Smart. Sharp. Funny. Fearless.
Wednesday, September 28, 2016

Students answering teacher question

After aggressively opposing every single common-sense gun safety measure that the majority of Americans support — including universal background checks, an assault weapons ban, and limiting high-capacity magazines — the National Rifle Association on Tuesday unveiled a plan to weaponize educational institutions.

The 225-page National School Shield Report, which was introduced by former congressman and Drug Enforcement Agency chief Asa Hutchinson, recommends putting armed guards in every school, training and arming school personnel, as well as other school safety proposals.

“The presence of armed security personnel adds a layer of security and diminishes response time” during a shooting, said Hutchinson.

House Gun Violence Prevention Task Force chairman Mike Thompson (D-CA) responded that “arming school personnel and training them for shootouts will only exacerbate the problems,” adding that “passing legislation that enhances school safety is not an acceptable alternative to passing other gun violence prevention measures such as background checks. Congress can and should do both.”

However, a majority of educators do not agree with the NRA’s recommendations. A January National Education Association poll found that “America’s educators resoundingly reject the notion of arming school employees.  Only 22 percent of NEA members polled favor a proposal to allow teachers and other school employees to receive firearms training and allow them to carry firearms in schools, while 68 percent oppose this proposal (including 61 percent who strongly oppose it.)” The poll also found that a majority 64 percent of educators support stronger gun laws — including 90 percent for universal background checks , 76 percent for banning military-style semi-automatic assault weapons, and 69 percent supporting limiting high-capacity magazines — all of which the NRA oppose.

The report also fails to say anything about safety plans for movie theaters, shopping malls, houses of worship, restaurants, courthouses, government buildings, inner-city street corners, basements, backyards, bedrooms or the many other places in the nation that mass and individual shootings occur.

While the NRA attempts to steer the debate from gun control to arming schools and so far successfully kills national gun reform legislation, the gun lobby group appears to have less sway at the state level, including the state where 20 children and six adults were gunned down at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown.

On Monday, Connecticut lawmakers reached a bipartisan agreement to pass the toughest gun laws in the nation, including establishing the nation’s first statewide dangerous weapon offender registry, requiring universal background checks for the sale of all firearms, expanding the Connecticut Assault Weapons Ban to include more than 100 additional types of guns, banning the sale or purchase of large-capacity magazines holding more than 10 rounds and registering and restricting already owned large-capacity magazines, requiring state-issued eligibility certificates for the purchase of any rifle, shotgun or ammunition, expanding the firearms safe-storage law, increasing penalties for firearms trafficking and illegal possession offenses, adding a mental health professional to the Board of Firearms Permit Examiners, lengthening the look-back and eligibility periods for persons admitted to a hospital for psychiatric disabilities, and further firearms regulations and restrictions.

Photo: Civil Beat via Flickr.com

  • I wonder if the arms industry, and their disinformation arm, the NRA, have considered the long term impact of children seeing heavily armed guards and teachers in their school? Quite frankly, I doubt they care, and if it crossed their minds it is evident it is not that important to them when we consider that what is at stake is the sale of millions of weapons to people consumed by fear and hatred.
    What is going to be next, armed guards at movie theaters, at places of worship, at all political gatherings, and universities? Is the solution to the danger posed by lethal weapons to make them available to everyone so that we can protect ourselves from each other?

    • labrown69

      Liberals want to allow everything that causes our society to be more dangerous and then ban everything in response. We have gang bangers who pour in from 3rd world countries thanks to liberal immigration policies and now you wish to also deprive Americans of the right to protect ourselves? Only an utter fool believes they can create Utopia just by wishing it were so. You can play John Lennon records till the cows come home and proudly display your “visualize world peace” bumper stickers but this is reality we are talking about.

      • Eleanore Whitaker

        Righties want to ban everything that causes women and children to have to cost them an extra dime in healthcare…Then righties bitch a blue streak about how healthcare shouldn’t ever be reformed. You can play Hank Williams cornball lyrics with the drawl and swagger till you all are sober enough to use your weapons…The right has been spoiling for a Civil War since they lost two elections to a bi-racial president and since Jeffie Davis was tarped in the Stars and Bars….Yodeling isn’t a song…neither is a drawl…it’s just plain “ignernce.” Hootenanny anyone?

        • labrown69

          I voted for Obama twice, I am pro-choice and I support same sex marriage but I am an adult and I want children protected. Grow up. You can not hide from the evils of the world.

          • labrown69

            By the way, Hank Williams was a wonderful song writer, not everybody with a Southern Drawl is a redneck, I come from Beverly Hills California now living in the beautiful Conejo Valley near Malibu and I can’t think of much that would qualify as more ignorant than your stupid post about hootenannys which were actually part and parcel of the folk music that provided the theme for the civil rights movement. You are a brainwashed and confused baboon!

          • RobertCHastings

            And you are, simply, a baboon.

          • labrown69

            Bet you don’t like Hank Williams Sr either. You’re probably more of a Lawrence Welk, Bobby Vinton type. I remember you from last time around Robert. You are disabled.

          • RobertCHastings

            And you are, by way of reiteration, simply, a baboon. No, I don’t like Hank Williams, Jr. OR SR. I like Shania Twain, Whitney Houston, Barry White, Lou Rawls, Joan Baez, John Lennon, Bonnie Raitt, and many others. I remember YOU from last time around, and you still have nothing of value to offer to the discussion.

          • DurdyDawg

            Your right about the evils of the world but adding your version of ‘protection’ is simply contributing to the very thing your wanting to protect the children from.. “Come here Johnny.. see that man across the street with that splatter gun in his hand.. he wants to kill you and take your valuables.. see this splatter gun I have.. It’s to kill that guy before he has a chance to kill you.. He’s wrong and I’m right so remember that son”. Adding to the mayhem is playing along with the evil of this world.

          • labrown69

            I think school age kids see armed cops on the street every day without being traumatized. They see security guards at the mall and patrolling affluent neighborhoods. I don’t see that an armed guard who is trained to respond to emergencies is such a bad idea.

          • RobertCHastings

            And what effect do you think it will have on your children to see their teachers armed? Less than 20% of teachers have said they would be willing to carry a weapon into their school. And the NRA proposal of armed security guards and armed and trained staff in every school is going to be paid for with what. Where is the money going to come f rom, especially now with the Republican House vetoing anything to do with spending? At the end of his presidency, Bill Clinton put about 90,000 new police on the street. Within W”s first year, he had taken them off the street in order to save money to cover the tax cuts for the wealthy. Do you really think Congress is going to pass a bill to put armed security guards and armed and trained teachers in every school around the country? What an f—ing moron!

          • Barbara Morgan

            If there are to be armed people around the children, they should be highly trained SRO officers not security guards who are not trained to be around kids of any age. Who is going to pay for the number of SRO officers needed at the k-12 schools along and who is going to pay for the training it takes to be a SRO officer? The local communities don’t have that kind of money, nor do many of the States and I don’t see the Republicans agreeing to pay out the billions it will take to get the kind of security that would be needed for for the diffent types of school campuses we have in this country. If we really want to protect the children we need the combination of better back ground checks and the exchange between states and the Federal government on criminals and people who have mental problems and are forbid to own guns, we need to make gun owners resposible by making them have at least one million dollars in insurance per gun owned so they will secure their guns better especially if they have a family member with mental promblems, and as some one posted on another article how something like the invisabel dog fence in the ground with more power and that sounds an alarm if something metal crosses it.
            Also how do you explain to a k-3 grader why there is someone in his or her school wearing a gun without making them afraid to go school because they might get shot by a bad person? There are many things that need to be considered when putting armed people in the lower grade schools that you don’t have to consider when doing so in the higher grades. Many children still have monsters in their closests and under their beds in K-3Rd, so how do we keep the bad people from taking control of their imagation and feeding the fears they alread have?
            The NRA,Karen Phiiiips and others like her don’t think about that part of the problem. Everyone that believes the NRA is right about armed guards in schools must not have children, grandchildren, nieces, nephews and grand nieces and grand nephews in school because if they did they would stop and think what the effect on the children will be in the long run, not just some dumb suggestion for the now.

          • RobertCHastings

            It is great to have someone present reasonable arguments,reasonably, without all the hype and name callling. Your points are well taken, for the issue is the protection of the children, not the adults. One of my biggest fears is having a teacher armed in a high school and someone going nutso and taking her gun, creating a situation that probably would have never happened. Kids in junior and senior high are doped up on their hormones, and they don’t need to have guns around when they get pissed at one of their classmates. Going home and planning something out is entirely different from reacting to the heat of the moment.
            Where I live in North Carolina, a county council is in the process of allowing concealed carry in all schools, something strictly prohibited by existing state law, and the majority of the council APPROVED the measure. Would that more people would see it like you do and realize the last thing we need in schools is GUNS.

          • DurdyDawg

            ” kids see armed cops on the street every day without being traumatized.” and the same goes for armed criminals too.. Kids don’t know trained responders from any other armed person and neither would teachers.. your assuming that above and beyond the training that teachers have to go through with yearly updates, they should also become proficient in handling hand guns and the responsibility that goes with it.. Tell me truthfully, could you really pull the trigger on someone who drew his gun without that seconds hesitation? Remember, your a teacher who probably hasn’t fired a gun in their entire life. You ask too much of these people, placing a burden on their shoulders that no average citizen should have to face.. You can protect the children but only so far. using a weapon on another human being, even if you win, will change you life in the days and memories that follow.. I know.. I was friends with a person who had to do just that and after the legalities ended, he was never the same again.. And no, he wasn’t a cop or a teacher but someone who was forced to make a seconds decision and he prevented a crime but lost a part of himself in the process. I would never ask, much less order any teacher to use a gun unless they themselves were willing to accept all responsibility for their potential actions. Then your arming someone who has no experience in the handling of a dangerous situation.

          • labrown69

            There is no perfect way to stop any crime however an armed teacher should be able to distinguish a criminal if they begin shooting in the school and with the right training maybe this time someone can shoot the shooter before they get 26 children. Wouldn’t one or two or three have been better than 26? That is your ONLY REAL choice because there IS NO other way. You can not get rid of guns because criminals will not listen.

          • so are you saying that we should just let the kids take their chances that the evil wont come their way?…. this world has changed and you all need to accept that fact….. Labrown69 is right… kids understand more than you think and you cannot shelter them from evil forever…. unless YOU want to go to the school and guard them… but what would you use… your words?

          • DEFENDER88

            Well they are the ones who created these Gun Free Killing Fields.
            How has that worked out??
            So we should listen to them.??
            Good luck Karen but these hand wringing wimps in here know everything and you or anyone who might have a different view must, by default, be wrong since they are omnipotent. Not much use even trying to talk to them.

          • Barbara Morgan

            Who asked you to post here? We are thinkers not parrots for the NRA, Fox not News, Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck and their likes. Guns cause more problems than they stop.

          • whodatbob

            Pie in the sky bullshit!

      • Riobound

        Have a nice day, Troll …

        • labrown69

          That is a very mature and well reasoned response, typical of your ilk. If a thought enters your empty head feel free to post it.

      • english_teacher

        Isn’t protection one of the reasons that we’ve had public police forces? How long until those are privatized also?

        I, for one, do not want to live in a country that has armed guards wherever I go. What kind of a free country is that? Also, specifically what ban are you talking about here? A ban on assault-style rifles? You can’t hunt animals with them – at least not if you want to have something remaining afterward. However, they do seem to be the weapon of choice for people who want to hunt humans.

        As for hunting with and the collecting of firearms, no one is going to take them away. Only the RWNJs think that there’s any possibility of that happening. The firearms just need to be better controlled, with serious penalties applied if the laws controlling them are broken. Why is that a problem? Isn’t that the reason we have laws against murder and other crimes? They don’t stop the crimes but there are penalties if you do.

        • labrown69

          Actually the rifles you call “assault style” are most often exactly the same as the rifles which are used for hunting with the exception of a few cosmetic differences. I am a resident of Southern California and I was here for both sets of riots in South Central Los Angeles and I can tell you, if it was not for those rifles which have become the object of your contempt, a lot of Korean immigrant shop keepers would have had their businesses burned to the ground and looted and many might have been murdered by rioting mobs but instead they were able to protect their life’s work and their very lives. You say you don’t wish to live in a country that has armed guards wherever we go but unfortunately we don’t really have much of a voice in what this country, and in fact the whole world, is becoming. Like I said, if guns were not a useful tool, cops would not carry them. You are constantly bombarded with phony statistics about guns and you are sheltered from reports of the many times every day guns are used to defend homes, schools and businesses etc. I opposed every war we have entered into in the last 50 years and believe the only time the taking of a life is truly justified is in self defense BUT WE ARE entitled to defend ourselves and Utopian dreamers have stood reality on it’s head. If a burglar breaking through your bedroom window while your family is asleep encounters a hazardous situation and hurts himself he can now sue you. We have reached an absurd tipping point. The reality is most of us will never acquiesce to silly laws passed by unrealistic frightened people. I will protect my family and take my chances with the law. I’m sure that someone said that “only right wing nut jobs suggested that excessive gun control might become a reality in England and Australia” before it happened too. You can not substitute your wishful thinking for reality.

