Critics say NRA solution to school shootings expensive, unproductive


Return To Article
  • HotGlobe SAN RAFAEL, CA
    Dec. 29, 2012 2:53 a.m.

    If guns are allowed at my child's school, he will be staying home until that policy is changed. In fact, I know very few parents who would stand for that kind of insanity.

  • worf Mcallen, TX
    Dec. 23, 2012 10:40 a.m.


    Giving billions to the Muslim Brotherhood, Brazil, Pakistan, etc, are expensive.

  • no fit in SG St.George, Utah
    Dec. 23, 2012 10:27 a.m.

    If the NRA gets their way.......
    NRA will continue to be a money making machine. Sign everyone up, money from the citizenry dues will be off the charts for their wealthy members.
    Stoke up the fires at the gun manufacturing companies. Hire lots of people.
    Middle Schools in America will now offer classes in "gun Safety" for those deemed mature enough to carry their weapon on middle school and high school campus. Possibly, the larger, more mature 6th graders in other elementary schools can be included in the plan. Must have those schools guarded, first and foremost.
    No money in the federal, state or school district coffers to hire professional guards, so had to figure out some way to keep the kids safe.
    Don't worry, the student gun toters/junior police people, will still be in class long enough to be passed on to the next grade level.
    Isn't this just like the "Safeties" programs in the schools in the 1950s? Many of us remember that! Never any accidents with the "Safeties". No difference with Safeties toting guns. Right?

  • Demisana South Jordan, UT
    Dec. 23, 2012 8:47 a.m.

    Fix the mental health system immediately - so that a child or adult with known serious issues can receive treatment, whether or not they want it, whether or not they've committed a crime yet.

    As for guns in schools - this NRA idea is so dumb that over 1/3 of American schools has already implemented it. Um, yeah, really dumb, huh?

    Fact is there is no one size fits all solution, but we need to work all angles. Allow teachers and other school personnel to concealed carry. NOT MANDATE, mind you, but allow. Every mass shooter has kept killing, until somebody with a gun showed up, at which point they are either killed or they suicide. The average number of people shot in a mass shooting event when the shooter is stopped by law enforcement: 14. The average number of people shot in a mass shooting event when the shooter is stopped by civilians: 2.5. The reason is simple. The armed civilians are there when it started.

  • Keith1943 Spring City, UT
    Dec. 23, 2012 7:48 a.m.

    So Mark, what's your solution? Are you willing to relinquish your protective rights all together? Why do you think these cowards go into the schools in the first place? Do you see them going into a police station or armed federal building? Of course not. But, rather than using commonsense, simply answer the question. How would you protect the children and the faculty?

  • Keith1943 Spring City, UT
    Dec. 23, 2012 7:05 a.m.

    Instead of offering an alternative or some commonsense solution, all that the gun-control advocates can come up with is to put down, name call and label the NRA as the "cause" behind these tragedies. The liberal objective has always been the same; to render all of society, defenseless and vulnerable, in order that their socialist agenda can move ahead unabated.

    A primary purpose for the 2nd Amendment was to protect the citizens from an out of control and tyrannical government. When you look at the downward spiral this nation is on, and what's left of our Constitution, now IS NOT the time to take away those protections. We are no longer a government by and for the people. We have lost our moral compass. As we observe the socialist path we're on, is it any wonder that the elitists want to take away these rights? They fear us. And that's as it should be.

    We know your true purpose. So, by trying to sell us on the illogical idea that passing laws against private ownership of guns, will magically make all this go away, is an absolute insult!

  • CabezaMan Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Dec. 23, 2012 12:49 a.m.

    The Founding Fathers felt it was wise that American Citizens have the right to own weapons as a deterrent from a tyrannical government. That means that they expected us to be able to use them if necessary to maintain our liberty. In fact, they realized that this right to "bear arms" is so important; it became number 2 on that list of rights, just after the "free speech and assembly thing." However, it was also important to them that we are able to "bear arms" as a deterrent and protection from others that would threaten our life and liberty. Now we've made amazing strides in civility over the last 200 years, to the point where the idea a carrying (bearing) a weapon (arms) seems abhorrent to most of us. However, we have recently strayed from civility, and eroded the value of life through liberal policies that, although seemingly compassionate and altruistic, have corrupted our society and made a mockery of all that we used to hold sacred. So now society spawns derelicts and nut jobs, and it’s time again to protect ourselves. A community dedicated to the ideal of “self-protection” is an amazing deterrent.

  • Kalindra Salt Lake City, Utah
    Dec. 22, 2012 11:44 p.m.

    Armed guards, limited access, security checks, no weapons, metal detectors, enclosed outdoor space - sounds like the state penn - and this is the environment the NRA thinks we need to send our kids to school in.....

  • bzmomo6 Carthage, NC
    Dec. 22, 2012 8:10 p.m.

    Those who think they can keep kids safe through legislation need to get their head out of the sand. Bad guys and crazies will always find a way to get a weapon. I agree we need to help individuals with mental illness or disorders, but that is not going to stop all the bad guys. When we send thousands of dollars from one bank to another, we send it in armored trucks with armed guards. Why do we not offer our children the same protection? What do we value more? I am a fan of offering to train 3-4 teachers per school in gun use (many probably already are trained) and arming them. There are schools in Texas already doing that. That would cost a lot less than hiring additional officers. Yes, there would need to be personality tests, a look at family makeup... As for the argument about kids feeling unsafe because their teacher is armed...that is a load of bull. There is a reason it is called a "concealed" weapon! Utah schools are the main reasons that my family chooses to live in "the mission field". Utah needs to wake up and invest in the future. Their kids!

  • justamacguy Manti, UT
    Dec. 22, 2012 8:00 p.m.

    Armed guards at schools? How crazy! Oh, wait, it works on our airlines. No hijacking since 2001. I hate to try something in the school that is working in the sky. Duh.

  • James1105 BOAZ, AL
    Dec. 22, 2012 4:59 p.m.

    What is really frightening is sitting in a theater which is located in a "no gun zone" and NOT having a gun to defend oneself or others in the theater when a looney stands up and begins shooting everyone.

