Maine candidate: Fire extinguishers 'great deterrent' for guns
Source: The Hill
BY REID WILSON - 03/06/18 10:59 AM EST
A leading Republican contender running to be the next governor of Maine said in a radio interview Monday that teachers could use fire extinguishers to combat an active shooter in a school.
Shawn Moody, a state university system trustee who ran in 2010, told a radio interviewer he supports gun rights, and that the mental health system and law enforcement had failed to prevent the shootings at a Parkland, Fla., high school. But, he said, instead of passing new restrictions on gun rights, teachers could use fire extinguishers that are already in every school.
When you think about common sense things, practical things we could do like, right now, there are fire extinguishers, dry chemical fire extinguishers in every commercial building, school, almost within a hundred feet of wherever you are. And a fire extinguisher can be a great deterrent if somebody gets out of control, or somebody, if anything happens, a teacher, anybody, can break that glass, set the alarm off, grab that chemical fire extinguisher and spray it towards somebody. And Ill tell you right now that could put them to their knees, Moody said. Moodys campaign did not immediately respond to a request for additional comment.
Moody is one of five Republicans running to replace term-limited Gov. Paul LePage (R). A dozen candidates are running for the Democratic nomination.
###
Read more: http://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/376931-maine-candidate-fire-extinguishers-great-deterrent-for-guns
bucolic_frolic
(43,364 posts)He needs a psy evaluation every bit as much as Donald J. Trump
Dave Starsky
(5,914 posts)They didn't have these fancy A-B-C fire extinguishers back then.
Angry Dragon
(36,693 posts)C Moon
(12,221 posts)I guess because it wasn't backing teachers having guns.
Old Crank
(3,640 posts)code then there is a fire finisher every 75 feet.
If I had nothing else and was in the hall the dry chemical extinguisher wouldn't be a bad option.
I would first try to get around a corner and out of the line of fire.
mac56
(17,574 posts)Igel
(35,374 posts)We act like the alternative is all hunky-dory. "Teacher doesn't have a gun, everything'll be fine." But Stoneman was the consequence.
Here's how lock-down drills go where I work.
1. Problem's claimed to be identified: Armed intruder, shots fired.
2. Teachers pull every kid near their room into their room. They make sure the door's locked and cover any windows into the classroom. Kill the lights. Try to bar the door in some way--put stuff in front of it, tie the handle so it's hard to open.
3. Wait quietly until the all-clear's sounded.
If (3) wasn't going to happen because it wasn't a drill, we'd wait until either the killer was killed someplace else or until he picked my room's door and tried to get through. I'm not sure my teens would stay quiet. If he doesn't get through, then we wait until the killer is killed someplace else.
If he does get through, then we're 30 or so people, one middle-aged unarmed male and around 30 teens, against a killer who'll come in when he's ready, shooting at will. Right now I'd be holding whatever it was I could use to try to club or hurt him. Perhaps a meter stick. Perhaps a bottle of whiteboard fluid. Perhaps I'd have pulled a desk draw out of my desk to use it as a club. No, all of these sound really, really lame.
Now, if I were armed (let's say for the sake of argument I qualifed, was allowed, and wanted to be) then I could be sitting there aiming at the one way he has of getting into my room. I'm already at risk, there's no increased risk during this actual encounter, and he's brought the fight to me.
But if I'm out in the hall anyway rounding up students, it wouldn't hurt to grab a fire extinguisher. He doesn't have to actually get that far through the door or close to me for me to be able to slow him down. Sure, he's shooting and now we've pissed him off. But really, he's already coming at us with a gun to kill us, so that's not really a downside. Once he's got vision and breathing problems, that heavy metal thing would make a great object to smash his face or skull with.
Now, let's say I'm not armed.
We insist on trying to say that during a lock-down drill teachers are going to pour out of their classrooms, leaving their kids undefended, in order to shoot the guy. That's not where the fight usually is. In every school shooting, kids are easy targets in the hall and outside, but those targets typically vanish real quick and sometimes those killed or wounded aren't that large a number. Then the gunman goes into classrooms, which have one entrance, are fairly open, and stuffed with terrified students, and that's where the serious killing typically happens.
If I was stuck in a hall with no other options......
FSogol
(45,555 posts)before he lets loose with his beloved AR15!
Pew, pew, pew!
Make sure you think of something witty to say, like stick around, or that extinguishes you!
If I can just get around the corner!
Pew, pew, pew!
