Smart. Sharp. Funny. Fearless.
Tuesday, March 26, 2019

The Answer To Gun Carnage Is Not Arming Teachers

The Answer To Gun Carnage Is Not Arming Teachers

Have you ever seen the holiday film classic “A Christmas Story”? Set in 1940s Indiana, it’s the charming tale of young Ralphie, whose only wish for Christmas is a Red Ryder BB gun. Poor Ralphie is constantly rebuffed by the adults in his life, who warn him, “You’ll shoot your eye out.”

During this shattered holiday season, with so many Connecticut families experiencing unimaginable loss, the movie is a reminder that guns have always been popular in the American imagination. It also gently reminded me, however, that previous generations were much more circumspect and cautious in their attitudes toward firearms.

I am delighted that President Obama, shocked to his senses by the carnage in Connecticut, has finally found the courage to stand up to the gun lobby and take steps toward more regulation of firearms. But I fear that won’t be enough.

Don’t get me wrong: I support a ban on assault-type weapons, a ban on high-capacity magazines, and waiting periods for gun purchases. All of those are common-sense measures that should already be the law of the land.

But I don’t think those steps will be enough to change a culture steeped in gun lore and conditioned to believe that firearms hold some magical powers to keep the streets safe. Somehow, our crazed romance with guns — a dangerous and dysfunctional relationship — must end.

It hasn’t always been this way. My late father came of age in the 1930s and ’40s in deepest, reddest Alabama. He was an avid outdoorsman who loved fishing and hunting. Nothing made my father happier than awakening in the wee hours on a crisp morning in November to go out into the cold and stalk deer. Go figure.

I think he would have been amused — or perhaps puzzled — by the ad campaign that Bushmaster adopted to sell its AR-15 assault-type rifle, which was used by the Connecticut shooter. The campaign bestowed “manhood” on Bushmaster buyers. I don’t think my dad — who worked hard, supported his family and tried to teach his children right from wrong — ever thought his manhood was in question.

A veteran of combat in Korea, he was as strict about gun safety as the National Rifle Association is imprudent. He and his hunting buddies refused to hunt with rifles because the projectiles are too powerful and travel too far; they used shotguns instead. They banned hunters whom they deemed careless. Dick Cheney would not have been welcome.

  • Share this on Google+0
  • Share this on Linkedin0
  • Share this on Reddit0
  • Print this page
  • 143

75 responses to “The Answer To Gun Carnage Is Not Arming Teachers”

  1. nobsartist says:

    The answer is to declare the NRA an enemy of the state and put the people that run it in prison.

  2. I wonder just how much cough syrup one must drink before your touch points with reality are lost & you buy the NRA drivel?

    Does the adamant refusal of our elected representatives to represent our views on this issue been sold to the weapons manufacturers who in turn make contributions to political warchests?

    Is that it? The hell with your constituency & rah rah rah for the makers of weapons of destruction.

    How is it possible after eight years of Bush wars & the aftermath of trying to get out of wars that Americans have not seen that war & violence is just unacceptable under all but the most extreme situations.

    It took a defeat of Germany in WW II to get them to understand that trying to dominate the world through military force was a fools errand. Must we go through a humiliating defeat at the hands of some yet unknown enemy? Are we are own worst enemy?

    Anyone that really truely believes that they need to have heavy firepower to prevent a takeover of this country by it’s own elected officals might be classified as suffering from Paranoia don’t you think? Maybe that is the very type of person that should NOT have firearms access.

    Try not to lose focus; the issue is HOW-TO keep firearms away from sick people. Hell, if a sick person does get firearms one may just need their own firearm to save their skin so culling out the folks that shouldn’t have this capability to acquire guns should be the concern.

    Not saying grab the guns or any other such rubbish just let both sides of this issue work toward a viable solution to solve the problem at hand. Yes some people will not like the solution but that’s what compromise is all about.

