John R. Lott, Jr., CPRSC. Should schools have teachers carry guns? AAHB Health Behavior Research December 2018

[Ghost1958]

Yes, mine. But yours, as well. We already examined your state laws, Ghost1958, either above or in another thread. I posted links to your laws. I quoted your laws. We even came to a somewhat mutual understanding.

Now you're backing off and going with your mantra, rather than observing the letter of the law.

Hmm...

I'm sorry but unless land is posted no trespassing or equivalent keep out etc , one is not breaking any law by being on that land until told to leave. That is my state.

Oddly enough during hunting season to hunt non posted land one DOES need at min verbal permission.

Also that is not pertaining to dwellings or buildings.
That may be where we are talking past each other.

 

[since9]

First, let me say your post is very well formulated, OC4me. And now, I'll add commentary where I may:

John Lott:
If you ignore the safety issue and just argue 2A points, you will lose this debate. People in the middle of this debate may value freedom, but they are often willing to trade off freedom for safety.

In addition, we find people quite willing to trade freedom even for the illusion of security. I prefer to use "security" as the term for the concept, due to what was really behind Benjamin Franklin's famous quote:

SIEGEL: What's the exact quotation?

WITTES: The exact quotation, which is from a letter that Franklin is believed to have written on behalf of the Pennsylvania General Assembly, reads, those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.

The exact quote, every jot and tittle: "Those, who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." (Franklin, B., Franklin, W. T. and Sparks, J. (1856) The life of Benjamin Franklin, containing the autobiography, with notes and a continuation. Whittemore, Niles, ad Hall. Boston. Retrieved from: https://tinyurl.com/y55kfkzu

SIEGEL: And what was the context of this remark?

WITTES: He was writing about a tax dispute between the Pennsylvania General Assembly and the family of the Penns, the proprietary family of the Pennsylvania colony who ruled it from afar. And the legislature was trying to tax the Penn family lands to pay for frontier defense during the French and Indian War. And the Penn family kept instructing the governor to veto. Franklin felt that this was a great affront to the ability of the legislature to govern. And so he actually meant purchase a little temporary safety very literally. The Penn family was trying to give a lump sum of money in exchange for the General Assembly's acknowledging that it did not have the authority to tax it.

SIEGEL: So far from being a pro-privacy quotation, if anything, it's a pro-taxation and pro-defense spending quotation.

WITTES: It is a quotation that defends the authority of a legislature to govern in the interests of collective security. It means, in context, not quite the opposite of what it's almost always quoted as saying but much closer to the opposite than to the thing that people think it means

Thus, we find the European-based Penn family being penny-wise and pound foolish, over-controlling for a few extra bucks while depriving the Pennsylvania General Assembly of much-needed and duly-authorized income to run the state. As a result of this and similar faux pas on the part of most of the distant colony title-holders, they lost everything during the Revolutionary War.

Even though we find Franklin's contextual meaning quite different than what we take it to mean i.e. "never give up essential liberty," I still maintain there are distinct relationships between between security and freedom. However, having been all over the world, I do not find the two to be mutually exclusive. Rather, they're more of two axes on a graph, and while negatively correlated, that correlation is not strong. Thus, there are areas of the world where people's essential freedoms are strong just as their safety and security are strong.

In fact, all four corners are represented, as well as everything in between:

1. weak security, weak freedom
2. weak security, strong freedom
3. strong security, weak freedom
4. strong security, strong freedom

Where the rights of We the People to keep and bear arms remain uninfringed, and we actually exercise those rights on a daily basis, we find our freedoms being respected while our security is simultaneously enhanced, but only to a point. Lest the bad guys simply arm up and have it out with us in gang wars, the second half of that equation involves them knowing they're going bye-bye for a long time -- if not permanently -- if they run afoul of the law. Therefore, excellent law enforcement capability to track down, catch, and incarcerate the bad guys is a must. Just as important, however, is the knowledge and understanding that if they bust into someone's home or are caught trying to steal someone's car, not only are they likely to be shot dead, but the resident or car-owner won't hesitate because the laws favor the protection of self and property rather than protection of criminals.

Fortunately, from your point of view, in this case, freedom and safety appear to go together. If you only argue 2A points, you come across as not having any responses to the safety concerns raised by others and you come across as callous.

