What if one of the teachers had a gun? One of them had 3, and they were used to murder 20 children

[CreekDog]

Last edited Sun Dec 16, 2012, 05:09 PM - Edit history (1)

thanks to the DUer that pointed this out.

(initial reports that the mom was a teacher appear to be wrong at this point. i still do not believe arming teachers would make schools safer)

[Ilsa]

1. Dude on Hardball said, We are the most

Heavily armed citizenry in the world, and we have the worst gun problems in the world.
That argument about arming more people make us less safe, not more.

[gejohnston]

3. Tweety hasn't traveled outside of US and Europe much

We might be the most heavily armed citizenry (makes me wonder if he has traveled that much of Europe) in the world, but we hardly have the worst gun problem.

[roguevalley]

7. I was a teacher for 27 years and I never carried and gun and if there had

been one there who knows but I know this. Fuck the idea of arming teachers. fuck it.

[PavePusher]

8. It's obvious that not having any defensive measures doesn't work.

So we should continue to have no defensive measures?

Would a trained, armed teacher have made this situation worse?

[roguevalley]

10. no. more guns don't work. I don't care. There are other security measures

without putting me in a position of shooting someone. Truly, more guns is madness.

[Eleanors38]

14. Check #13 below. What do you think?

[roguevalley]

27. People trained to protect, fine. No problem, Eleanors38. I own guns but not for killing

people. They are antiques. Teachers teach. Shooting someone isn't in the plans.

Someone farther down told me to 'take responsibility for kids safety'. I wish I could explain the fury I feel right now. FUCK THAT SHIT! I did every day for 27 years and so did every other teacher i ever knew. HOW ABOUT THE FUCKING WORLD STOP KICKING TEACHERS? Maybe we woudn't be targets.

[Eleanors38]

31. My family was teachers. I can relate. Thanks.

[YllwFvr]

40. the concern is

Only you are responsible for your safety. Obviously there is an issue with security at schools but what can be done

I have been worrying about this quite a bit since the shooting. If it happened at my local school it would take me five minutes to get there and enter the building to start searching for the shooter. I have no idea what the layout of the school is, or what entrances there are. I feel helpless at the moment. I will try and get a floor plan so I can at least navigate roughly if I need to go after an active shooter.

[roguevalley]

43. its a community thing keeping people safe. your idea is sound. I don't think

teachers shooting too is good. Other people who are trained need to provide security. I had too many other things to do besides pack a rod.

[YllwFvr]

47. its my job to keep the community safe

But it would probably take me eight minutes lights and sirens to get to the school, then who knows how long to find the shooter. One minute is forever to people hiding.
A LOT can happen in that time.
Something needs to be done to make schools safer. I would volunteer as school resource officer sometimes if I could.

[roguevalley]

95. I salute your service.

[jpak]

98. God forbid anyone like you has a gun in a school

yup

[YllwFvr]

104. even if I was the school resource officer?

Or are you suggesting if there is an active shooter you dont believe I should respond?

[gejohnston]

105. his attempt at satire

works on camera, but not in print.

[YllwFvr]

106. jpak is a character for sure :)

[jpak]

97. So you want to go it and shoot a teacher that has a gun?

That is the logical conclusion to this sick gun hero fantasy.

Give teachers guns.

When the shooting starts, vigilantes rush in shooting all they suspect are bad guys.

Doesn't matter if you don't know the layout of the school.

Doesn't matter if they don't know who the teachers are...

Or who the good guys and bad guys are...

Just blast away so you can be a hero.

Gun Nut Suckage.

yup

[NewMoonTherian]

18. Would you rather be in the position of shooting someone,

or in the position of watching your students die? Teachers should step up and take some responsibility for the safety of the children entrusted to their care, or demand that SOMEONE in the school do so.

[roguevalley]

26. BULLSHIT! Obviously, you aren't a teacher. I don't know a teacher who

hasnt worked out a plan. YOU ARE ACCUSING US OF NOT TAKING RESPONSIBILITY!:?!

WTF!

BULLSHIT!

So, you blame the teachers who didn't come with guns for this. No matter how you spin this, that is what you said. BULLSHIT!

[NewMoonTherian]

54. Yes, that's the accusation I'm making.

Not because I expect teachers to go around carrying in violation of the law, but because, as a rule, they don't seem interested in any kind of meaningful change in policy to prevent things like this from happening.