  3. Considering that some of the worst carnages in the United States happened in places like a movie theater, a temple, and public places increasing security in schools, while an excellent idea, will not prevent future tragedies like these from happening again.
    The NRA is desperately trying to divert attention from the instrument that allows these massacres to happen to the locales where the tragedies occur, to mental illness, God in the school and just about anything they can think of to make us forget what allows people to commit crimes like these. The sad part is that they are likely to succeed. I would not be surprised if the only thing that is banned is high capacity magazine and, maybe, assault rifles.

    • middleclasstaxpayer says:

      Most people are quick to blame a “gun problem” when what we have is a “people problem.” When I was in school, many THOUSANDS of guns were in schools across our land EVERY DAY, possessed by target shooters, boy scouts in training, and others. Yet, we NEVER had any violence other than a schoolyard fistfight. What has changed is the violent movies, video games and trash on the internet. Let’s do what the Israelies’ do and put in armed volunteers security guards wherever they may be helpful…….all the high-profile folks howling against guns (IE: Mayor Michael Bloomberg) don’t fear armed criminals & psychopaths because THEY (Bloomberg & his ilk) are guarded 24/7 by men with guns!!!!

      • Landsende says:

        Where are you going to find these volunteers that are willing and able to volunteer full time and pay for the weapons, training, uniforms and body armor?

        • middleclasstaxpayer says:

          I, like many patriotic Americans, am willing to volunteer in order to protect our children & my grandchildren…..if I have to pay for the equipment myself, I will happily do so. This is how things get done, ONE person at a time!

          • Landsende says:

            I applaud you for your willingness to volunteer. I’m retired so have the time to volunteer at a hospital and several other civic organizations, but volunteering to provide armed protection at our schools, because of age and not being able to move as fast as I used to, I and others like me willing to help, would be more of a hindrance than a help. Hopefully you have the time and quick reflexes to be of service.

          • Lynda says:

            Well middleclasstaxpayer, all you need now is about 100,000 and you still have done little to address the real problem. How much combat time can you bring to the discussion. Ever nothing that so many trained folks, like police, empty their guns and not hit anything. Stress under fire slows down time, created tunnel vision and increases the inability to think clearly. All of lthose are facts pointed out in several FBI studies. More guns in anyones hands are not a simple solution to the violence problem in the country.

          • middleclasstaxpayer says:

            What a BRILLIANT idea! Stand by & do nothing??? Since an armed officer or trained guard “may” fail, it’s better not to try??? We may as well just roll over and tell the madmen to kill us all.

      • Are you suggesting the American people are different from those born and living in other countries? Take a look at what happened in Australia about 15 or 16 years ago when someone carried out a horrible massacre in Tasmania. The Australian people demanded action from their government, a conservative PM championes strict gun control laws that limited gun ownership to people who truly need it for self-defense, that country spent almost half a billion dollars destroying guns…and there has not been a single massacre since then.
        Yes, we should do more for mental illness. Yes, violent video games and movies may influence the behavior of some people. Yes, the absence of family values is affecting our society. Yes, we should improve security in schools and other public places. But make no mistake, without semi-automatic weapons and high capacity magazines, people like Adam Lanza could not commit the massacres they have carried out.
        I have not heard anyone proposing banning guns in the USA. A good thing since such proposal would be dead on arrival. What a lot of people object to is the sale and availability of weapons designed for warfare. If you believe you need a handgun at home to defend yourself and your family, go ahead and buy one. If you are a hunter buy a rifle. But why do we need AK47s, Remington .223 caliber semi-automatic rifles, high capacity magazines, etc? Who are we planning to fight?

      • stacey avelar says:

        We never had guns at any school I went to. I would assume (mayber I am wrong?) that the lovers of high powered assault weapons are also the audience for violent movies, tv and video games. Don’t they go hand in hand? Boy Scouts don’t use assault weapons!

        • middleclasstaxpayer says:

          You’re so anxious to criticize me, you missed the point completely. In schools across the US decades ago, kids brought guns to school for after school activities like marksmanship or scout badge acquisition. It was no different than others bringing baseball gloves, bats, gym clothes, etc to aschool. We NEVER had a problem, probably because we were NOT innundated with violence day & night in movies, TV and games (video games). We don’t have a “gun problem”, we have a “people problem.”

