Fairness

Scott Cate is a man who has everything you would want: A yacht, a private jet, a speedboat, and other toys. He also is passionate about the athletic program of the High School where his sons went to school, where he volunteers to coach football. As a self-made millionaire, he made a pile of money when he sold the company that he built from the ground up and retired. He decided to spend his time coaching high school football as a volunteer, and also funded many projects to help the school. He built $4 million worth of projects: A turf field, a weight room, a press box, and other projects.

He also funds an after school program that tutors high school students. In short, he is the kind of guy that the school system should be delighted to have as a booster. 

How did the school district thank him? They passed a rule prohibiting him from volunteering his time. It seems that many parents accuse him of doing this to build an all star team around his son. The problem with this accusation is that he has not had a child in school since 2006. It seems that the real problem here is that other schools in the district didn't like the fact that the school was successfully recruiting athletes from other schools because of the successful tutoring and athletics programs.

On any given afternoon, players can be found in the study hall with former college stars like Kaufusi. Cate retains the tutors, who double as assistant coaches, with a personal services contract. He pays for their advanced degrees or teaching certificates if they agree to spend five years working at any high school.

 The man says that he will take his time and his money, and donate it somewhere that it will be appreciated. Another case of class warfare and jealousy making equality more important than excellence. The idea here is that other schools were jealous that they did not have their own donor, so to make things "fair" decided to deprive the school of a substantial source of support. Never mind that this school was taking failing students, and turning them into A students.

Bills counted 11 players living within the Kearns boundaries on rival Hunter High's sideline during a lopsided loss this season. "You don't mind getting beat," he said, "but you hate getting beat by your own kids."

Certain schools are magnets for parents who think their children can thrive athletically and possibly earn college scholarships. Recruiting allegations have swirled for years, most notably around perennial power Skyline.

Lately, talk has shifted to Cottonwood, a team that until last year endured 17 straight losing seasons. The Colts lost in the 4A championship game last November and are poised for a state title run this season. The team's star running back, Stanley Havili, lives outside the area as do several other top players.

This is the end goal of socialism: to place everyone on the same plane, even if that plane is at the bottom. This is what "fair" looks like.

Unions and elections

My opinions for Unions have been expressed before. In fact, I have done so on more than one occasion. I have worked in two different workplaces that would be considered a union shop. One of the biggest problems with a union shop is that they are run as a democracy, with the majority making decisions that everyone must abide by. Another big problem is that certain members of the union use power and influence to control what the majority thinks and votes for. This can result in some pretty underhanded dealings.

The most recent union shop is the one that I am about to retire from. The issue that has brought this to light is a recent vote that was taken by the union at my current employer. Let me begin by saying that I am retiring in 5 weeks, and will not be affected by this vote, but that doesn't mean that I approve of how it was done.

The vote is to change the fire department schedule from a 24 hours on, followed by 48 hours off, to a schedule where firefighters work 48 hours on duty, followed by 96 hours off. This topic has come up for debate every year at contract time, for about the last five years and has not ever been approved. There are a lot of conflicting opinions on this, and I will not debate or air them here. Instead, I want to talk about HOW the vote was done.

There is a core of firefighters that want the schedule to change, and they have been pressing for it for a few years now. An election was recently held for union president, and the new president is in the 48/96 camp. As his first act, he decided to lobby everyone for the schedule change and held a vote, which he said would require a 65% supermajority to implement. Everyone would be able to vote, even employees who would be affected by the change, but were not even union members. Sounds fair, right? I thought so too, but the devil, as they say, is in the details.

The vote was done by secret ballot. Each voter was given a piece of paper and told to write which schedule they preferred. There are 90 firefighters who work for the fire department, and the vote was close to not passing with the required 65%: There were 60 votes for, and 27 against, meaning that the new schedule was approved by one more vote than was required.

There is a catch: At least three votes were not counted. Mine, another firefighter who has said that she is leaving in February, and a firefighter assigned to a 40 hour work week in the front office. The excuse for that is because two of us were quitting, and the third was not going to work that schedule, our votes shouldn't count. Additionally, there were people who wrote "I don't care" and another who wrote "I have no opinion until I see details" and both of those were counted as "yes" votes.

Complicating things further, the president, who was the one pushing for the new schedule, was the one who collected and counted the ballots, which he claims to have thrown away after counting them.

