Armed Ohio teachers
Hondo sends us a link from Fox News which reports that more than 40 school districts in Ohio have given their permission for teachers and school administrators to be armed in their schools in order to protect students from criminals. In addition to thier licensing for concealed carry, the educators attended a special course designed specifically for them. The additional training includes medical training;
Teachers who recently took part in the program were taught not only about gun safety and use, but were taught paramedic skills and how to react to active shooter situations, according to WKRC in Cincinnati. Teachers and administrators trained side-by-side with local cops and paramedics at the Tactical Defense Institute in West Union, located in Adams County.
The training entailed practice scenarios in which the armed protector must find and subdue the threat as students flee a classroom. In addition to the combat training, those who attended the exercise were also given combat casualty training where they learned how to treat injuries at the scene with bandages and a tourniquet.
Observing the training has changed some minds about their opposition to the practice according to WKRC;
Jeff Corder is a veteran deputy and firefighter. Now a school resource officer in a different county, Corder came into the training adamantly opposed to teachers carrying guns in his school. He said, “I knew I had a gun in the building and I’m a uniformed officer in the building and I didn’t want to worry about who else had them. I’m leaving here today to talk with the superintendent and say we need to look at this.” Corder says the intensive training changed his mind, “If they get through a program like this it’s a total win win.”
As long as many anti-gunners are opposed to tightening background checks to weed out the types of people who feel the need to kill large numbers of people, this is a common sense reaction.
Category: Guns
THAT is a good thing!
“more than 40 school districts in Ohio have given their permission ”
Gee, Wally, how nice of them.
Yes, I know, it’s a big step in the right direction of changing hearts and minds within the school hierarchy. But I can’t help but snarc at this “giving permission” of an inalienable right.
NO ONE needs permission! It’s the 2nd amendment!!
Buckets full of existing laws were broken during the execution of publicized mass shootings in the past. More laws aren’t the answer, fewer “Gun-Free Zones” will lessen the number of locations that sickos will choose as their targets.
You know, when I went to grade school and high school, the idea of someone walking into your school and shooting up the classrooms was unheard of.
I’m glad to see some common sense arising about protecting students, and to know that these teachers are getting proper training. I think this is a good idea.
But I also think it would be a very good idea to take a hard, close look at what starts these shooters on a rampage in the first place. Like I said, it never used to happen. So what changed?
What changed?
Stank-Ass Hippie reproduction rates after the morning wake and bake.
No.
Yes.
It wasn’t actually unheard of. The first know mass school shooting in America occurred in 1764.
We have no reliable data prior to 1976 but mass shootings were happening in the US before that.
There absolutely does seem to be a huge rise in mass shootings since the 1970s but since that is when we started implementing better crime tracking it is hard to determine how much of the rise is an actual increase and how much is just better tracking.
Although their has definitely been a rise.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_school_shootings_in_the_United_States
Full of it, once again. In the 1764 Enoch Brown school massacre, only the teacher was shot. The nine children killed were tomahawked and scalped. That hardly qualifies as a “mass shooting”.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enoch_Brown_school_massacre
That particular massacre was also a hostile act during the Pontiac War vice a peacetime “mass shooting”.
Sheesh. Don’t you EVER check the talking points you’re fed by your leftist compadres before regurgitating the BS they fed you here?
competence and leftism are mutually exclusive.
My high school had this strange thing called hunter safety classes. I know, it was odd that they would actually teach children about guns, but it happened. Also, every truck had a rifle rack in the window that had at least one gun. Even though there were several fights between idiot teenagers, there were no school shootings. Oh, and the trucks also had ammunition in them because hunting season.
What causes school shootings? Well, it isn’t the guns. It’s people. If you want to prevent school shootings, educate the people and teach them how to defend themselves. You don’t just post “no wolves allowed” on the sheep pens, you let the sheepdogs off the leash.
When I was a lad, we brought our shotguns (cased) to school and put them in the coat room. After school we went to the range for trap league.
Sometime in the 60’s-70’s the libs thought it a good idea to mainstream the loonies. That didn’t help one damn bit. A whole bunch of the shooters in target rich environments (gun free zones) have been on some heavy duty drugs (or should have been).