    • joeham1 says:

      What you radicals know but won’t admit to is…If you take away guns they will use bombs or knifes, or poison! Get off your phony concern, when your real intention is to take guns from people who have the right to have them!

  4. ORAXX says:

    Columbine had an armed guard. Virgina Tech has it’s own, armed, police force. Ft. Hood happened on a military base. More guns is not the answer.

    • Plznnn says:

      Sorry Oraxx, there have been many cases of armed Citizens stopping carnage or at least lessening it. If all schools had armed personal many psycopaths may have picked easier targets. The problem once again is not guns, but Liberal policies that allow sociopaths & psycopaths to roam our streets & schools.

      It would be very low cost to train & arm several teachers or school personal and have ALL the rest carry strong pepper spray, so we could have many, many sources of protection.

      WOuld you rather have your children at a school with armed and trained personal or a school with no armed security but just a law “banning” weapons? Think.

      • joeham1 says:

        plznnn…I completely agree with you! Guns don’t kill people do! This tragedy was good news for the left. They jumped on the gun control band wagon within an hour of the shootings.

        It’s funny how they are so concerned about 6 year old children, but are so willing to end the life of the unborn without a thought! Total hypocrites!

        • Dude, Lanza was able to put between three to six rounds in each child he killed. after using the Bushmaster to shoot the doors out so he could enter. This was with a weapon that his mother bought because she was “scared”. Given all I have heard about the way she treated him, and his reactions, I would suspect that he was the one she was scared of.
          I have owned guns for years. I love hunting and trapshooting. I also served 12 years in the US Navy, where I was a qualified Marksman with the M-14. There is absolutly no need for anyone outside of law enforcement or the military to have any weapon with a magazine capacity such as the Bushmaster is capable of.

        • stacey avelar says:

          Funny how you want to regulate women’s bodies but not your weapons fetish.

        • Lynda says:

          Hey hoeham1, nice non-sequitur you’ve got there.

        • Bill says:

          So everyone on the left is in favor of abortion in your “fair and balanced view”. You conservatives love to make general statements about agroup of people that you have very little knowledge of. We could say of the Republicans that they care about conception and little else. You want to cut spending on low income people, food stamps, child income credits, etc.
          Talk about hypocrites. We love children but want lax regulations that would pollute the air and water, create hazardous work conditions. I believe in choice, let the person decide. If you berlieve that someone getting an abortion does it without thinking about it you are totally ignorant of these people.

        • idamag says:

          joe, like Doctor says above, how about arming fetuses with guns so they can stop unwanted abortions.

      • steve says:

        Bullshit! All you redneck knuckledraggers think you have to do is cry “Liberal,” and everything will fall into place. People with guns kill people. Take away assault rifles and high capacity magazines, and it won’t be as easy for “psychopaths” and “sociopaths” to stage future massacres. The NRA has run out of sensible ideas; try finding some of your own.

        • onedonewong says:

          Its the libs who created this mess with their PC crap. Its time to start locking up those with mental health problems or at the least enter them into the federal data base so they can’t have access to weapons

          • bpai99 says:

            Keep defending the rights of monsters to have easy access to your precious child-killing toys. That’s a winning argument, one you can and should be proud of.

          • onedonewong says:

            Monsters hardly its the metal cases that we have to after first. Its libs like yourself that placed guns in their hands

          • GROW up and LOCK up the guns!

            It’s not people that kill people. Some lunatic in China stabbed students, it got into the double digits, and not one died.

            GUNS kill people.

            We Need Less Guns.