          • english_teacher

            You cannot substitute your paranoia for reality either. The way is somewhere in the middle.

          • labrown69

            Yea, I agree that the answer to most things is “in the middle” but I am not paranoid and you are underestimating the number of people who would like to ban all guns. Even I think the NRA is way over the top BUT if it was not for the NRA the private ownership of ALL FIREARMS would already be banned in some cities. I call your attention to Heller vs DC and McDonald vs Chicago. These are both cases in which the NRA helped individuals stand up to excessive all out bans which however well motivated they might have been, denied the individual the right to a reasonable self defense and we are not talking about auto or semi auto here. We are talking about plain old good old fashioned hand guns for home defense. IF you are HONEST you will have to stop calling people who think we have the right to own semi automatic hand guns with a modest but reasonable magazine capacity for the defense of our homes. If you doubt that this is necessarily and believe it to be a mere manifestation of “my paranoia” I suggest you Google “home invasion robberies in Southern California”.

          • RobertCHastings

            The NRA is funded by whom? Let’s just take a stab in the dark with this one and say the gun lobby. And the gun lobby is made up of whom? Folks who make their money from making and marketing weapons and ammunition, which they sell to folks around the world. Over the past decade or so, these folks have seen their stock go down because the market for traditional weapons (shotguns, rifles, short guns, etc.) has become saturated and has flattened out. In order to boost sales, what do YOU think they would do? Manufacture and market a different kind of weapon to a different clientele. Hello, the NRA is the advertising arm of the weapons industry, you f…ing idiot. The NRA doesn’t give a shit how many 9-year olds are shot with assault weapons, and, apparently, neither do you.

          • thin_bluine

            I somewhat would have to agree with you in the fact that the NRA does not give a rip about anyone getting killed with a gun of anysort whether that is assault style or handgun, I do think that labrown69 does care that 9 year olds that are getting killed by these people and the guns they use. I just think that he has been brainwashed by that freakish group of conspirators that feel the US Govt is out to get everyone and steal all their guns and then eventually steal their right to free speech and their right to religion and pretty soon there will be public burnings of the Bill of Rights and last but not least martial law. Of course in the mind of alot of these people it is all because they feel President Obama is a communist muslim terrorist or something. I think what must happen now is these folks, like labrown69 need to stop listening to the media pundits like Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck and the O’Reilly Factor and stuff and use their own mind and think about what’s really going on here. Like you said the gun lobby and NRA are in it for the money and thats all they care about. Get rid of the NRA and gun lobby and ENFORCE stricter gun laws have background checks for the mentally unstable that want guns along with the not mentally unstable and yes ban the Ak47, M16 style assault rifles, and then start looking at the video games our kids get consumed with playing. We are not talking about the video games from the 80’s here, like Pac-Man, Space Invaders, Asteroids, no we are talking about Grand Theft Auto, Call of Duty and those type of realistic looking kill as many people as you can with whatever weapon you can get games. That goes hand in hand with the gun lobby and the NRA.

          • RobertCHastings

            Excellent post. Thank for the sober and well-thought out response to the issue of gun control and to those who unreasoningly oppose it. Various people have over the past ten years or so tried for better regulation of the violent video games, especially those in which killing is especially graphic and brutal – and realistic. Adam Lanza, who was already a mind around the corner, played these games. And Dylan Klebold and his partner at Columbine both played the violent video games of that era. It appears to be more than just an unfounded theory that these games DO influence young, impressionable minds.

          • Barbara Morgan

            I don’t know what the game is called but the NRA has released it’s own game and some say it is very violent. I haven’t talked to anyone that has played or seen the game being played but since the NRA issued it I can image how violent it is.

          • Barbara Morgan

            You have got that right, he or she doesn’t care.

          • José Raymond Herrera

            Defense of our homes? Isn’t the role of police? Labrown, we live in the XXIth century already. Cowboys don’t make the law anymore.

          • DEFENDER88

            The police cannot *defend* your home. Do they sit in your front yard 24hr?
            The police can investigate who killed you and maybe bring them to justice but they cannot *Defend* you or your family. It is a big country, everyone does not have the police coverage and response time you may have. In the mountains where I have land the response time is hours.
            I am glad you have good police coverage but you dont get around much do you.

          • labrown69

            Bingo!

          • More like “Bimbo”

          • labrown69

            You don’t like facts or reality, do you Grover?

          • labrown69

            Is anyone really so stupid as to believe that when a home invasion robbery is taking place you have time to wait for the police or even the ability to call them and then there is a little matter of my constitutional right to protect myself. Cowboys did not make the Constitution and you are an imbecile Jose’. Helpless groveling pukes like you make me sick. Next time some thugs break into your house I hope while they are taking turns raping your daughter you call the police. Maybe they will take your daughter and your wife at the same time from behind and you can ponder your next helpless move. I can’t believe they let morons like you vote.

          • metrognome3830

            Would you really like to see someone break into a home and rape the resident’s daughter? And take his daughter and wife from behind? You would wish that on someone simply because they disagree with your point of view? You sound very much like someone who should not even be allowed to have any weapon more powerful than a rubber band and a handful of spitballs. What a swell guy you are!

          • labrown69

            I was merely trying to acquaint a Utopian mutant of the reality that takes place many times every day in the real world. Of course i do not wish harm to anyone but unlike the asshole I was posting to, I am prepared to defend his life and his family’s life if necessary. He on the other hand will be too busy spouting liberal platitudes and waiting for Godot!

          • metrognome3830

            I was hoping that you didn’t mean anyone should suffer such an attack. I have no problem with people having a weapon around the house for defense. At the same time I hope I never have to use it. I am not worried that the government is going to take away my .25 semi-auto handgun, and I prefer not to get too excited about some restrictions on obtaining a gun or a rifle. Before I nearly got shot on two occasions by “sportsmen” allegedly hunting deer, I hunted for many years myself. Now I’m just not interested. Yes, such scenarios happen every day. The way you or I might handle it differs from how others handle it. They shouldn’t be criticized for their perfectly legal right to their beliefs. Some people are just not comfortable with guns and it’s probably best for all of us if they don’t attempt to use one.

          • More often than not, when the “home owner” pulls out a weapon, the “home owner” is the one who ends up dead.

          • Only if you are a “shoot first and ask questions later idiot” will you have a chance. If you hesitate, you are the one who will be dead. If you do not hesitate, you could kill you friend, your neighbor, the police, or worst of all, your child.

            You are and IDIOT.

          • and if you grab your gun, if you are not a savage killer, you will get YOUR ass shot off.

          • labrown69

            You are free to sit there and watch thugs rape your wife and daughter and sodomize them and you because you are paralyzed by fear you will “hesitate”. If someone breaks into my house and brandishes a weapon there will be no hesitation however if you are afraid, clearly you should not have one but I would buy the little lady a strong chastity belt. Maybe you should wear one too…….. backwards!

          • José Raymond Herrera

            Pinche cabrón said labrown, should I repeat to you that fewer neurones call for more guns? How many times were you «home invaded»? Calling morons and imbecile. This is the meaning about arms for preaching cowboys types like you?

          • labrown69

            Pinche cabron!

          • labrown69

            ROTFLMAO! THE ANSWER IS NO, IT’S NOT THE ROLE OF THE POLICE, NOR ARE THEY ABLE TO DO IT! Might I suggest the tooth fairy?

          • Barbara Morgan

            According to labrown 69 they do and we have a government plot going on to take away everyone’s guns. He or she doesn’t realize that that he or she had fallen for the NRA’s lies lock, stock and barrel and are helping the weapon and ammo manufacturers sell more weapons thus getting richer then in term are giving the NRA bigger donations that mean the NRA gives bigger donations to the The Republican Party who are the ones that are trying to take our rights away at least at state levels

          • labrown69

            According to labrown? Excuse me, several municipalities have already tried all out gun bans and it is only because the NRA funded the court battle that they failed so let us not sell that line of bullsh*t that “nobody wants to take away your guns”. It has already been tried several times.

          • AdamMos

            There is absolutely zero legislation that would confiscate anybodies weapons or not allow someone to maintain firearms for self defense unless of course they are a convicted felon or nuts. Pull your head out of your ass. Your argument is weak and if there ever was legislation that would disallow you or me from maintaining firearms for self defense I would stand strongly with you and so would an overwhelming majority of Americans. We are talking about common sense gun reform and nothing more. How long have you worked for the gun lobby?

          • labrown69

            DC vs Heller
            McDonald vs Chicago

            It is ONLY because of the NRA that they have not banned all guns in both of these municipalities so when you say “there is zero legislation” you might want to mention, “zero legislation” that was found to be constitutional and successfully run up our asses by leftists.

          • AdamMos

            Great, thanks for proving my point. There is no legislation existing or pending that would confiscate weapons from law abiding citizens because it is clearly UNCONSTITUTIONAL!!!!!
            So why would not consider common sense safety legislation that would stiffen our gun trafficking laws, straw purchases , universal and meaningful background checks, ban the future sale of high capacity magazine clips and military style assualt weapons?
            Answer- because you and your thugs are more interested in profits than national safety!
            Clearly the result of these proposals would in no way infringe on our 2nd amendment rights but would curtail gun sales especially to people who should not have access to these tools of death.
            Does it solve the problem entirely? No but is obviously an important step in the right direction should be considered with other proposals including school safety and other good ideas that are being discussed.
            Would it completely elimainate the wrong people for getting weapons? No. Would it make it harder for thenm to get the weapons? Without a doubt.
            Dont you think it should be a felony with strict enforcement to supply criminals with weapons?
            Apperently not if you are a gun manufacturer.
            To a certain degree if nothing happens it will assure that the Democrats will take over the Govt in 2014 when the electorate punishes the republicans for inaction on this topic. 90% of likely voters favor both stronger trafficking and universal background checks.

          • AdamMos,
            The second says, “to ensure a well regulated militia…….
            The wackos that have assault weapons are nether.
            There for, the weapons are up for total regulation. In fact, all weapons are up for unfettered regulation.

          • labrown69

            Sorry Grovey – that’s not what the Supreme Court has said nor is it accurate. The 2nd Amendment guarantees the right to privately own firearms. I suggest you read Heller v DC or McDonald v Chicago instead of making it up as you go.

          • Barbara Morgan

            I will suggest once again you reread DC VS Heller. It doesn’t say you seem to think it does and read the articles on goggle that relate to that decision.You will get educated and realize nothing is absolute including what you think the 2nd amendment says.

          • labrown69

            In both Heller and McDonald the court struck down an all out ban and reaffirmed the right of citizens to own and keep firearms – period. Given how the far left and even today’s loony ACLU who I traditionally supported, twists the second amendment itself I should not be surprised at whatever you are seeing in your reading of Heller. The statement “the right to bear arms shall not be infringed” is unambiguous in my book.

          • Barbara Morgan

            Reread DC Vs Heller, it says that the government can limit the number and types of guns owned by an individual. There are also articles posted about that decision that shows DC VS Heller means more that gun lovers says it does. Also the NRA has not kept the government from banning all guns, they keep theirselves from doing it and all the NRA does is funnell money from the weapons and ammo manufacturers to the Republican Party and the leaders of the NRA. How much is the NRA paying you to post for them?

          • The second amendment says, “To ensure a well regulated militia,……..
            The loonies that have the assault weapons are neither a militia, nor are they well regulated.

            There for, all privet held weapons are fair game for regulation as any governmental entity sees fit.

          • labrown69

            And the writings leading up to the second amendment say “who is the militia, it is the entire body of the people” you idiot!

          • AdamMos

            You are full of BS. We do not need military style weapons to defend ourselves. A good old fashioned hand gun and well armed police force will be just fine. Why are you so scared? There are medications for your condition.
            “You are constantly bombarded with phony statistics about guns and you are sheltered from reports of the many times every day guns are used to defend homes, schools and businesses etc.”
            Grow up already! Enough with the baloney.

          • labrown69

            Are the facts confusing to you?

          • Whose facts.

            The real facts that assault weapons have no purpose other than to kill people.
            Or the “facts” that the NRA made up that every person should have an assault weapon.