Maybe I'm wrong. I'm heartbroken and furious and frustrated, so in fact that's entirely likely.

As well-organized and influential as teachers are, I'm angry that they haven't spoken out for the right to carry, or for widespread armed security, and that the only "solution" that gets any real consideration is the dismantling of gun rights.

[PavePusher]

36. Respectfully, this has nothing to do with teachers "step(ing) up"....

They do so every day, to the limits imposed on them by the government. Had they had the option to arm themselves, and not taken it, then there would be a talking point in what you said. But the government has denied them thier Rights, and provided no compensating security, so this accusation, while correct in form, is laid at the wrong feet.

I also wish that every time someone suggests restoring the option, those same teachers wouldn't scream about that too.

For the record, my father was a teacher for over 40 years, so I know a little about it from a son's point of view.

[NewMoonTherian]

55. I appreciate your thoughtful response. It helped me cool off a bit.

I expanded on my remark in post #54 just above.

I don't fault teachers for not carrying, but I do fault them for not demanding either their own right to carry or some other effective form of security.

From my very limited perspective, they appear not to want the right, because they don't want the responsibility. They are completely ignoring a problem that's becoming more obvious each year, and that is a terrible disservice to the families they serve.

[PavePusher]

56. Now you're on the right track, and I agree completely.

I have one last caveat, but it needs a little more pondering before I can verbalise it correctly.

[jpak]

99. Tax guns and ammo to pay for school security

yup

[gejohnston]

101. tax churches

[jpak]

103. Yes, tax the Unholy Church of Gun CULTure

yup

[PavePusher]

24. No-one is saying "more guns".

We're saying "guns in the right hands, in the right places at the right times".

An empirically, "no guns" didn't work.

[Tumbulu]

32. Are you out of your mind????

With little kids in the room having a gun in the desk?????

What an idiotic thing to post!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Shame on you!

[PavePusher]

35. Who said anything about "in the desk"??

A defensive sidearm should be secured in a retention holster on the belt.

Shame on you.

[Tumbulu]

37. you are even crazier than I thought- on his belt????????

right where a little kid could accidentally grab it?????????????

You need to go get help, quickly!!!!!!!!!!!!

[gejohnston]

38. not saying I agree or disagree

but look up what a retention holster is. It helps your argument to know what is being said.

[Tumbulu]

39. You honestly think a firearm should be visible to children

in a classroom?

This is abusive and crazy all wrapped into one giant exclamation point!

[YllwFvr]

41. in the waistband retention holster

I think thats what they mean. Not visible and locked in the holster.

I saw another poster suggest a biometric safe. Opens with your finger or palm print.

[Tumbulu]

57. What a nutty idea!!!!!!!

lower grade school teachers are dealing with children who still wet their pants and little kids grab at teachers waists when falling down. Good god- have you never been around little kids?

Are you defending this insane idea?

[PavePusher]

62. I think I see the problem; you don't know what a retention holster is or does, do you?

It covers the trigger area, and approx. 2/3rds of the gun, and locks the gun into the holster. You have to press a button in a specific manner, and draw the weapon straight up, in order to get the gun out. It takes a bit of effort for the wearer to accomplish and is nearly impossible for a non-trained person or attacker to take the gun or even threaten its mechanical security. Children would not be able to accomplish this.

See examples here:

http://www.blackhawk.com/catalog/SERPA-Concealment,1410.htm

http://www.safariland.com/DutyGear/product.aspx?pid=5198

[gejohnston]

63. I doubt he is interested

so far he defines emotional uninformed rants as "adults taking over" and anyone trying to have a rational discussion that he doesn't like as "kooks that need to be kicked out."

[Tumbulu]

66. Listen, I suggest that you drop this discussion

it is an outrageously sick idea.

[PavePusher]

77. It's not much of a discussion....

since you won't do anything but repeat a falsehood.

[YllwFvr]

71. defending it?

Im not sure that I agree with elementary school teachers should carry. I was responding to your claim that a child could see and grab it or have access to it. Not the case.

[jpak]

100. Keep the guns and gun nuts out of schools

yup

[gejohnston]

42. I said no such thing

I didn't even say arming teachers was a good idea. I just suggested that learning the technology would help in making a better case. No more, no less.

