You only need to be a better shot than your opponent.

[Plane]

http://extras.denverpost.com/news/col1123b.htm

The Jefferson County sheriff's deputy who traded gunshots with Eric Harris in the opening moments of the Columbine massacre was not wearing his prescription eyeglasses, according to records unsealed this week.

That Neil Gardner was instead wearing non-prescription sunglasses while firing at a target 60 or 70 yards away could become an issue in negligence lawsuits filed by victims' families against the sheriff's department.

Might Gardner have had a better chance of hitting Harris if he'd been wearing his glasses? When the two traded shots, 11 of the 13 people killed by Harris and Dylan Klebold were still alive.

"If his vision is 20/30, no big deal," said James Rouse, an attorney who represents six families. "If it's 20/300, what's he doing shooting a gun?"

[kimba1]

Hmm
60 yards?

I can't see beyond two yards and I'm a better shot without my glasses. I concentrate more when it blurry.

This might not seem straight forward

[Plane]

I definately shoot better with glasses.

I have never had occasion to shoot without prior planning , so my personal experience doesn't apply.

[Xavier_Onassis]

It is ridiculous to sue the police for not wearing glasses. It was an emergency.

[BT]

It is ridiculous to sue the police for not wearing glasses. It was an emergency.

bingo

[sirs]

 

[kimba1]

I just reread the article
He doesn't need glasses to drive and he can see 60 yards to give a description of the shooter.

.?

[Plane]

It is ridiculous to sue the police for not wearing glasses. It was an emergency.

bingo

I agree too.

The wartime experience is that many rounds are fired for each wound.
Aiming well while being shot at is apparently very difficult.

[Plane]

NRA: Public wants armed guards in every schoolhttp://start.toshiba.com/news/read.php?id=19356591&ps=1011&srce=news_class&action=3&lang=en&_LT=UNLC_USNWU00L3_UNEWS

By KEVIN FREKING Associated Press The Associated Press

Sunday, December 23, 2012 11:32 AM EST



Is air marshal program a model for schools?

http://start.toshiba.com/news/read.php?id=19356629&ps=1011&srce=news_class&action=5&lang=en&_LT=UNLC_USNWU00L5_UNEWS





 





WASHINGTON (AP) — The National Rifle Association on Sunday forcefully stuck to its call for placing armed police officers and security guards in every school as the best way to avoid shootings such as the recent massacre at an elementary school in Newtown, Conn.

Wayne LaPierre, CEO of the largest gun rights lobbying organization, said the NRA would push Congress to pay for more school security guards and would coordinate a national effort to put former military and police offers in schools as volunteer guards.

"If it's crazy to call for putting police and armed security in our schools to protect our children, then call me crazy," LaPierre said in a broadcast interview. "I think the American people think it's crazy not to do it. It's the one thing that would keep people safe."

[kimba1]

Volunteer?

Does that mean no pay??

Kind of doubt thier are that many available anyway

[Plane]

Volunteer?

Does that mean no pay??

Kind of doubt thier are that many available anyway

Most of those children have grandparents.

How many schools would there be that would not have retired Army , Police or first responder persons in the pool of grandparents?

If it were my duty to secure a schoolyard I would hire one well trained guard and ask for as many volenteers to supplement him as possible . The dutys of the one well trained hired guard would include opening the school , closing it , patrolling it and training his volenteer assistants.

The potential pool of volenteers is huge , proper training for the job might be the only scarcity.

[Xavier_Onassis]

There is not an air marshal on every plane. There may be one,but often there is none.
Since they do not identify themselves, you cannot be too sure.

I don't think volunteers are an answer.

[Plane]

There is not an air marshal on every plane. There may be one,but often there is none.
Since they do not identify themselves, you cannot be too sure.

I don't think volunteers are an answer.

Why not?

[Xavier_Onassis]

Because when one is a volunteer, and one feels like staying home or taking the day off, one stays home and takes the day off. Volunteering on a regular daily basis would not guarantee either attendance or professionalism.

If you have 100 volunteers, 20 will do 80% of the work, and 80 will do 20%, and some will just take the job to avoid boredom and nagging wives.

[Plane]

Volenteers get a lot done.
There is a lot of experience in organising volenteers in the USA.

Employees have a certain rate of absenteeism perhaps volenteers a bit more , so why not have both?

The professional can have specific training during school breaks , and the volenteers can have training from the professional during class time.

The more people are involved , the easyer it would be to give one or two a day off.

If I had to I would give great recognition to the most effective , and the frequently absent would have less recognition.

Once my SPO was having trouble with too much sick leave being taken , so at the annual picnick they gave recognition and a cool hat to the few guys that had taken Zero sick leave that year.

A few years later they quit giving the recognition, they couldn't afford the hats.