          • onedonewong says:

            No we need to put away the psycho’s. Allowing them to roam free is the problem. Re open the mental asylums and fill them up. You think the guy in China will spend 20 years on death row???
            We still have Hinkley loose after what he did…only in liberal America

        • 88oldbob says:

          With a proposal such as yours, I can only assume you are more brilliant than the ordinary bear??? First of all, I’ll bet you haven’t a clue as to what an “Assault Rifle” is ? Most uneducated (gun haters) call any rifle that’s SEMI automatic an assault rifle, and would in fact, like to ban all firearms ? Use your brain, estimate the number of legal and illegal firearms out and about, then tell us how YOU would control them. Then take another “drag” off your now legal/illegal “weed”. I’d bet you’re for legalizing drugs, right ?

          • chrisconnolly says:

            Are you suggesting that just because somebody doesn’t use your exact verbiage that they don’t know what they are talking about? And why does it matter which you use, assault rifle or automatic, when talking about the execution style massacre of children. You are a coward if you think this industry selection of labels makes one iota of difference in this deed and ensuing conversation. There is a real need for all weapons to be regulated. There is a real need for regulations of the weapons that kill scores of people in seconds. Is that verbiage you can understand?

          • 88oldbob says:

            Yes, I do think it is important to use the proper terminology, if you call something by an incorrect term, you start out any debate with a confused understanding of what position you’re trying to defend. An automatic weapon, to which I referred, is a weapon that, in my opinion, is not a reasonable weapon for the general public to own, however, semi automatic weapons have been legally owned and used for hunting,target shooting, and yes,defense of life and property by many legal American citizens for many years. So,not knowing anything of your background, I would not call you a coward, and I will state that I was in the US Marine Corps and in the south pacific for almost four years during WW II, and was in the US Army for sixteen more, primarily Air borne.I don’t think I’d be classified as a coward. I very well, understand your “verbiage”, and recognize what kind of a superior intellect you must be. If you know anything about how to stop the carnage, be specific, don’t just follow, and repeat, the redundant suggestion that “gun regulation” would cure the problem.Regulations have not stopped illegal drugs; speeding; theft; and most other illegal, but (Regulated) activities.

      • stacey avelar says:

        Please give specific examples. Columbine High School had a security guard. That was helpful, right? Two concealed weapons owners almost shot each other in Tuscon and realized pulling a gun out in the middle of the Gabrielle Giffords shooting spree was unwise….hmmm.

      • Lynda says:

        Please define what you mean by several and can you provide examples for consideration? Can you hold up those ‘several’ against the thousands of gun violence deaths?

        • Bill says:

          Lynda Plznnn just likes to make totally inaccurate comments. He can’t come up with one example of an armed citizen stopping carnage. What can be proved is that an armed citizen can kill an unarmed teenage – twice in Fla. this year. Also his claim of Liberal policies allowing psycopaths to roam the streets. It was his hero Reagan who in the 1980’s started the policy of mainstreaming the emptied large numbers of mental hospital patients into the streets or SRO buildings because it was ecinomically feasiable.

          • latebloomingrandma says:

            Not to mention that the same ones who want to lock up the mentally ill, wanted to cancel the health care bill, and mental health treatment for milliions.

          • idamag says:

            Bill, I have a friend who is a Kurd. He remembers looking through his school window at people killing Kurds. Is this the country we are striving for? A war zone with every coward, paranoid and other types of nuts armed?

      • johninPCFL says:

        Complete bullshit. Name one.

        There have been two cases documented where there was an armed person present who tried to stop the shooter. In both cases the defender shot the perpetrator, and in both cases the perpetrator returned fire, killing one and paralyzing the other. Then, the perpetrator went about his way killing, possibly even more angry.

        Whose insurance policy covers the injury or death of the children hit by shoot-throughs or wild shots? Is the teacher liable for the death of a student killed during the exchange? How about for the deaths of the children if the defender cowers during the attack?

        I’d rather live in a society where mentally ill folks don’t have access to mass-casualty weapons.

      • bpai99 says:

        Having seen teachers lose it when being fired, I welcome the idea of giving them guns to better express their feelings when that happens.

      • DoctorFaustroll says:

        I agree. In fact, I think we need to arm fetuses so they can defend themselves against unwanted abortion. You have my vote, should you decide to throw your tin foil hat in the ring.