This whole issue is like our elections process in miniature.

And before anyone comments here about how unions are evil, stuff it. Corporations are no better: Enron, Citigroup, GM, and many others have proven that people are the problem, not the organizations that they create to gain power.

Admissions meeting

I am flying 1,200 miles to see the admissions committee of a college, so that I can attend Physician Assistant school. I hope to get in, because I think that I am ready to move on from EMS. I still love patient care, and I enjoy what I do.

The problem is that I no longer enjoy the setting. It began when a rash of poor care by fellow paramedics was being actively covered up by my administration. It culminated in my mother being one of the patients who were shortchanged. This planted the seeds of discontent. Now I understand that no profession is immune. I have worked with plenty of nurses and doctors who screw up just as badly, and private ambulance companies are no better, been there, done that. I was willing to suffer through things, since I couldn't see anywhere or any job where bad employees were not tolerated and protected. I sucked it up.

Until recently, when the public began jumping on the "cushy" pay for firefighters, and the "public employees are evil" bandwagon. I am tired of being spit on and underpaid. It is time to go.

That's right- underpaid. Starting pay for a firefighter/paramedic is $13.77 an hour. After two promotions and 15 years with the same department, I make $19.23 an hour. I began working a part time second job as a paramedic in a local theme park less than six months ago, and we only perform BLS procedures. Starting pay for a medic with no experience is $16.50 an hour, and $17.50 an hour if you have two or more years of experience. The health plan is better, the hours are better, and the working conditions easier.

So, I am trying to get into school to get my master's degree. Like me, many firefighters are leaving the profession. Out of the 100 men and women in my department, we have lost 9 in the past year:
1 now drives an ice cream delivery truck
1 left to return to college
2 have left to be nurses
2 left to be firefighters in other states
1 is now a radio DJ
2 retired, and I have no idea where they are now

I also know that one just tested for a department in Colorado, one tested in Arizona, and three have notified the department that they will be retiring between now and June. And now me. If all goes well, I will be leaving by December.

Government complexity

The government makes EVERYTHING more complicated. When it comes to performing maintenance, the US Navy has a complicated system in place (or did when I was in)called the Material Maintenance Management (3M) system, which controls all PMS (Planned Maintenance System). PMS is time consuming and overly complicated. The procedure for each maintenance action is written on an MRC (Maintenance Requirement Card.

 What makes the system so complicated and cumbersome is the fact that government bureaucrats have managed to turn the system into a set of procedures that make doing your taxes seem easy. Failure to follow the procedure exactly can and does end with sailors being courts-martialed. Maintenance is scheduled for each work center, and the work center supervisor schedules each person for his maintenance. Let's take a look at a required daily maintenance activity (D-1R). We are scheduled to perform that activity toady, so we look for the MRC, on the Maintenance Index Page (MIP) and confirm that it is correct MIP by checking it against the LOEP (List Of Effective Pages) after checking the effective date to ensure that the LOEP is the current one. After locating the current MRC, we confirm that it is correct by checking its effective date against the one on the MIP.

So take a look at the card here. Granted, this one is a joke, but looks remarkably like the real ones. There is a section that has the information about the equipment on the card and the frequency of maintenance. Then an area that specifies who may perform the maintenance, and the man hours it will take to complete. There are sections that specify safety regulations that must be followed, along with a list of every tool that is required. If the card calls for a 6 inch screwdriver, you better not get caught using a 4 inch or an 8 inch screwdriver. The procedure is then listed, and it must be followed exactly as per the card. Failure to do so can land you in prison.

These are the numbskulls that are getting ready to run our health care system. How do you think that will work out?

Worse Idea

A couple of weeks ago, I mentioned that Washington, DC was implementing a bad idea when they decided to use firefighters to plug the gaps in their police force. I was proven correct when shootings happened right in front of the firefighters, and there was nothing that they could do.

Now the criminals are breaking into fire stations and stealing. This idea is worse and worse.

I told you so

Just ten days ago, I posted that Washington, DC was using firefighters as an unarmed reserve police force. I said at the time that it was a bad idea that would not work. Turns out, I was correct.

At least three people were injured in four shootings in the District over a 24-hour period Sunday and Monday, according to fire and police officials.
Two locations that officials responded to for reports of shootings were just blocks from corners where D.C. firefighters have been stationed as crime deterrents.

