monitoring Trump and relevant contemporary events

Withholding final applause but giving effusive praise every half-step along the path. If he succeeds then she will get a tattoo of his face on her thigh.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-43311581

Trump White House quietly issues report vindicating Obama regulations

This story could run for months, and every republican could be pressed on it, but


The power of the conservative media machine will prevail

Thanks for drawing attention to this OMB report.

I agree he's an idiot.

I also think he stopped Kim's nuclear threats.

This is a stupid cartoon, but typical of stupid anti-gun arguments. What does the NRA need to be protected from?

I don't think your fellow anti-gun nuts in America have gotten to the point where they have called for the elimination of the organization (Although a few have expressed hope that LaPierre and Loesch might get gunned down).

The cartoon would have made more sense if Uncle Sam were cradling a housewife holding a pistol or even an AR-15, but, again, the NRA and its members aren't in any danger other than that of a deranged anti-gun advocate with a twisted sense of irony who has been convinced by the inflammatory rhetoric of folks like you that he will be considered a hero if he turns the table (and an AR-15) on NRA employees or members at a rally.

And yet another stupid cartoon. This one from a French anti-gun, anti-American...I guess.

This is so cool. Responsible, sane people here.
MM

they probably got a good deal

https://www.theverge.com/2018/3/4/17076286/advertisers-alex-jones-infowars-youtube-channel-conspiracy-theories

I wonder if the gift shops in Trump's hotels sell Panama hats.

Wonderful. As Jesus' dad once told him, "You'll get points with me if speak out against evil people doing evil things."

Probably not in Panama any longer.

So, THIS will be interesting.

Stormy Daniels is suing Trump. But, can you sue someone for paying you for sex? (gets popcorn, drags up cooler and deck chair)

I sure can't imagine that sort of sentiment spreading.

It is indeed worse than foolish for parents to refuse to vaccinate their children. What do you propose we, as a nation, do about it?

How about forced entry into the homes of these fools by armed police with a licensed MD in tow? While the cops hold the parents at bay, the doctor's assistants can put the kids in restraints and allow him to go about his business unmolested.

Maybe the federal government or the State of Texas should just remove the kids from their home and bring them to a facility where they can be put in restraints and then vaccinated. The parents can have the kids back when they prove they are not members of the modern conservative/evangelical/populist axis. You could do your civic duty and volunteer to be a member of the panel that decides whether or not the parents' claim is sincere and whether or not they should get their kids back.

Lord knows Trump isn't perfect, and his contributions to the unfounded and dangerous paranoia about vaccines is based on ignorance and is a disservice to the country, but you guys made us choose between him and the utterly corrupt Hillary Clinton...Besides the woman who may well be the next Democrat nomination for the presidency has been right there with him, and, arguably, she has a lot more influence on American mothers than Trump.

https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2018/01/how-oprah-helped-spread-anti-vaccine-pseudoscience/

Between this and her expectation that God will tell her to run for president if he so desires it of her, Sanders may have less to fear from another female rival for the 2020 nomination than he may have first feared.

BTW, 60,000 unvaccinated kids who probably are part of about 24,000 families are hardly a sound statistical base for your ludicrous assertion of what is typical about conservative/evangelical/populists in Texas, let alone the nation. Tell me again how you're not a smug elitist?

This article showed up on my FaceBook page earlier today, it was added by my neighbor who had a career in law enforcement and his last position was Sheriff of Prince Georges County, Md. (which is a different county than where we live now)


Thursday, March 1, 2018
Arming Teachers: The Perspective of a Former Secret Service Agent
For several days, social media has been in the grips of a debate on how we can protect our children. One of the suggestions bandied about is to arm school teachers. If you follow J.J. Hensley on Twitter, @JJHensleyauthor, then you've had a little bit of education on the problems with arming teachers (or anyone) to take down the perpetrator with a gun in a school. J.J. is the author of several books, the most recent being Bolt Action Remedy, published by Down & Out Books, and a contributor to the new anthology The Night of the Flood. He is also a former police officer and former Special Agent with the U.S. Secret Service. I asked JJ if he would write something around the idea of arming school teachers. Much thanks to J.J. for taking the time to write this guest post. - David Nemeth


Firearms instructors at the James J. Rowley Training Center. (USSS Instagram)
By J.J. Hensley

About seven months. That's how long one has to train to be a Special Agent in the U.S. Secret Service. The first step is to complete a basic criminal investigator training program at the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center. Next up is the Special Agent Training Course at the Secret Service Academy in Maryland. Throughout the training, agent candidates are instructed in relevant topics such as investigative techniques, the appropriate use of force, defensive tactics, legal procedures, physical fitness, and the proper use of firearms. The firearms training consists of shooting tens of thousands of rounds in a controlled environment as well as going through a myriad of scenarios in which the trainee must exercise the proper judgment. The drills are repeated over and over again so as to create what is called muscle memory; where one reacts automatically – and correctly – in a stressful situation. The reason for this is because people will often react inappropriately when potentially dangerous circumstances present themselves or they will not react at all.

