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.
Expensive?Giving billions to the Muslim Brotherhood, Brazil,
Pakistan, etc, are expensive.
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.
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.
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?
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!
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
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.....
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
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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."
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.
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.
@Clinton"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).
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!
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.
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.
Leave it to the clowns at the NRA for a horrible idea. And who pays for the
first accidental shooting that will surely come?
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.
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?
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 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 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.
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.
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.
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.
JayTee 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!!
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!
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.
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.
The NRA is a cult that preys on the gullible and ignorant.
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.
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
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
"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!
The NRA can only suggest solutions that involve escalating the personal arms
race. Time to ignore the NRA and move back to sanity.
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
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?
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
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.
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.
Clinton:The deaths in Bath, Michigan were attributed to explosives
but Kenoe (the killer) used his rifle to detonate the explosives and went to the
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.
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.
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.
@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.
It is easy to focus on the gun and hard to focus on the mental illness of the
person holding the gun
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.
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.
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.
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
@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.
@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.
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.
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.
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.
In 2000 President Bill Clinton pushed for more armed cops in schools.Was
he an NRA rightwing nutjob?Just sayin'.
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
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.
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
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
The NRA can pick up the tab
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!
"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."
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.
"Stupid is as stupid does" F. Gump. Is there a more appropiate
response to the NRA's solutions?
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
cjb; I like it.
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.
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.
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.
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.