Paid administrative leave and the Constituion

Anyone who reads this blog on a regular basis knows that I am not shy about pointing out when cops have overstepped their bounds. I am not a cop basher, I just call em like I see em, bashing them when they screw up and I support them when they deserve to be supported. This is one of those times.

Whenever a cop does something stupid or controversial, he is placed on paid administrative leave pending investigation, and many people are quick to scream "paid vacation" and "cover up" because they feel that the cop is getting away with the act. The truth is actually quite different.

Since a cop is potentially going to be deprived of something (his job) by a government agency, he or she in entitled to the same rights and protections as an other person in this nation, and as many are quick to point out, cops are civilians the same as the rest of us, and need to be treated in the same way. This means that the government agency, his or her employer, cannot deprive him of his liberty or property without due process of law. When I studied for my degree in Public Safety Administration, we had to take classes on Administrative Law. I will excerpt some of my class materials/papers below, and attempt to explain:

The Fifth Amendment to the U. S, Constitution states "no person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law." Originally this amendment was construed to be applicable only to the federal government. Later, the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified to provide "nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty or property without due process of law." The Fourteenth Amendment clearly applies to municipalities as well. City of Mobile v, Bouldin, 446 U.S. 55 (1950). Further, Section 1983 of Title 42 of the U.S. Code prohibits any person from depriving another of his or her civil rights under color of state law. Section 1983 covers municipal actions as well.

Here we are concerned about a public employee (cop) who is called by the employer to answer for some transgression and punished. The employee appeals, claiming that the public employer violated the employee's rights by depriving him or her of property (in this instance, the job) without extending due process of law, and deprived the employee of liberty (in this instance, his or her good name in the community) without providing due process of law. A public employee with a constitutionally protected property interest in that employment must be afforded the process prior to termination. Cleveland Bd. Of  Educ, v. Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532,105 S.Ct 148 (1985).

Two U.S. Supreme Court decisions address these questions: Board of Regents V. Roth, 408 U.S. 564 (1972); Perry v. Sinderman, 408 U.S. 593 (1972). The decisions in Roth and Sinderman involved tenured teachers who were fired and who subsequently claimed violation of due process as to their property and liberty rights. These decisions were applicable to all public employees, whether tenured or non-tenured. The court held that a public employee has a property interest protected by due process if he or she could show a “legitimate claim of entitlement” to the job – a contract, or tenure, or even oral or implied understandings – creating a reasonable expectation of continued employment.

A recent decision in the third circuit, Schmidt v. Creedon, F.3d (3rd Cir. 2011) (pdf) makes clear that absent extraordinary circumstances, prior to suspending a police officer for any reason, a police department must provide the officer with notice and a hearing. A good explanation can be found here.

So when you hear that a cop has been suspended pending investigation, it isn't a Union that is protecting him, it is the same Constitution that protects everyone.

A bad idea

The city of Washington, DC is using firefighters as an impromptu unarmed police force, deploying them to patrol high crime areas. So what happens is that the unarmed firefighters are increasingly looked upon as an extension of the police department.

The one thing that allows me to enter high crime areas is the knowledge that I am not a cop, and I am not there to bust anyone or take sides, I am just there to take you to the hospital. Once we as fire and EMS are viewed as the enemy, we will be treated like the enemy. An unarmed, relatively defenseless one. At least I can take comfort knowing that if my agency decides to enact a similar policy, I can legally be armed while doing so (even if it will likely get me fired.)

I would also like to point out that the program employs 14,000 people for six weeks, and was $30 over budget in 2008. That works out to $357 per week per worker that the project was over budget. The youths in this program work 16 hours per week. The full cost of the program is $55 million (including the $30 million overrun). That works out to $40.92 per hour per worker costs the taxpayer.

What are the taxpayers getting for that money? One of the jobs is that the kids are being paid to paint pictures on the sides of buildings using spray paint. We are paying these kids to paint graffiti, and demanding that firefighters then follow them around to make sure that they stay out of trouble.