Of course many of the trainees have had previous training either through prior law enforcement or military experience. So before a new agent hits the street, it's likely he or she has been exposed to not only countless hours of classroom lecture reinforced by practical exercises that simulate actual hostile situations, but also real-life experiences. Additionally, law enforcement agents and officers are vetted through mechanisms such as background checks, drug tests, polygraphs, and psychological evaluations.

For agencies like the Secret Service, the scenarios trained on include those in which an individual or individuals must be protected from an assailant. It's difficult to express the importance of these exercises because it is difficult to train the students to act contrary to their natural inclination toward self-preservation. Additionally, those with previous law enforcement or military experience were trained to take cover when the bullets start flying, not to become the cover. As anyone who has been through similar training can attest, unlearning a set of movements is nearly always harder than learning them in the first place.

As someone who underwent the training and worked countless protective assignments during my time in the Secret Service, I recall being involved in plenty of events in which there were multiple people in one place, all designated as "protectees" of the Secret Service. For example, every Presidential Inauguration, Christmas tree lighting at the White House, or United Nations General Assembly will involve multiple protectees in close proximity to one another. So, how does an agent respond when an active threat appears?

There are a few basic rules to remember when working protection. One important one is that the minimum number of agents will address the problem (threat) and the maximum number will move to the protectee. This is Protection 101 and is a philosophy used by government and private sector security details all over the world. If you have every agent trying to take out an attacker, then your protectee could be left out in the open and vulnerable to another attacker. Another rule is to "sound out" the threat. This is done by yelling "gun" or some other word that the rest of your security force will recognize as the code word identifying an imminent threat. Then, if you are the security professional closest to the attacker, you address the threat. But what does this mean? You might be surprised that an agent drawing his or her weapon is likely a last resort. Why is that?

Remember how I gave examples of multiple protectees being present at an event. Well, events like campaign rallies and awards presentations can involve large crowds. So try to imagine you are an agent working an inauguration event and you spot an armed man who is twenty yards away from you. Imagine the man begins firing into the crowd. Imagine addressing a threat by pulling a gun and, through the crowd, taking aim on the attacker. Keep in mind that law enforcement hit rates in a shooting are somewhere between 18 to 30 percent.

Imagine the unpredictable nature of a gun battle around a panicked crowd.

Imagine not only having to worry about trying to hit your target center mass, but also having to account for what is behind the shooter, should your bullet miss or pass through the assailant.

Imagine not knowing if he is a lone gunman or if there may be another gunman who is maneuvering into a position to shoot you.

Imagine not knowing if an innocent person will run in front of your gun sights just as you pull the trigger.

Imagine you aren't at an inauguration event.

Imagine the venue is a school.

Imagine the members of the crowd are young school children.

Imagine you never had seven months of training.

Imagine you did not spend hour after grueling hour going through shoot or don't-shoot scenarios.

Imagine you don't have the muscle memory developed through training and experience.

Imagine not knowing if you should try to cover and evacuate your young protectees, or to go after the threat.

Now imagine you aren't there. Imagine your child is at the school and the person attempting to respond appropriately to a shooter is Mr. Stanley the third grade teacher who may or may not have taken a week-long firearms training course. He's raising a gun as screaming children rush by in front of him and he thinks the shooter is aiming at him.

Imagine.

For my last few years with the Secret Service, I worked on the Protective Intelligence side. The agency wisely dedicates massive resources to intelligence and advance work. This is because the best way to take care of your protectees is to prevent weapons from being present in the first place. As one former Secret Service Director liked to say, "If the guns come out, we've already lost."

Right now, in our schools, we are losing and the nation is divided on how to address this crisis. I don't have all the answers, but I know one thing: If someone sneaks a weapon into a Secret Service venue tomorrow, the response the next day won't be, "Well, we should add more guns."

David Nemeth at 3:00 AM
Share

4 comments:

Frank ZafiroMarch 1, 2018 at 11:56 AM
Great, great take J.J. Your particular background gives you a perspective a lot of people hear and actually listen to.

More guns in schools is NOT the answer, plain and simple.

I spent my career as a police officer. My wife is still a teacher. I own a gun (my duty gun, gifted upon retirement but it was only a year old at the time). With all that in mind, I repeat: arming teachers is not the answer.

I'm not anti-gun, but I am anti-ridiculous gun policy and that's what we have. There are other contributing factors, too, but I'll leave that for another discussion. Point is, I'm glad people with a background of expertise are injecting some intelligent discussion points into the debate.

Thanks, man.

Now go write!