[PavePusher]

45. I never said visible.

Stop inventing things I didn't say.

But now that you mention it, it really doesn't matter, concealed or open carry. The point is to defend children. Because not having effective defensive tools doesn't seem to work out well, does it?

The truely telling point here is that you would prefer disarmed victims to kids possibly merely seeing a gun. There is nothing abusive about it. Go back to your fainting-couch-of-ignorance.

[Tumbulu]

58. Yes it all matters-why even come up with such an asinine idea!

arm teachers??????? You have to be crazy and so I would suggest that you just be quiet.

Arming teachers in any way is abusive to the children.

[PavePusher]

60. So, Isreal is abusing it's children? They arm their teachers....

Also, I don't think you know what "child abuse" actually is, and your misuse of the term is quite dismissive of actual abuse.

Study up.

[Tumbulu]

64. So Israeli's do this?

Is that some sort of release from idiocy?

And yes, it would absolutely be abusive to arm teachers with guns.

How out there does someone need to be to not get this?

[PavePusher]

81. How is providing real, effective security "abusive"? n/t

[GreenStormCloud]

49. Do you have reading problems? He said in a "retention holster".

Maybe you don't know what those are. A gun can't be snatched from one unless you know the trick to release the gun.

[Tumbulu]

59. It is insane to even suggest that teachers be mandated to carry weapons around children.

I suggest that you all stop this crazy talk.

[PavePusher]

61. And again with an invention from you. No-one said "mandated".

Freedom to chose, yes.

The only person doing "crazy talk" here is you. Think about that.

[Tumbulu]

65. You think about this crazy idea you are proposing

no child should have to attend class with an adult with a gun.

[YllwFvr]

72. is your issue that kids shouldn't be around guns?

I do it every day. Little kids. I will be going to school tomorrow and I will be taking my gun with me.

[PavePusher]

78. According to you, providing security for children is "sick" and "crazy".

[elleng]

2. 20 children and 6 adults, including herself.

[GreenStormCloud]

4. That teacher's gun wasn't with him/her.

For a gun to be useful in self-defense it can't be home in the closet, it has to be readily at hand. An example would be the vice-principle's .45 in Pearl, MS. He used his gun to stop a school shooter.

[CreekDog]

5. your defense of the principle is laughable

except today it's infuriating.

[gejohnston]

6. that the principal resisted the best he could until the cops showed up

or that he had a pistol on him at a school? Is that a violation of Mississippi law? What did the principal do wrong?

[PavePusher]

9. Truth is painful that way.

And, in this case, very tradgic.

[GreenStormCloud]

21. So what did the vice-principal do wrong.

After all, he DID stop a school shooting that was happening. Should he have let the shooter kill more kids? That seems to be what you are advocating.

[ThatPoetGuy]

51. No, he didn't. It's just another right-wing lie, and anyone repeating it should be banned.

Myrick came out with his .45 and found the shooter relaxing in a car, out of ammo.

Please get your facts straight.

Oh wait, if your facts were straight, you wouldn't be able to believe in such nonsense. And that's the definition of cognitive distortion.

[Tumbulu]

33. ANOTHER IDIOTIC POST

SHAME ON YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[YllwFvr]

48. gsc sorry to ask you

But can you provide a link? Or more info? Ive never heard this and cant find anything.

[GreenStormCloud]

50. Here you are:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pearl_High_School_shooting

There have been several cases in which a private citizen has stopped a rampage shooting, and one case in which the citizen tried but failed and died in the attempt. (Killer was wearing body armor.)

[ThatPoetGuy]

52. A small correction...

"There have been several cases in which (right-wing sources have fraudulently claimed) a private citizen has stopped a rampage shooting."

I just thought I'd give you the opportunity to edit that into your reply, in case truth matters to you.

[YllwFvr]

53. shared and thank you nt

[whopis01]

68. The gun was in the room with her when she died. n/t

[ManiacJoe]

69. While true, "in the room with" and "with" are not the same thing.

[jbgood1977]

11. That teacher not only was absent from the classroom

She would have been prevented from legally carrying the firearms on school property. That's how free fire zones work - only the bad guys have the guns.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

12. More attack the victim

been seeing it all day here at DU.