My busy life

There hasn't been much posting here, because my life has become quite busy this year. There are a number of issues that have been demanding my attention as of late. Since the first of the year:

1. I work two jobs: Firefighter, which takes up 56 hours a week of my time, plus the 202 hours of overtime I have worked so far this year, and I also work in Health Services for a local theme park.
2. I am currently attending college, and trying to tie up the last of this degree. I am taking 25 credit hours this semester, and finals are next week. All 8 classes are A's thus far, with one possibly a B. I graduate magna cum laude with my fourth college degree in June.
3. I took the GRE exam to enter a Master's degree program next year. I spent quite a bit of time studying for that, and it paid off: 630 verbal, 780 math.
4. I also studied for and passed the Amateur radio technician's license.
5. I am representing myself pro se in my mortgage foreclosure case, and in a lawsuit against my mortgage holder. I settled the lawsuit for a hefty sum, and it looks like the court will be dismissing the foreclosure case, so I get to stay in my home awhile longer.
6. and I am a season ticket holder for the Tampa Bay Lightning hockey team, and I have to drive 70 miles each way to attend hockey games.

So, as you can see, blogging sometimes takes a back seat to the rest of my life. I am working to get into graduate school so that I can go do something else once they cut my pension benefits as a firefighter. I can do better than what I am getting paid. I have not had a raise in over four years, in fact I make 20% less than I did four years ago. There will be no raises in the foreseeable future, and now they are cutting pension benefits in half. No thanks. If the cuts go through, I am done. The only reason I didn't leave years ago was that pension.

I am a hard working, intelligent employee who brings a lot to the table. I think I can do better. I will be getting my Masters of Health Science and go be a Physician's Assistant now. More money, fewer dirtbags.

Politics as usual

I hate to keep harping on this topic, but this is such a big change to my life at this point, I just can't let this one go. You know how the Florida governor is claiming that he wants to cut the pensions of public employees to save money?
Then explain to me why he is giving his senior cabinet members $20K a year raises...

I guess it is my fault for expecting you to honor your promise

Public Sector pensions have become the latest target of the Republican party. If one were to believe the right wing reports, the pensions of public employees are destroying the state budgets. That is a vast misstatement. The truth of the matter is this:
Pension contributions from state and local employers aren't themselves blowing up budgets. They amount to 2.9 percent of state government spending on average, according to the National Association of State Retirement Administrators. The Center for Retirement Research at Boston College puts the figure at 3.8 percent.

The most recent Public Fund Survey by Brainard's group showed that, on average, state and local pensions were 78.9 percent funded, with about $688 billion in unfunded promises to pensioners. The unfunded liabilities would be a problem if all state and local retirees went into retirement at once, but they won't.

What will happen though, is if bills such as the one proposed by Florida's TEA party governor come to pass, is that large numbers of public employees will retire on the eve of the law becoming effective. The TEA party backed governor has proposed a law that would cut retirement benefits in half for many public employees. The large numbers of employees who would retire before such a law takes effect would cause large fiscal strains on the pension funds, and would actually cause the funds to destabilize.

Of course, in making the public employees and their pensions into the scapegoat, they distract taxpayers from the real issues:
In 2010 (pdf alert), public pensions in Florida were $743 million, or 1% of the budget. Medicaid costs $20.5 billion, or 29% of the budget. Education is 52% of the budget. Free lunches for poor school kids? $800 million. The new arena that was built in Orlando for the basketball team? $480 million. With all of that, why are public pensions being blamed for breaking the budget?

Another factor that the Republicans have not considered is this: When firefighters and paramedics get too old to jump out of firetrucks and ambulances at 2 in the morning, they frequently retire, and get jobs teaching at the fire academy or in a community college as an adjunct instructor. This is where the next generation of paramedics and firefighters are made. These adjunct instructors are cheaper than hiring full time instructors, and the students benefit from the experiences and knowledge that the retired instructors bring to the classroom. Under the proposed law, retired employees would be prohibited from working in a government job once they are receiving a pension. This means that community colleges and fire academies will lose these instructors. What will THAT cost?

Sit down and shut up

There are many people who claim that public employees should not have the right to collectively bargain. There are two examples in my own list of blogs that I regularly read.This post is about why I disagree:

For starters, what is collective bargaining? Collective bargaining is where a large group of people band together to bargain (collectively) with another group of people. Examples of this include public employees banding together to form a union. This union then sends representatives to negotiate working conditions with their employer, the taxpayer. The taxpayer himself has formed a collective unit that appoints representatives to negotiate on their behalf. The representatives of the taxpayers then negotiate with the representatives of their employees, and a deal is reached.