      • Marcus says:

        Can you provide an example of an armed citizen stopping carnage? ORAXX has pointed out 3 examples where armed personnel were nearby but were unable to stop the carnage.

    • sarahg says:

      That does not mean that an armed officer at Sand Hook would not have taken that gunman out, which wold have saved all of those babies, teachers and staff from being killed. Given that the physical structure of Sandy Hook is enclosed, where the attack occurred, and that of the schools you mentioned were more vast and open, it is more likely that at Connecticut, lives most definitely would have been saved if they were protected.

      We know that they’re never going to get rid of these insane weapons, at least not in the immediate future. Therefore, we must have police at these schools, especially schools where little children are being educated. Our children must be protected. Period.

    • templep says:

      Armed police force? Newtown has one of those, too. They arrived AFTER the 27 were dead. Not a good solution.

    • onedonewong says:

      This disaster can be laid at the feet of the politically correct. Who think that those with mental problems should be allowed to access to everything normal people are, this is the result

  5. templep says:

    On a practical note, you’ll realize that the massacres occur in locations of complete vulnerability: schools, movie houses, places of worship. They’re vulnerable because they have no established or effective response system in place. You’ll recall that the elementary school in CT had a “lock-down” procedure that they drilled on several times a year. Sadly, in was insufficient as a deterrent to stop this mentally-unbalanced young man..

    Israel, in the early ‘70’s faced a similar dilemma: terrorists attacked Israeli schools at will and unhindered. The Israeli leadership pulled their best minds together, analyzed the situation, formulated several responses, and finally chose one that worked. From every school, they chose three or four volunteers, gave them extensive training in tactical handgun defense, and armed them. They stopped the next few terrorist attacks in their tracks, and there have since been NO terrorist attacks on Israeli schools. So, here’s a proven response method, distasteful or abhorrent though it may seem to anti-gun people or “peace-at-any-cost” folk.

    Finally, there are no gun laws, background checks, licensing restrictions, preventive practices or good intentions that will deter the determined lunatic from getting the guns and attempting the massacre.

    The remaining question: are our leaders willing to put in place the only proven method for stopping these massacres in the future?

    • mah101 says:

      No. The answer is not more weapons. Not more people shooting at one another. We have ENOUGH people with guns already. We have TOO MUCH of an armed camp mentality.

      It is time to stop this insanity. Ever since 9/11 we have been sold this increasing security state mentality.

      The answer is comprised of many steps, including changing our attitude towards violence. But the first step is to reduce access to the means to kill.

      Guns are not just another product on the market. Their sole purpose is to take life. No other product out there is equivalent. It is time to reinstate the assault weapon ban. It is time to limit the number of rounds. It is time to require background checks on all purchases of guns. It is time to require permits to purchase ammunition (online, too).

      These steps alone will not solve our problem, but they are necessary and will save some lives. But we also must stop glorifying violence. We must stop being so willing to give up our civil liberties for false security.

      Mandating more guns in our lives is not the answer. We are not more secure but less.

    • phantomoftheopera says:

      there is a big difference between terrorist attacks and what is happening in the US. terrorists have their brains at work and weigh the odds of achieving their objectives. (ok, brains may be functioning differently but they are rational.) what’s happening in the US is the killers are operating without realistic thought about odds and objectives. they are irrational. the death penalty has little effect on people intent on murder. likewise, armed guards won’t have an effect on them, as they generally will not take them into account.

      on another note, i’m not crazy about living in a society ruled by weapons. a society where every idiot can carry a gun and use it (see george zimmerman). it doesn’t make me feel safer. i’m not an advocate of home schooling, but would see it as the lesser of two evils if our schools are ruled by guns.

  6. jeffjeffb says:

    cynthia,,,, you have no idea,,, now get back in your room

  7. S-3 says:

    If it relates to this nonsense:

    First South Carolina wants to arm teachers – now they want to make it crime for the feds to sell healthcare to people who need it like me… What next, make it illegal to breathe?