School perimeters weren’t surrounded by “Gun-Free Zone” signs back then, or were they? I remember when high schoolers in small towns would go to school with shotguns or rifles tucked away in their cars and trucks which they’d go hunting with after school was out for the day, no shootings back then! Time was when some students would take rifles to school with them because they were part of the school’s Rifle Team!
Well, since I was referring to the 20th century, not ancient history, then yes, some of the juniors and seniors at my high school drove pickups with gun racks to school and went hunting after classes, unless they had football or basketball practice.
And since lards, who is stalking me now, can’t distinguish between Lenape tribesmen and white settlers, he left out the fact that it was part of Pontiac’s Rebellion.
One teacher shooting another teacher is not a mass shooting, nor is a boys’ school pistol-dropping accident a mass shooting, especially not when shooting was part of the curriculum.
In fact, the majority of the 20th century shootings seem to have been gang-related and took place in large cities, OR were disgruntled students going after teachers or school officials. The uptick in that kind of thing happened starting in the 1980s.
It did NOT happen at any of the schools I went to, not grade school,
junior high, or high school. But then, I went to schools that were populated by civilized people who weren’t bent on revenge for perceived slights.
Also, schools that had some form of firearms education. Didn’t matter if it was in school (shooting clubs) or out of school (hunter safety courses), it was educating people about how to be safe and properly use a firearm.
People would rather point to gang-related crimes as “school shootings.” They’d rather look at the shootings as if they were out of the blue, when the fact was they were crime-related. It wasn’t an innocent child, but a youth who learned that there was no punishment for their actions thanks to being shielded by society.
People raised knowing that actions have consequences don’t commit crimes. It’s the people who are raised thinking that it’s never their fault that cause the problems.
Been a lot of career high school students beating up/representing on teachers in school. At some point a teacher is not going to be the victim and its going hit the fan like Bernath in a corn field.
That’s what the fuck I’m talkin’ about right there.
“As long as many anti-gunners are opposed to tightening background checks to weed out the types of people who feel the need to kill large numbers of people”
This makes no sense, it is not the anti-gun lobby that is opposed to tightening background checks.
Mornin Lars.
Good morning.
Bull. The anti-gun lobby also virtually unanimously supports the “rights of the mentally disturbed” – bigtime.
Your political allies have made it virtually impossible in many (if not all) “blue” states to have someone who is obviously seriously mentally disturbed or insane involuntarily committed until after they commit a violent act. For an example see Lanza, Adam – whose own mother was attempting, without success, to have him involuntarily committed at the time of his rampage.
Those who have been involuntarily committed cannot in general legally purchase a firearm.
Even someone as dull as yourself should be able to make that connection. But if you’re too thick – or too mentally lazy to work it out for yourself – I’ll be happy to spell it out for you.
We are talking about tightening background checks, which the anti-gun lobby does not oppose.
And the anti-gun lobby are not the same damn demographic that opposes involuntary commitment.
Libertarians oppose involuntary commitment and they are staunchly ant-background check.
If you want to discuss involuntary commitment we can. We can even discuss the effect of laws making it more difficult to involuntarily commit someone on the effectiveness of background checks.
But tightening background checks is a separate issue and the politics involved and where political groups stand on it is very different.
Once again, Taylor, your lack of basic reading comprehension is showing.
The fact that libertarians are in general against involuntary commitment may or may not be true. It is also irrelevant to this discussion, as libertarians of today had nothing to do with the passage of laws limiting involuntary commitment. That was done by the political left decades ago.
The laws making it difficult to involuntarily commit someone are not new. They date in general from the 1960s and 1970s.
Those laws also were indeed passed by the leftist/libidiot end of the political spectrum. In most cases, they were instituted in conjunction with deinstitutionalization of the mentally ill that occurred at about the same time or shortly before.
The leftist/libidiot political wing who passed those laws is exactly the same group who today push for gun control.
Next time, bother to read what the comment actually says vice what you want it to say.
You keep trying to deflect and make this about involuntary commitments.
The anti-gun lobby and those opposing involuntary commitments are NOT THE SAME.
And involuntary commitments are tangential to the question of who opposes tighter background checks.
Actually, they are.
Those who oppose involuntary commitment in general today form a superset containing the group that is in favor of gun control. Ergo, those supporting gun control indeed in general oppose involuntary commitment. They just have some additional support from outside their group.
If you need me to explain the concept of “superset”, let me know.