    Isn't it interesting how we see/hear of news stories of people killing lots of people where no one in the crowd had a gun on them, and the news stories of where there are people with weapons who shoot the killers is rarely reported on, or shoved way back in the paper/news report??? There are LOTS of examples.

    But then, showing that an armed citizenry REDUCES crime and the number of victims doesn't fit into the government's socialist pogrom, does it?

  • JSB Sugar City, ID
    Dec. 22, 2012 4:17 p.m.

    It isn't guns; it's unbalanced kids who got that way through their dysfunctional homes. I'm pretty sure that if his parents had stayed married, the incident wouldn't have happened. Until our homes and families get stronger, we will continue to have these tragedies.

  • fangflyer LAKE WALES, FL
    Dec. 22, 2012 4:04 p.m.

    A tragedy similar to the horrible attack in Connecticut will not be prevented by eliminating firearms. There are several contributing elements that need to be addressed. The most important is identifying and treating people who are mentally impaired or ill. If the mother of the attacker in Connecticut had been able to find an effective source of help for her son, this horror may never have happened. Another aspect to consider is the large number of highly violent video games that are available and the desensitizing effect these games, particularly "shooter games", have on a person. The knee-jerk reaction of the Progressive-Socialist-Liberals is not an intelligent solution. Violent people will always find a way to inflict harm. Armed citizens are an effective deterrent, just as armed police are a deterrent, but accepting personal responsibility for our safety does not satisfy the Left, they want to control our liberties, and that is not a solution that the majority of thinking, rational Americans will accept.

  • mark Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 22, 2012 2:49 p.m.

    But here’s the thing, in the NRA fantasy world, the world they dream of, a guy could walk right into the middle of a school, with an M-16, er, AR-15, strapped over his shoulder, 30 round clips and 100 round drums, hanging from his belt, encased in full body armor, packing hand guns, and he would not be breaking one single law, until he fired the first bullet.

    That is the insanity of the NRA, and the gun lobby.

    The NRA believes that no public place, including public schools, should be designated “gun free”. They push open carry laws, like they did just recently in Florida. They believe in the right to own assault weapons, er “assault like” weapons, like the AR-15, and to carry them publicly, like was done at a number of political events just awhile ago. They believe that body armor should be legal for the public to purchase and own, like it already is.

    This is the madness of the gun culture.

  • mark Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 22, 2012 2:23 p.m.

    Some people live in an absolute fantasy world. First off, not every federal facility is protected by an armed guard. That is just nonsense. (I used to go into many federal facilities on a weekly basis. I know.)

    Second the idea that these killers would be deterred by guns in schools, or other places, is pure speculation. These killers put on body armor. They are expecting to get shot at.

    To try to put the burden of protecting our school children on teachers is pathetic. Is that really where we are?

    In police shootings, nation wide, the ratio of bullets that hit the target is 2 out of 10. For every 10 bullets fired by a cop in a police shooting 2 hit the target. And those are highly trained individuals. What do you think a bunch of teachers are going to do?

    Against a highly motivated individual, coming in firing, wearing body armor, with an M-16, and 30 round clips? Er, I mean AR-15. Same thing. Just one has full auto capability, one does not.

  • Kathy. Iowa, Iowa
    Dec. 22, 2012 2:04 p.m.

    I wonder how many people that are advocating more gun free places would be willing to post on their home "This is a gun free home."

  • Kathy. Iowa, Iowa
    Dec. 22, 2012 1:41 p.m.

    The NRA's solution is the best solution. It protects the children and doesn't infringe on the rights of gun owners or establish another government agency that infringes on the rights of the mentally ill.

    Some people seem to think they have a right to live without seeing guns and I think I missed that right in the Constitution.

    When the constitution was written the citizens were given the right to be armed just like the military. Same rifles as the military. The type and styles have changed but that is the right we were all given. So that every citizen could defend themselves and the country. To say that they could not have imagined the types we just does not hold water as they a huge amount of money from their meager resources to make sure they were armed with the best they could get.

  • Elcapitan Ivins, UT
    Dec. 22, 2012 1:39 p.m.

    Cats, do you really know how the NRA works and what they stand for. Better join and find out.
    They really do speak for those of us who enjoy our second amendmentr rights. They advocate safety, knowledge, obedience to the law, and a strong justicel system. Just what we need. Who else does this, certainly not the Washington establishment.

    Be realistic, Gun Owners, of which there are many, need the NRA to keep balance in a country torn apart by both the far left and far right, when it comes to reasonable solutions regarding our Second Amendment rights. They provide a great service to law abiding gun owners and congress listens to them when it comes to legislation and voting on the issues.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 22, 2012 1:24 p.m.

    "How many children today alone have gotten a "head shot" merit in some video game? "

    I don't know, but what I do know is that Japan has about a dozen gun related murders a year. We have 10,000. Last I checked the Japanese play a lot of video games too. Oh, and gun violence in the US, as bad as it is, has actually been getting better the past 25 years, the same timespan that video games have gotten more popular (not suggeting a correlation, just noting that things havent' gotten worse since those games have taken off in popularity).

  • Charlemagne Salt Lake City, Utah
    Dec. 22, 2012 1:00 p.m.

    It would take a lot more law enforcement officers to actually enforce an "Assault Weapons Ban" than ti have a resource officer at each school!

  • Ethel Home Town USA, UT
    Dec. 22, 2012 12:58 p.m.

    Any argument against having an armed guard in the schools is shallow. THE CEO is right. Did you know that the IRS has an armed guard in their office to serve the public since a guy shot people in an office in Texas I think. There are guards in them now across the U. S. The other government offices like Social Security has am armed guard too. Why not in the schools too?

    Control the gunman, not the guns. So simple.

  • vdubbin' Ogden, UT
    Dec. 22, 2012 12:41 p.m.

    It may be expensive but not unproductive. I think people would just rather cgi door to door confiscating the property of law abiding citizens, but they need to ask themselves about the "cost" of that move. Even the most ardent gun grabber has got to have an inkling of the problems THAT will cause. I know I won't view the governmental decision to commandeer my property too kindly. Is there a problem? Sure. But just because people don't like guns they are willing to punish everyone. It won't work, never has in the past, and could, potentially, lead to civil unrest the likes of which we haven't seen since the rioting in the 60s.