I concur. John, I feel it's essential to respond to the concerns raised by those who would infringe on our right to keep and bear arms, and the reason is two-fold.

First, some of them, perhaps many of them, are legitimately scared. But their fears are irrational, largely fanned into flame by ignorant members of the media, if not knowledgeable members of the media who nonetheless feel like they can't increase viewership i.e. ad revenue without making mountains out of molehills, creating controversy by leveraging the ignorant to rise up against the right. Imagine how useless Congress would be if they hadn't been so busy over the last thirty years pushing for more useless gun control.

Second, regardless of whether they're legitimately frightened or not, they're often using nonsensical numbers they refer to as "statistics" in order to substantiate their points. As a statistician, clearly their numbers are so biased as to have taken them out of the realm of statistics altogether. On the other hand, sometimes they get the statistics right (probably from a hired firm), but proceed to claim the numbers mean all sorts of things when in fact, they do not.

Again, these numbers are highly misleading to a scared and/or ignorant public.

What we have here, essentially, is a problem where the only long-term solution requires education. Anti-2A members of Congress cannot manipulate a properly informed general public. The media cannot misinform the general public, holding them hostage on the edge of their seats when they know with reasonable certainty otherwise. Both governmental control as well as continued media mis/dis-information campaigns are absolutely dependent upon the general public's ignorance. Educate the general public as to what's actually what, using taking the time to explain not only what's wrong, but why it's wrong, and what's right and why, and you break the chains of mental and emotional slavery -- of bondage -- in which the American people either knowingly or unknowingly find themselves.

I have a friend who's a well-known liberal newscaster. I take her to task on a regular basis, mainly because the liberal media source for whom she works routinely tasks her with creating content with a heavy liberal slant. Because we became friends and worked together in college, she doesn't boot me off her page! I also never approach an issue as if she or her publisher are fools. Instead, Instead, it's a "gentle correction." What usually happens is the string of anti-gun comments stops, sometimes cold.

For example, I while researching a response to discussion about the media's so-called and wrongly-termed "assault weapons," I did some meta-research to determine the quantity of related deaths, then compared those deaths to all other causes of morbidity. I threw the numbers into a pie chart and surprised even myself by just how minute those deaths are as compared to, say, medical errors which result in the death of a patient.

Here's that graph. The big blue arrow points to the tiny little sliver representing the deaths due to assault rifles (AR-15s and similarly styled firearms), whereas the big, honking green wedge on the right represents deaths due to medical errors. That's not medical issues. That's only errors, mistakes made by doctors and nurses who should never have made those mistakes. Mistakes! This isn't a "win some, lose some" situation. The green section represents people who die because a medical practitioner did something wrong, something 9 out of 10 of his colleagues would never have done.

Imagine if airline pilots crashed on every tenth landing....

We hold airline pilots to very high standards primarily because when serious accidents occur, hundreds of people die all at once. It makes the news. People demand answers. NTSB responds. The FAA responds. Congress responds, demanding airlines and aircraft builders to change their designs and operating procedures.

The problem with medical blunders is that it's only one at a time, and almost always behind closed doors. The doctor pitches it as, "We're sorry, but he didn't make it," and very, very few people have the expertise, drive, and money to contest it. But they can and do call their members of Congress, which is why hospitals are required by law to keep detailed internal records and subject themselves to external oversight, hence the source for the numbers in that big, fat, medical blunder pie wedge we see below:

 

[since9]

Oh, did I forget? This isn't about the several hundred thousand deaths due to medical blunder each and every year. It's about the several hundred (no thousand) deaths due to "assault weapons" every year.

"However, if you have so much time and energy to fight against assault weapons, why not pour that time and energy into something that's more than a thousand times more likely to kill you and your family than assault weapons? Why not tackle the problem of medical errors, instead? Hold medical practitioners to the same very high standards as pilots..."

Faced with that image, John, most no longer bother to argue. Some say, "You're right." A picture is worth a thousand words, and they've just been educated. With the image of the tiny sliver or a couple hundred deaths by assault weapons in mind, they can no longer raise the issue of "assault weapons," for doing so would require them to ignore the thousand-fold greater issue of medical errors, preventable medical errors, mind you.

I also mention the specific numbers of both assault weapon deaths vs medical error deaths, so they really have no excuse to keep pushing the issue as if it were THE GREATEST, MOST IMPORTANT ISSUE OF ALL TIME!