          • labrown69

            The Korean business owners who were attacked by gangs of looters and rioting thugs in South Central LA, who defended their stores and their lives with AR15s will be very surprised to hear that Grover Syck, gun expert says they have no purpose but to kill wantonly.

          • labrown69

            Well the only reality you and your cowardly creepy friends are going to have to deal with is you and your anti gun legislation are going down in flames. It aint gonna happen so get used to it because a vast majority us know our rights and we are not about to surrender them.

          • RobertCHastings

            Apparently, REALITY is confusing you.

          • Thank you labrown… we are outnumbered by those who do not want to listen to REASON…. unfortunately

          • RobertCHastings

            You’re another idiot who needs to have the NRA explained. Read my previous response to labrown69, then look up what I have said for verification. Don’t take my word for it. The NRA is in business not to protect the Second Amendment rights of gun owners, but to make sure their sponsors (the gun lobby) make significant profits.

          • labrown69

            At a point, the NRA’s motivation is irrelevant. Be honest, you are just pissed because they stand in the way of lefty ideologues like you whether it’s for profit or not. You jack asses tried to confiscate guns in DC and Chicago but you were unable. Keep spouting all that silly shit about how we don’t need guns anymore because there aren’t any bears on the street. It is helpful when you look as stupid as you sound.

          • Barbara Morgan

            Go post on the right leaning websites they will believe every lie you labrown69 and the defenders post lock stock and barrel. This site has people posting that research things for theirselves don’t just read the articles here and post.

          • And if fewer criminals had guns as a result of the cynical proliferation of weapons, fewer people would need them to defend home and business. This is a two-way river. If you want fewer criminals that you would need an f’in assault weapon to defend yourself and family against, 1) insist on stricter background checks to eliminate many of would-be buyers from the purchasing queue, and 2) make it more costly — taxes, insurance, whatever — to discourage some from owning a gun. The 2nd Amendment is NOT unconditional. The goal should simply be to reduce the number of weapons. The flood of guns pumped out by the manufacturers exerts pressure that the market must accommodate. Hence, the NRA goes shilling and whoring for the gun makers, who are primarily interested in sales. The 2nd amendment is the channel to the maintenance of their market; who buys them in the end is not their primary concern, but anything that would inhibit the chains of sale most certainly is, as it’s a threat to their existence. Well, I don’t really f’in care, far better that a gun company closes than more innocent people get shot and murdered. In the time it took me to write this, somewhere in the U.S., at LEAST one person has been killed by a gunman who shouldn’t be wielding a mass-produced weapon he too-easily obtained, and that is toxic bullshit. For those that want guns to be so easily bought, perhaps they should somehow empathically experience the devastation to a family which has just lost someone to a crazed gunman wielding a weapon that a sensible system would have prevented him obtaining.

          • DEFENDER88

            So, eliminating guns will stop crime and murder? Good luck with that.
            So you are smarter than Jefferson, and the people who put the 2nd amendment in the constitution? If guns dont stop crime why do police carry them? There are always going to be crazed killers out there – The police need protection but I dont – that is BS.

          • english_teacher

            Nobody, except for you and your like-minded buddies, is talking about eliminating guns or taking them away. We are talking about enforcing controls the usage of guns and if they are used to commit a crime or inappropriately, then following through on the penalties associated with the law.

          • DEFENDER88

            Yeah, Right. Like that is not your ultimate agenda. Just admit it.
            Keeping them out of the hands of the wrong people, I do support.
            *I* could even go for requiring a psyc test to buy a gun.
            The problem of young white men on anti-depressants shooting up schools is actually a bigger problem than just the guns.
            Note – ALL – the school killings have been done by young white males on anti-depressants. Prosac – VT, Effexor – Columbine.
            Why is there no discussion on how to actually control and stop this?
            Securing the schools and getting these people under control will go a long way to solving the problem. Guns per-sey are not the root problem here.
            “No one is talking about taking your guns away”
            Lies and deception – Your Fienstein bill now before congress proposes a weapons ban and has a confiscation component in it.
            Also the Biden comission(in their discussions) acknowledged that confiscation was not practical, *for now*, but have it as a future “desired” agenda intem.
            You may be protected and not have to face threats and provide for your own security. But many of us do. It is a big country.
            And guns, per-sey, are not the *root* problem/s.
            Sounds like you (and “your like minded buddies”) hate gun owners more than you actually want to solve the problem of the killings.

          • Barbara Morgan

            Have you had a mental check up recently? What medications was the Columbine school killers on? You are blaming medicines for the mass killing can you prove that they were actually taking these medicines in the weeks before the killing or you just taking the media’s word that they were?There are discussions going on about the effects that that these medicines have had on the mass killings not that many in the media are reporting that,The man that committed mass murder at Virginia Tech was suppose to be taking medication for his mental problems but didn’t so who can say for sure what triggers mass murders? The sniper in the Texas tower at the Unversity in Texas had a brain turmor he didn’t know about that caused him to go on a killing spree, how many other people are walking around with that unknow time bomb tickling away in their head? Your guns can only be taken away if you are convicted of a crime or develop mental problems that make you unsafe,There was a grandfather clause in the Fienstein that let people keep the type of guns that she was trying to get banned if they already owned such guns.What does it say in the Fienstein bill that makes you and others think they are going to take your guns?

          • DEFENDER88

            You think the founders did not know the history of man and the history of weapons development throughout mankind? From stick and stones, to spears, to bow and arrow to, blunderbus, to musket, to rifled musket, there were even some repeating weapons back then just not that many, but they knew the potentials…….. You dont think they could visualize the potential progression? Even I can visualize what it might be like in 100yrs – laser weapons, rail guns, guns you can make at home on a computer and advanced printer) some are already doing that except the barrel(check out your latest technical news). I think that is why they did not mention any particular weapons in the 2nd AMend.
            They gave us the concept, the ideology of personal self defense and yes even the ability to overthrow the govt if ever necessary “again”(I dont think we are anywhere near that but want us to be able too if ever necessary). if for example the Islamists were to ever come into power and demand we all convert to Islam – I want the option of resisting that. Unlikely but you never know what is going to happen. Not in my life time I dont think but still.

            *No free man shall ever be barred the use of arms* Thomas Jefferson

            As for school shootings, there IS a definite link to young men on anti-depressants – I have not said what should be done about it(I am not a mental health pro), but just that it needs to be looked at to see what can and maybe should be done to reduce or stop it.

            As for the Biden commission talks, the report of a desired future agenda of confiscation came from a Left Wing source – if it had come from a Right Wing source I would not have given it any credence and called it scare tactic dogma.

            You have a right to your opinion and I think you are basically a good person but I dont think you are being as objective as you need to be in this issue about weapons. You seem to have swallowed the Left Wing dogma much of which is, well, Left Wing scare tactics to achieve an agenda. Same kind of s*it the Repubs(Hannity, Limbaugh, Coulter, etc pull).

            Like giving the NRA credit for the sudden huge increase in gun sales. If they could do that they would have done it long ago. THINK about this – it is not logical. It is all this talk from the Left that is driving sales.

            On being armed, an additional concern for me is the rocky state of the economy and the gridlock state of our govt. I think there is a good chance we will be entering a period of extreme social unrest in the US and not that far off. I am thinking roving gangs like in LA and Katrina, etc. And I know the gangs already have Assault rifles. I dont want to have to face a gang with assault rifles with a single shot pistol(the horse is already out of the barn on this – the gangs have them and are not giving them up) . I know this since I have already had to face them 2-3 times myself. And I dont get my information from the NRA, nor let them tell me what I want or feel like I may need. Nor let them influence my thinking in much of any way.

            The NRA cannot drive weapon sales, if so they would have done it long ago. All this talk about bans are what is driving sales through the roof. If there is only one thing I do KNOW, it is that.
            Since I am 65 and have been here a while and have an MBA I also know something about sales, marketing and buyer preferences and motivations. You cant sell much to people who dont feel the need for or want a particular item – I am sure you know this. The fundamental driving force here is all this talk about banning weapons people think they may need in the future to defend themselves, not to go out and kill someone. Unfortunatley the hysteria has gotten so bad now that a lot of people who should not have one are getting them(dont know how to handle them safely). And it is driven by the fear of a ban due to all the talk of it from the left like in here.

            There are some things that should be done about enhanced background checks like including a psyc test etc but not a ban nor a national “Universal” “register” leading to confiscation(what the NRA and many gun owners have a problem with).
            As a compromise I would suggest a National *Standard* developed system but run by the States like now. Still “universal” but state run not by the FED.
            How many FED run programs end up hurting the very ones they were supposed to help?
            I dont trust them to roll a bowling ball. I would trust them to f*ck one up.
            As a side note – ALL of the school killing(for the past 20yrs) has been done with pistols(except Lanza) – a ban on assault rifles will have little effect on the problem of school killings.
            We should be working on things that WILL have an effect.
            1st, as a Last Resort Fail-Safe: Secure (or be able to stop somehow) all schools against an active shooter. At least for now.

          • Barbara Morgan

            Yes, we are smarter than Jefferson and the Founding Fathers, they didn’t see the way guns would change and get more deadly as the years went by nor did they see that one organization would make people so paranoid about their guns being taken away by the government that it would increase the sell of more deadly weapons and bigger holders for ammo just to make weapon and ammo manufacturers richer dailey thus making that organization The NRA richer. Something that people like you don’t understand, the government isn’t planning on taking your gun even the guns you own that they want to ban, that is an NRA lie started after President Obama was elected. The NRA saw away to get more guns sold because the President’s s skin tone was black and they use that to get more guns and ammo sold for the manufacturers of these items.
            Also when the 2nd amendment was written, we had just won the revolution that created this Country and the well armed Militia was in the 2nd amendment so the newly formed government wouldn’t treat the states the way Great Britian did and take away their hard fough freedom.
            You along with others need to reread the history of this Country from its beginnings to the Whiskey rebellion and maybe you will understand the 2nd amandment better than you do now.

          • DEFENDER88

            You think you are smarter then Jefferson – cant get much more arrogant than that. You will need to throw Wasington, Adams and a lot more in there also.
            What – you live in one of those guarded gated communities too – or do you just think you are safe. You have swallowed the left wing dogma hook and sinker. A lot of us are not so safe, and not so young and have to provide for our own defense of self, home and family. Glad you dont have to worry about that.
            You cant see the forest for the trees. It is paranoid people like YOU driving up weapons and ammo sales -and that is a fact – not the NRA(although they proably do like it.
            You think you know what is going on and you dont, you have been brainwashed by the left wingnuts so now you are one.

            Another fact – reported by a left-leaning news source(not the NRA) – You will be happy to know – The Biden comission does have confiscation as a long term goal on their agenda. And the Feinstein bill being considered also has a confiscation section in it. And none of this has anything to do with the NRA.
            So just stop telling your lie (no – your dam lie) that noone is coming for your guns. Or are you just so mis-informed/mis-lead.
            The NRA has been around for a long time, why is it just now that gun and ammo sales are thru the roof. (ps I dont like it any more than you, as a competition shooter it costs me more money to practice.) Hint – it aint the NRA no matter how you try to twist the facts(and that is a real twist you have going there) to fit your gun grab agenda – it is YOU and your kind..
            So you go on with your delusions and I will go on with mine, except mine are based in fact. Yours are based on hersay left wingnut dogma.
            Keep up your gun ban crap and soon everyone in the country will have one – and a lot(more now than ever) are getting them now who should not have them. So – people like YOU are actually making things more dangerous, and you dont even know it.
            So, keep it up and you will continue to propogate the very thing you want to stop and I want to at least slow down.

            ps I worked for Hillary, and voted for Barak twice so dont come at me with your racist crap either.
            ps2 The war started because the British were coming to confiscate the colonists weapons at Lexington. But they had moved(hidden) them so they(the British) went to Concord and got their arrogant asses whipped all the way back to Boston.
            If you dont know that then you dont know history either. Its how this country started. I was there, and I am still here. I can get just as ethereal as you.
            ps3 The colonial army and militias were sent home with the most advanced weapons of the day(“Rifled” Muskets) and the 2nd Amendment to ensure they were not *confiscated*.