  • I Bleed Blue Las Vegas, NV
    Dec. 22, 2012 12:30 p.m.

    Leave it to the clowns at the NRA for a horrible idea. And who pays for the first accidental shooting that will surely come?

  • Beverly Eden, UT
    Dec. 22, 2012 12:07 p.m.

    It is hard for me to comprehend the unthinking commitment so many of you have for guns. The Sandy Hook school shooter shot each of these 6 and 7 year old kids several times. He could not have done this horrible act with a limited magazine. Do you think that America is so fraught with crime that everyone should be armed? It is foolish to think that more guns in the hands of more people will stop this carnage. Both Canada and England have less than 100 gun deaths each year. We have over 10,000 each year. Should we ignore the fact that over 10,000 people are killed with a gun in America every year. How can we avoid doing something to stop this horrible American tragedy? Stopping the sale of assault rifles and large magazines will not hurt hunters or anyone with a firearm in their home for protection. Think this through - 20 children each shot several times. Is your fear of crime so great that you can't see the potential benefit in doing something other than saying "Guns don't Kill." Do you want to turn our schools in to armed camps? Please think this through.

  • one old man Ogden, UT
    Dec. 22, 2012 11:19 a.m.

    In a recent shooting in Roy, two women were shot several times by a man with a long history of domestic violence. He had numerous convictions for MISDEMEANORS -- several of which involved violence.

    Yet when he ran out of ammo in his handgun, he ran inside and grabbed an assault rifle and perforated the front of his house several times.

    He had all the weapons LEGALLY. He had not been convicted of a FELONY. Yet.

    Now he will be, and so it might finally be possible to get his arsenal under control.

    What is wrong with this picture?

  • Ron Hilton Holladay, UT
    Dec. 22, 2012 11:18 a.m.

    Maybe random patrolling by plain clothes officers would be more cost-effective, with a sign posted to that effect. The would-be intruder would never be sure whether an armed officer was present or who it is. Plus allowing school personnel with concealed carry permits to have their guns on campus.

  • I-am-I South Jordan, UT
    Dec. 22, 2012 11:05 a.m.

    i would also like to point out that the liberals have control of most of if not all the high crime spots in the country. strange how that works. The disparity between the rich and poor is also the largest. strange isn't it?

  • I-am-I South Jordan, UT
    Dec. 22, 2012 10:50 a.m.

    i would first like to point out that this article is a very bad example of professional journalism. it is not covering both sides of the issue at all. Next I would like to point out that pthat the AR 15 was left in the car and the weapons used were average hand guns. the last this g I would like to point outis that cars make pretty awesome killing machines too. we need to make a culture and laws that empower people and teaches responsibility of that power not stifles personal freedoms and pretends to protect people.

  • Fibonacci Centerville, UT
    Dec. 22, 2012 10:25 a.m.

    Could someone please tell me what they think an "assault weapon" is? And by the way, I am a retired active duty Army combat arms officer who has been around guns my whole life. In my military mind an "assault weapon" is an automatic weapon where one trigger pull equals many rounds being fired. They are not available to the general public. You can't buy one off the shelf at Walmart, Cabalas, or your local gun store. So what's an "assault weapon"? Any gun that's painted black? It's like saying we need to ban al "indecent material". Nobody can agree what it means. School shootings are more about mental health issues, than they are about new gun laws.

  • A1994 Centerville, UT
    Dec. 22, 2012 10:22 a.m.

    1) There was a Federal Assault Weapons ban during Columbine. So it is only a feel good measure that lets a politician look like he's doing something.

    2) The NRA is the ONLY organization with a specific idea on how to make sure this doesn't happen again. Someone correct my math if I'm wrong. There are about 100,000 public schools in the United States. If you paid an armed guard $50,000/year to be at the school full time, that equates to about $5 Billion per year. MSN just did a story on the examples of government waste. It totaled $18.9 Billion. Obviously we can afford to arm our schools.

    3) Making the NRA a scapegoat for Newtown isn't fair and it won't keep kids safe.

  • no fit in SG St.George, Utah
    Dec. 22, 2012 10:17 a.m.

    Police and armed guards at movie theater in Saint George, Utah, now.
    One is also given an assigned seat with that # on one's ticket. One must sit in that assigned seat.
    Everyone sat in middle of the theater in one small area. The remainder of the theater remained empty.

  • Charlemagne Salt Lake City, Utah
    Dec. 22, 2012 10:14 a.m.


    You have the best idea of all. It would only take a few weeks to find willing teachers in each school and to train them. As I explained in an earlier post even if gun control worked (which it doesn't) it would take generations before it made any difference!!

  • Charlemagne Salt Lake City, Utah
    Dec. 22, 2012 9:51 a.m.

    The thing that I would like all those advocates of a ban on "assault weapons" and high capacity magazines to tell us is just how it would make any difference? The guns already here will be around for 100 years or more. A ban will also engender a huge black market in smuggled arms.

    At the same time the murderer could have killed just as many if not more kids with a vehicle or a bomb or incendiary device (which could be made from many commonly available items).

    Ultimately a new "assault weapons ban" is nothing more than a feel good measure for the unthinking and I am not about to give up my rights just to make somebody else feel better!

  • BYR Woods Cross, UT
    Dec. 22, 2012 9:48 a.m.

    There is no answer, people. No matter what path is chosen, extremists on both sides of the debate will find exceptions. This is why the debate will never end and we will never find an acceptable solution.

  • JayTee Sandy, UT
    Dec. 22, 2012 9:38 a.m.

    My personal opinion is that the NRA overreacted a bit. The basic idea is good, but I don't think the Federal government should be involved in education at all; it hasn't worked, it doesn't work, and it never will work. However, individual schools and school districts should allow and encourage teachers to be armed so they can not only teach but also protect their students. You don't need umpteen years of cop duty to be proficient with a firearm. Trying to round up all the weapons and making it so only the thugs who ignore laws anyway are armed is the dumbest idea of all.