John, I agree with OC4me. We need to educate across all fronts, not merely from one perspective. The reason has to do with the way people learn. Some learn by instruction. Others learn by doing. Some are verbal learners, while others are visual learners. Repetition is a must.

In the military, when we teach people how to do something that's fairly important, such as fly and aircraft or control joint firepower on the battlefield, we teach them with written words, spoken words, graphs, terrain models, and of course, by actual doing. We teach them across ALL fronts, because we cannot afford mistakes. They're too deadly. So we leave nothing to chance. We quite literally blow the assignment out of the water (or sand), multiple times, in order to ensure there's absolutely no doubt about what's what.

And we need to do the same with respect to our Second Amendment rights, about firearms, their proper handling and storage, safety, and gun control legislation i.e. what works and what doesn't work at all but has the opposite effect than intended.

And why not? THEY'RE doing it with their mis/disinformation. We can't force them to stop, but we can counter with the truth.

It's simple supply vs demand. If we can educate the general public to the point where they're capable of recognizing the difference between reality and hype, then we lower the demand for both mainstream media news as well as Congressional action.

BOTH will be starved and forced to refocus their efforts on actually matter to the general public. Right now, the things that matter are largely falsehoods which only matter because the general public thinks that's reality, a pressing concern. Increase reality-based knowledge and you decrease demand for hype, forcing a change in both media and Congress.

I get your point John, however, it is the pro-infringement side that should be required to publicly insult teachers (and public servants) everywhere by explaining why such valued and law-abiding Citizens must be treated no better than felons? Switch the conversation around! The safety issue has not been lost, in fact merely shifted to put the antis on the defensive. Let the antis come across as callous!

Agreed. The SAFEST situation in a mass shooting is an armed and well-trained citizen. In fact, roughly half of all mass shootings are stopped by an armed citizen shooting the perp. The other half are either stopped by law enforcement shooting the perp or corralling them into a standoff situation where they either shoot themselves or give up.

Mass shootings stopped by armed citizens average around 2.3 deaths.

Mass shootings stopped by law enforcement average around 14.2 deaths.

It's not because law enforcement is incompetent. It's because it takes them so much time to get there. Even two minutes is too long when an armed citizen could be on the spot -- if only that citizen had taken the time (or been allowed) to carry there that day.

In your defense, you are tackling the problem from an academic perspective, and not a legal one, a point which should be acknowledged.

Indeed! As it's primarily an education issue, first, and a legal issue, second, we should focus most of our efforts on education. We'll always need organizations like the NRA-ILA, but remember, they exist because we're failing on the education front.

 

[since9]

I'm sorry but unless land is posted no trespassing or equivalent keep out etc , one is not breaking any law by being on that land until told to leave. That is my state.

No, Ghost1958, it is not. Again, I posted not only the links to the law but the relevant copies of the law itself.

You keep claiming one thing, whereas the law itself states something different. If you want to live in a dream world, have at it. But please don't keep posting falsehood to a public forum involving the use deadly weapons, as that's a grave disservice to everyone reading this who lives in your state. They might get the wrong impression that just because you were born in 1958 and were once in law enforcement that they can trust that what you say is true, only to find themselves in hot water because what you're saying is wrong.

Specifically:

1. Signs have no effect of law in your state. Thus, your statement, "unless land is posted no trespassing or equivalent keep out etc." is a non sequitor. It doesn't matter whether the land is posted or not. Merely by saying, "unless land is post..." you're already wrong.

2. Verbal notice of trespassing only holds for businesses. It does not hold for private owners of land. Specifically, the law views right of access with respect to privately owned land and business property differently. By definition, the land and buildings of a business that's open to the public is held to involve "implied consent until otherwise stated," whereas privately owned land is held to mean "implied no trespassing until otherwise stated. Specifically, the latter requires at least some universally recognized signal, like a fence or a locked shed.

I'll not get into the details of what one can and cannot do at that point, as I've already done so. Please stop flapping your gums with your errant mantra and go back and review the links I provided in that other thread, Ghost1958.

Thank you.

 

[Ghost1958]

No, Ghost1958, it is not. Again, I posted not only the links to the law but the relevant copies of the law itself.