By using their representatives to prohibit the employees from being able to negotiate, the taxpayers seek to gain an unfair advantage over the employees by making sure that they are the only ones at the table. A "take it or leave it" approach, if you will.

Aside from the moral issue, there is the constitutional one. How can you prohibit one group of citizens from exercising their First Amendment right to associate with others and petition their government for a redress of grievances while allowing others to do the same? How is the right of groups like the TEA party, NRA, AARP, or NORML to collectively lobby for government largess for their members any more valid than the right of the IAFF, FOP, or NEA to do the same for THEIR members? Does the mere act of drawing a government paycheck negate your constitutional rights? Or does it only count when it is your own ox being gored?

I am not arguing in this post that the pay and benefits of any given public employee are appropriate for the position, all I am saying is that denying any group the right to negotiate those benefits is the equivalent of telling them to sit down and shut up. Certainly not the behavior of a free society. "I may not agree with what you have to say, but I will defend with my life your right to say it." is a mere platitude to both the Liberal Left and the Conservative Right. To both of those camps, your right to speak is dependent on what you have to say.

This happened to me

I know the cartoon is funny, but something similar happened to me about five years ago. We were dispatched to a reported drug overdose at one of our local Hispanic night clubs. (For those who are unaware, more than 45% of the local population speaks Spanish as a primary language. There is no shortage of Spanish dance clubs around Central Florida.) A young lady had called 911 to report that she and her friend were in the restroom of the club, and her friend had overdosed on an unknown drug. When we arrived on scene in the rig with all of the emergency lights flashing, I got out and went to enter the club.

The bouncer at the door told me that I had to pay the cover charge in order to enter. Thinking that he was kidding, I laughed. He blocked the door. Pointing to my uniform, I told him that I was there on official business and brushed past him. No sooner did I enter the restroom, when I was jumped by four bouncers who carried me out through the club, with the patrons of the club shouting at me, "Get out Gringo," and yelling Spanish obscenities. The bouncers threw me out the door, and told me that whites were not allowed inside.

I called for Police backup, and got no fewer than 15 Deputies. We wound up treating our patient, and the Manager (and his bouncers) got a lecture from the cops. No arrests were made.

Government workers

No one knows how hard it is to get a government worker to do something any better than another government worker. We have a printer in our report room for two computers to share. It was connected with a USB cable, and depending on who needs to print, we had to plug the cable into one computer or the other. This printer is also a network capable printer, and I saw no reason why we had to continually move the cable. I pointed this out to the chief one day, and he ordered IT to come out and make the change. So, IT came out about two weeks later, removed the USB cable and plugged it into the city network.

The printer didn't work. They never installed and mapped the printer on the computers that needed it. Computers sitting right next to the printer. I put in a work order and was told how to map the printer. I didn't have the administrator privileges to make the changes, and IT is always stuffy about users messing with settings. Everything is locked out on the computers. This is the email I sent, sending a copy to everyone in the chain of command, even the chief:

Ever since IT installed the new printer in the station, the printer has not worked. I contacted IT this morning, and they said that each individual person who uses that computer has to map the printer for their use, or the printer will not work. We have never had to do this before, and I am not sure how workable that solution is, especially considering that we have been told many times that we are not to be making changes to department computers, and cannot make the changes without administrator privileges. Is there a way to get this printer working that does not involve every employee who uses it having to make changes?

IT responded with:

Hey, I have this link for you that installs it. So if you could forward this to anyone who needs it. First delete the printer that is there now. Then you will need to click the link below. You will need to agree or open and it will install for you. The printer que box will pop up once it has installed. All you need to do is close it and you are finished. Call me if you still have an issue. The reason you need to load this is because network printers are per profile not pc. But this link will make it easy for everyone to load.

Of course the link didn't work. No one had the permissions to use the link. Look, if you are in IT and you fix it so no one can make changes to the computers except you, then don't be angry when people expect you to actually come out and make those changes. Anyway, I got everyone who uses those computers to send a "Reply to all" that they could mot make it work. After the Chief got about 30 emails on the subject, he finally replied with this:

IT *will* correct this issue so you do NOT have to do what he’s saying….the “shared” printer is supposed to be automatically mapped to all the computers in the station. 

 The problem with all government jobs is that it is too hard to get rid of the dead weight. I say this as a government employee who is constantly frustrated at the things other government employees get away with.