  • Ernest T. Bass Bountiful, UT
    Dec. 22, 2012 9:30 a.m.

    The NRA is a cult that preys on the gullible and ignorant.

  • bandersen Saint George, UT
    Dec. 22, 2012 9:25 a.m.

    When informed and God-fearing citizens return to the dialogue for what ails America, American life will get better. However, if Ms. Martindale thinks that any God-fearing and informed citizen is going to hand over their 2nd Amendment rights to her, the government, or even a politician's 'voice of reason' is ignorant of the meaning of liberty. Would Ms. Martin, or anyone else that is demanding a quick fix to something as horrible as last week's shooting,consider returning God to the classroom as a possible 'fix', or even worthy of discussion? I doubt it. Hence, the futility of any action, including the ban of assault weapons,on future carnage. I teach school. Encouraging more concealed weapons permits for all teachers would do more than all the dialogue the national media slimes upon us. Notice I said 'encouraging', rather than 'compelling', which is what both Republican and Democratic parties and politicians are good at doing. Pick your issue and watch the compulsion ensue! Wake up America! Return to the rule of law, including God's laws, the constitution, and family life, and America has a chance.

  • Big Bubba Herriman, UT
    Dec. 22, 2012 9:23 a.m.

    As a staunch social conservative I think the NRA dropped the ball on this one. If they don't bring something meaningful to the table they will be marginalized as a right wing fanatical organization by those on the right such as myself.

  • Cats Somewhere in Time, UT
    Dec. 22, 2012 9:19 a.m.

    I am a conservative Republican who has spent much of my life on Capitol Hill in Washington. And....I can't stand the NRA.

    They are a completely unreasonable organization that uses scare tactics and untruths to whip up their members and threaten Members of Congress. They won't give a fraction of an inch on anything no matter how many cops or other people get killed--including children. They are completely selfish. This latest proposal is just another example of how unreasonable and selfish they are.

    I'm a supporter of the second amendment and gun owners should have an organization that advocates for their rights. But, the NRA is not who you want to represent you.

  • DN Subscriber 2 SLC, UT
    Dec. 22, 2012 9:20 a.m.

    "What we have here is a failure to communicate." Or at least to comprehend.

    People tend to think differently, some are "touchy-feely" types driven by emotional responses. Others are data driven by analyzing facts.

    The former see banning guns and promoting hugs as an emotionally satisfying answer. The latter recognize that in the real world that does not work, and has not worked. Instead they look at what has worked, and recommend applying that, even though the NRA solution is anathema to the touchy-feelies.

    Far too little attention has been paid to the despicable killers themselves. Most are reported to have had mental health issues. Many are rumored to have been on various medications. Many were recognized as "broken" by family members and those around them. Identifying and either "fixing" or "quarantining" these people BEFORE the harm themselves or others must be a priority.

    Are there civil rights issues with that approach? No more than with infringing on the Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms which recognizes man's inherent right to self defense.

    Look to the thinkers for GOOD solutions, and the emotionalists for sound bites, headlines and exactly the WRONG answers.

    Arm good guys!

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    Dec. 22, 2012 9:19 a.m.

    The NRA can only suggest solutions that involve escalating the personal arms race. Time to ignore the NRA and move back to sanity.

  • T. Smith Salt Lake, UT
    Dec. 22, 2012 9:18 a.m.

    Yesterday, I was surprised to find an armed guard at my local IRS office and was told that every Federal facility in the U.S. has at least one armed guard present--how is a guard at school any different? I don't recall any public complaints when this apparently went into effect. Besides, in this economy this would be considered "Job Creation". in addition, if new guns had to be purchased for each new guard, what a great boost to manufacturing and sales this would create.... looks like an economic solution that Obama has been looking for.

  • Keith1943 Spring City, UT
    Dec. 22, 2012 9:00 a.m.

    We have armed guards in our banks, every federal public facility, TSA agents in our airports (we don’t even want to get into that discussion), and armed security guards in our local Wal-Mart and Target stores. And, we're all OK with that. But, for some "dumb" reason, we just can't bring ourselves to the reality, much less, even reconcile in our minds, that we should provide and insure the same protection to our children and their teachers in our public schools. What am I missing here?

    How often do you hear of someone going into any of these public places I’ve mentioned, and without resistance, going on a 10 or 15 minute shooting rampage and killing twenty or thirty people? You don't hear of it, because they know the risk they’d be taking if they did. And they know that killing only one or two people won’t satisfy them. Where else besides a school, can they freely take out twenty-seven people?

  • one old man Ogden, UT
    Dec. 22, 2012 8:56 a.m.

    A few years ago, I personally witnessed how difficult it may be to remove guns from the hands of people with questionable mental status.

    I took a CERT class in a small northern Utah city. One of the instructors was a "superpatriot" who strutted around with a very ill concealed 9mm Glock on his hip along with two extra clips. He went on frequently at great length about the need to be "prepared" and let us know that he was ready to defend us when the time came. He also showed us an arsenal in his car's trunk.

    Many of his comments were so off the wall, that several members of the class became concerned enough to approach police about it. We wound up speaking with the police chief who told us that he was well aware of the man's behavior. We were not the only ones who had expressed concern.

    But, he added, "There is nothing we can do about it until he acts out in some way. I've checked and double checked. I'm awfully sure he will do something someday. And I'm afraid it will be terrible."

  • Mike in Texas Cedar City, Utah
    Dec. 22, 2012 8:47 a.m.

    It would be well if you right wing gun persons take into consideration the fact that there was an armed guard at Columbine for all the good it did. You are supposeldly all about small govermnent, Do you know what an expansion of Government guns and Gunman in every school would be? Think of larger schools where mulitple armed guards we have to on site and the cost of the support techology to give them the bearest chance to be effective.

    Now with that you may have satisfied yourselves that you have protected schools. Now what are you going to do for Shopping Centers, Movie Complexes, Sporting events, public buildings. Taking this to the logical exteme the only safe place might be at your local police station. Lets, have armed guards standing by ATM's, Churches, Parks, and for concealed weapons protection we will need magnetic detectors and the routine strip search.

