Teachers - the Last Line of Defense for Schools

The civilian AR-15, which has been labeled “an assault rifle,” is a semi-automatic rifle. During WWII, the U.S. produced about 5.4 million M1s, and 6.1 million M1 carbines.

Banning the AR-15 won’t eliminate semi-automatic rifles. Wikipedia lists all the mass murders that have occurred in U.S. schools. In 1940, there were 5 deaths at a Pasadena, Calif. school.

There were no further mass killings at any U.S. school until 1966, when five were killed at a Mesa, Ariz., school. Yet during that entire time, semi-automatic weapons were plentiful.


In the 1950s things were different. I never once as a boy even imagined that someone would enter my school with a gun and start killing. We left the back door to our house unlocked from morning until night.

Something has changed. Since 2005, there have been a dozen terrible school mass shootings. Some people blame “assault rifles.” Others, the National Rifle Association. Some, inadequate mental health registries. Others, video game creators, Hollywood, and television for glamorizing violence.

Word limits preclude me from attempting to assign blame here. My sole purpose is to suggest at least one concrete step that must be taken to prevent the next such massacre.

President Donald Trump, the NRA, and others have suggested allowing some teachers or other school personnel to carry guns after proper training. Others, including U.S. Rep. Cheri Bustos, disagree.

Opponents’ reasons include:

— There should never be a gun in a school;

— Teachers and administrators don’t want to carry guns;

--- Teachers and administrators may be mentally unstable, and may use their gun to perpetrate a school shooting;

— They lack the training or experience to safely and properly carry concealed. They may panic and fire into a group of children;

— Even if they have a gun, they might be in a remote part of the school and unable to confront the gunman;

--- Even with training, might lack the courage to confront a school shooter;

— Police are better trained and should be left to handle such situations;

— It may be traumatic for the kids to know that some teachers carry guns.

I would agree with the abstract proposition that there “never should be a gun in a school.” But when a gunman barges in, intent on being a “professional school shooter,” all wishful thinking goes out the window.

I want guns there to stop him before he can kill a single child or teacher.

The claim that teachers don’t want to carry guns is not entirely accurate. After the Parkland shooting, the sheriff of Butler County, Ohio offered to train 50 teachers. More than 50 teachers took up his offer within 20 minutes.

It is argued that teachers may be “mentally unstable.” If so, why are they being allowed to teach? Shouldn’t the school administration have the right to decide if a teacher is sufficiently stable to teach? To carry? Are teachers less stable than police officers? Have any police officers perpetrated a school shooting?

Some claim teachers are not properly trained to use firearms. But the essence of the president’s proposal is that they be properly trained before they are allowed to carry.

A quintessential point of NRA firearms training is that you don’t fire a gun unless you have a clear shot. You don’t shoot at a turkey surrounded by children. A teacher in even a remote part of the school can probably get to the would-be shooter in a minute or less. History shows, responding officers can’t. Moreover, a teacher will know the layout and students better than any responding officer.

Will a teacher have the courage to confront an armed intruder? Didn’t an unarmed coach put himself between the Parkland shooter and his student targets? Didn’t the county deputy take cover outside the school, rather than confront the shooter?

Clearly, the police are better trained to confront such situations. But they can’t until they arrive. Department of Homeland Security research reveals that the average duration of an active school shooter incident” is 12.5 minutes. The average response time for law enforcement is 18 minutes.

Will students really be traumatized to learn some of their teachers are armed to protect them from would-be school shooters? Wouldn’t they be more traumatized knowing that no one will be able to protect them during the first 18 minutes?

Willing and properly trained school personnel—with authorization of the school administration—should form the last line of defense—not the first. Particularly, where fiscal or other considerations preclude having a sufficient number of police officers on site.



Posted: QCOline.com March 22, 2018
Copyright 2018, John Donald O'Shea

Some Negative Ads Justified, Let Voters Decide Truth

Republican Gov. Bruce Rauner has been running negative ads. So has GOP opponent Rep. Jeanne Ives.

Our federal and state constitutions, first and foremost, protect political speech—even devastating speech—and leave it to the voters to ferret out lies and reject dishonest politicians.

I have never been against all negative political ads. I do, however reprobate those that intentionally misrepresent an opponent’s position, and/or lie about the opposing candidate.

But if the opposing candidate lies, or promises voters he will do one thing, only to do the opposite, I am in favor of any negative ads that truthfully demonstrate that conduct.

Two Gov. Rauner ads attack Rep. Ives, his gubernatorial primary opponent. Both are unarguably negative. But are either truthful? Substantially truthful?

The governor’s first TV ad begins with grainy, unflattering photos of Ives. Why? Is that how she really looks? Next it calls Ives “another Madigan lackey” for refusing to call Democratic House Speaker Michael Madigan a crook (apparently as Gov. Rauner has been doing).

It concludes by claiming Ives supports Madigan’s Illinois income tax increase because when asked if she would repeal it, she truthfully answered that no governor can repeal a tax law on her own; only the Legislature can repeal a tax. Gov. Rauner knows that.

From beginning to end, this is an untruthful negative ad. It is intended to place Rep. Ives in a false light.

Gov. Rauner’s second negative ad says, “Jeanne Ives took thousands from a shady labor union tied to Mike Madigan. She voted against increasing your property tax exemption. Now, she’s criticizing Bruce Rauner for calling Mike Madigan a crook, brags about Madigan voting for her bills and complains Rauner is ‘picking on Madigan.’ Let’s recap. Jeanne Ives was for higher taxes, took shady money from Madigan’s cronies and now defends and defers to Madigan. Jeanne Ives might just be Mike Madigan’s favorite Republican and Illinois’ worst nightmare.”