Lets say we get some facts before we dog pile what appears to be the first victim today.

[CreekDog]

15. well that shows how low you will stoop --to characterize this as an attack on the victim

even though she and the others were victims and her guns, nor anyone else's helped or saved them.

but that you want to invent an attack from me on the mother and the teacher which did not occur, shows how low you'll stoop to falsely discredit a gun safety message or point of view.

of course, you and I frequently disagree on things because you rarely take the Democratic or liberal position on much of anything --much less are you willing to tell the truth about the issues that most DUers believe in.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

17. Blovate as you wish...you are still dogpiling the first victim without data

[Clames]

30. Apparently his "data" is based on bullshit.

http://www.mediaite.com/online/reports-nancy-lanza-wasnt-a-teacher-at-sandy-hook-elementary/

I doubt the OP will change the title of this thread though...

[Eleanors38]

13. A serious proposal to address school shootings...

Taking cue from Clinton's Safe Streets Act, fund a Safe Schools Act to pay for armed security (2+ per school?) Any school could apply for funds, or opt out in favor of volunteer, trained armed teachers, or nothing at all -- generally, the unfortunate present policy.

Anyone serious about addressing school shootings? This seems like a winner, esp. for Obama.

[Kennah]

16. Except that means spending money, and Boner Inc claims, "We're broke"

[PavePusher]

25. Stop making sense. n/t

[PavePusher]

79. Apparently that would be abusive to children. See post #39. n/t

[krispos42]

19. I bet there were plenty more teachers that had guns.

None of those had them in the school, though. After all, that's dangerous.

[CreekDog]

22. well you want us all to be expert at shooting at each other --because it will make us safer

this is why you aren't taken seriously at DU.

[krispos42]

23. Obviously silly thread topics don't lend cred, either. n/t

[CreekDog]

29. you mean it's a silly thread topic to ask what if one of the teachers had a gun?

hey, it's your credibility you're trashing, not mine.

[Tumbulu]

34. Yes, so true (nt)

[Kaleva]

20. There was a post in GD that the woman wasn't a teacher

That the initial media reports were wrong and there is no record of this woman ever having taught, even as a substitute teacher.

[Berserker]

28. But But

don't say that it ruins the smart ass headline in the OP and that's what it's here for. That and name calling.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

80. +1 n/t

[Howzit]

44. School teacher in Israel and her kids are ready for trouble - see pic

[img][/img]

[PavePusher]

46. According to #39, that's child abuse.

Because being an unarmed victim is morally superior, I guess...

[Tumbulu]

67. And I stand by that- how sick is that picture?

Good grief!

[ManiacJoe]

70. By the normal definitions of "abuse",

harm needs to be done, physically or emotionally or whatever.

In this case, what is the harm being done to the children?

[whopis01]

73. Kids in a situation where their caretakers need tools designed to cause death isn't harmful?

You asked "what harm is being done to the children?"

Do you really think there is no emotional harm being done there?

And before you make argument that such protection is needed given the situation - please take a moment and really think about the question you asked. Do you truly believe there is no harm being done to the kids in that picture? Is there any better wy these kids could be raised?

[gejohnston]

74. the harm is the reason why the teacher is carrying

not that fact that she is carrying.

[whopis01]

82. You are making my point exactly

"the harm is the reason why the teacher is carrying"

I could not agree with you more. This leads to the question of "what is the reason the is carrying?". On the surface, the obvious answer is because there is an eminent threat against her and her students. That is an accurate answer. However, looking a little deeper, there is another, equally valid and perhaps more complete, answer. And that answer is that the response to a threat is escalation.

You take the argument down to simple cause and effect logic. OK - no problem there. But it is not just a single step of cause and effect. It is a chain. Each effect becomes the cause of the next link in the chain.

Someone threatens to hit you.
(Problem)

You start carrying around a baseball bat for protection.
(Problem solved)

They get a gun and threaten you from out of reach of your bat.
(Problem unsolved)

You get a gun and can defend your self from a distance.
(Problem solved)

They quit making overt threats and sneak up next to you with a bomb strapped to themselves.
(Problem unsolved)

Escalation is not a solution. It is merely adding a link into the chain.