  • one old man Ogden, UT
    Dec. 22, 2012 8:39 a.m.

    I do NOT advocate removing all guns.

    I DO advocate sensible enforcement of the first part of the Second Amendment. You know, that part about "Well Regulated."

    Close the gun show loophole and limit military weaponry to the military.

    Guns and mental health care are issues that will require a lot of very careful thought. That is something that seems to be beyond the reach of many Americans -- especially our law makers and lobbyists. Wayne LaPierre and the NRA are not helping with any solutions. They are adding some very terrible and evil schemes into an already volatile mix.

  • Howard Beal Provo, UT
    Dec. 22, 2012 8:38 a.m.


    The deaths in Bath, Michigan were attributed to explosives but Kenoe (the killer) used his rifle to detonate the explosives and went to the school "armed".

  • funny_guy Vacaville, CA
    Dec. 22, 2012 8:38 a.m.

    There are security guards at airports, court houses, many malls, banks, sporting events, the social security office, and even hospitals. If you don't want to protect students too, then the solution is simple -- home school them.

  • cjb Bountiful, UT
    Dec. 22, 2012 8:26 a.m.

    We need to keep in mind in this discussion that murders occurred before there were guns and that if we get rid of guns murders will continue. As a matter of fact China has more of a problem with people attacking children and teachers at school than we do. Over there they use swords and knives. What we have is a cultural problem. Guns are merely the tool of choice. Take them away and the misfits will turn to using a different tool.

  • coleman51 Orem, UT
    Dec. 22, 2012 8:18 a.m.

    I would like to know from all the critics of the NRA what expense it would cost to deal with killers by treating their mental health such as Ms. Martindale suggests in the article. I would submit that it would be a whole lot more expensive and a lot less reliable than what the NRA is suggesting. Particularly when a major study supports the NRA position, it is amazing that people are supporting programs that don't work, have never worked, and only placate the politically correct faction of our country while in the meantime, these criminals get a free pass to gun their way into schools and movie theatres which are designated as gun-free zones. Rather than provide an officer at each school, the state could provide training for concealed weapon permits to key positions at schools such as certain administrative officers. That would probably send a warning to those who wish to create terror in our society and would not bear the costs associated with bad solutions to this ever-growing problem.

  • Clinton Draper, UT
    Dec. 22, 2012 8:12 a.m.

    @mark: You certainly CAN make a gun "in your own bathtub." Is is actually quite easy.

    @one old man: What is wrong with an armed volunteer? Are "volunteers" somehow too stupid to be trained on how to use a gun responsibly?

    @cjb: Yours is both an excellent and responsible idea.

    @10cc: You can't set off a concealed weapon by hugging somebody if it is properly holstered. Besides, teachers shouldn't be hugging kids anyway. I know it is sad, but that is the world we live in.

    @Free Agency: Nobody is recommending barbed wire, machine gun nests, and Air Force fly-overs. Walk around outside today and I guarantee you'll see at least a few people carrying guns. I'll bet you can't point them out though. If you can't, how will kids? Also, you can't solve a problem by blaming the problem on something that had absolutely nothing to do with the problem you're trying to solve.

  • flatlander Omaha, NE
    Dec. 22, 2012 8:10 a.m.

    It is easy to focus on the gun and hard to focus on the mental illness of the person holding the gun

  • OneAmerican Idaho Falls, ID
    Dec. 22, 2012 8:05 a.m.

    Look at every individual who has been at the center of these violent shootings. Find out how they ended up where they did. Solve the people problem, not the symptoms.

    In the 1960s, we said "can't pray in school." In the 1970s, we said it's okay to rip an innocent child from it's mother's womb. In the 1980s we said "can't display the 10 commandments in public." In the last 20 years we've seen ridiculously violent video games and movies. The sanctity of life has slipped tremendously. We don't respect each other as human beings. We used to tell kids "respect your elders." Now we tell parents they can go to jail for appropriate discipline. In the 40s we sent 18 year old kids to the battle field and they saved the world. Now we have to provide 20 counselors to kids because some kid got hit by a car crossing the street and we're afraid they're so fragile they can't cope. Our society is devolving. Families are disintegrating. Fix the family and you'll go a long, long way to fixing these violent shootings.

  • The Dixie Kid Saint George, UT
    Dec. 22, 2012 8:05 a.m.

    I agree that half the problem are video games and movies, but they make too much money so they can't be touched. You will see all of these Hollywood stars speak out about gun control, but they wouldn't dare talk about how their movies contribute to the problem.

  • Clinton Draper, UT
    Dec. 22, 2012 8:01 a.m.

    The idea that any sane-thinking person could claim that the Sandy Hook murders were cause by guns, or that passing more gun laws are going to stop mass murders in the U.S. is absolutely unbelievable, and shows just how ignorant our population really is.

    The worst mass murders in the U.S. during the last hundred years haven't had anything to do with guns. The worst massacre at a school in U.S. history was the Bath, Michigan School Massacre of 1927. 44 individuals killed (about the same as both Virginia Tech and Columbine combined) and not a single shot fired. Then you have the Alfred P. Murrah building, 168 dead, not a single shot fired. Then, of course, you have the September 11th attacks. Again, not a single shot fired.

    The idea that guns cause people to kill other people, or that tighter regulation or a ban on guns will cause murderers not to murder is asinine and shows a complete lack of common sense or an understanding of history.

  • Bill in Nebraska Maryville, MO
    Dec. 22, 2012 7:54 a.m.

    The thing is that if you ban these weapons you are infriging on the rights of the public sector to bear arms, a guaranteed right provided for by the Constitution. Sure laws can be made to ban semi-automatic assualt weapons, or even to make it harder to get a weapon. However, each time the law is done a criminal mind or a suicidal manic will find a way to kill. These you can not stop. There are black market gun markets already in this country and they are selling fully automatic M-16s to the highest bidder. Our dear President knows this but no he would rather place the blame on the makers of these weapons than on our society in general. It has been said of the United States, that we would not be destroyed by outside forces but from within our own boundaries. The most obvious choice is always to put a band-aid on it, kiss it and the hurt goes away. That is what we do when we ban the selling of semi-automatic assualt rifles from the public. Some how though they seem to always end up in criminal hands.