Dave Starsky
(5,914 posts)You know a lot about US fire codes for someone who refers to extinguishers as "fire finishers", unless this is some sort of odd regional slang I've never heard before.
I only point out your strange choice of words because what you wrote is patently ridiculous.
IronLionZion
(45,563 posts)a country that has very few mass shootings for very different reasons.
Locrian
(4,522 posts)but I'd like to see him try
Blues Heron
(5,944 posts)if the guy showed up with a flame thrower maybe... otherwise TF?
old guy
(3,284 posts)No need for anything else. Move along people, nothing to see here.
brooklynite
(94,792 posts)RKP5637
(67,112 posts)are really needed, somehow, for politicians. ... but, as usual, who does that, who decides, that's a rat hole too.
IrishEyes
(3,275 posts)Since every home has a fire extinguisher then the gun people don't need guns in their homes. They can just use a fire extinguisher. Most shootings in the home kill family members instead of intruders.
This guy is a moron.
jmowreader
(50,567 posts)To spray a mass shooter with a fire extinguisher you must:
1) Run up to 100 feet to grab the fire extinguisher without the shooter killing you.
2) Break the glass without the shooter killing you.
3) Arm the extinguisher without getting shot.
4) Run back to within range of the shooter without getting shot
And, most important...
5) Spray the shooter without him firing into the stream of agent.
If we were talking about a 2 fire hose with 1000gpm water pressure coming out of it, maybe. This fire extinguisher plan seems designed to get more people killed.
FSogol
(45,555 posts)One, not every teacher could get one.
Two, some classroom doors are necessarily within a few feet of a fire extinguisher.
Three, you go into the hall to round up stray kids and get them to safety. Typically, a school has more than one short hall. The shooter can't shoot around corners.
Where do you go next? Back into your room which is where the rules and wisdom say you're supposed to run. Then you wait for the guy to come through the door.
During this time, you can be waiting with the thing. When he comes through the door, maybe he's firing and the fire extinguisher will accomplish nothing. In which case you die. But the alternative is you die without trying to do anything. And if you manage to disorient him, get him to fire wild, perhaps you can get by with just 5 kids killed instead of 20. Or maybe 5 kids wounded instead of 20 killed.
Not a perfect idea, but given the lack of ways teachers have to defend themselves, not a horrible one.
jmowreader
(50,567 posts)Throw it at him!
One of two things will happen if you do this.
The first is that you hit the guy and damage him, which gives you time to tackle him.
Or he jumps out of the way and needs time to recover. While hes getting back to shooting, you can get people to safety. Get everyone involved to throw things at him. Throw calculus books at him. Copies of Atlas Shrugged. Chairs. Anything big and heavy.
Either way, its got to be better than what that guy was suggesting.
groundloop
(11,527 posts)Damn I hope we can win that election.
niyad
(113,612 posts)(okay, an actor using blanks) using that fire extinguisher.
Maine-i-acs
(1,501 posts)R's will not embrace someone unless they are all guns, all the time.
So they will push forward a worse candidate (I like this R actually).
ManiacJoe
(10,136 posts)... that is all you have available to use as a weapon.
If you have gotten to the point where fighting back is your best option for survival, many objects can be makeshift weapons. Of course, actual weapons would be best, but those will be few and far between if at all available.
Scruffy1
(3,257 posts)Back when I was young I often worked at a race track. We had dozens of purple K 40lb bottles. The rule was it took two people. One to carry it and one to use it. By the time you carried ti fifty yards on the run you needed someone else to use it. I remember a famous driver we used up over 40 bottles to extract them from their car. Potassium carbonate is not exactly going to stop anyone and the bottle is too awkward for a club. If you try to run with it swinging from your arm it will hit you in the back of the leg and you will fall. You have to carry them cradled in both arms at your chest. Stupid, stupid, and more stupid.
AdamGG
(1,295 posts)It would be a challenge to stop a couple of guys coming to give you a wedgie, let alone someone firing a round a second from from a fvcking M16. This guy's apparently part of the Paul LePage intellectual wing of the Maine Republican party.
LastLiberal in PalmSprings
(12,600 posts)What could go wrong? Well, let's start with the effective range...
JDC
(10,135 posts)Those folks would be dead in an instant. Didn't the Parkland guy have a gas mask and smoke grenades? Maybe thus guy can teach these folks how to use a damp sock as a smoke/face mask next so they can be fully prepared.
LastLiberal in PalmSprings
(12,600 posts)After all, they're a proven technology:
DeminPennswoods
(15,290 posts)from last week's episode of "Young Sheldon"?