          • Barbara Morgan

            Yes We are smarter than the founding fathers because when they were alive they didn’t have the same education as people are getting today and did not know about all about the weapons that we have on the market today and how much damage can be done to person if shot by some of these weapons. Their knowledge of weapons was based on the types of weapons they used not today’s day weapons. If they had foreseen how deadly weapons would become in the years to come there would be different wording in the 2nd amendent and some of the other amendents that they adopted if they could have forseen many of the changes from their time to this time, but they didn’t thus when they wrote of weapons, they were writing about the weapons the knew, about flintlocks,one shot pistols, swords, knives and tomhawks not guns that shot so many bullets in a minute or less that could shot a person to pieces.or put 5 t bullets in a child’s body in less than 30 seconds. I will go back and read what Biden said again but the govenment isn’t coming after your guns because if they were the Fienstein bill would not have grandfather clause in it where if you already own one of the guns or ammo holders on the banned list you keep it. Also you need to reread the history of this country from its beginnings in the 1500. to the whiskey rebellion and the gun laws that were enforced in the old West. I don’t live in a gated community I live almost downtown in a medium size city and have lived in the same neighborhood for over 31 years and have seen it go from good to bad and back to good in those years.Also went to work at different times day or night depending on what shift I worked and was never afraid to be out after dark even when the neighborhood went through a bad place to live and still am not afraid to go out after dark even through I am a senior citizen and I have never carred a weapon in the thirty one years I have lived in the neighborhood. I know the history of my Country very well thank you and am still learning new facts about its history everyday for I am a history buffet and have been since grammar school.

          • RobertCHastings

            The major problem with your assinine argument (in addition to its being assinine) is that, whether you want to believe it or not (I really don’t give a rat’s ass one way or the other) gun violence in Australia is DOWN, hugely, since they passed their gun-control measures in 1996. Those states that have the strongest gun control measures in place have measurably less gun violence than states which have less stringent controls. That is not wishful thinking, pea brain, that is fact. Look it up on some site that has a reasonable chance of being factual, which naturally precludes anything to do with Fox, or The RightScoop, or The Daily Caller, etc. Your stupidity cannot atone for your wishful thinking. Sure guns don’t kill, it is the people who OWN the guns who do that, so what is your issue with keeping guns out the hands of those people who are more likely to commit acts of violence with THEIR GUNS?

          • DEFENDER88

            Good try 69 but many in here feel so superior and are so arragant and self righteous that they, and only they, know the solutions. The tactic is to shout down and/or criticize anyone who disputes their agenda(Similar to the tea baggers tactic at the town hall meetings)
            One of their favorite deflectors is to call you paranoid, especially when they cant dispute your facts. And can offer no real, workable solutions.
            Try to divert the discussion to your integrity/character.
            .
            Meanwhile they create these Gun Free Killing Fields.
            How has that idea worked out??
            Good Idea from an internal site specific stand point but the reality of conditions as they are now makes it work against the safety of students and teachers. The killers are coming in from outside and are clearly targeting these areas for that very reason.
            Might as well post a sign:
            Gun Free Zone – come on in, kill all you want, no one here to stop you.
            So we should listen to them, they have the answers??
            They say “no one is going to take your guns away” then propose a bill in congress to do just that.

            They talk about guns used and detail characteristics and dont know
            sh-t about what they are talking about.
            And still think they know everything about everything.

            They are terrified of any gun at all anywhere and call us paranoid??
            And if you are a gun owner you are considered the enemy and called paranoid. No matter what the reality of your circumstance/threats may be. One of their favorite attempts to deflect/divert the discussion.

            They will not even consider real solutions that will help secure and protect the schools.
            98% of the killing in schools has been done with handguns and shotguns so what is their solution? Ban assault rifles??
            Yeah, right, like that will stop the killing.
            Another emotion and agenda driven response not based on the facts, causal factors and actual statistical enablers.

            And while ALL the school killings have been done by young white men on new age designer anti-depressants – somehow they dont want to even discuss this as a problem. It is not part of their agenda of banning weapons as the cause.

            Some say middle ground compromise is the answer but will not even consider alternate solutions to their gun ban agendas.

            So, More often than not, in here, I am left with the feeling they hate gun owners more than they want to solve the actual problems with real solutions that will work.

            Like you say they want an ideal world and nothing less. Nice if you can have it but the reality of the situation for now is – not anytime soon no matter how many guns you ban.
            Dont know what kind of secure and protected world they live in, or think they live in, but my reality is quite different.
            So good luck with any reasonable discussion in here

          • RobertCHastings

            And what “real, workable solutions” are you offering? The only thing you are doing is ridiculing or dissing the ideas put forth by VP Biden, President Obama, Michael Bloomberg, and dozens of others, INCLUDING those on Biden’s BIPARTISAN panel. Believe it or not, some CONSERVATIVES actually feel there IS a problem with “assault weapons” on our streets. In 1996 Australia experienced a mass killing even worse than the one at Newtown, CT. That year they passed legislation to STRICTLY control guns. Mirabile dictu, gun violence went down and has STAYED down in Australiasince then. What facts have you conservatives offered that we have not readily refuted?

          • DEFENDER88

            I was not talking to you but since you asked.
            Well 1st – I worked for Hillary, voted for Obama 2times, think the right to lifers are nuts, and we should legalize weed – and you call me a conservative? So you are already wrong on just that point – so you must consider if you can be wrong about that, then maybe your not as infallable as most anti-gun nuts in here think they are.
            I am trying to avoid talking to progressive gun grabbers ie people who know they are the only ones who can possibly be right.
            Since you have *not yet* called me names – I have not yet called you arrogant and sanctimonious to approaching omnipotant but many progressives in here are just that.

            The fact is 98% of school killings have been done with handguns and shotguns – So logic dictitates we should make a big push to ban AR’s??? How do you develope that logic??
            Seems to me that is just part of the bigger agenda to ban all guns. Seems many in here dont really give a s*it about really stopping school killings. But care more about their agenda to ban AR’s. Emotion has replaced analysis. To stop the school killings we should analize who, what, why, etc ie the underlying causal factors.

            3 glaring factors being ignored are
            1 – The mass killers are clearly targeting these Gun Free Zones – Schools included. Can you refute this?
            2 – ALL the school killing has been done with handguns and shotguns except for Lanza Can you refute this?
            3 – ALL the school killing has been done by young white men on these new designer anti-depressants. Can you refute this?
            Before we started medicating these people at home this was not a problem. The mass school killing started about the same time the institutions were emptied and these new designer drugs were developed(the late 1990’s)(Prozac-VT, Effedren-Columbine, etal).
            Can you refute this?
            ps I am not just guessing here. I have done the research and have the date/facts.

            Actual solutions for now anyway should involve
            1- Secure the schools, either with armed security or *highly train* a few teachers *who want to* in defending the school. Or a mix of both. Anyway enhance security and the ability to stop an armed intruder. At least until we can get this mass killing problem under control.
            2- Somehow? solve this big(and fundamental/primary) problem of young white men on drugs having access to the public at large and weapons and schools.
            Just those 2 things alone will go a long way to stop the killing.

            Then there are things that can and should be done about enhanced background checks that I think should include a psyc test etc.
            But run by the states, many dont trust the Fed with a register of gun owners since that is the next step to confiscation. Which of course is your stated desire.That is (I think) why the NRA has a problem with a proposed Fed run system
            *I* would propose a Fed developed standard system that included a psyc test but run by the states. I could even go for requiring a permit to be able to buy a gun. Permit holders, like me, must have fingerprint background check, gun safety training, shooting qualifying, etc.
            *I* personally have taken it to another level and become more highly trained than 98% of police in weapons safety and shooting and self defense.
            Why are these actual facts and causal factors being ignored in here if it is not because they do not fit the agenda of banning guns?
            This all involves some compromising on both of our parts to make things safer but I dont think you and most in here are interested in any of that.

          • RobertCHastings

            1) THERE IS NO BIGGER AGENDA to either ban or confiscate all guns.
            2) Adam Lanza used a Bushmaster in Newtown, CT.
            3) James Holmes used an “assault weapon” in Aurora, CO.
            4) the shooter in Australia in 1996 used and “assault weapon” (which led to the banning of such weapons in Australia – in 1996)

            5) the shooter two years ago in Sweden used an “assault weapon”

            98% of school shooting may not have been perpetrated with “assault weapons”, but it certainly makes it a lot easier to do a lot of mayhem with a weapon that will discharge 60 rounds+ / minute, especially if you don’t have to repolace the magazine every ten shots or so.
            You have some excellent proposals, but where you got the data about all of these school shooters being drugged is beyond me. James Holmes at the theater in Aurora, CO was, and so was Jared Loughner, in Phoenix, AZ; but both of those guys were certifiable, anyway, and should not have had guns, a situation, as you apparently understand, could very easily be rectified with universal background checks for the transfer of ownership of ALL weapons.
            As my five items above demonstrates, the mass shooters are NOT targeting just schools and if you are referring to CONNECTICUT when you name Prozac, Adam Lanza was not, by any means, a typical shooter. And, for that matter, what was the shooter at the University of Texas clock tower on? Unwittingly, you have actually hit on an important issue in the discussion, and that is the role mental illness plays in all of this.

          • DEFENDER88

            1) Agenda – *YOU* may not have a larger agenda but many in here do.
            Since I have different ideas as to how to solve the killing problem – You dont get the kind of hate mail I do.
            Also it has been reported(in a left leaning watch-dog rag, cant remember the name) that the Binden commission did indeed consider confiscation but decided it could not be done resonably or practical at this time but is a future desired agenda item.

            2)Lanza assault rifle yes – but I am hearing he also used a pistol, some details are yet to be released.

            3)Holmes use of assault weapon – it jammed after 30 rnds, some 80 people were shot, so technically(actually) he did most of the shooting with a handgun. If you read/dig deeper into the info here you will find this.

            4)Australia -Yeild to you on this, I have no info
            5)2 yrs ago in Sweden – I think it was Norway – you better check this
            Yet another- Gun Free??? Island/Zone as I recall.

            I *unwittingly* hit on the drug problem as being a big issue here
            Well if you call me showing that in here for the last month and producing data to show the validity of the problem then I guess you can call it *unwitting*. I call it – investigating the primary causal factors leading to potential real, effective, solutions.
            You see I am pushing for solutions that can be implemented asap – but real solutions that address the underlying problems/causes..
            If something is not done SOON there surely will be more.
            Any “ban” would likely take years to be effective and a ban on assault rifles (by default – maximum 3-4% reduction) will have a very limited effect.
            Fact is (roughly) FBI gun crime stats are:
            Hand Gun 85%
            Shotgun 10%
            All Rifles 3-4%

            Here is just one sample(previous post in here) from my files:
            From my data – The great majority of the killing in schools has been done with handguns. NOT Assault Rifles.
            Also Assault Rifles are but a sub-set of the Larger Group – All Rifles. As for the Group of *All Rifles* the data says only 3-4% of gun crime is done with All Rifles. And Assault Rifles as a sub set is even lower. And I “think” is in the 1% range, maybe even less.
            So – I have been thinking and saying why is there such a big push to ban Assault Rifles when they are used so little in gun crime.
            Seems to me the “push”(from the progressive left) is based on emotion(an emotional response) and not on analysis of what are the causes and what changes will actually help reduce the murders.
            So I have said while their agenda seems to be – Ban Assault Rifles.
            *My Agenda* is to try to reduce the killing.
            That is the real objective is it not?
            My data shows that almost all the mass and especially school killings have been done by white males 16-27 yrold on one of the new-age anti-depressants, using pistols. Seems to me we should concentate on doing things/changes that consider these actual causal factors and that will actually work to mitigate these factors.
            Things like – 1) Provide armed security in schools 2) Some-how, get this particular drug/mental problem under control.

            ps The school shooting problem started, roughly, in the 1990’s. About the same time the mental institutions were emptied and these new designer drugs were introduced to self medicate young men at home. Now they are housed in jails, then released upon us. And the poor parents of these troubled young men are suffering as much as any in not being able to get help with the problem.
            The drugs associated with the killings keep appearing time and time again –

            YR School Condition Drug Weapon Killer/Age #Killed
            ——– ———— ————– ————— ———– ——-
            1999 Columbine Depression Zoloft, Luvox Pistol/Shotgun Male 17/18 12
            2005 Red Lake Depression Prozac Pistol/Shotgun Male 16 9
            2007 VT Depression Prozac Pistol Male 23 32
            2008 N. Ill Depression Prozac Pistol/Shotgun Male 27 5
            2009 Germany Depression ukn Pistol Male 17 15

            # of School Shootings in USA
            1960’s 1
            1970’s 5
            1980’s 3
            1990’s 15
            2000’s 19
            2010’s 5 so far