Well stated, Hondo.
Your saying it does not make it true. But we already knew that.
Idiot.
The fools who forced persons ill equipped to take care of themselves onto the streets, where many of them died pretty horrid deaths, are exactly the same as those who oppose normal, sane people defending themselves today.
And the political question of involuntary commitments has not been a singular policy issue with clear lines.
There was a time when involuntary commitments were used to commit women into institutions based entirely on their husband’s statement.
It was strongly disadvantageous to women and was opposed by women’s rights groups.
There were also abuses of patients opposed by patient rights groups.
Their were issues concerning the abandonment of children opposed by family and child welfare groups.
Their were issues with funding for lifetime care of individuals taken up by groups concerned with fiscal spending
There were groups opposed to spending on the mass mental health infrastructure that once existed in this country.
In fact Reagan was a huge opponent of maintaining mental health facilities and spending to care for so many patients.
And yes, libertarians are almost by definition opposed to involuntary commitment while being opposed to gun control at the same time. If you want to argue that point then you do not understand what a libertarian is.
Sure there are soft libertarians out their that would not oppose gun controls or involuntary commitment but as a political demographic and as a lobbying/think tank interest group libertarians are strongly opposed to forced commitment.
I not a singular policy issue. And it does not have a singular political demographic on either side of the issue.
And it definitely does not share the same political demographic divisions as tightening background checks.
Lars – “Their were issues with funding for lifetime care of individuals taken up by groups concerned with fiscal spending”
How is this different than some of the welfare crowd? I’ve never been more pissed than when I saw a woman at a 7/11 weighing a minimum of 350 pounds, talking on a brand new iPhone, driving that year’s pimped out car model, than when she whipped out food stamps and told the clerk to hurry so she could feed her children. I can imagine where the money in that family’s going and it sure as hell isn’t her kids.
You realize most libertarians are actually pro-gun right? Starting to bet you’re an anti-vaxxer as disconnected from reality as you are.
Theeen again, you are arguing that everyone is automatically arguing for, “Instant lock ups, no questions.” and not for things like, “Hey maybe the background check should check for, “Reported that the Leprechaun tells them to burn people” as part of a disqualification. (That’s Hyperbole sparky, it’s an extreme example intended to both make a point and be humorous. (PS. Humor is a thing that makes people laugh intentionally. ((PPS, you are funny, but you’re not humorous. Piss off like you keep saying you will.)))
The last time I checked, most anti gun types, while in favor of maintaining the rights of mentally disturbed and challenged individuals, were not in favor of arming them. Doesn’t make much sense to allow crazies to arm whilst denying others…
yeah the mental gymnastics being displayed to argue that liberals oppose disarming psychologically unstable individuals makes my head hurt.
However, the laws passed by liberals in the 1960s and 1970s have indeed had the effect of allowing numerous mentally unstable people to legally acquire firearms who previously would have been involuntarily committed and thus legally prohibited from acquiring them. Further, liberals routinely oppose changing those laws to allow easier involuntary commitment for the obviously mentally disturbed prior to their commission of a violent act.
Can’t have it both ways, folks. If you want to allow the mentally disturbed to live among us out of respect for their “rights”, you have to accept the responsibility for the fact that some in that group will acquire arms (never involuntarily committed, so no legal prohibition) and commit violent acts.
The political left made that choice. Sorry if you don’t like the results.
“The National Alliance on Mental Illness and the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Administration caution against creating special laws aimed at the mentally ill, including laws related to gun violence. SAMHSA indicated that subjecting the mentally ill to extra scrutiny perpetuates the misconception that the mentally ill are especially violent. This stigma, mental health professionals warn, increases the tendency of the mentally ill to avoid treatment and counseling.”
Let me translate that into plain language:
“Pay no attention to the fact that he’s batsh!t crazy. That shouldn’t matter when it comes to firearms ownership. He should face the same scrutiny as anyone else.”
You buy that BS, and I have this bridge for sale . . . .
“yeah the mental gymnastics being displayed to argue that liberals oppose disarming psychologically unstable individuals makes my head hurt.”
Your head must have exploded when contemplating the Affordable Care Act that was supposed to fix healthcare. It is quite clear to me that it was designed to make things worse, with the ultimate goal of a single payer system coming into existence.