  • Clinton Draper, UT
    Dec. 22, 2012 7:54 a.m.

    @LeDoc: First of all, Obama was wrong. We have MORE bayonets these days. You can outlaw horses if you want though.

    Secondly, what was the difference between the Sandy Hook shootings and the recent shooting in Texas at the crowded movie theater for "The Hobbit?" Oh, yes, a good guy with a gun. You can't argue with the facts here. Good guys with guns save lives.

    Thirdly, your average J. Doe doesn't have access to "military weaponry." That is agenda-based media sophistry for political gain.

    Fourthly, it's fine to love your neighbor, but what if he is insane and comes into your house to kill you and your family? Christ also taught his followers to defend themselves, as shown so many times in the Bible (and LDS scriptures if you lean that way).

    Finally, Korea ban guns, yet you still have the mass murder by an arsonist at the Daegu Subway in 2003, which killed at least 198 people, for instance. How many were children? In fact, the worse mass murders in the U.S. in the last 100 years have not been gun related at all.

  • Clinton Draper, UT
    Dec. 22, 2012 7:38 a.m.

    @one old man: Yes, because hyperbole and sophistry are both so very useful when solving problems.

    @atl134: How many children today alone have gotten a "head shot" merit in some video game? How many children today have killed other children? Now where is the most logical place to put blame? Personally, I like guns for both personal protection and the protection of my liberties. It looks to me that the NRA is defending my 2nd Amendment rights, which is why I signed up for a lifetime membership after their announcement yesterday.

    @LeDoc: There's no such thing as an "assault weapon." That's media hype and propaganda. Also, the majority of murders in the U.S. are committed with cheap handguns.

    Despite media hype, there have been less mass murders in the U.S. this century so far than there were in the 1990s (26 vs. 42 respectively). That there are any is definitely a problem worth looking into, but blaming it on guns is just stupid. The ACLU laws that make it almost impossible to intervene and identify dangerous people are more to blame than guns.

  • Keith1943 Spring City, UT
    Dec. 22, 2012 7:33 a.m.

    I have a Concealed Firearm Permit (CFP). I feel much safer, knowing that if I am found in a dangerous and/or life threatening situation, that I have the "option" to assess the situation, and if necessary, take defensive or offensive action. People, who have a CFP, are required to have their firearm "concealed" at all times. Only law enforcement officers should be permitted to "openly" carry a firearm. If it is well-known in our communities and public schools, that a number of people in our schools, are "trained and armed" to protect themselves and their students, the chance of even one of these cowards, entering the school in the first place, is slim to none. And, if this was our “standard” throughout the nation, these senseless killings in our schools, would stop.

    There’s no doubt, that a number of teachers and administrators would be willing to receive the necessary CFP training. The only cost is the initial investment and a CFP license renewal every five years. For the well-being of the children, all they need to know is that they are protected.

  • Flashback Kearns, UT
    Dec. 22, 2012 7:10 a.m.

    Ms Martindale's reaction is obviously knee jerk. She thinks banning high capacity magazines will stop the problem. Not at all. A bad buy with 4 15 round magazines can shoot just as much as one with two 30 round magazines. Only difference? Reload twice more. Other than that, same problem. Putting cops in the schools is an excellent idea. It would give cops a chance to actually stop something before it starts instead of always getting there after when they can't do anything but clean up. IT changes them from being reactive to active.

    Until we change society through education, teaching that some things are right and some things are wrong, morals, ethics, and the good old Golden Rule, instead of the do what you want mentality because you might offend someone, we will have a need to protect ourselves. One armed good guy could have stopped all of the recent tragedies in their tracks. Had the principle at Sandy Hook been armed and trained, she might not have been the first victim.

    I'd rather have a volunteer armed in a school willing to give their life to protect students than a liberal that thinks guns are bad.

  • Beverly Eden, UT
    Dec. 22, 2012 7:11 a.m.

    There are no Silver Linings in the death of 20 children, but it does appear that the this horrible school shooting will finally expose the NRA's on-going lack of common sense. The NRA is only commitment is to gun sales. It is my sincere hope that this national exposure of the NRA's agenda will help motivate timid legislators to act. The NRA is a political bully. They have threatened legislators, encouraged its member to write threatening letters to members of Congress, and have used schoolyard bullying tactics to prevent any reasonable gun legislation. Hunters and hobbyists are not the problem. It is the fear mongering NRA leadership that is creating serious problems across America.

  • Say No to BO Mapleton, UT
    Dec. 22, 2012 7:08 a.m.

    In 2000 President Bill Clinton pushed for more armed cops in schools.
    Was he an NRA rightwing nutjob?
    Just sayin'.

  • Albert Maslar CPA (Retired) Absecon, NJ
    Dec. 22, 2012 6:24 a.m.

    NRA answer to school violence is arming police in every school. According to the National Center for Education Statistics, there were 98,817 public schools during the 2009-2010 school year and 33,366 in private schools totaling 132,183 schools requiring double that number of armed police in schools.

    Firearms-related murder victims dropped from more than 17,000 in 1993 to 9,903 in 2011. On balance real progress has been made. Waiting in the wings are always deranged individuals with supposed grievances and an axe to grind. There are no 100% precautions possible to rid potential assassins of guns as they will steal weapons, already common. The most difficult to find and control are individual assassins who keep their inclinations and intent to themselves.

    Every solution creates at least two new problems and the most obvious and least insidious solution might be the posting of the Ten Commandments in each school room and perhaps reading them to start each week of school, much like reciting the National Anthem. It’s like the question of whether chicken soup can cure a cold; the comedic answer being, “It can’t hurt.”

  • Pragmatic One Mesa, AZ
    Dec. 22, 2012 5:28 a.m.

    Everyone is focusing on the gun. The gun, on a table in a locked room is harmless. Picked up by a well trained individual it becomes a tool. Picked up by a sadistic criminal or mentally ill person it becomes a killing machine.

