interests are
>>>> balanced.
>>>
>>> BULLSHIT!
>>>
>>> Follow the Constitution - period!
>>
>
> Which interpretation?

THIS requires NO interprtetation, you limey pissgums:


/"the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."/

[Alan Baker]

In my (and I think almost everyone's) opinion, none.

> What is a reasonable number of guns?

Don't know. I know I don't think zero is that number.

>
> What is a reasonable purpose for owning a gun?

Hunting, pleasure shooting, self-defence.

> What is a reasonable age for owning a gun?

Adult.

>
> Is it reasonable for the answers to be prejudiced by political
> donations?

I have no idea why you threw that in here.

[Alan Baker]

Do you believe that gives you the right to own a tank, or an anti-tank
weapon?

Then you already agree that there are reasonable limits on that right.