            And I have a lot more *causal* *evidence*

          • DEFENDER88

            MOre data on the school shooting anti-depressant link.
            WhatDrugDate WhereAdditionalSchool StabbingMed For Depression2011-10-25Washington**Girl, 15, Stabs Two Girls in School Restroom: 1 Is In Critical ConditionSchool ShootingZoloft Antidepressant & ADHD Med2011-07-11Alabama**14 Year Old Kills Fellow Middle School StudentSchool ShootingMeds For Depression & ADHD2011-03-18South Carolina**Teen Shoots School Official: Pipe Bombs Found in BackpackSchool Massacre PlotProzac Withdrawal2011-02-23Virginia**Teen Sentenced to 12 Years in Prison For Columbine Style PlotSchool Hostage SituationMed For Depression2010-12-15France**17 Year Old with Sword Holds 20 Children & Teacher HostageSchool Incident/BizarreZoloft*2010-08-22Australia**School Counselor Exhibits Bizarre Behavior: Became Manic On ZoloftSchool Knifing/MurderMeds For Depression & ADHD2010-04-28Massachusetts**Sixteen Year Old Kills 15 Year Old in High School Bathroom in Sept. 2009School ShootingSSRI2010-02-19Finland**On Sept. 23, 2008 a Finnish Student Shot & Killed 9 Students Before Killing HimselfSchool Shooting ThreatsCelexa Antidepressant2010-01-25Virginia**Senior in High School Theatens to Kill 4 Classmates: Facebook Involved: Bail DeniedSchool Hostage SituationCymbalta Antidepressant WITHDRAWAL2009-11-09New York**Man With Gun Inside School Holds Principal HostageSchool/AssaultAntidepressant2009-11-04California**School Custodian Assaults Student & Principal: Had Manic Reaction From Depression MedSchool Shooting PlotAntidepressants2009-09-22England**Two English School Boys Plot to Blow Up High SchoolSchool Bomb ThreatMed For Depression2009-06-29Australia**Vexed Father Makes Bomb Threat Against Elementary SchoolSchool ShootingMed For Depression2009-03-13Germany**16 Dead Including Shooter: Antidepressant Use: Shooter in Treatment For DepressionSchool Knife AttackTreatment For Depression & Strattera2009-03-10Belgium**Three Dead in School Day Care: Two Children & a Caregiver: Happened Jan 23, 2009School Shooting PlotMed For Depression WITHDRAWAL2008-08-28Texas**18 Year Old Plots a Columbine School AttackSchool Threat/LockdownLexapro*2008-04-18California**Violent High School Student Shot to Death on Campus by PoliceSchool ThreatAntidepressants2008-03-20Indiana**Teen [16 Years Old] Brings Gun to School: There Is a LockdownSchool StabbingMed For Depression2008-02-29Texas**Teen [17 Year Old GIRL] Stabs Friend & Principal at High SchoolSchool / Child EndangermentAntidepressants2008-02-27Canada**Wacky School Bus Driver Goes Berserk: Also Involved PainkillersSchool Suicide/LockdownMed For Depression2008-02-20Idaho**Teen [16 Years Old] Kills Self at High School: Lockdown by PoliceSchool ShootingProzac WITHDRAWAL2008-02-15Illinois** 6 Dead: 15 Wounded: Perpetrator Was in Withdrawal from Med & Acting ErraticallySchool ThreatProzac Antidepressant2008-01-25Washington**Student Takes Loaded Shotgun & 3 Rifles to School Parking Lot: Plans SuicideSchool ShootingAntidepressant WITHDRAWAL2007-11-07Finland**Student Kills 8: Wounds 10: Kills Self: High School in FinlandSchool ShootingAntidepressant WITHDRAWAL2007-10-12Ohio**Teen [14 Years Old] School Shooter Possibly on Antidepressants or In WithdrawalSchool SuspensionLexapro Antidepressant2007-07-28Arkansas**Student Has 11 Incidents with Police During his 16 Months on LexaproSchool ThreatWellbutrin Antidepressant2007-04-24Tennessee**Young Boy, 12, Threatens to Shoot Others at SchoolSchool ThreatAntidepressants2007-04-23Mississippi**Student Arrested for Making School Threat Over InternetSchool ShootingAntidepressant?2007-04-18Virginia**Possible SSRI Use: 33 Dead at Virginia TechSchool Knife AttackMed for Depression2006-12-06Indiana**Teen Knife Attacks Fellow StudentSchool StabbingWellbutrin2006-12-04Indiana**Stabbing by 17 Year Old At High School: Charged with Attempted MurderSchool Hostage SituationAntidepressant WITHDRAWAL2006-11-28North Carolina**Teen Holds Teacher & Student Hostage with GunSchool ShootingAntidepressant2006-09-30Colorado**Man Assaults Girls: Kills One & SelfSchool ShootingCelexa Antidepressant2006-08-30North Carolina**Teen Shoots at Two Students: Kills his Father: Celexa Found Among his Personal EffectsSchool Hostage SituationMed for Depression2006-03-09France**Young Ex-Teacher Holds 21 Students HostageSchool/AssaultZoloft Antidepressant2006-02-15Tennessee**Teen Attacks Teacher at SchoolSchool ViolenceAntidepressant2005-11-19Arizona**Violent 8 Year Old GIRL Handcuffed by Police at SchoolSchool ShootingProzac Antidepressant2005-03-24Minnesota**10 Dead: 7 Wounded: Dosage Increased One Week before RampageSchool ViolencePaxil2004-10-23Washington DC**Young Boy, 10 Year Old, Has Violent Incidents at SchoolSchool Shooting ThreatMed for Depression*2004-10-19New Jersey**Over-Medicated Teen Brings Loaded Handguns to SchoolSchool ShootingPaxil [Seroxat] Antidepressant2004-02-09New York**Student Shoots Teacher in Leg at SchoolSchool Shooting ThreatAntidepressant2003-05-31Michigan**Teen Threatens School Shooting: Charge is TerrorismSchool Shooting/SuicideCelexa2002-10-07Texas**Young Girl [13 Years Old] Kills Self at School With a GunSchool Arson IncidentsPaxil2002-04-12Michigan**Unusual Personality Change on Paxil Caused 15 Year Old to Set Fires inside High SchoolSchool ViolenceCelexa Antidepressant2002-01-23Florida**Violent 8 Year-Old Boy Arrested At SchoolSchool ShootingAntidepressant?2002-01-17Virginia**Possible SSRI Withdrawal Mania: 3 Dead at Law SchoolSchool Hostage SituationPaxil2001-10-12North Carolina**Young Man Holds Three People Hostage in Duke University President’s OfficeSchool Machete AttackMed for Depression2001-09-26Pennsylvania**Man Attacks 11 Children & 3 Teachers at Elementary SchoolSchool StabbingsAntidepressants2001-06-09Japan**Eight Dead: 15 Wounded: Assailant Had Taken 10 Times his Normal Dose of Depression MedSchool ShootingCelexa & Effexor Antidepressants2001-04-19California**Teen Shoots at Classmates in SchoolSchool Hostage SituationPaxil & Effexor Antidepressants2001-04-15Washington**Teen Holds Classmates Hostage with a GunSchool ShootingPaxil [Seroxat] Antidepressant2001-03-10Pennsylvania**14 Year Old GIRL Shoots & Wounds Classmate at Catholic SchoolSchool Hostage SituationProzac/ Paxil Antidepressants2001-01-18California**Teen [17 Years Old] Takes Girl Hostage at School: He is Killed by PoliceSchool ThreatsProzac Antidepressant1999-10-19Florida**Teen [16 Years Old] Threatens Classmates With Knife & Fake ExplosivesSchool ShootingLuvox/Zoloft Antidepressants1999-04-20Colorado**COLUMBINE: 15 Dead: 24 WoundedSchool Shooting ThreatAntidepressant1999-04-16Idaho**Teen Fires Gun in SchoolSchool Shooting PlotMed For Depression1998-12-01Wisconsin**Teen Accused of Plotting to Gun Down Students at SchoolSchool ShootingProzac Antidepressant WITHDRAWAL1998-05-21Oregon**Four Dead: Twenty InjuredSchool Violence/MurderAntidepressants*1998-05-04New York**Sheriff’s Deputy Shoots his Wife in an Elementary SchoolSchool Stand-OffZoloft Antidepressant1998-04-13Idaho**Teen [14 Years Old] in School Holds Police At Bay: Fires ShotsSchool ShootingZoloft Antidepressant1995-10-12South Carolina**15 Year Old Shoots Two Teachers, Killing One: Then Kills HimselfSchool Murder AttemptMed For Depression1995-03-04California**Young Woman Deliberately Hits 3 Kids with Her Car at Elementary School: Laughed During AttackSchool Shooting RelatedLuvox1993-07-23Florida**Man Commits Murder During Clinical Trial for Luvox: Same Drug as in COLUMBINE: Never ReportedSchool ShootingAntidepressants1992-09-20Texas**Man, Angry Over Daughter’s Report Card, Shoots 14 Rounds inside Elementary SchoolSchool ShootingProzac Antidepressant1992-01-30Michigan**School Teacher Shoots & Kills His Superintendent at SchoolSchool ShootingAnafranil Antidepressant1988-05-20Illinois**29 Year Old WOMAN Kills One Child: Wounds Five: Kills Self

          • RobertCHastings

            And your point is, just what? Stop giving people medication for their mental issues? Don’t blame their deeds on the weapons they use? Or is there something deeper you are tyring to get across?
            Yes, there is definitely a mental illness component to MOST of the prominent mass killings, that is undeniable. But what about those incidents in which there IS NO mental component and no medication component. Let’s face it, Timothy McVeigh was not on meds and he was not adjudicated mentally ill. The shooter at the University of Texas clock tower was not on meds, nor had he been receiving counseling. The Virginia Tech shooter was on medication but nothing has ever been said about his mental illness and its affect on his decision making. The two bank robbers who in the 80’s held an entire big city police department at bay with their superior firepower were never said to be crazy or on medication, although their actions may tend to make one think otherwise. There are entirely TOO MANY incidents that DO NOT fit your formula to say that your formula fits most of the cases.
            Hadiya Pendleton was gunned down in Chicago shortly after the president’s recent inauguration, by a gang banger used a “semi’automatic” weapon, and she is just a single example of the hundreds (if not thousands) of kids killed every year by street violence, and violent street gangs. Just recently the Department of Justice successfully prosecuted one of these violent gangs under RICO, which allows the government to seize the gang’s property if it can be shown to have been obtained through their illegal activities (usually drugs). Another issue just recently brought up is a suggestion by the president to require gun owners to have liability insurance on their guns, just like anyone who owns an automobile – sounds like a great idea to me. Unfortunately several years ago a US Congress under the heel of the NRA passed legislation prohibiting individuals from suing the gun manufacturers for their product. That makes no sense to me, since we were able to sue the tobacco industry for marketing a product that has led to deaths of millions.
            The discussion can go on and on and nothing get done, and still more children get killed, in schools, at the mall, at a playground, in a theater, anywhere at any time of the day or night. If nothing is done, the shootings continue, unabated. If THE RIGHT things get done, the shootings will be greatly diminished. Australia’s 1996 gun control legislation resulted in a HUGE reduction in gun violence in Australia. It has been plainly demonstrated that in those jusrisdictions that have the best gun control measures there is the least gun violence.
            Recent polls show that a vast majority of Americans support universal background checks. Unfortunately, because of the distrust so many people have in our government ( a condition fostered by the NRA and many of its supporters), almost half of the people surveyed felt data so collected would eventually be used by the government to confiscate ALL guns. Conservative ideologues have once again stymied the dialogue. However, the mere fact that over 90% of the people in this country (which includes NRA members) support universal background checks, a move that would keep guns out of the hands of those who should not have them, should give Congress some pause in shutting down the discussion. This should not be an issue like taxation in which the conservatives and liberals draw lines in the sand and say, “I dare you to cross.” It should be an issue in which BOTH sides see with the same eyes the innocent children lying on the floor at Sandy Hook Elementary School and say, “Enough.”

          • DEFENDER88

            My arguments on the drug connection to school shootings are for school shootings only. There IS a connection THERE. But I have not said what should be done about these young men on the drugs. So I dont have a deeper agenda on that. I am not a mental health expert. Except that it is a problem that needs to be addressed and *something* needs to be done. Exactly what? I dont know. But as for the other shootings – malls, theaters, streets, etc there are other issues and likely other solutions needed there. On Australia – I looked it up on Snopes and there are mixed reviews on the efficacy of the confiscation and bans. It is very complex and arguments are made both ways and a lot of dis-information and questionable reports out there about how well it has worked or not.