    We need two things here. 1-There is no need for the kind of rifle that was used in Newtown to be sold to the Public. It is a tool for the Military and Law Enforcement and should be used by those groups exclusively. 2-We need to seriously look at our background screening here. Selling guns to a family with KNOWN mental disorders in the home. Allowing that parent to take a mentally ill child target shooting to perfect his abilities? Dr's, Educators, anyone with knowledge should have been raising alarm bells long ago. If a family wants to increase the abilities of a mentally ill child then enroll them in an art class.

    My opinion is that if a more comprehensive screening process had been in effect then this entire nightmare could have been avoided. Guns don't kill, people do, and people failed in this situation.

    Dec. 22, 2012 2:35 a.m.

    Not a good idea, but Mayor Michael Bloomberg is just as bad. When asked on TV, he said that we need to get rid of assault weapons. That guns that you have to pull the trigger each shot were OK, but those that you pulled the trigger once for multiple shots had to go. He was informed by the interviewer that he was talking about automatic weapons that were against the law. The hand guns and assault rifles that the public used were semi automatic, and like most hunting guns sold today, you had to pull the trigger multiple times. He was upset over being corrected, and attacked hunters.

    Putting officers in each school, is a waste of time, and those like Bloomberg, that don't understand guns need to become informed. Columbine happened during the last assault weapon ban. Lets find out why people are giving up, and feel a need to take others with them.

  • Mad Hatter Provo, UT
    Dec. 22, 2012 1:56 a.m.

    The comments made by Wayne LaPierre are more two-fold: (1) to remove the NRA from further criticism as a gun lobby promoting the expansion of gun sales through an advertising program based on the paranoid fear of some "bad guy" coming through your windows at home, and (2) suggesting an absurd plan to have armed security people (either minimum wage or volunteers) at schools until fiscal conservatives determine that it costs too much and is more a problem than a real solution.

    This latter suggestion should increase gun sales significantly, tying in nicely with the NRA's primary purpose of serving it's industry.

  • LeDoc SLC, UT
    Dec. 22, 2012 1:25 a.m.

    This is pure insanity. These people (NRA) are basically advocating turning us into a police state so that a few people can own assault weapons and huge ammo caches.
    I don't have anything against somebody that wants to go hunting, but you don't need an M16 to hunt.
    Another thing is that with the passage of time.. things just change. Just as President Obama pointed out that we have fewer horses and bayonets these days, we also have less need, in the interest of protection) for an armed populace...we certainly don't need your average J. Doe in possession of military weaponry. What we need is not more guns...what we need is a change in the public behavior.
    At this time of year we should be kind of remembering somebody who taught that we should love our neighbor...not shoot him.

  • Elcapitan Ivins, UT
    Dec. 22, 2012 1:18 a.m.

    From One Ol Man to another. Silly comments that stretch an idea to the absurd is not helpful.
    There are, in most cases, teachers who would stand up to an armed intrudere in most schools if they had the training and the equipment to do so, even at the risk of losing out in a gun battle to save a student or a classrtoom full from mayhem. Pay them extra also.

    Make it legal, State by State, for the districts to identify such people and interview them to see if they can qualify for Conceal Carry. Then, under the direction of local law enforcement, get them trained and armed appropriately. This training is out there and waiting to be had. I suggest that at least two of these teachers be on hand at all times while students are present, even if there is a police presence. Students, of course, would not know who was armed among the faculty but would understand that there was protection in the classrooms available if called upon in a sudden emergency. Name a better way folks in our American Liberal Society to take care of this problem. Please, No feel good stuff however.

  • mark Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 22, 2012 1:14 a.m.

    Bill, the difference between gun and alcohol bans should be obvious. (People can't make guns in their bathtubs.

    The curious thing is, in your first post you said that maybe assault weapons could be banned, but then in your next you say, bootlegging "is what you will have if you ban certain weapons."

    You argue against yourself. Oh well.

    Some of you people seem to think that these killers would not be willing to go into an area if they think there would be people with guns there. Even if this is true, they could just go to other places that probably won't have armed people. Such as church or the like. (No, not many people actually carry.)

    But what makes you think these killers are worried that somebody might shoot at them? Most of them seem to wear body armor, like they are planning on getting shot at. The killer who shot Gabby Giffords, killed 6 people, and injured 12 others, in Tucson, Arizona (which I assume has lenient carry laws) didn't seem too worried about people shooting at him. He might have assumed a federal judge and a congresswoman would have security guards.

  • Bill in Nebraska Maryville, MO
    Dec. 21, 2012 9:31 p.m.

    Here's the problem with the concealed weapon for teachers. All you have to do is get a child a little too unruly and starts to threaten the teacher. The teacher grabs their weapon and fires killing the child. Who is liable? The school district and the state would become liable in this circumstance. Too much pressure on the teacher. A viability but one that can backfire.

    Sure one old man wants to take away everyone's weapon. His solution is the same as all liberals. Take the weapons away and then and only then the criminals have the weapons. Just as when alcohol was banned in the United States you have bootleggers who made it rich, just look at the Kennedy's. That is what you will have if you ban certain weapons.

    Though this is a costly alternative it is more viable than banning any weapons. Listen to the liberals and we will as a public will be disarmed. We'll then be at the mercy of a socialist government which is where we are headed if the liberals stay in power.

  • AT Elk River, MN
    Dec. 21, 2012 8:50 p.m.

    This doesn't seem like a well thought out response from the NRA. There's a much better one. Try something like this. "Look, last week, we learned that teachers are brave and that they love their students. Encourage teachers to take concealed carry classes and modify the law to allow them to protect themselves while at work. Any coward attempting to prey upon an unarmed school would then know there's a very good chance those teachers are going to be armed - and he's not going there. And the teachers love those kids. They're not going to run away." This is a much simpler and less costly solution.

    I lived in Israel for several years. Every class had an armed teacher with a semi-automatic rifle always nearby. I don't think we should do that. But, it demonstrated that: teachers were good at keeping kids safe and that having a gun nearby didn't cause harm.

  • Bill in Nebraska Maryville, MO
    Dec. 21, 2012 6:14 p.m.