    These teahadists need to eat their own words and lead as a side dish!

  8. sarahg says:

    Well, I’m not sure that a 1940’s movie character or the story of one person’s father’s restraint is an indication that past generations were more circumspect or cautious with guns. What we do know about members of past generations is that they did not have to contend with a rising class of 17 and 20 year old mass murderers. Also, I don’t appreciate the insensitivity of this author, and the inherent passing of judgement on people who, out of being horrified at what happened at Sandy Hook and the countless other places in this country, want protection for their children; and who are genuinely reacting to the real word truth that our children are not safe in school and are vulnerable to being slaughtered while the gridlocked, entrenched leaders of this country do nothing, but engage in high minded polemics.

    My initial, human reaction, based on the unfathomable horror that happened to those babies, teachers and staff members at Sandy Hook, was that teachers should be armed. My reasoning was that America has been through this dozens of times in the past our leaders never manage to solve this problem or take any meaningful action to that end. In fact, the ban on assault weapons expired in 04, without so much as a mention. Shocking, but true. Therefore, I reasoned, if the idiots and ideologues of this country are going remain content with their haughty, sanctimonious finger pointing at those who just want to protect themselves, in the absence of any real, meaningful action from our leaders, then Americans have a right and a moral obligation to take action and arm themselves against those who have made schools yet another dangerous American place, among the many. The people of this country cannot be expected to become sitting ducks. That’s just not reasonable.

    After some time elapsed from those horrifying events, however, I began to think that arming teachers was impractical and maybe even dangerous. I thought to myself that the concept is not wrong, though. There is a hard, real world issue at hand here. Our children are not safe, even in classrooms. Our leaders and various media personalities engage in language and finger pointing that amounts to divisiveness and endless arguments with nothing getting done. The NRA is too wealthy and powerful (I know, sickening, but true), and they do what ever they can to stop meaningful change, as well. Therefore, the people must take action to secure themselves. After all, security is one of the most fundamental imperatives of government and when governments fail in this regard, they become illegitimate. But still, I thought, teachers with weapons, though it sounded psychologically appealing, was not a good idea. But something had to be done on a practical level that insures citizens that their children will be protected when in school.

    So it occurred to me that teachers may not be the best people to be armed because they may lack the training, even though they could certainly be required to be trained if arming them become policy. But I think it is more impractical than anything else. And although I believe that even in the face of potential collateral damage, if a teacher were armed in an emergency situation, like in Connecticut, there would still be a greater likelihood that lives would be saved The people who were wounded in the author’s police “friendly fire”example might have all been killed were it not for the fact that the police officer successfully neutralized the assailant. So while the collateral damage was unfortunate, at least those people still have their lives. Since we arm police officers, it is a clear indication that protection by an armed, domestic force has its virtue, notwithstanding the possible fall out–which could be infinitely worse in most all cases without someone being armed. Therefore, I think an immediate step that must be taken is to have either an armed guard or police officer at every school across this country.

    This should be an immediate, first step aimed at protecting school children while all of the details of banning various weapons along with other measures for increased safety and security are hashed out. We cannot allow our students, our children to be vulnerable to attack anywhere in the public square while leaders cannot get their business together.

  9. templep says:

    You’re not getting it. Armed guards, WELL-TRAINED, would certainly have an affect–they could stop an attack in its tracks.

    AGAIN: these unbalanced folk only strike the most vulnerable. Can you understand that?

    SOLUTION: Create a safe, invulnerable environment in our schools. Then watch the school attacks STOP.

    I’m not avid about living in a society “ruled by weapons.” either. But I sure feel a lot safer– in my home and on the street–now that I own a Glock 40-cal., and have the excellent training with which to use it.

    • Great idea! In fact a terrific idea now…how much are YOU willing to pay to provide this level of protection?

      Maybe a 100% tax on guns & ammo would do it Ya think?

      And a Federal Firearms license that require renewal (after testing) of the license for a huge fee of course.