          • RobertCHastings

            The former prime minister of Austalia who was in office in 1996(and who was a conservative by pretty much anyone’s standards) made the rounds of the morning shows about two weeks ago. He stated, from his point of view, the ban and buyback were almost universally accepted in Australia. Of course, like Canada and the rest of the British Commonwealth,there is no “Bill of Rights” and no guarantee of any kind of a citizen’s right to possess a firearm, for protection or for any other reason. In Britain and some other countries, those who own guns must keep them at their gun club and use them there. Like our automobiles, we are entirely too enamored of our weapons. Bob Costas, although he was roundly criticized for saying so, was absolutely right when he quoted another person, saying that the ready availability of guns makes mayhem too easy. It is entirely too easy to kill someone with a gun when one becomes angry, much more so than if all one had were his fists or a pocket knife. I am not awareof the fact-checking site “Snopes”, but I hope it is not on the same page as “The RightScoop”.

          • thin_bluine

            Somewhat agree Defender, I am with you that there are not enough specific solutions to stopping school shootings. I am also with you that banning assault weapons is not the answer to stopping school shootings either. So here is a suggestion, put a committee together of people who are known experts in the field of school safety along with some folks from the education and law enforcement and even military field and have them sit in a room and brainstorm ideas that are real and can be implemented without bankrupting the government and that does not require everyone and their dog to go out and get a bazooka to feel safe? I would propose that we leave those that are influenced by the NRA and the govt antigun people out of the discussion. We get the 3 people I mentioned in begining of this thread: Michael Dorn from Safe Havens International, Ret. Lt. Col Dave Grossman of the US Army, and Teen Homicide Expert Phil Chalmers and team them with educators from throughout the country from various sized school districts both rural and inner city, and then throw in some Law Enforcement profesionals from again rural and large city agencies and have them examine and study all of the school shootings from Columbine to Newtown CT, and have them analyze the best way to help prevent this from happening again. I think you and I both know that we can never prevent this from happeneing ever again, we can only hope to deter it and make it harder for a person to get their desired effect of mass casualties. What do you say?

          • DEFENDER88

            Now you are making sense and not talking dogma. I fully agree.
            But consiering **ALL** the school killings have been done by young white men 15-27yold on anti-depressants we should throw some medical and mental health people into the mix private and state and maybe fed. I see that as a major National causal problem that must be addressed and fixed-somehow. Until then we should provide security in schools to the point of being able to stop an armed intruder – again – somehow. That should be done – well – as of last year. Until that is done and the the root problems solved the killing will continue. The next Lanza is out there as we speak, planning his tirade/mission.

          • thin_bluine

            Agreed, I did see you mentioned the medical side of this in one of your posts. You are right that is a huge factor in this. Bottom line is we cannot keep having this silly debate about the 2nd amendment when we have those Lanza freakshows out there gearing up for their next slaughter. We need action and we need it yesterday!

          • RobertCHastings

            Adam Lanza’s issue was not that he was on medications, but that he was autistic. Most autistic kids are on medication to help them function more normally, which is what Celexa, etc. are for. Adam should not have been allowed near a gun because, as with all people with autism, responsibility and the ability to see consequences is a non-starter..

          • DEFENDER88

            That was Nancy’s fault for not securing the weapons especiallly knowing his condition. Hard to come down on her too hard though since she was desperatly trying to get him committed but could not get any help(a failing of the US mental health system as a whole). I hear that is why he *went off* he found out what she was up too(again I get back to having closed the institutions and medicating/treating them at home).
            On weapon safety, my standard is to keep them locked away from anyone who is not certified/qualified ie CCL Permit holder, FBI finger print checked, safety checked and shooting qualified, and I would add a psyc test to qualify. I have all this and more.
            Autistic, aspburgers, etc I hear these kids are highly intelligent and thououghy plan their rampage on average from 2mo to 2-3yrs and longer.
            I still say there is a strong link between young men and designer anti-depresants and school shootings.

            I suppose you(like me) know the next Lanza is out there as we speak planning his rampage. So I say we should, NOW, secure all schools to the point of being able to stop an active shooter(Last Resort Fail-Safe)(for now anyway) and start work on this mental health problem asap.

            by the way – I dont think just anyone should be able to buy an assault rifle but in reality you can do as much damage with a 9mm pistol at those ranges and in competitons I can change a magazine in 2sec.some can do it in 1sec. And most full size 9mm pistols now have a std 17rd magazine. So I dont think just anyone should be able to buy a pistol either(but all that is yet another difficult issue).
            Video war games like he played consantly day and night – another issue – the first weapon those games offer you is an AR15. Then they teach you how to use it. Another issue.

          • RobertCHastings

            Yes, schools should be secured. In North Carolina, some localities already have armed security on board in the person of either security or police. Howver, the plan proposed by the NRA would cost $30B/year, in todays environment a virtual non-starter. Then, of course, it becomes a question as to whether we must protect people at malls or shopping centers, at businesses or plants, etc., and at what cost. There is a term for someone who goes off at their workplace, gong “postal”.

          • thin_bluine

            Actually rifles that we call assault style are not used to hunt with, I have never seen a hunter use an AK47 or an M-16 style assault rifle for hunting. I do not believe long rifles such as a 30/30 or 203 are considered assault weapons. I would bet the kind of rifles that the Korean shop owners your talking about had in their possession were more on the lines of the 30/30 or something similar, pretty sure they weren’t wielding and oozie or AK47 or M-16 at the rioting crowd. No where has it ever been said in anything other than the NRA media blitzes that the govt was going o try to ban deer rifles and weapons of the like. It is nice to see that that the NRA and the gun lobby have taken such control of the weak minded and have them terrified of their own government and doing all of this while hiding behind the 2nd Amendment. I think the absurd tipping point is the NRA and the gun lobby.
            One thing I will agree with you on is how freakishly absurd it is that a criminal can enter my home and if they get hurt have the ability to sue me and win in a court of law some sort of damages. The way to fix that problem is not to make sure every person in the country has an Ak sitting next to their bed to defend themself in the extremely highly unlikely situation such as an occupied home invasion, the real way to fix that is to not allow ridiculous lawsuites to ever go into a court of law and to penalize the ridiculous lawyers that try to makie a quick buck buy filing such stupid suits to start with!

          • labrown69

            The rifle of choice used by Korean business owners to protect their stores was the AR15. This is well documented. The REALITY is that of the 150 or so guns that were on the original so called ‘assualt weapons ban’, a vast majority were only distinguishable from legal weapons by cosmetic features. To hear you far left morons speak one would get the impression that if it were not for George Bush and the NRA the world would be perfect.

          • DEFENDER88

            *The way to fix that problem is not to make sure every person in the country has an Ak sitting next to their bed to defend themself in the extremely highly unlikely situation such as an occupied home invasion*
            Really?? What gated/protected community do you live in??

            I am glad you live in an area where a home invasion is *extremely unlikely* but many of us do not. It is a big country. You need to grasp the idea that many of us are not as safe and protected as you seem to be, and must provide for our own security. Pretty narrow minded and uninformed of you. Also on the issue of the Koreans using AR15’s, that is well documented and on film. They were fighting off mobs of attackers.
            I agree that is rare but home invasions are a real concern many of us have to consider. You must not recall the Dr in Conn 2 yr ago. 2 men invaded his home, tied his wife, 17yrold and 11yrold daughters to the bed. Repeatedly raped all of them. Then poured gas on them, and set them on fire. They all burned to death.
            Try to reconcile or dispute this news report:
            CHESHIRE, Conn., (CBS/AP) The two men accused of a brutal Connecticut home invasion may not have had violent crimes in their long lists of prior convictions, but sources tell local newspapers the pair’s record changed when they invaded the home of a prominent doctor early Monday morning. Joshua Komisarjevsky, 26, of Cheshire, and Steven Hayes, 44, of Winsted, were arraigned Tuesday on charges of assault, sexual assault, kidnapping, burglary, robbery, arson, larceny and risk of injury to children. More charges are pending, state police said Tuesday night. The two men could face the death penalty.
            The state medical examiner confirmed that Jennifer Hawke-Petit, 48, was strangled and that her daughters, 17-year-old Hayley and 11-year-old Michaela, died of smoke inhalation. The deaths were ruled homicides.
            The girls’ father, Dr. William Petit Jr., a prominent endocrinologist, remained hospitalized with head injuries.
            All three women were raped, sources familiar with the investigation told both the Waterbury Republican-American and Hartford Courant. Petit was beaten with a baseball bat, thrown down the basement stairs, and then tied up in the cellar.
            The girls, sources told the Courant, were tied to their beds and raped repeatedly, then left to burn after gasoline was poured around their beds and ignited.
            The suspects entered the Petits’ Cheshire home at about 3 a.m. Monday, planning to burglarize it, state police said.
            Sources familiar with the investigation tell the Republican-American that Hawke-Petit and Michaela were followed home from a supermarket Sunday by the suspects. The men then went to a Wal-Mart to buy an air rifle and a rope, and then waited about a mile-and-a-half away [before forcibly entering the home and brutalizing the family for 6 hours].
            “I’m thinking of the father. I can’t imagine what he has to come back to,” neighbor Linda Layman told CBS News . “Nobody should have to go through that. It’s very devastating. It’s just horrible.”

          • Barbara Morgan

            And to make sure tha jurors know that the criminal was hurt committing a crime and remind them that the same thing could happen to them. I have never understood how a jury could award money to the criminal against the home owner.

        • I was not aware that criminals will obey laws… this is the reason for the uproar…. new proposed bans and laws will only affect the law abiding.. not those who would do these things again… There are so many laws that are NOT enforced.. do that and you might see a difference…

          • english_teacher

            I didn’t say that criminals would obey laws. I said that if the laws were not obeyed that the existing penalties should be enforced. I’m not naive to think that laws will stop all criminals but if there are laws already on the books, then let’s enforce them or change them to make the penalties more severe.

          • Independent1

            Karen, what all of you gun-nuts are forgetting is that NONE of the mass murders over the past 10 years has been committed by a CRIMINAL!! So making a case for not controlling gun sales based on the criminal aspect is a mute point; it’s a worthless argument.

          • DEFENDER88

            What none of you anti-gun nuts dont want to recognize or discuss is the fact that ALL the mass School killings HAVE been done by young white men on anti-depressants. Also ALL the killing(7-8 major ones) was done with pistols and shotguns, except for 1 – Lanza.
            Further – you people make a big push to ban assault rifles when, by FBI data Rifles account for only 3-4% of US gun crime and Assault Rifles as a sub-set of that group less than 1%. So trying to ban Assault rifles is also a “mute point” and worthless argument. It will make the gun grabbers *feel good* about having done *something* but have (by default) very little effect on the killing. So do you just want to *feel good* or really do something about the killing?

        • whodatbob

          Police rarely protect citizens, generally they are called after a crime is over. Several years ago on a warm Sunday morning I was working out front of our home in a major Metropolitan City. Three young thugs pulled up, jumped out of their car attacting me. I yelled into the house call the police, she did. It took the police over an hour to arrive at he seen. Furtunately, one of the thugs hit me in the ear, broke my ear drum. That pissed me off, I went crazy and on the attact. they jumped in their car and ran. The punks were not good odds against a POed old man. When the police arrived they were told what happened and they left.
          Do not think the police will portest you if you are attacted. Attacts only occur if criminals know the police are not around. You are in a dream world.

          • english_teacher

            Then maybe the problem is that the police are unable to do the job that they were hired to do. If that is the case, then why can’t they do their job? How can we make them more effective? I know that if someone wants to do an illegal act that they will do it. All I can do is make it more difficult for them to carry it out so that they go elsewhere. I’m not saying that all guns should be outlawed but stricter controls need to be in place and need to be enforced.

          • whodatbob

            Police are doing the job they are hired to do. I have the utmost respect for the police. But it is impossible for for police to be everywhere all the time. We are reponsible for our own safety.
            If it is impossible to enforce current laws what makes you think more laws would be enforcable?

          • Independent1

            So you wish you had had a concealed weapon that you could have whipped out and either scared off or maybe in the scuffle killed one of the young thugs? Just so we could have one more person killed in a scuffle like Travon Martin? Is that what you’re suggesting should have happened? Nice! Really nice!

          • whodatbob

            Man! You have a great immagination. How did you arrive at this fantastic story? My story is a personal account of the police doing what they are capable of doing, and being unable to be everywhere all the time.

          • Independent1

            If I misunderstood you’re intent I apologize; but given the other comments in this thread, the implication I got from your post was that you feel people really need to carry concealed weapons in order to be in a position to defend themselves should an incident like you described come about because they couldn’t depend on the police to protect them (or for example in the situation of road rage). And although I won’t disagree that the police certainly can’t protect us in every person to person violent encounter we may find ourselves in, I definitely don’t agree that everyone should carry a gun in order to protect themselves in those situations, which hopefully should be very rare in people’s lives. Although I feel bad that you got hurt in that encounter, I don’t think pulling a gun would have been the best answer to preventing it from happening, which is what I thought you were implying. And again, I apologize for the misunderstanding.