There’s a parallel there. Let me know if I have to spell it out for you, again.
Lars, read:
http://mic.com/articles/22802/gun-control-facts-existing-gun-laws-would-reduce-crime-but-these-are-not-enforced#.RIeGduopQ
There’s other data out there, but you’ll have to google it yourself. Go SIGINT!
Obama does not spend this money. Obama’s administration does not spend this money.
Congress allocates funding and authorizes spending.
The house and senate appropriations committees must follow through and states must request the funds.
And these efforts are being blocked through political influence by NRA lobbyists.
http://www.thetrace.org/2015/07/nics-background-check-congress-spending/
The current
DC clown kreweAdministration does, however, control Federal prosecutions. From the article GDContractor cited:Lying on that particular form is a felony. Seems to me that would be a good place to start – if the Administration was serious about actually protecting the public.
Those numbers are not entirely accurate. They only includes the federal prosecutions. I cannot find the 2009 numbers to verify anything in the article but a similar claim made about 2010 numbers was revealed to have left out the state and local prosecutions which numbered at least 1500 (plea deals and inaccurate reporting may have left many more off the statistic).
However, it does appear that it is mostly true that their are insufficient prosecutions. According to the 2010 data most of those “lies” were likely omissions which are harder to prosecute.
The position of the Justice Department is that it is due to funding and manpower constraints.
Probably also mostly true. Though it would be nice if the Justice department stopped going after marijuana in states that have legalized to US to free up resources to go after people trying to get firearms illegally.
Again, it is not one party to blame. Obama could instruct the justice department to make these prosecutions a priority and let other crimes go unpunished.
States and local authorities could do the same thing.
I imagine there are a great many local agencies that simply do not pursue this at all.
I know when I was a cop that most crimes were left to local and state agencies even if the feds could prosecute. They just did not bother to take the case unless it reached a certain threshold. I suspect the feds only prosecute those background check cases that reach a specific threshold of blatant abuse or ommission or attempt to buy several weapons through several instances of lying/ommitting required information.
State prosecutions are irrelevant in this context. The same act may violate both state and Federal law. The fact that a state may elect to prosecute has no effect whatsoever on whether the Federal government decides to prosecute for the separate Federal offense.
The fact that the Federal government, under this Administration, is prosecuting barely 0.1% of those caught lying on Federal firearms purchase paperwork indicates they don’t care about keeping firearms out of the hands of criminals (felons are prohibited) and those who have serious mental issues. If they did, they’d prosecute far more than about 1 in 922 such cases.
False. It does have an effect.
While both states and federal prosecutors can prosecute for the same offense if it violates both state and federal laws they almost never elect to do so.
So it has a huge effect. When I was a cop many large drug busts were left to the feds to prosecute, even when a fed was not involved int he bust, to save state resources on a large prosecution and the feds did not bother prosecuting small busts even when a fed was involved with the bust, they just let local agencies handle it.
During years congress has been democratic controlled funding for the NICS has steadily increased.
However, appropriations committees have not been releasing the funds.
The article GDContractor cites gives authorization and appropriations figures for FYs 2009, 2010, and 2011.
Wanna guess which party controlled BOTH houses of Congress from Jan 2007- Jan 2011 – or when the FY2009/2010/2011 appropriations were approved?
Yeah, but it is not as simple as “how controls congress”.
Who controls congress explains the funding but not the spending. (which increased).
There is too many place for the fund not to be spent to blame one party.
Just like when a unit does not spend its funds.
When I am trying to figure out is where the break down is occurring. The article I linked indicates the appropriations committees are part of the problem. But I am not able to find data on the voting.
Or what the appropriations committees act on. Do they only act if there is a grant request by states? or do they appropriate some funds even if the states to no request them.
I cannot find that data.
So far looks like both parties are being shitbags but I am not sure which politicians and at which level.
*who* controls congress.
The fact is it is being funded, and the funding has been increasing.
What I can’t figure out so far, is why isn’t it being spent.
Ultimately it is the states who are supposed to be spending this money. But I am not able to find all the steps or parties involved in that process.
Some states are spending the money well others are not. But even that does not fall across typical party lines. Many conservative southern states and liberal western and North Eastern states are spending while midwestern and central states tend not to be
But even that does not make it clear where the breakdown is occurring.
Taylor, are you really that thick?