Frank Zafiro

Reply

Hensley BooksMarch 2, 2018 at 8:08 PM

Simple. If they're not vaccinated, they can't attend school, which just endangers other kids. And make that a reuirement for private schools, charter schools, , home schooled kids in order to get certified. No police raids necessary. Duh. Think a little, finn. Simple public health.

If people don't believe in vaccine, then they must keep their kids and themselves away from vulnerable people. I.E. The very young, the elderly, the folks dealing with chemo or auto-immune problems, public libraries, grocery stores, hospitals, football stadiums, theaters, schools, public playgrounds, subways, airplanes, trains, public transportation, stay out of community pools, no sleep overs anywhere, absolutely no nursing homes or convalescent homes. In other words, I won't ask the authorities to deny you your personal preferences but I will ask you to at least be frigging responsible and keep yourself away from the rest of us.

Better data might show all sorts of things including facts that are counter-intuitive to gun-control advocates.

We also know that during the period between 2006 and 2015 around 350 Americans were killed in mass slayings where the preferred weapon was fire, knives, or various blunt objects. Considering the ubiquitous nature of guns in this country, it's not surprising that they are most often the weapon of choice when someone decides killing multiple people is the thing to do. We further know that eliminating guns will not eliminate mass murders like:

• 1927 - 45 people (mostly children) killed at the Bath Consolidated School in Michigan, by a disgruntled janitor who planted sticks of dynamite around the school over a period of months and then set them all off using a timing mechanism
• 1978 - 912 people (mostly women and children) killed with poisoned Kool-Aid in Guyana
• 1990 - 87 dead at the Happy Land social club in Brooklyn; killed by a man with a can of gasoline and two matches
• 1995 - 168 people (including 19 children) killed and over 500 injured in Oklahoma City by a man with a fertilizer based car bomb
• 1995 - 13 people killed in a Tokyo subway station by members of a religious cult who dispersed sarin gas. Authorities reported that had the murderers been a bit savvier on the proper release methodology for the nerve gas, thousands would have died.
• 2001 - 2,996 people killed in NYC, Pennsylvania and Washington D.C. by a few men flying modern passenger jets
• 2003 - 133 killed on a subway train in Daegu, South Korea. This guy was a little more technologically advanced than the Brooklyn murderer...he used a lighter to ignite his gasoline.
• 2008 - Two women and two children murdered by a California man wielding a katana and a baseball bat. If they survived his initial assault they died in the fire he set immediately thereafter
• 2010 - More than 500 Christian men, women & children butchered with machetes by Muslims in Nigeria
• 2013 - 3 dead and 264 injured in Boston thanks to homemade bombs utilizing pressure cookers. I still say that the members of the AHAM (Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers) have blood on their hands in connection with that tragic event.
• 2014 - 31 people stabbed to death by several Uighur separatists with knives at a train station in Kunming, China
• 2015 - 22 killed in a Hindu shrine in Thailand...weapon of choice? A pipe bomb.




Who are you kidding? Sure you're interested in the nomenclature used. You and your fellow gun-control advocates religiously use the term "assault weapon" and for obvious reason. You've made it clear here that you don't believe these weapons have any utility beyond the assault and murder of human beings. If there was some way you could arrange to have the generally accepted term changed to "murder and maim" rifle or weapon, you would happily do so.

May I assume that you've acknowledged that Glenn is correct in stating that handguns, and not assault weapons) are the firearms most often used in mass shootings? If not, you should because it is factually correct and if so, why do you persist with your focus on assault rifles?

Dead is dead and the size of an exit wound in the case of a fatal shooting is only germane to the mortician who has to prepare the body for a possible open coffin wake. It's pretty clear from the above list of mass killing events that if you are interested in body count and the physical damage done to the bodies of your victims you should opt for explosives or fire, not an AR-15 or any firearm that is compatible with a high round magazine. In fact machetes would probably serve you better than an AR-15 if you could enlist two or three accomplices.

Are you really simply curious as to why someone like the FL shooter chose an AR-15 over a handgun? Your intuition tells you that it was because of the substantially increased firepower, however, this serves your political position on this issue far better than reason. What is firepower in an attack like this but killing power, and if that was what the kid wanted he would have found it with a backpack loaded with pipebombs?

Your intuition is probably a lot closer to the mark when it zeroes in on the psychological allure of one of these rifles, and if that is indeed the case what stoked that deadly fascination. The NRA commercials and flyers that glorify "assualt rifles"....that don't exist, or the ultra-violent video games that kids of his age (and younger!) are playing day in and day out across our nation? Not to mention the movies that fetishize these weapons. If what he was really looking for was not actually increased lethality, but to play a real bad-ass in his personal video game, should we outlaw all the firearms that look bad-ass? And what about the video games and movies that glorify that persona far, far more than the NRA or responsible American gun owners?