    I saw in another article on the site that many are tired of the old adage that "Guns don't kill, people do." Well that is the honest truth. A gun can not pull the trigger itself. It can't not load its own chambers until someone pulls the trigger. Many school districts across the country have already began having security guards in their schools to prevent exactly what happened in Conneticut. However, an AR-15 is a weapon gear to kill regardless where the bullet hits. It is a very unique weapon in that since. Howeve, the best military assualt weapon is the Russian made AK-47 which can fire even an AR-15 bullet.

    I don't disagree that maybe high capacity clips aren't necessary or that maybe an assualt weapon could be banned. A few years ago in a bank robbery the robbers had a better arsenal than their law enforcement counterparts. Therefore, several officers were killed or wounded. I don't disagree that getting a gun maybe should be harder to get than a glass of beer but when you start infringing on the Constitution then all hands are off.

    Don't disarm the public.

  • Bebyebe UUU, UT
    Dec. 21, 2012 5:37 p.m.

    The NRA can pick up the tab

  • Fibonacci Centerville, UT
    Dec. 21, 2012 5:27 p.m.

    Maybe we could make a law that says you can only have 10 rounds our less in you gun at one time. That way when someone starts blasting away at kids we can count the number of bullets in his gun to determine if he has a blatant disrespect for the law. Hey - Wiki-Answers says that there are about 100,000 deaths per year that are related to Alcohol. That's way more than gun related death. Lets ban alcohol to get the biggest bang for our new law buck!

  • DN Subscriber 2 SLC, UT
    Dec. 21, 2012 5:19 p.m.

    "Arming our schools, arming our teachers, is that really the society we want to live in?"

    No, Ms Martindale, that is NOT the society we want to live in. But, in the real world, where there are actually evil people, and crazy people, we do not have the option of choosing the society we live in. We must find practical, cost effective ways of minimizing real threats against our schools and children.

    Armed security is the ONLY option presented so far that actually would have stopped the Connecticut killer. Or, stands a chance of stopping a homicidal maniac entering another school in the future.

    We can debate the cost-effectiveness of full time certified cops vs. volunteer teachers with concealed carry permits at no cost. Teachers have a vested self interest in protecting themselves, and their classes, so this is not some meaningless job like debate coach, but a big responsibility.

    One key part is that the exact number and location of security should never be revealed. Keep the bad guys guessing- just like "who is the air marshal on a flight?"

    "A bad guy with a gun IS only stopped by a good guy with a gun."

  • Free Agency Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 21, 2012 4:47 p.m.

    A parent in Newtown (though not from one of the families of the victims) said he didn't want children to go to school in "fortresses."

    I couldn't agree more.

    Look around at the faces of young kids in your family, neighborhood, in stores, parks, etc. The great majority of those faces are filled (at least much of the time) with wonder and delight about life.

    Are we now going to present some "deadly dangerous, shoot-to-kill" version of life to them and destroy their embracintg-of-life spirits completely? To me, that would kill them just about as much as if their physical bodies were killed.

    We must find a better solution to this horrendous problem in our country. And it must be something life-affirming--not just physical life, but spiritual life.

    As Einstein said (I have to paraphrase it here), we can't solve a problem using the very thing that created that problem.

  • FT salt lake city, UT
    Dec. 21, 2012 4:02 p.m.

    "Stupid is as stupid does" F. Gump. Is there a more appropiate response to the NRA's solutions?

  • 10CC Bountiful, UT
    Dec. 21, 2012 4:00 p.m.

    What about parks? What about ice skating rinks? What about libraries? Video arcades? Every fast food place in existence (ie, where kids hang out, ala McDonalds Play Land)?

    I think we have the answer to the unemployment problem, and the least likely economic think tank suggested it.

    cjb: I think you're onto something, but hopefully those teachers get better training handling firearms than is required for the Utah State conceal carry weapons permit. And grade school students will definitely need training to *not* spontaneously hug teachers, which could be fatal.

    The real solution to all this is to have everyone wear military grade body armor all the time, which won't infringe on the 2nd Amendment, but will be brutal for the rite of passage for teenage boys who go to the pool in summer to learn more about girls.

  • Shimlau SAINT GEORGE, UT
    Dec. 21, 2012 3:51 p.m.

    cjb; I like it.

  • cjb Bountiful, UT
    Dec. 21, 2012 3:11 p.m.

    I agree the NRA solution is expensive (but effective). A much less expensive solution and even more effective would be to certify willing teachers to carry concealed guns (pay them an extra $350 per year). This way for less than the cost of a policeman, you can have several certified willing teachers each capable of doing the same thing.

    I am going to contact my representative and see if he is willing to sponsor a bill to have this implimented in Utah.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 21, 2012 2:42 p.m.

    My home county in Maryland had a sheriffs' deputy at each high school. I'm okay with something like that. However... blaming virtual guns (in video games and movies) while ignoring real guns, and not suggesting a single piece of regulation at all that could possibly, no matter how small, have any sort of role in helping prevent shootings (mass school shootings or other ones), shows that the NRA has no interest in doing anything other than lobbying on behalf of not gun owners, but gun manufacturers.

  • Gr8Dane Tremonton, UT
    Dec. 21, 2012 2:39 p.m.

    Makes perfect sense to me! LaPierre's logic is compelling.

    We spend untold millions of dollars on all kinds of armed security for money, for courts, for sporting events. And we spend untold millions on all kinds of education programs, buildings, fancy athletic stadiums. For teachers, teachers assistants, tutors, administrators, and countless employees at schools.

    And yet, the thought of an armed police officer at elementary or secondary schools is "too costly" and "offensive?"

    No, it's not. Makes perfect sense to me. I think it's a good idea... If the local school board supports it....not to be mandated by the feds.

    It's also perfectly predictible that Libs would go ape-crazy over this. Which in my mind, helps validate that it's a good approach.

  • one old man Ogden, UT
    Dec. 21, 2012 2:13 p.m.

    Most frightening of all, the NRA is calling for "armed VOLUNTEERS" to protect our schools.

    I can see it now. A flock of volunteer wannabe Rambo militiamen parading past the Kindergarten kids with their weaponry on display for all to see.

    Does NRA insanity know no bounds?

    Obviously not.