Authorizations and appropriations are two different actions by Congress. In general, both are required before money can be lawfully spent by the Federal government.
Congressional authorizations give the legal authority to spend Federal money. They do not actually provide any $$$.
Appropriations, in contrast, provide the $$$. You need both an authorization and an appropriation – e.g., the formal permission to spend, plus the actual $$$ to pay – in order to spend Federal money lawfully.
If Congress has authorized $100M for project X, but only $10M is appropriated in the corresponding appropriations bill, the maximum that may legally be spent is $10M. Spend a penny more than that, you have a violation of the Anti-Deficiency Act.
If Congress is appropriating less than was authorized for NICS, then the lesser amount is all that can can be lawfully spent by the Federal government to support that project. Period.
That is precisely what the article said was happening. Specifically, far less money was appropriated to support NICS for 3 years running (FY2009/2010/2011) than had been authorized in the corresponding authorization bill.
Talk to the party that was in control of Congress at the time if you want answers. They controlled both the appropriations and the authorizations during those years. And for at least 2 if not all 3 of those years, they also controlled the White House.
Anti-gunners are opposed to tightening background checks on criminals. They want to strengthen background checks on legitimate gun owners instead. They don’t want to keep the Loughners and Lanzas from buying guns, otherwise they would. Gun registration has nothing to do with crime prevention, but that seems to be the focus of the Senators who are writing that legislation.
Did you read this before you posted? Honestly? The last time I checked, most anti gun types, while in favor of maintaining the civil rights of criminals and other unsavory characters, were not in favor of arming them. Doesn’t make much sense to allow criminals and crazies to arm whilst denying others…
JohnE: the DoJ under the current Administration prosecutes barely 0.1% of those caught lying on Federal firearms purchase paperwork. Look at that fact, then you tell me if they’re serious about deterring firearms possession by criminals and the mentally ill or not.
Furthermore, in the Fast and Furious case, the DOJ did not cite “lack of funding” for not prosecuting a slam-dunk straw purchase.
In an administration that proudly selectively enforces laws across the entire spectrum and proudly creates law (phone and pen),the notion that they cannot act due to “funding” doesn’t pass my smell test. But yeah, I know… it’s complicated. Nowadays, it is always complicated.
Nuanced. The word is nuanced. Complicated sounds like it’s too tough for the genius. Nuanced. Most of the knuckleheads who put him in office and then compounded their error by returning him to office do not know what the word means. And if they think they know, they are wrong. It is a term of art used to cloak a screw-up, usually, but not exclusively,in diplomatic parlance.
So your implication is that the DoJ wants all the nutjobs and criminals to have weapons and not Joe Lawabiding? To what end?
Honestly, I know everyone here hates Obama and wants to blame him for everything from acne to your first divorce, but really, lets not be silly.
The multi billion $$ arms industry and its sock puppet the NRA that want guns and ammo on every street corner and in every hand. The NRA that opposes gun regulation of any kind. The NRA that since I was a kid and learned safe, sane and competent marksmanship has completely gone off the rails and embraces all kinds of extremist weirdness…
I didn’t say above that “DoJ wants all the nutjobs and criminals to have weapons and not Joe Lawabiding” – and you know damn well I didn’t. Not even a nice try, fella.
What I said above – very clearly – was that the available evidence indicates that DoJ today doesn’t seem particularly serious about preventing criminals and loons from possessing firearms. That’s all.
Regarding the NRA and firearms ownership: it’s still a free country, and you’re entitled to your opinion about the NRA. My opinion is that you’re out to lunch.
My take on it is that the NRA simply wants everyone who hasn’t had their rights curtailed via due process of law to be allowed to exercise their Constitutional right of firearms ownership, should they choose to do so. You got a problem with that, start a petition to amend the Constitution to change the 2nd Amendment. However, pardon me if I don’t hold my breath worrying about any such amendment passing.
No, the gun-controllers want NO ONE to have a gun (it is called “total control”. They pass silly laws like universal background checks to pursue that end, knowing full well that criminals by definition aren’t affected. But if they can make it that much more difficult and a pain in the ass for legitimate citizens to acquire a gun for any reason, they’re happy.
