Schools, libraries, churches . . . any public place where innocent people
congregate is a possible locale. Perhaps what eventually would be desired by
the NRA is an armed force patroling the public space as they do in China,
Russia, and other places which provide maximum security, soldiers with automatic
weapons, highly visible, going about "insuring the public safety." However, nothing is perfect and those with the firepower and the will to
wreak havoc will always find a way to cause death and mayhem. No place is safe
with committed assailants with the weapons required to carry out the mass
killings we've seen over the last few years. Basically, the
NRA wants people (it doesn't matter really if it's "good guys"
or "bad guys") to have access to the same armaments as the military just
in case they have to fight the government in the end. According to the NRA,
increasing police presence is not enough because the police are essentially
representatives of the government, you can't really depend on them, and
"the people" may one day have to take up arms and defend themselves
against a democratically-elected government they don't like.
For every Adam Lanza (Sandy Hook shooter), James Holmes (Aurora shooter),
Seung-hui Cho (Virginia Tech shooter), Jared Loughner (Gabby Giffords shooter),
Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold (Columbine shooters), and all the other mass
killers identified in headlines across the nation, there are thousands of other
young people caught up with anger, unidentified, who fantasize doing the same
thing. These are not young people identified as mentally ill or
somehow seen as an imminent threat. They are isolated and angry, and no one has
yet suggested what takes them over the edge to commit such horrendous act. They
can be the children of clergymen, law enforcement, pillars of the community.
There is nothing about them to easily identify them. However, if they ever take
it on themselves to act in an anti-social fashion as did the other killers, they
will find a gun and carry out their attack.It doesn't have to
be a school. Or a theater. Or a college campus. It could be a hospital. A
church. An ice cream store, restaurant, or any other public place. They will
commit their horror because they have a gun and they can. Or they
can be helped.
Careful, there's a lot of variables here that you are too easily
dismissing. Does a security endorsement guarantee that a student will never be
able to get ahold of the teacher's firearm? With the thousands of schools
in America and the hundreds of students in each of them, it would take only a
very small "oops" rate of overly curious or malicious students finding
an improperly handled gun to completely erase any benefit. And do you really
believe that junior high and high school age students carefully planning a
Columbine-style shooting wouldn't know which teachers were armed?
I am normally a gun rights supporter, but this is an absolutely idiotic idea.
I'd rather see a teacher in every gun store than an armed teacher in every
Cut education..substitute sewing, and cheerleading for statistics and logic and
thrity years later here you have public discussion.
This is what terrorism really is. We don't need foreign extremists flying
planes into buildings, ending thousands of lives. All it takes is a single
American with a gun in a movie theatre, a shopping mall, an elementary school.
This is terrorism that will bring a great nation down. And we are doing it to
I have an even better idea.Lets put cruise missiles and bazookas in
schools too. We could also store tanks in sheds that also store football
equipment and landscaping tools. That way, if any "bad guy" were to
attack a school boy they would pay for it!We could also get rid of
our police and just let ordinary citizens rule. Everyone and anyone should have
a gun! If anyone wants to know what our country would be like with
teachers, priests, pastors, ordinary citizens (everyone), having guns, just look
at Afghanistan. How's that working out?
I'm sure the NRA has nothing to gain financially by suggesting that
teachers buy guns... Right? Noooooo financial rewards in selling more guns and
ammo, right? I'm sure the NRA isn't motivated by additional profits.
I'm 100 percent sure the NRA is merely just looking out for the security of
Americans, right?Errr....Sorry, I couldn't keep a
straight face.Folks, are we really this gullible?Of
course the NRA would suggest that more people need to be armed! Of course! Were
you really expecting them to take responsibility for what is happening to our
society? Do you really expect them to suggest hurting their sales? The only logical response from the NRA was to suggest more guns be given out
to citizens. They are a business! They are in it to make money!Have
you ever seen an oil company advocate driving a hybrid? Ever seen Apple suggest
you go with a PC? Ever seen Mitt Romney or the Koch Bros advocate stricter
environmental regulations and fewer corporate bailouts? Of course
not. These folks are in it for themselves. The NRA is looking out for numerio
uno! Are we really going to fall for it?
Wrong, wrong, wrong!Insanity, insanity, insanity.But to
the NRA and gun companies, it's money, money, money.Yup, yup,
One more writer that has drank the NRA cool aid. Do you have any idea of the
cost to secure every elementary school in America with permanant police trained
and armed guards. Then if the NRA has its way consider the cost of securing
every other kind of public place.The NRA is nuts and their real
objective is just to sell guns. They really don't represent gun owners.
They represent the Gun manufacturing industry.We should ban assault
weapons and large capacity clips. And the Goverment should buy back these
illegal arms in the same way that bought gold when we went off of the gold
standard.LaPierre says it won't work. Well, one thing is for certain
it will not work for them.
We should do the same thing with airports. Rather than elaborate security
screening to ensure there are no weapons, we should require one third of the
passengers to be armed. Problem solved.
