• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

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

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
8,729
Location
here nc
“Had”.

Moving on from this nit moronically being picked.
Sorry eye95, you have already shown members your “recollection” is faulty, now out of the blue you post some nonsense about an alleged olde Ohio statute regarding max number cartridges mag, on a handgun forum, the throw in the post BS about the statute was under AUTOMATIC WEAPONS and referenced max 30+1?

really eye95, you truly believe i am picking on and publicly calling you out for constantly putting outrageous & outlandish mis-information ~ not the case at all! [might read my first line in the signature block]

All being accomplished w/o the juvenile playground name calling!
 

Ghost1958

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2015
Messages
1,255
Location
Kentucky
Ok, now you're just trying to push buttons, the immature antithesis of good conversation and the epitome of troll-like behavior.

You're back on ignore.



No. You've stated what you think it is, but you've not been consistent.

Where you stated your opinion, I've cited the actual written law.

BIG difference.

'Bye.
Thanks I'm much happier being on your ignore list.
 

color of law

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
5,359
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Let's get something straight. All yous guys seem to refuse to ask the experts. I offer the following.

In 2014 R.C. 2923.11(E) was amended by striking "Automatic firearm" means any firearm designed or specially adapted to fire a succession of cartridges with a single function of the trigger. "Automatic firearm" also means any semi-automatic firearm designed or specially adapted to fire more than thirty-one cartridges without reloading, other than a firearm chambering only .22 caliber short, long, or long-rifle cartridges.

The definition of "Firearm" includes "handgun" and "Semi-automatic firearm" meaning any firearm designed or specially adapted to fire a single cartridge and automatically chamber a succeeding cartridge ready to fire, with a single function of the trigger.

The problem with the repealed statute is it would be close to impossible for the State to prove that an "Automatic firearm" was designed or specially adapted to fire more than 31 cartridges. The capacity of a magazine has no relationship to the firearm itself.
 

OC4me

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 14, 2009
Messages
758
Location
Northwest Kent County, Michigan
If one is going to use a firearm as part of their governmental duties, then training is a reasonable requirement.
If one is going to use a firearm as part of their inalienable fundamental & enumerated right to self-defense, then training is NOT a reasonable requirement.

Self-defense against a wacko school shooter is not a government duty, it is a human right!
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,525
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
If one is going to use a firearm as part of their inalienable fundamental & enumerated right to self-defense, then training is NOT a reasonable requirement.

Self-defense against a wacko school shooter is not a government duty, it is a human right!
I agree with that statement, which does not disagree with mine.

If a teacher is appointed by the administration to carry as a duty, training is a reasonable requirement.

If a teacher carries to exercise his Right, requiring training would infringe on that Right.
 

color of law

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
5,359
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
I agree with that statement, which does not disagree with mine.

If a teacher is appointed by the administration to carry as a duty, training is a reasonable requirement.

If a teacher carries to exercise his Right, requiring training would infringe on that Right.
Guns in schools/school zones did not become an issue until Nov. 29, 1990 - Pub. L. 101–647, title XVII, § 1702(b)(5), 104 Stat. 4845.
 

Ghost1958

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2015
Messages
1,255
Location
Kentucky
I agree with that statement, which does not disagree with mine.

If a teacher is appointed by the administration to carry as a duty, training is a reasonable requirement.

If a teacher carries to exercise his Right, requiring training would infringe on that Right.
Training to carry a gun outside of the military is never a reasonable requirement.

If it's voluntary fine. Required it's an infringement.
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,525
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
Do police need training before the carry and use firearms on behalf of the government?

I think that they do. I believe that anyone who carries a firearm as an agent of the government, as an assigned duty, should be trained. But, hey, that’s just me.
 

color of law

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
5,359
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Do police need training before the carry and use firearms on behalf of the government?

I think that they do. I believe that anyone who carries a firearm as an agent of the government, as an assigned duty, should be trained. But, hey, that’s just me.
For Ohio have a read.

You could have answered your question in less than one minute and shared your results.
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,525
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
I was asking for an opinion, not for the fact of the matter. I was hoping to sway the thinking of another. But we all have our reasons for doing what we do.
 

CJ4wd

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 22, 2017
Messages
265
Location
Planet Earth
Training is required for most things in life, from jobs, riding a bicycle, driving a car, etc. If a "tool" is capable of inflicting serious bodily harm or death, minimal training is needed. I don't care if it is a shovel or an ax, some "tools" need instructions to be used safely.
Here's what happens when you don't have instructions on a table saw.
13603
For the same reason, some knowledge of firearms is necessary, even if to just be used correctly.
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,525
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
I agree.

The question at hand seems to be whether and when training can be mandated by the government for the carry and use of firearms.

The standard I have been advocating is that training must be mandatory when one will be required to carry—and possibly use—a firearm as an agent of the state. I believe that, except in those circumstances, mandatory training is an infringement on the RKBA.

However, not getting training voluntarily to exercise the Right is foolish—and should be a consideration at any civil or criminal trial when a firearm is misused.
 

Ghost1958

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2015
Messages
1,255
Location
Kentucky
I agree.

The question at hand seems to be whether and when training can be mandated by the government for the carry and use of firearms.

The standard I have been advocating is that training must be mandatory when one will be required to carry—and possibly use—a firearm as an agent of the state. I believe that, except in those circumstances, mandatory training is an infringement on the RKBA.

However, not getting training voluntarily to exercise the Right is foolish—and should be a consideration at any civil or criminal trial when a firearm is misused.
So I dont put words in your mouth.

Your saying that anyone carrying a gun should be able to document to a courts satisfaction that they have taken firearm training should they wind up in court on a firearms charge?


As to police , a dept could I think constitutionally require a certain proficiency with firearms before hiring a person and if the person can't, not hire them,. but I don't believe it has the right to require training.
A cop is first a citizen with the absolute right to be armed.

Teachers have the right to carry a gun on the job by virtue of simply being a person not locked up.
 
Last edited:

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,525
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
No, I am saying that it is a reasonable question to be answered, during a civil or criminal trial resulting misuse of a firearm, whether or not the defendant was trained in the use of the firearm.

If the defendant had no training at all, that fact is relevant when determining negligence.
 

Ghost1958

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2015
Messages
1,255
Location
Kentucky
No, I am saying that it is a reasonable question to be answered, during a civil or criminal trial resulting misuse of a firearm, whether or not the defendant was trained in the use of the firearm.

If the defendant had no training at all, that fact is relevant when determining negligence.
How would it be relevant?

It's unconstititonal to require training with a firearm.
Since the person broke no law or requirement how would it be relevant for a court to consider that one failed to do something not required of them to do? And frankly is a matter of opinion and nothing more.
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,525
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
Rights carry with them responsibilities.

I know I will not convince you of this. However, my replies are meant to sway those who are reading, but not participating in the discussion. I believe that my posts so far have accomplished this, so thanks for the discussion.
 
Top