No trespass = No charge

[ArfinGreebly]

Teaching By Steps

Needs to be a different thread . . .

TommyJ, (remembering that what follows is opinion . . .) you wouldn't start a new shooter with a class. You would start a new shooter with fun. You'll never get to "class" if there isn't interest first. And there won't be interest without enjoyment, so a little fun is indicated.

Depending on range and available equipment, you would take a .22 LR pistol and/or rifle (I used Rugers for this exercise), along with reactive targets that provide more response than "oh, look, a hole."

My wife's first range trip involved a Ruger Mk II pistol and a large box with a Frisbee taped to it. She got to keep the Frisbee. Halfway through the session, she turned to me and said (indicating the pistol), "I want one like this."

When I equivocated that I had one similar, she asserted, "no, I want one exactly like this." And now she has one.

It's sad that some people still think it's a real grin to hand someone a gun with more power and noise than they can shoot comfortably as an "introduction" to shooting. Since when is being overwhelmed any kind of fun?

Take the recoil and noise out of it. Let her make holes in something -- even better if she can knock something over or make it dance. Let her have fun. Let her generate the interest that must exist before proficiency can be attained.

As an educator, I'm probably not telling you anything new. You have an additional problem, though, in that it can be hard for a teacher not to treat a family member as a student. You know, the whole patronizing thing.

Her experience with guns to date is that she's not in control. She can control a .22 pistol (or rifle). Won't be long after that, you can offer her a 9mm pistol to shoot. "This will jump a little more in your hand, and it barks a little louder, but it's basically the same thing you're already doing, just a little more energy."

With a little mileage, a question like, "hey, you want to do a course along with me?" won't be bizarre.

Anyway.

Like I said, it needs its own thread.

I'll start a "Helping a Gun-Shy Person Learn to Shoot" thread if you like.

 

[Henry Bowman]

Jeffrey Weinsier of WPLG, an ABC network affiliate, was arrested last month after police said he carried a weapon onto the grounds of Miami Central High School and refused to cross the street when asked by an officer.

Guess "journalists" are willing to eat their own. This summary of the event is misleading at best. Really, it's literally false.

A cameraman caught the encounter on videotape, which the state attorney's office used in deciding not to pursue the charges, Assistant State Attorney Maggie Gerson wrote in a memo released Tuesday.

As I stated before, thankfully the cameraman complied with the unlawful order of the "big cop" or we could have lost all of the great evidence provided by the tape.

 

[Robert Hairless]

It's good that you consider protecting students part of your job, Tommy. But when you favor anticipatory arrests--arresting people, like that reporter, who had not committed a crime because they might commit one--you open a door you can't close.

In schools, for example you're certainly aware that teachers--female teachers as well as males--have had sexual relationships with their minor students. (If you're not aware of any such cases use Google to search for "teacher sexual misconduct" and similar terms. You'll find many.)
Teachers also have embezzled public funds (Google for "teacher embezzlement"), killed students (http://www.woio.com/Global/story.asp?S=7061938), tortured animals (http://www.myeyewitnessnews.com/content/regional/story.aspx?content_id=c36742cc-bc5b-4cd7-9882-b0a4036786f4), and committed many other crimes. You surely don't think that all teachers should be arrested because any of them might commit one crime or another. Do you?

Anyone--including the parents, the police, and school principals--might commit a crime. Arrest all of them and the world becomes covered with jails without jailers, because correctional officers too have committed crimes.

I sense your frustration and your good intentions, but you are not God and it's not a good idea to assume responsibilities you can't possibly meet. When you tell people that "protecting students is part of" your job, they have the right to rely on you to do that. But you can't do it. No one can do it.

You can, and should, take reasonable and prudent measures to see that your school and grounds are not hazardous, that your teachers perform their duties without abusing their position, that your students behave while in your school during school hours, and intruders are ejected.

But when you extend your domain so that you become the students' protector you're out of bounds. You've then turned your school into a Virginia Tech, where the goal was to make people "feel safe." The more you succeed in making them feel safe the less need they perceive to ensure that they actually are safe. You teach parents and students that someone else--you or some other person--will take care of them and, therefore, that they don't need to care for themselves. You train them to be dependent in a world that punishes dependency.

I'm not trying to beat on you and I hope that I haven't sounded mean. I think that you're being overly hard on yourself and unnecessarily so.