I actually don't think having teachers with concealed gun permits is a
horrible idea. It is a lot more practical than the NRA's idea of a police
officer in every school. Many schools have resource police officers already but
most elementary schools do not or have one officer that serves many schools
which is what they have in Provo city for example.But I also think
Ying Fah has many great points. We need to look at our boys and do more for our
boys and have this discussion. Many as he says are alienated and angry, many
turn to suicide, sadly some turn to homicide before they commit suicide. We need
to have frank discussions about mental illness, social alienation, bullying in
school, parenting, and gun issues. This is a complicated, multi-faceted issue.
It isn't all bout guns, it isn't all about mental illness either.
But, Dude, air marshals currently riding on airplanes have "friable"
bullets in their weapons. They won't penetrate pressurized aircraft hulls.
How many gun toting CCP holders use them? And do you have any idea what a
bullet will do a pressurized airplane at FL 32?It might also help
all of us if news media like DN and others would report on whether or not guns
used in incidents like the murder/suicide in Helper yesterday, or the recent
domestic violence shooting in Roy would report on whether or not the weapon used
in each incident was "legal" or "illegal."Many
people would be very surprised to learn who many violent crimes are committed
with supposedly "legal" guns.
It seems logical to believe that whatever the solution is for protecting school
children in school, it will probable follow the normal pattern. The winning
solution will be the one(s) that produce the most profit for business. I have known peace officers and teachers and somehow I don’t put
the nature of either as compatible in the same individual. People who carry
guns are not the kind of teachers we want for children. My
thoughts go along the line of using the money to remodel the school itself.
That is, revise the layout of the school into secure areas where remote control
of doors allow only certain people. Of course this may require that each
classroom have a fire exit. If there’s any money left,
install metal detectors and require children and teachers to wear non-metal
As someone who supports fairly strong gun safety laws I'm actually rather
okay with the idea of having a trained sherrifs deputy in each school (the high
schools in my home county had that). However.. 1. we currently do not have
nearly enough officers to be able to devote one to every school (that'd be
about 30 more in that home county in maryland along).2. Columbine had that
so let's not pretend this solves everything (nothing will solve everything
for the record).3. It does absolutely nothing to stop the other 10,900 of
the 11,000 gun incidents each year that aren't shootings in schools, on its
own it does very little to tackle gun safety and mental health deficiencies in
this nation. It merely attempts to help with one very specific type of incident.
Fact is about 30 Americans are killed by guns every day on average. Over 100
have died since Sandy Hook including a diturbing case today of two firefighters
being killed while responding to a fire.
Four volunteer firefighters were just ambushed. Two dead. Two wounded. In the
days since the last school shooting, there have been hundreds of others.As soon as possible after a shooting, ANY shooting, the news media
should report to all of us whether the gun(s) used by the person was
"legal" or "illegal." It would be a great help to anyone
interested in learning the facts about guns in America. It could help a lot in
the development of sensible gun laws.I'm sure most Americans
would be astonished at how many of the guns used in situations like these were
"legally" in the possession of the owner who is now suddenly a criminal
instead of just another "sensible" gun toter. Another surprise would be
how many showed past signs of mental problems.Most attention is
focused on mass shootings. What about the other, less sensational shootings?
Shouldn't attention be paid to ALL shootings?Google the Mother
Jones report on shootings.
As a former school teacher I wouldn't want the burden of security added to
my job description. However, the letter writer is correct in asserting that
something needs to be done to secure our schools. Perhaps other staff could be
armed (custodians?)or the buildings made more secure.Israelis use
retired military people to man the entry of every public building. America is
probably just too big to do that.
For every "Adam Lanza" who acted to strip Americans of their life,
liberty and pursuit of happiness, there are thousands of Americans who join with
him in proposing ways to strip Americans of their life, liberty and pursuit of
happiness. He used force and enforced it with a gun. They use want to use
force and petty politicians to enforce their will on the rest of America. The
difference between "Adam Lanza" and those who so willing TAKE away our
liberty is only one of degree.Arming teachers is the wrong thing to
do. No teacher must ever be put in the position where he/she has to kill
another human being in front of her/his students. They did not sign up to be
policemen, but to teach our children. Find another way.
Three weeks ago school teachers were overpaid, glorified,
union-thug-babysitters...now they are wonderful, sacrificial
protectors of our children who need to be armed with assault rifles. Interesting change of perspective. Does training on assault weapons earn them
a higher pay rate?
Many teachers in Utah are already armed. They have and make use of concealed
carry permits and what thinking parent doesn't feel safer as a
consequence?China has far more attacks on schools than we do and
more teachers and students killed and injured as a result.See
Widipedia .. School attacks in China. (2010-2012)We are fooling
ourselves if we think getting rid of guns including assault weapons will fix
this. If we were to take the tool away, criminals would turn to using other
tools as they do in China. In a sense a knife or sword is more effective than a
gun. A knife operates silently, giving no warning to hide or take cover.It is said even though more gun control wouldn't be very effective
we must do something. Yes we must but why not something that WOULD be
effective? Encourage mothers with children to stay home and raise them
providing emotional security and moral training. The government could even
provide a subsidy for families to help them afford this, saving money in crime
loss and prisons. It used to be that most mothers with children did stay home.