          • whodatbob

            Your frist post gave me some chuckels! I was in my early 40s we were urban pioneers, people woh move into iffy neighborhoods intending to breath new life into our home. This was our 3rd innercity home. We knew what could happen.

            In my early 40s having never owned a gun I had no intention to own a gun your assumption aws funny.

            Fast forward almost 30 years, I am now 70 own a hand gun and have a CCW, concealed harry weapon license. I do not carry. Reason for getting the pistol and CCW was the lovely lady who married me 45 years ago started pestering me about her getting a CCW. After several years I gave in agreeing to also get a CCW. She does not carry either. Every couple of weeks I go to the range to shoot holes in paper targets.

      • Leucothea

        Yup, the Indians are coming! They’re just over the hill, so circle the wagons! Aliens, little green men, are massing at the border, swarming over for one purpose only, to rape our women!

        • labrown69

          I got your “little green men” right here:

          Fed crackdown shows MS-13 gang is real threat, experts said

          The decision last week by federal authorities to classify the Mara
          Salvatrucha MS-13 gang as a “transnational criminal organization” has
          some experts hoping the move will put the gang on the run.

          In Washington, both officials and experts said the designation shows that the federal government sees MS-13 as a real threat.

          “There is likely a sense that Mara’s power comes from its ability to make money,” said Juan Zarate, former deputy national security advisor under President George W. Bush. Hagar
          Chemali, a spokeswoman for the Treasury Department, said Thursday: “It is our hope that this action will generate caution within the formal financial sector to the operations of this group“ Financial
          institutions across the U.S. and foreign branches of U.S. financial
          institutions are obligated to immediately identify and freeze property
          or property interests of MS-13 and to
          report any such blocked assets to the Treasury Department,” Chemali said.

          Local law enforcement officials cheered what they saw as the
          unprecedented federal action, saying they hope it can significantly dent the gang’s power.

          The designation gives the U.S. Treasury Department the power to freeze any financial assets from the gang or its members and prohibits financial institutions from engaging in any transactions with members of the group.

          U.S labels MS-13 street gang ‘criminal organization’
          Officials said the move was designed to reduce the flow of gang money
          within the United States and across the border. Authorities believe
          money generated by MS-13 groups in the United States is funneled back to
          the group’s leadership in El Salvador. The designation is likely to
          make it more difficult for gang members to use banks and wire transfers
          to move their profits.

          • RobertCHastings

            Just what the government should have been doing with dangerous street gangs all along. They are terrorists, treat them as such. Use the appropriate provisions in the Patriot Act and RICO – those two will end a lot of the STREET violence. But, what about the violence that took the lives of those moviegoers in Aurora, Colorado, or those school children and their teachers in Newton, CT, or, for that matter, the high school students at Columbine, CO? What are the measures you support for ending gang violence going to accomplish toward preventing people like Adam Lanza, Dylan Klebold, or James Holmes from doing what they did?

      • DurdyDawg

        Actually it’s the neocons creating this reality by thumping on peoples heads that their neighbors are ‘suspect’. No lib wants to eliminate guns, only guns that do not make sense in a sane world.. weapons that are exclusively used in bloody wars.. weapons that will cut a potential burglar into itty bitty pieces with just the pressure of a one second finger. You can main and even kill with one bullet.. A hundred or thousand is gross over-kill. And to make it even worse your selective in your freedom of choice.. For instance, maybe I would like to own a bazooka, a tank and a small nuclear device for my protection yet I’m limited to AK’s and splatter guns?.. Waaa! Your argument is that if this gun regulation becomes law it will open the door to complete gun control.. You said the same thing about every other logical law and that’s because if you were in charge that’s exactly what you would enact, well not every law maker is a paranoid extremist, some are actually using their brain pans and what if it does lead to a Hitler regime, it’s something you warmonger will have to fight about and kill those in your way.

        • Ok… Durdy …. the guns they are proposing and mentioned most often are the AR15s… they are not assault weapons AR stands for armalite.. the original manufactuer….They are not military grade nor issued to our military…. simply a rifle dressed up to LOOK military. you cannot cut a potential burgler into itty bitty pieces with just the pressure of a one second finger…ARs are SEMI AUTO…. that means they have a magazine that goes into the gun and when you pull the trigger it fires ONE bullet.. and the magazine auto reloads the gun but you have to pull the trigger for each bullet. The typical gun owner does not and is not allowed to own an AUTOMATIC gun nor even have the parts to do so unless you have an FFL that is very intensive paperwork, background check and a tax stamp that is costly and you have to maintain that to KEEP that gun…that includes ANY automatic weapon, bazookas, tanks, come on… be reasonable at least… Please KNOW what you are talking about at least.

          • whodatbob

            This Lady knows her stuff!

          • RobertCHastings

            And how many rounds did Adam Lanza get off in his first minute inside that classroom in Newtown, CT. How many shots did James Holmes get off in his first three minutes. Oh, and that was with your “single-shot” Bushmasters. If you don’t know anything about guns, please be quiet. However, in your defense, even a simple Browning .22 rifle can get off 15 rounds in less than 15 seconds. Please KNOW what you are talking about, at least. (please notice where the comma is found in that previous sentence)

          • DEFENDER88

            Holmes AR jammed after 30rds. 80 or so people were shot so actually he did most of the shooting with a handgun. And 98% of school shootings have been done with handguns and shotguns.
            Since 98% of school kids are being killed with handguns and shotguns – lets do a big push to ban AR’s?? – pure emotional, irrational, ignorant response to the real problem – ie the real causal factors.

          • DurdyDawg

            I’m talking about guns that KILL!.. What the hell are you talking about?

      • RobertCHastings

        You stupid piece of crap, the proposals on the table currently to reduce gun violence in NO SHAPE, FASHION, or FORM prohibit or prevent a responsible person from owning a firearm. They may not allow you to have the weapon of your choice if it happens to be one of those “assault weapons” that should be prohibited; however, the proposals forwarded by VP Biden do NOT rescind your Second Amendment rights. Read what is ON THE TABLE, not what the NRA is telling you to read. Grow some cahones and stop having other people tell you what to do and how to think!

        • whodatbob

          You need to stop have people fill your head with lies. Assult weapons, automatic weapons, are illegal. Semiautomatic hunting rifles are legal and will remain so. Semi automatic weapons that cosmetically look like military weapons may be dumb but are not assult weapons these weapons operate same as asmi automatic hunting weapons. You are lisening to a group of histerical people unwilling to learn the difference between a semi automatic weapon and an assult weapon. Semi automatic hunting rifles will still be legal. Grow your own cahones,do not let the anti gun nuts bust your cahones.

          • RobertCHastings

            Dear Bob, let me make it as simple and yet graphic as I can. For a minute, just imagine yourself in a third-grade classroom in Newtown, CT. The teacher is giving a word-lesson in mathematics. Let’s listen to her. “Tommy, I have a question for you.”
            “yes, Mrs. Smith”
            ” Lilly is lying on the floor with four bullet holes in her; Billy is lying next to her with four bullet- holes in him; George is lying perpendicular to Billy with four bullet holes in him. Lying at various other places around the room are seventeen of your former classmates, each with four bullet holes in him or her. Can you tell me how many bullets hit their mark? Don’t worry about counting the bullets that missed the children and hit the walls.”
            Bob, that is pretty much what the classroom in Newtown looked like, and the number of cartridges fired is a fairly accurate estimate, if the police statements we received are correct. The ER doctors that received the children from Newtown stated that each and every child had multiple bullet wounds, and the weapon Adam Lanza used had a magazine capable of holding 90 rounds.
            And your point is?

          • whodatbob

            We all are upset by what happened at Newtown. And most if not all of us want to make sure it eill never happen in the future. The discussion is on how to prevent these disasters. Semi automatic handguns, semi autimatic hunting rifles and semi automatic look like military rifles all have the same rate of fire. A shooter pulls the triger a round is fired, he releaces the triger, pulls again another round is fired. Revolvers operate in a like mammer. Automatic weapons the shooter pulls the triger holdes it the weapon keeps firing.
            Adam Lanza had a semi automatic weapon with a 90 round capacity, it jammed after 30 rounds. So he pulled the triger 30 times droped the weapon and was forced to use his hand guns to fire the rest the rounds.
            Conclusion: More damage was done with his hand guns.
            Your bleeding heart story misses the point. Adam Lanza’s rifle with a 90 round magazine was a minor player in this horable disaster. Adam Lanza mental state, the avability of weapons in his home and the large capacity mags are the major factors.
            Wish I had a solution to this problem, but I don’t nor does any one. And until both sides stop pushing the emotional buttons all that will come out of this is wondow dressing.

          • RobertCHastings

            You have, perhaps unwittingly, named at least part of the problem. The discussion over assault weapons, whether they are automatic or semi-automatic, is irrelevent. And, if those on the opposing side would stop a moment and listen to the discussion, they would realize no one is getting ready to pounce on their Constitutional rights, especially their SECOND AMENDMENT rights. None of the proposals put forward by Biden, Obama, or Bloomberg advocates the abrogation of the Second Amendment, or abridgement of the individual’s right to bear arms under that Amendment. What is being asked is 1) universal background checks on ALL tranfers of guns, 2) establishment of a federal database (to be shared with local authorities) which will enumerate ALL indivduals who, for whatever reasons(s) are deemed unfit to have possession of a firearm. This is not the entire program, by any means,but NONE of the proposals put forward seeks the confiscation of private firearms. One other proposal just recently put forward by President Obama is the mandatory requirement for ALL gun owners to carry liability insurance on their guns. It sounds like a reasonable proposal to me, but I feel it should be like flood insurance and administered by the Federal Government, for many of the same reasons that healthcare should be administered by the government through a one-payer plan. My graphic presentation was intended to push emotional buttons, and to make people realize that there are reasonable solutions to the issue of gun violence which the majority of people in this country can agree upon. Just recently the violent MS13 gang was prosecuted under RICO, one way of getting a handle on the violent street gangs aroound the country. Apparently, something like that same approach was used by the recently assasinated DA in Colorado against a white-supremacy gang. Securing the safety and security of ALL citizens can get very ugly, sometimes, and we MUST all remember that every day those who serve and protect put their lives on the line, for ALL of us.

          • whodatbob

            The current system requires Federal licensed Firearms Dealers to run a background check on all people attempting to buy a gun from the dealer. How can the Feds get a privet seller to buck up to have a background check on his buyer. It cost money and he must find someone to process paper work. Can not see it happening. It seems the Feds should have a database on all the background checks already run, unapproved background checks is the basis for the Feds database on those inellegable to own a weapon. The NRA, Biden, and Bloomberg need to shut up. All three make statements that get in the way or reasonable discussion. And I really like Joe Biden.

            You made excellent points. The discussion about weather weaopns that look like military weapons are assult (fully automatic) or semiautomatic weapons determins weather weapons will be ban for cosmetic reasons. Foolish reasoning.

          • RobertCHastings

            We apparently agree on some issues. I do not know what is required to gain the goal of universal background checks; but I think it is a necessary cog in the total plan to control gun violence. Too many guns are winding up in the hands of people who shouldn’t have them, be they mental, gang, terrorist, juvenile, etc. By the time the guns get home, it is too late to have a legitimate shot at keeping them out of the hands of children – too often recently we have read about grade schoolers showing up at school with a loaded gun, and one misstep by the parent and you have a horrific accident that could have been avoided. Emergency room programs often have an ER doctor saying gun violence is a disease with a cure. And the cure is keeping the guns out of the hands of people who shouldn’t have them. Bob Costas recently quoted another person and inserted himself into the discussion, by saying, simply, the ready availability of guns leads all too frequently to mayhem.
            A decade or so ago (closer to two decades) several lawsuits blossomed into several thousand lawsuits against the manufacturer of a product that has been shown to lead to the deaths of thousands of individuals every year. You have probably already guessed that the product is tobacco. Since that happened, several officials from large cities and elsewhere got together to sue the gun manufacturers for selling a product that does the same as tobacco. And the NRA, with the help of many friendly congressmen, saw to it that legislation was passed that protected gun manufacturers and distributors from lawsuits. Hell, even bars are now being sued for serving drinks to people who they should be able to see as being drunk already. In the case of both tobacco and alcohol, both products were recognized as presenting a danger, and the people who manufactured and marketed their products had their feet held to the fire. Where is the disconnect here?
            In a recent Quinnipiac Poll (one of the country’s most respected polsters), over 90% of the people in this country support universal background checks, and yet Congress is so fearful of the punishment that will be dished out by a weakened NRA that they refuse to do anything. Of course, the NRA is not the ONLY PAC that exercises unreasonable influence over Congress, but that is a discussion for another day. Unfortunately, because of the advertising by the NRA and its allies, in the same poll it was demonstrated that almost half of those polled believed the the data the government would obtain from universal background checks would eventually be used to confiscate all privately owned guns, which is ridiculous.