Now please don't go down the route of trying to say that I am against the 2nd amendment and I want everyone's guns taken away. I have neither said nor implied that. I am not saying people don't have a right to defend themselves. I am not saying that people shouldn't have the right to use a firearm to defend themselves.

But don't expect me to believe that is a solution to the problem. It isn't.

And don't expect me to believe that escalation doesn't cause harm.

[PavePusher]

85. So, how do you propose to defend people targeted by criminals? n/t

[whopis01]

87. I never once said that people shouldn't have access to arms to defend themselves

I started replying - and realized that I had just written a fairly detailed response to you already - please read that one.

[PavePusher]

75. So.... we should evacuate Isreal? Seriously, what are you saying here? n/t

[whopis01]

83. Where on earth did you come up with that from?

I never remotely suggested that we should evacuate Israel.

My point was I believe it is harmful to have kids in a situation where their caretakers are required to have firearms ready to defend them.

When I was a kid, I was afraid of what might be under my bed. And there was nothing under my bed - I looked - but I was still scared of it. Had I been in a situation where my teacher carried a weapon and was ready to shoot and kill someone trying to harm me I can only imagine I would have been terrified of what was out there trying to harm me. Now I am sure that some would say that I would have been better off because that is the real world and I would know to be afraid the dangers out there. However, I think at that age I would probably be better off not knowing about it. And I am certain that I would have been better off if I was someplace where that danger did not exist.

I don't have a problem with people having access to firearms to defend themselves when such actions are necessary. I have a problem when people act like there is no other (or additional) solution worth thinking of or discussing. Particularly when they attempt to shut down any thought or voice that is not in lockstep with theirs by blatantly misconstruing what is being said as something silly and ridiculous.

[PavePusher]

84. Your cognitive disconnect is set on high today.

My point was I believe it is harmful to have kids in a situation where their caretakers are required to have firearms ready to defend them

.
Then as I implied, you need to evacuate all school children from Israel.

Also, no-one ever thought the Newtown school should need armed security.... but it sure would have helped.

How else do you propose to keep students safe from criminal intent?

[whopis01]

86. There is no cognitive disconnect here.

You are trying to create an argument where there is none. You are taking two thoughts that are not opposite each other and trying to make them opposed.

When you read this, keep an open mind for a moment and don't assume that I just arguing with you.

The first post I responded to was one claiming that they seem no harm displayed in the picture of the armed teacher with her students. I, on the other hand, believe that there is an abundance of harm displayed in that picture. I didn't say that things would be better if the teacher was unarmed. I just disagreed with the thought that there is no harm being done in that picture.

Reality is not black and white. Everything is in relative degrees. I think having to arm a grade school teacher is bad. I believe having a child (or the teacher) murdered by an armed assailant is worse. If arming the teacher prevents that then arming the teacher is a better choice than not doing so.

But don't ask me to make that my new baseline for normal and good. It isn't good. It may be necessary at the current time, but it isn't good. I think that looking at a picture of children with an armed teacher and saying that there is no harm there is moving the baseline of what is considered acceptable way too far. There is obvious harm there and it should not be whitewashed. Again I am not saying it isn't necessary or even the best course for the moment - I am just saying be honest about the situation.



You are absolutely correct - if the Newtown school had armed security it would have helped. That is one of a great many things that could have helped prevent the tragedy. It is probably one of the quickest and easiest things to implement as well. And maybe the best choice in the short term. But when society (or some within it) has moved so far that we require armed guards at schools can we not at least remember that there was a time when we did not feel this necessary? And that there may be ways of moving back towards that? And that there are other things that can and should be done beyond just escalating the arms?


Now feel free to call me out for not proposing some other solution. I have not - because I don't know of one right now. That doesn't mean one doesn't exist.