We were warned but didn't listen.
Arm the sixth graders, the clerks at stores, mall personnel, collage teachers,
business people, etc........ That will reduce gun violence? Plan B, no one
take guns out of there house not locked up.
You really don't see anything wrong with a society that has to prepare and
equip elementary school teachers to kill marauding attackers? I do. We're
Kalindra:Chances are teachers will be required to do training and
will be asked to pay for it out of their own pockets :)
I am having trouble understanding how Mike R. can say a mentally ill gunman
"acted to strip Americans of their life, liberty and pursuit of
happiness" by causing a reexamination of gun laws in this Country. However
this same linguist has trouble parsing the phrase from the same document
"to promote the general welfare" as giving the State the power and
authority to do just that.
To "cjb" it is more than just China. Japan took away the guns of their
people, now, like China, they use swords, axes, and other similar weapons. Now
Japan is regulating knives and swords. Unfortunately the liberals will not be
satisfied, and are too arrogant to realize that the problem isn't the
weapons, but the mental state of the killers.Another fact that the
liberals will overlook is the simple fact that gun ownership is up, and murders
is down. If guns were the problem, then murders should be up, but they are not.
How many incidents have we had in Utah where a teacher's weapon was taken
and misused? We already have armed teachers in Utah schools. No teacher has
been required to have CCW - they are allowed to. To my knowledge, none of my
kids' teachers have guns - but I'd be happy to know they did. So that
if a nutcase did show up, they'd be there 5 to 20 minutes before the cops,
with the ability to slow or stop the shooter. The average number of deaths in a
mass shooting stopped by police is 14. Stopped by a civilian on the premises -
2.5. If you think a criminal pays attention to gun laws or gun free zones, you
need help yourself. They go where they can find the most potential victims and
the least potential resistance.For a much better, if lengthier
discussion of the pros of responsible gun use - google Larry Correia and gun
In Sandy Hills School, teachers did heroic things to try to protect their
children. They paid with their lives. Is that really what we expect our teachers
to have to do? I know many teachers. Some absolutely do not want to
carry a gun at school and I accept and respect that. But some do, for the
ability to protect not only themselves, but also those students they dedicate
their lives to teaching. These are experienced, well respected, and well liked
teachers. I don't think having them carry is a problem. They are top notch
people who we already trust our children to. Who better to protect them?
Being armed does in no way mean that you will win a shoot out with an armed
assailant. Just a guess. Just a really bad idea. So bad. terribad.
cjb, did you take the time to read the Wikipedia article you referred us to? Did
you? From that article, "The spate of attacks left at least 21
dead and some 90 injured."That is the number from all of the
attacks on schools in China. You make this claim, "China has far
more attacks on schools than we do and more teachers and students killed and
injured as a result."I'll ask again, did you read the
article? We had more deaths in this one attack at Sandy Hook then all of the
attacks on schools in China. And the fact that China has a far higher population
then needs to be taken into consideration. Redshirt, what do you think the
fatality and injury rate would be in China if these attackers had been armed
with semi auto assault style weapons and large capacity clips?
450 people Will be killed by drunk drivers on New Year's Day. 10,000 this
year. Round up all the alcohol, obviously we can't trust the citizenry
with it and making it unobtainable will solve the problem.No ?
Another Nut job takes the same assault rifle, lights his house on fire and
ambushes the FireDepartment when they respond to the call.And so far
the NRA's ONLY answer to this sort of problem is that America needs to hire
armed security gaurds and put them in each and every school in America?I don't think the NRA is dealing in REALITY!
rlsintx, clearly drunk driving is a problem. And if we were discussing the issue
of drunk driving perhaps we could find some ways to deal with it. I also think
that there is not one person commenting here that would support drunk driving,
and police agencies as well as government are very aggressive in addressing the
problem. Drinking and driving a car are heavily regulated, as is buying alcohol,
at least in Utah. But we are not talking about drunk driving on this
thread, we are talking about gun violence. And the two really do not have the
Being armed requires carrying a couple hundred rounds and several weapons now.
Shall we further escalate?
Of course where guns are totally banned knives are used by mass killers. Maybe
they do not get as many. Schools could have a locked box that opens to
fingerprint and a gun could be obtained fairly quick. I prefer that those
teachers that are willing to carry s should do so, but this should only be known
to the principle. Even if no teacher was willing to carry the perp would not
know this. If I were a teacher I would want to protect my students and I hope I
would be willing to shoot a killer shooting at them. Manufacturers make rather
small guns these days and they can be carried in one's pocket. Anywhere
guns are banned homicides do not decline and often increase.