You keep claiming one thing, whereas the law itself states something different. If you want to live in a dream world, have at it. But please don't keep posting falsehood to a public forum involving the use deadly weapons, as that's a grave disservice to everyone reading this who lives in your state. They might get the wrong impression that just because you were born in 1958 and were once in law enforcement that they can trust that what you say is true, only to find themselves in hot water because what you're saying is wrong.

Specifically:

1. Signs have no effect of law in your state. Thus, your statement, "unless land is posted no trespassing or equivalent keep out etc." is a non sequitor. It doesn't matter whether the land is posted or not. Merely by saying, "unless land is post..." you're already wrong.

2. Verbal notice of trespassing only holds for businesses. It does not hold for private owners of land. Specifically, the law views right of access with respect to privately owned land and business property differently. By definition, the land and buildings of a business that's open to the public is held to involve "implied consent until otherwise stated," whereas privately owned land is held to mean "implied no trespassing until otherwise stated. Specifically, the latter requires at least some universally recognized signal, like a fence or a locked shed.

I'll not get into the details of what one can and cannot do at that point, as I've already done so. Please stop flapping your gums with your errant mantra and go back and review the links I provided in that other thread, Ghost1958.

Thank you.

Your going to believe, wrongly, what you wish.

I live here, I own land here., I'm well aware of trespassing laws here.

LAND fenced or not must have no trespassing signs up or a person entering that land is NOT guilty of trespassing until told to leave it.

Same with privately owned open to the public business.

I would ask you to stop flapping your gums about something you obviously know little to nothing about , basing your opinion on our laws as you want to see them instead of the way they actually are.

A dwelling residence or building is treated differently.

Now you may have the word. Right or wrong.

 

[OC for ME]

Pie charts don't mean much without the numbers shown.

 

[since9]

Your going to believe, wrongly, what you wish.

Dude, this has nothing to do with "belief."

It's written law.

I live here

Doesn't matter. It's written law.

I own land here...

Doesn't matter. It's written law.

I'm well aware of trespassing laws here.

Fine. Let's put the shoe on the other foot: Cite them. Perhaps then you'll get around to reading them, what they say, and where you're wrong.

 

[Ghost1958]

Dude, this has nothing to do with "belief."

It's written law.



Doesn't matter. It's written law.



Doesn't matter. It's written law.



Fine. Let's put the shoe on the other foot: Cite them. Perhaps then you'll get around to reading them, what they say, and where you're wrong.

Where you are mistaken is you interpret the KY law to say a no trespassing sign has no force of law. It does.

Gun buster signs do not have force of law.

Example. If you enter my land and I have no trespassing signs up, you are trespassing. By law. If you remain after seeing the sign you are quilty of criminal trespass.

If there IS NO no trespassing sign and you enter my land you are not trespassing until I tell you you aren't allowed on my land. If you then leave you STILL are not quilty of trespass.

If you refuse to leave, then your quilty of criminal trespass.

Heck if you come onto my land and set up a little homestead, if I do not try to remove you for so many years you will legally OWN that land.

I'm not going to argue anymore.. Yes living here has something to do with it because trying to explain KY carry laws and trespassing etc to someone trying to cite law they simply don't understand is almost always either futile or turns out as this back and forth is going.

You think what you wish. I'm tired of walking you thru this subject when you are dead wrong and convinced you are correct.

Not sure how this got to be the focus of the thread to begin with.

 

[solus]

since9 your three or four or five argumentative pontification posts bears absolutely nothing on the thread’s topic even after Dr Lott’s gracing this forum’s presence?

You nonsencial rhetorical bs is off topic and you know it as the responsible individual you presume to be.

Knock it off as you are making yourself look like a bloody ranting fool in public...and trust me it is a horrible image for such an honorable and illustrious retiree

 

[eye95]

I find since9 to be one of the most valuable contributors to this site. I suspect that the above attack is a tiny minority opinion.

I won’t respond further in this thread about that attack.

 

[solus]

I find since9 to be one of the most valuable contributors to this site. I suspect that the above attack is a tiny minority opinion.

I won’t respond further in this thread about that attack.

Oh eye95, as do I also recognize since9’s forum contributions...

But as in all cases of writen/oral message interpretation tis in the EYE of the holder...