          • whodatbob

            I wish I knew the answer to that question. To me that is the logical frist step. If the gonernment, I believe FBI processes background checks, does not already have a database of all background checks processed and results of said checks somebody screwed up. Eventually if some dictatorial administration took over that database could be used to confiscate weapons. I am not panicking just pointing out possibilities. With emotions running high on both sides of this issue, it is impossible to tell who is the nuttier. Both sides are convinced the other side is crazy. And they could all correct in their assesment. Congress is stuck, it requires so much money to run for office they can not loss support of big money backers. Get the money out of campaining and Congress will answer to the people not the big money people.

          • RobertCHastings

            CODIS and AFIS are federal databases compiled for the identification of criminals by either their fingerprints or their DNA. We all know the history of these two things and how long they have been around for identification purposes. Fingerprints have been used as forensic purposes in our nation’s courts for 70 years, at least. DNA has been accepted in the courtroom for only about 20 years, if that long. Many cold cases are being closed today because of DNA evidence that was gathered long before DNA was acknowledged as even existing. Every criminal who is booked for anything is fingerprinted, military personnel are fingerprinted, etc., so there are a lot of fingerprints on file. However, how long has all this data on fingerprints been in AFIS? Unfortunately, not that long. Many local (even state) juriisdictions were quite slow in submitting this data to the federal data base. As for DNA evidence, it is quite likely that some jurisdictions still don’t even recognize DNA as valid forensic evidence. Some states REQUIRE the collecting of DNA from most serious criminals upoon incarceration, and, serendipitously, this has led to the solving of many crimes, and the release of many wrongfully convicted people. The federal data base for DNA is not nearly complete enough nor, for that matter, is the database for fingerprints. The gun registry database has (Ibelieve) information only from federally licensed gun dealers, and is therefore lacking in data from sales between individuals, at local gun shows, “straw” dealers, etc., which means that many guns registered from the manufacturer are in the hands of – nobody knows. There are no current methods available to effectively remove serial numbers from guns, but there are ways to alter the highly individual characteristics of lands and grooves inside the barrels, but not, I think, the characteristics found on the firing and ejection mechanisms. All of these characteristics should be included in the registration procedure, but will they be? Gathering all this data does not imply, ipso facto, that the government is preparing a database for the confiscation of all privately owned guns, although many who actually support universal background checks seem to think so. The best idea you presented (they are all good and valid) is removing money from politics, which would help to resolve many more issues than just that of gun control.

          • whodatbob

            I think we agree on all issues. But a large part of my career was spent looking for possible ways a system could be compromised, what are the unintended uses for this data and how could the control be circumvented. It is automatic that I do this on any control I read. Knowing that without access to all details I can only see the most obvious. These are flaws that need to be addressed.

      • republiCONsanddemsarebothsuck

        Liberals did not destroy our mental health system. Raygun did with his health care bill of 1982 that made “for profit” health care legal.

        Obama just forced us all to buy into it.

      • Lowbrow!

    • Eleanore Whitaker

      The joke is that town in GA has 1300 people…now they all have to have guns…and just who are they protecting themselves from if not each other?

      • republiCONsanddemsarebothsuck

        you.

    • republiCONsanddemsarebothsuck

      A simple solution would be to tack on an extra special mandatory tax on the sale of ALL firearms and bullets.

      That does not violate the 2nd Amendment.

  • docb

    Fot the nra it is PROFITS over AMERICAN LIVES…even small children!…Nothing new.. Let this not be over ….call out congress..Keep the pressure on..Call them at the local offices they are home on the 3rd repub imposed vacation this year!

  • DurdyDawg

    Well let’s see.. TSA didn’t completely work on adults so let’s spread the long term fear by working on the children so that by the time they graduate, the fear of everything will be embedded into future generations, then.. weapons sells will soar!!

    • Ignorance .

      • DurdyDawg

        Stupido.

    • Barbara Morgan

      Who ever made made and posted this picture should be charged with child abuse. How did get the youngest to hold that gun without crying because she looks like she is about to cry?

      • DurdyDawg

        Your an idiot! I got this pic off the net.. you wanna charge someone with child abuse find the one who created it you ignorant litigate crazy broad.

  • Eleanore Whitaker

    Sure…desensitize kids to violence…that’s what the right wing white male Supremacists have been after all along…that way, the streets our taxes pay for can be a public shooting gallery. I hope the NRA gets what it wants….floods of guns that run like blood…Then, we can ship their asses to Gitmo.

    • But bullying goes on and on in our schools and that is acceptable… ? No one wants a public shooting gallery.. if someone is breaking into your home would you be grateful if your neighbor saw it happening and came to your rescue before the police got there maybe AFTER they made it inside your home?

  • stcroixcarp

    I didn’t see the NRA report, so maybe someone can answer these questions. Will all schools, public, private and home schools be required to hire armed guards? Will there be religious exemptions for Mennonite, Quaker and Amish Schools? Who is supposed to pay for all these armed guards? Will background checks be required for the armed guards? Who pays for training of armed guards?

    • Barbara Morgan

      They gave no money cost and no answer as to how all these armed people would be paid and who would pay the increase of schools’ libialety(not spelled right) insurance.Nor who will be required to have the guards, all the report said that all schools should have armed guards and as far as I can find that is all it said. If this stupid idea is used I don’t want security guards on duty I feel that only SRO officers should be used because they are trained to work in schools and to handle situtions beside mass murders and do know how to shoot and when to shoot and when to hold their fire which security guards do not know.

      • stcroixcarp

        Last night I went to a wonderful variety show put on by the faculty of our school system. Its purpose was to raise scholarship money for our graduating seniors. The auditorium was sold out. There were not armed guards, but the fire marshal was there. There was no violence, but lots of joy and laughter. This is the kind of community I want for everyone. One of freedom, peace, and joy. Guns do not promote good will. Thank you for answering me.

  • ococoob

    Pretty soon, our nation will become an armed camp!

  • Guest

    Anyone with a gun can shoot it. Anyone hit by a bullet can die! Get rid of the GUN ! The NRA is as stupid as it gets!

    • whodatbob

      You must be a notolorence person. All guns must go. Police, FBI, Seceet Service, Military, Private Guards, need I go on. No one needs a gun.

  • We need guns to protect ourselves from the Republicans who are using a variety of schemes to manipulate elections.

  • roger

    Brothers and sisters we cant stand up to NRA they have bought off our elected officials .We must appeal to a higher power .GOD our heavenly father.

  • I know I am pretty alone here but Teachers are taking over the CC classes in many areas so there ARE Teachers that agree with arming themselves. I would venture to say that at least ONE person in each school has their CC already… I would rather have an armed person in my child’s school than not and let them be sitting ducks. I live within sight of a school that still has not got it… every weekend the principle drives up the sidewalk to the front doors so every idiot that MIGHT think to do something can see a car could easily do the same and go right through those doors….every person adjacent to that school works during the day…..

    • Barbara Morgan

      Are they taking them because they want to or because they have to? Also are they going to pay extra to go armed and give a student a chance to attack from behind and take their gun and use it on the gun carried? Also what to keep someone from doing what the principal does and start shooting at who ever has the misfortune to open that door, what good are armed teachers then.

      • what if what if what if…. I have not heard of one teacher being FORCED to take CC classes. If I was a teacher I would gladly CC and CC means CONCEAL CARRY… so the students do not even have to know that teacher is armed…. WHAT if one armed teacher prevents another massacre.. then will you admit it might work again? IF you take a CC class you know better than to just start shooting at an unknown target… so that WHAT if makes no sense. Quit being a negative nelly 🙂

  • PS I am NOT a member of the NRA

  • The shear lunacy of the NRA never ceases to amaze me. On the one hand, they want “Armed guards and armed teachers to protect our children.”

    And the people most likely to agree to that premise are also the ones who think teachers are “Overpaid, underworked slugs, only interested in how much they can suck out of the common coffers.”

    Cut their pay, eliminate the right to unionize, but force them to train as armed guards in addition to their normal workload.

    Would you want an overpaid, underworked slug to guard your children?

  • RobertCHastings

    Thank you, Connecticut. At least those people running ONE state in this country have good sense! One of the stupidest things I have heard in a long time is arming teachers and ALLOWING firearms in schools. And is the NRA going to pay for their stupid plan? From an economic standpoint, the reasonable gun control measures proposed by VP Biden and his task force are much less expensive than those measures proposed by the NRA. Perhaps the government should place a tax on weapons and ammunition transactions to pay for the NRA proposals – that way, everyone would be happy -NOT!

  • IF this is a real effort to prevent gun violence, then gun owners, firearms and ammo manufacturers MUST fund the expenses that all the rest of us must undertake to protect ourselves from these weapons.
    The security expenses the NRA is saying that all the rest of us should pay for is about $10 billion a year. That comes out to about $50 per weapon per year in “owner” fees – OR – a firearm/ammo excise tax of about 50%. But heck … these big bad boys with their guns will cry like babies if they are asked to pay up and quit bleeding (pun intended) the rest of society in their pursuit of the ever more efficient killing weapon.

  • republiCONsanddemsarebothsuck

    So let me try to understand this, They want to give guns to teachers but the teachers are not allowed to “paddle” students. In other words, you cant trust a teacher to discipline students but you want to give them loaded fire arms.

    It all makes perfect sense.

    Obviously, this has nothing to do with the fact that we have no mental health system,

  • If you like guns join the army you can kill all the enemy you want of course they can kill you to.

  • Wasn’t there a movie made about this topic I think it was called “dumb, dumber, dumbest”

  • thin_bluine

    Here is another suggestion that should go out to the people truely interested in school safety, Why don’t we get a committee together of the nations foremost school safety experts and have them throw out suggestions as to how to make our schools safer. I would just about guess that not a single one of them would recommend as the NRA has to put a gun in every school. I have had the honor and priveledge to listen to the top 3 school safety people in the nation speak at various venues. I have spoken with Michael Dorn from Safe Havens International (probably the worlds foremost school safety expert) Ret Lt. Col Dave Grossman probably the number 2 school safety expert in the world and then Mr. Phil Chalmers, the leading expert on teen murder and what makes kids kill. I know in having spoken to all 3 of them at seperate times and during seperate conferences they have all concluded that there is no 1 way to stop gun violence in school, but one thing all have put out there is the fact that violent video games, and violent movies have played a part in school shootings.

  • Pamby50

    Hey NRA how is that good guy bad guy thing working out for you? The head of the corrections in Colorado was killed by a guy who couldn’t buy a gun for himself. So he paid someone to get the gun for him. The person who bought the gun should be brought up on charges of aiding & abetting of murder. Instead they will get a fine and be on their way. How about the Arayan Brotherhood of TX. Killing all the good guys. Do you really think they bought all those guns legally? Nope. There have been 2 prosecutors killed & a 3rd one just quit. Now the NRA wants to arm school teachers. How are you going to pay for that NRA? We have been firing teachers cause we can no longer pay their salaries. As for the federal government, there are so many gutless wonders in the senate & the house. They won’t even let any bills come to the floor. Let them come up & vote.

  • Barbara Morgan

    Every gun owner should have to have at leasr one million dollars in insurance for every gun they own and should have to be able to prove that the insurance is still active when asked to show that they have insurance in case some innocent person is wounded, maimed or killed by their gun or guns, If the insurance is cancelled, the police need to be notified like they are if you cancel your car insurance. If insurance cancelled then the owner should have to prove that they no longer own that gun because it was stolen or sold to another person. We have to have car insurance so why shouldn’t gun owners have to have gun insurance in case they accidently or on purpose shoot an innocent person, that insurance would pay for the medical expenses, living expenses until the wounded person is able to work again if they are able or help pay their living expenses for the rest of their life or pay for medical and funeral expenses and help pay living expenses for the victim’s family. Also if a gun owner shoots an innocent person, they should be banned for life from ever owning a gun again and if the shooting was done on purpose should have to serve at least 25 years without parole if the person lives, if the victim dies, jail for life no parole or be executed for murder. Since Congress doesn’t have the backbone to pass effective gun control laws, lets see if they will pass insurance protection laws for the innocent that are harmed or killed by gun owners and criminals