Sometimes I amaze myself

I am giving myself a pat on the back. I posted about the fire department in Tennessee this morning. Uncle posts about an attack on Libertarianism at this site here. In this site, the blogger posts:

This fire is a the result of libertarian land. In libertarian land, collective action is forbidden so taxes cannot pay for fire departments. Without taxes, you must rely on the voluntary subscription to services (or after the fact fees, but for something like firefighting that requires a large and constant maintenance cost, after the fact fees aren’t going to be enough to keep a fire department active). If you must rely on a voluntary subscription service, then you must discourage free loaders. If you must discourage free loaders, then you must let the homes of the poor, or unlucky or plan stupid burn to the ground.

 To which, I posted this reply:

Of course, you have the alternative: You turn the $75 fee into a property tax, and anyone who doesn’t pay has his house foreclosed on and taken away by the taxing authority to pay the taxes.


This taxing authority also needs staffing, and so hires personnel to handle the taxes. With this new overhead, the previously voluntary $75 fee is now a mandatory $150 tax.

If you do not pay, they take your house. When they send the sheriff to your house to evict you, if you resist, he activates the SWAT team, and they gun you down. Then they raise the tax to $250 so they can cover the expenses of the SWAT team.

Isn’t that much better?

Yes, the Libertarian way is heartless and cruel, and the collectivist way at least insured that the house didn't burn down. The owners are dead or homeless, but at least the house didn't burn down.

Edited to add: This is an email response to this post:

No. The police in Europe will never kill you, in Europe we don`t do that any more, you Americans probably do. You Americans just don`t get it do you; You can`t run a whole country the same way as a McDonalds restaurant!

Ok, I guess Americans know best, you have the best systems and don`t need to be lectured by anyone about anything. You are simply the best, right? 

 This guy doesn't understand that there are only two ways to conduct any sort of business: By force, or by voluntary cooperation. If I refuse to pay my taxes, how else can the government force me to pay, except through force? If I resist their force with force of my own, do you think the cops are going to give up, or will they increase the force they employ until I submit?

It Figures

I am currently taking a class on Administrative Law. That is, it covers the laws and regulations that govern administrative agencies like the FCC, FAA, and local ones like the Fire Department.

We were discussing a situation in class, and our assignment was to find a solution for the problem, as if we were the person in charge. I found one that accomplished the goal, and still respected the rights of the people involved. Another student's solution was a gross violation of the law, and of the rights of the people involved.

I pointed out that his solution was a violation of the Constitutional rights of the people involved. His reply to me was "So what? Let the lawyers worry about that. The broke the rules, they need to accept whatever happens."

Guess where he works? Homeland Security.

Defenseless fish in a barrel

Shooters like defenseless victims. The recent suicide at the University of Texas is proof yet again that gun free zones do not work. Many, including myself, would like to see Colleges and Universities removed from the list of places where I cannot carry a firearm. After all, I can carry a firearm nearly anywhere else I would like to go, so what is it about a campus that will convert me from law abiding citizen to raging killer?

Have you ever noticed that these sorts of events only happen where the shooter knows that due to law or policy, there will be no armed resistance? Police say that armed citizens would only confuse what are potentially chaotic situations because the police would not know who the bad guys are versus the good guys.I call bullshit on that. Why? Because police unions supported LEOSA, which is a law allowing police and retired police to carry concealed weapons nationwide, with few restrictions. How can a responding cop tell the difference between a shooter and a plainclothed, retired cop with a gun? Exactly.

John Woods, a UT graduate student who organized an anti-gun rally last year, disagreed. He said that having more guns on campus wouldn't improve security.
"If there were multiple students running around with guns, it would've made the police's job a lot harder this morning," Woods said Tuesday. He was a student at Virginia Tech University in 2007 when a gunman killed 32 people, including Woods' girlfriend. 

 Because having an unarmed victim zone at Virginia Tech worked out so well. The law banning carry didn't stop the VT shooter, why would it? John Woods, other than being an unarmed, defenseless target, what experience do you have that would support your stupid, idiotic opinion?

What the police are demanding is that YOU are disarmed, so that they can enter the scene and not have to make a decision based on intelligence and reason, they merely want to be able to shoot everyone who appears to have a weapon.

The criminals have guns. The cops have guns. In the middle are the defenseless students, fish in a barrel.