What union? What exemption did she vote against? What higher taxes did she support. How is she Madigan’s lackey? Proof, please!

The governor, no doubt, feels justified. Rep. Ives ran a negative ad captioned, “Thank you, Bruce Rauner.” The Chicago Tribune criticized it as “racist, sexist and homophobic.” But does it tell the truth?


Ives refuses to pull the ad arguing that it “exposes Rauner’s betrayal of GOP voters.” The ad is clearly designed to spotlight Gov. Rauner’s alleged betrayal of his base. The people in the ad are obvious caricatures—exaggerations—created to burlesque Gov. Rauner’s alleged sellout of his Republican base by approving five bills.

First, a man dressed as a woman says, “Thank you, for signing legislation that lets me use the girl’s bathroom.”

Next, a young woman in a strange pink hat says, “Thank you, for making all Illinois families pay for my abortions.” 

Then, an African-American woman wearing a Chicago Teachers Union shirt, says, “Thank you for making the rest of the state bail out city public schools and teachers’ pensions.”

Next a guy wearing a black-hooded sweatshirt and a red handkerchief over his face says, “Thank you Bruce Rauner for opposing law-enforcement and making Illinois a Sanctuary State for illegal immigrant criminals.”

The ad goes on to thank Gov. Rauner for bailing out Exelon at taxpayer expense.

It then shows a copy of conservative National Review, labeling Gov. Rauner, “The Worst Republican Governor in America.”

The ad concludes by calling the governor “Benedict Rauner” (as in “Benedict Arnold”).

So are Jeanne Ive’s claims true? Substantially true? If so, Ives has the right to stand by her ad. However, if the voters judge her speech to be “racist, sexist and homophobic,” rather than “devastating political speech,” they can decide she’s not deserving of their votes.

A politician worthy of election doesn’t seek to shut down political speech. He engages in truthful counter-speech. The voter gets to decide where the truth lies.

(Before seeing Gov. Rauner’s ads, I had taken no notice of Jeanne Ives, nor seen her ad. I knew only that she was a state rep, running for Governor, and a former West Pointer.)

Posted: QCOline.com March 15, 2018
Copyright 2018, John Donald O'Shea

A Tool to Prevent School Shootings

There has been another murderous school shooting. This time in Parkland, Fla.

But this time the advance warnings to the police and FBI were so clear that something could and should have been done to stop it.

I propose a new criminal offense to clearly cover such situations. Here’s why. Traditionally, people come into our criminal justice system only after they commit their crimes.

In general, we do not imprison people because they may eventually commit a crime. Our criminal law has its roots in the English common law. There, every crime had two elements: an intent element, and an act element.

For example, it is not enough that a homicide occurs. That homicide must also be accompanied with a wrongful intent: If while I am chopping wood with an ax, the head of the ax flies off and kills my neighbor, I am not guilty of murder. I had no wrongful intent to kill. There was an act of killing, but no wrongful intent to kill.

Over the centuries, however, given the presence of a wrongful intent, acts in preparation to committing a criminal offense have been criminalized. Given an intent to murder, acts in preparation of the murder have become criminal offenses, even thought the murder itself has not been committed.

This category of criminal offenses is known as the “inchoate offenses.” They include attempt, conspiracy and solicitation.

An “attempt” occurs when a person with intent to commit the principle offense, i.e., murder, robbery, burglary, takes a "substantial step" toward the commission of that offense. A intends to murder B. A pays $5,000 to C to have C kill B. Or A buys a gun for use in killing B.

“Conspiracy” is committed when X and Y agree to rob a bank, and one or more of the conspirators "acts in furtherance" of the conspiracy. The intent is found in the agreement to rob the back. The "act in furtherance" can occur when X purchases weapons to use in the robbery, or when Y acquires the get-away car.

A “solicitation” occurs when with intent that an offense will be committed, the solicitor commands, encourages, or requests another to commit that offense. 

In the case of the 19-year-old who murdered 17 people at the Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, it appears the murderer announced his intent on YouTube: “I’m going to be a professional school shooter.” He then apparently took a "substantial step" toward the shooting when he purchased the AR-15. Also, according to reports he further proclaimed his intent to “shoot people with his AR-15.” Because he apparently acted alone, he could not be charged with either conspiracy or solicitation. Both require at least two people. But why not "attempt?" Probably because the offense of attempt has never been applied to precisely this factual situation. Possibly because the penalties for attempt are not sufficiently severe to deter this sort of heinous conduct.

Nevertheless, "attempt" can serve as the model. I suggest that the time has come for Congress and state legislatures to create a criminal offense clearly applicable to the facts of this case.

Here’s my proposed statute:

“A person commits the offense of preparation to Commit Mass Murder and/or Great Bodily Harm’ when before the commission of such mass murder and/or great bodily harm he states, announces or otherwise communicates his intention to commit mass murder and/or great bodily harm orally, in writing, or otherwise and he does any "act in furtherance thereof, "or that constitutes a "substantial step" toward the commission of that offense.

“A person convicted of this offense shall be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 25 years to life, without possibility of parole or early release. The phrase ‘mass murder and/or great bodily harm’ would include murdering or inflicting great bodily harm on two or more persons at any school, church or other place of worship, pubic event, sporting event, or place of public accommodations where 10 or more people are or are reasonably expected to be present.

The term ‘substantial step’ would include but is not limited to, buying a gun, chemicals, biological elements, a vehicle, or a bomb or bomb making components consistent with the expressed intent, stated, announced or otherwise communicated intent of the person charged.

A person ‘otherwise communicates his intention’ when he writes it in his diary, records it on any media, or posts it on any social media, as well as when he tells anybody his intention, orally or in writing.”

Posted: QCOline.com March 6, 2018

Copyright 2018, John Donald O'Shea