The author of the post you so loosely characterize as an ‘attack’ was simply an observation the learned colleague might not be realizing he was projecting towards the public on this forum.

Sort of telling a firearm clerk type salesperson...BTW did you know your breath is horrific?

No eye95, that wasn’t an attack in any way, shape or form ~ maybe a tad blunt but I know the honorably discharged USAF retiree can absorb constructive criticism from an other similar individual.

Eye95, truly glad you took the time to post to allow me to clarify the misinterpretation and you are right there is no further response needed, now is there?

 

[color of law]

Read carefully.

KRS 511.090 General provisions.

(1) A person "enters or remains unlawfully" in or upon premises when he is not privileged or licensed to do so.

(2) A person who, regardless of his intent, enters or remains in or upon premises which are at the time open to the public does so with license or privilege unless he defies a lawful order not to enter or remain personally communicated to him by the owner of such premises or other authorized person.

(3) A license or privilege to enter or remain in or upon premises which are only partly open to the public is not a license or privilege to enter or remain in or upon a part of the premises which is not open to the public.

(4) A person who enters or remains upon unimproved and apparently unused land which is neither fenced nor otherwise enclosed does not commit criminal trespass unless notice against trespass is personally communicated to him by the owner of the land or some other authorized person or unless notice is given by posting in a conspicuous manner.

(5) Private land adjoining a railtrail that is neither fenced nor otherwise enclosed shall be presumed to be land where notice against trespassing has been given by the owner of the land, and a person utilizing the railtrail shall be presumed to lack privilege or license to enter upon that land unless the person has permission from an adjoining landowner to do so.

Effective: July 14, 2000

History: Amended 2000 Ky. Acts ch. 338, sec. 13, effective July 14, 2000. – Created 1974 Ky. Acts ch. 406, sec. 104, effective January 1, 1975.

 

[eye95]

What constitutes “a lawful order not to enter or remain personally communicated to him by the owner of such premises or other authorized person”?

 

[OC for ME]

AFAIK, most public school systems are self-insured for liability issues, as are their parent municipalities. Private schools may be another matter. And it is unlikely that an armed teacher who is participates in defending against an active shooter but injures or kills a potential victim of that shooter would enjoy the limited liability of most LEOs.

Well then, Dr. Lott's entire premise collapses from a financial safety standpoint. If QI is not made available by law/judicial ruling then a second thought is gunna be needed.

If I were a teacher and authorized to carry while on the job? I am no cop and I protect me and the kids under my direct charge. The other kids and staff are on their own. I'm not gunna risk my financial safety without the same privileges and immunities that cops enjoy.

 

[Ghost1958]

What constitutes “a lawful order not to enter or remain personally communicated to him by the owner of such premises or other authorized person”?

Verbal informing to not enter or to leave the property.

 

[eye95]

I know that that is your oft-repeated line.

Is that the only way to give the lawful order? Do you have a citation specific to the precise and narrow assertion in your post?

 

[solus]

FOOO GET SILLY DERRIERE OFF MY PROPERTY - - - YA BE TRESSPASS'N - - - - YA HEAR!

yepper that works well most any wheres their intelligent folk - mindful of the hearing or substance impaired - minda ya pay attention of their reaction ya hear!

purple painted bars on them theyre trees also is notice ya can't step on my land... butcha know...what if they be defective and colorblind...darn!

 

[color of law]

I know that that is your oft-repeated line.

Is that the only way to give the lawful order? Do you have a citation specific to the precise and narrow assertion in your post?

A maxim of law is that statutes are written in ordinary common English to which persons of average intelligence may understand.

 

[Ghost1958]

I know that that is your oft-repeated line.

Is that the only way to give the lawful order? Do you have a citation specific to the precise and narrow assertion in your post?

A no trespassing sign, a Posted, Keep out sign. a hand made keep out or no pressing sign.
On a land parcel the person could say they never saw it, in which case the owner or caretaker would give verbal.

In reality most owners put up no trespassing, etc signs to relieve themselves of liability if a person got hurt on their land.

The laws already been cited. By COL.

 

[eye95]

I asked because you seemed to be indicating that only a “verbal informing” constituted such a lawful order.

Clearly, you are now including signage also as a lawful order.

The cite I was asking for was the one that would define “lawful order”, if there is such a one. CoL seems to be indicating that there is not, opting for a plain language definition.