Okay, Lars, since you apparently need a preschool-level clarification, here ya go. For all their talk of background checks and nonexistent loopholes, the libs in this equation have done their damndest to make those checks ineffective. As seen with the Colorado theater shooter and the asshole who shot Gabby Giffords, background checks won’t find anything if nobody ever reported the fucker’s instability. Between insisting that nobody is actually mentally defective, the erroneous belief that reporting potentially violent instability violates HIPAA, and the lack of personal consequences for health- and mental care professionals who fail to report properly, they’ve pulled the teeth from NICS. Background checks were run on Loughner and Holmes through NICS when they purchased their weapons. Both came back clean because the shrinks who considered them dangerous never reported them as such. Those fine upstanding professionals should at least get hit with Accessory to Murder charges, if not Neglient Homicide, for every one of those shitbags’ victims. And before you start with the “just misunderstood” or “need help” bleeding-heart crap, thinking it’s cool to murder a bunch of innocent people for no good reason is a FUCKING MENTAL DEFECT. Individuals who think that way are MENTALLY DEFECTIVE. Oh, by the way, since you’re accusing Hondo of deflecting the question (he’s not), what was up with the “Road House” reference yesterday? You didn’t get the reference (your Man Card eligibility can be discussed at a later date–seriously, who the fuck hasn’t seen “Roadhouse?” That’s like claiming the new “Red Dawn” was better than the original, fucking bullshit…) and claimed Dave Hardin was admitting to being an ex-con and rapist (he’s not). In doing so, you made quite the ass of yourself. Then, rather than admitting you didn’t get it, you started arguing that he didn’t reference it, he “channeled” it, which is weird argument to make when the original reference went right over your head. It seems you have a problem admitting that you could possibly be wrong about anything, even when it’s pretty obvious that you are (and that it’s a rather trivial thing that you could easily… Read more »
How does one go about “tightening background checks”?
I wonder if any of these armed schools are Amish. That would be interesting. They have to be self aware of their soft target status, one would think.
What goes clip clop, clip clop, BANG! clip clop, clip clop…
An Amish drive by shooting.
It is great that teachers and administrators are armed in school. The hand wringers and teeth gnashers are howling about it, asking (they think rhetorically) what sort of message this sends to the children. The message is that guns are not bad, that guns are tools to be used to protect lives, and that among their teachers and administrators are people who are willing to do armed battle, if need be, to protect the school kids and one another. It also sends a message to those who choose to enter schools to kill rather than, say, a police station to kill. The odds just changed, at least in some Ohio schools.
Just a wild guess here, but we can expect the incidence of violence to dramatically drop in those school districts which now have armed adults in their schools.
Yeah, that’s a wild and crazy guess, OWB. I mean, what would-be killer wouldn’t enter such a place to work his evil knowing he might be shot before he succeeds at using his gun or knife? Heck, there just might be a line forming now to get inside one of those schools but there is no way the schools w/o armed folks will be targeted, right? LOL.
Maybe some lib newspaper will print a list of all the schools that are armed and, by omission, all the schools that aren’t. That would be their typical move… dumbasses.
Hey I heard gun sales and ammo sales keep going up. It just doesn’t make sense.
Posting signs that say “no wolves allowed” does not protect the sheep. Only by unleashing the sheepdogs can you protect the sheep. These school districts have unleashed the sheepdogs.
Oh, and Lars, there is a difference between a wolf and a sheepdog. While both are canine and enjoy the taste of meat, sheepdogs are trained and disciplined to protect the flock.
I’ll just point out that bleeding control and tourniquets are not paramedic-level EMS skills. They’re First Responder (below basic EMT) level. Paramedic skills would be things like endotracheal intubation, IVs, interosseous injections, drug administration with or without base hospital contact, and EKG monitoring. The medical interventions they’re learning, which are very useful and good to know, are taught to Boy Scouts.
From the article: “In one scenario the armed protector must quickly find and neutralize the bad guy as terrified students run out of a classroom.”
I don’t understand this. We are telling teachers that instead of protecting and “falling back” with their students, they must aggressively go after the shooter? A shooter that may very well and probably likely to be more heavily armed than the teacher?
I am all for allowing teachers and staff to be armed, but that part of the training is puzzling to me as it seems to put more people at risk and leave people unprotected. I thought the idea of allowing people to carry is to reduce risk and protect students and others. Going after the bad guy as a standard course of action may not be the best thing IMHO.