[PavePusher]

96. Thank you for the rational dialog.

I do have a question and an observation:

1. What "harm" is being done by providing visible security for schools and children?

2. "But when society (or some within it) has moved so far that we require armed guards at schools can we not at least remember that there was a time when we did not feel this necessary?"
Interesting point, but I'd counter by saying that I don't believe anything has changed except for our becoming aware of the fact that providing security requires actually doing pro-active things, not passively declaring a location a "crime free zone" and then sitting back in complete detachment. We've proved, tragically, over and over, that being oblivious to reality doesn't work. Crime rates are at historical lows, but this does not mean crime doesn't exist and isn't a real and widespread problem.
On reflection, two things have changed. One is that guns used to be pretty freely available to kids at schools. You'll see repeated references to people growing up with guns, taking them to school so as to be readily available for after-school hunting or organised target shooting events (some schools still have teams for this). I had the same experiences. Now we don't do that, and shootings may have actually increased. The second item is that we now have instant access to every event world-wide via modern communication and media. Many studies have shown that this creates a quantifiable perception bias, wherein we think events are more common than they actually are, because we hear about all of them, every moment. Something to ponder.

I'm not going to "call you out", as I know I don't have all the answers either. But I do know a few things that have been empirically demonstrated to work. Yet one of them is being called, by another poster, "child abuse". Which seems to me to be indicative of a very confused person, both on the concept of security and child abuse.

Lastly, one thing we could do right now, that wouldn't cost anyone a dime: Stop glorifying these criminals. Do not report their names to the public. Do not show their pictures. Do not give them the infamy they crave as a substitute for self-affirmation. Stop enabling them through this insane public voyeur fascination (dare I say obsession/addiction) with other peoples' pain and suffering and rage.

[whopis01]

102. thank you as well

In response to your questions:

1) There harm isn't in the armed protection of the students - the harm is in the society/situation/whatever you want to call it that has led to the point where armed protection of students is necessary. I saw the earlier poster in the thread who claimed it was abusive to have children see a weapon around them (or something to that effect) - I don't agree with that. The problem didn't start with the arming of the teacher - it started long before that. My point is that the arming of the teacher doesn't make everything better. It can make things safer - but it doesn't fix the core problems.

2) I understand your point there. I think we certainly agree that you have to be pro-active about fixing this (or any other) problem. There is way too much declaring this or that and then not doing anything to follow up on it.

Interesting observation on access / usage / education of firearms in the past. I think that something that goes hand in hand with that is that today the views on firearms tend to be very extreme. From the people who think that they are entirely evil and should be banned, to the people who think that they are the first and best solution to any problem. They are both demonized and glorified - and not discussed rationally.

One thought I was having after my last post was the difference between this event and the typical criminal use of a gun. Criminals, for the most part, are acting rationally (at least in a sense). A bank robber is trying to get money - he isn't wanting to get hurt or get known by doing this. That means that you can use deterrence against him. So a visible armed guard (without taking any other action at all) will have some effect to deter that type of criminal behavior. However, in this latest tragedy - I don't believe deterrence would have any effect. An armed guard shooting and killing him would have stopped it - but I don't think anything short of that would have done much. So what (in my opinion) should be used as a deterrence and the last line of defense becomes the first step in preventing a tragedy. There is something that just doesn't sit well with me there. Again - not saying that the armed guard shouldn't have been there - chances are it would have helped - it just feels like there were a great many things, both small and large, that could have made a difference here.

Sometimes it just feels like we let the bad guys (be they criminals, mentally disturbed, terrorists, whatever) steer the boat way too much.

You are right about the glorification of these criminals. It is hard to imagine that this guy had any other goal than to become famous (infamous) for what he did. And he is being given exactly what he wanted.

[PavePusher]

76. A teacher ready to defend her students by a means other than suicide?

I find that very healthy, actually.

What is sick is you demanding that people be rendered less able to defend themselves, on the theory that it's "sick" to be able to do so.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

88. hasn't this been proven to be Bullshit?

[CreekDog]

89. try reading the text of the message next time

[Tuesday Afternoon]

90. bait and swtich. right up your alley, any self respecting DUer would self delete and close out the

thread.

That lets you out I guess.

Ciao.

[CreekDog]

91. no, i left it open so people could commeth

but explained that later news showed the original message to be wrong.

don't be a dummy about this.

i could've closed it and deleted it and spared myself being told off by you.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

92. it is deceitful. and you know it. but whatever dude. do your thing the way only YOU can do it.

real class act you are.

[CreekDog]

93. no because if i was trying to deceive i wouldn't explain how i was wrong

i wouldn't have left the post's original text available for you to look at.

i am insistent and often annoying with my opinions, but i never want to trick anybody.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

94. what if ...yeah right. what if a frog had wings?

he wouldn't bump his ass every time he jumped.