      Ah Hell. Let’s just close the schools. There, the kids are safe now.

  10. stacey avelar says:

    Thank you for a level headed commentary. I believe that we need to stop unregulated sales, register all guns and their owners and require safety courses and insurance in order to be a gun owner. We also need to ban assault weapons and limit ammunition sales. Please look at the facts about gun ownership in Israel and Switzerland–proponents of unrestricted gun laws will tell you that those countries have high gun ownership, but they are very restrictive in their laws!

  11. onedonewong says:

    He sure as heck would have never aremed some one with menta health problems but they can buy guns

  12. templep says:

    I don’t think it would cost all that much. First, I’d call for volunteers from the current staff, rather than add to the headcount right off. I’ll bet that would be sufficient to get 3 to 4 volunteers to take the training. Ignatius Piazza, President of the Front Sight Firearms Training Institute, has offered to train these volunteers FREE (their 4-day Tactical Handgun Defense Course normally costs $2,000.)

    Your move.

  13. leedaily says:

    Another niave comment. Armed teachers are not going to increase the casualties. One person armed will take the fire away from the kids. Perhaps some inocent may get injured by friendly fire but certainly it would have prevented the carnage that went on here.
    Lets see how stand against armed people in schools makes sense.

    It is possible for a person who has practiced to get off probably 60 rounds a minute with a bolt action rifle. So I suppose the swat team can be there in 5 seconds or maybe they can beam themselves there after they took the phone call which took at least 30 sec. then had to be dispatched? Get real.

    I never want to see anything like this happen again but you anti-gun folks seem so incredabily naive. I can’t see where anything workable will come out of this.

    • johninPCFL says:

      It’s already happened twice. Armed folks tried to stop mass killings by shooting the perpetrator. Not shooting at them, shooting them. In both cases the body armor stopped the handgun rounds, and the perpetrators returned fire killing one defender and paralyzing the other.

      Once the shooting starts, returning fire doesn’t work any better than ignoring the shooter. The best course is to keep mass-casualty guns from ending up on the street.

      • leedaily says:

        Don’t matter, the fire was drawn away from innocent people. When you engage in a gunfight you are no longer an innocent person regardles which side you are on the choice to engage was yours I certainly would have shot this SOB in Newtown. I am not sure which case you are refering to. At any rate you are wrong it will take the fire off the innocent people.
        I suppose the police 9mm and 40 cal rounds would be somehow blessed to go through the body armor?

        “The best course is to keep mass-casualty guns from ending up on the street.”

        Out of the hands of nut jobs like this one in Conn. (I refuse to say his worthless name.)

        • johninPCFL says:

          “Local resident Mark Wilson heard the commotion as Arroyo engaged in a shootout with law enforcement officers. The holder of a concealed-carry permit, Wilson grabbed his Colt .45 pistol, and ran outside to get involved. One shot found the gunman’s back, but the local hero’s pistol paled in comparison to the MAK-90, and he lost his life.”

          “When Dominick Maldonado entered a mall in Tacoma, Washington armed with a semi-automatic MAK-90 rifle and started randomly shooting at people, he found more than he bargained for—in the person of Brendan McKown, a citizen who happened to be packing a 9mm CZ pistol. “Put the gun down!” he demanded. That demand was promptly met with a burst of gunfire, which eventually left McKown paralyzed.”

          • leedaily says:

            Yea and your point? These people choose to risk their life to safe others. I commend them for that. Wilson failed to engage from cover. Maldonado also failed to fire from cover and opened his mouth rather than just shot the b@#$%Rd in the head. No need to announce his presense.

            Sorry John, it is simply irresponsible to not to have an armed person or persons protecting children in schools. There are other measures that schools need to take also but this is one.

            There are more crazies running around out there. I agree there are more guns out there getting into the wrong hands.

            I am with you for getting the guns away from, gangbangers, criminals, and nut cases, but until that happens we need to protect our kids.

            I can’t see in the near future our schools going back to the openness of 50 years ago. There are too many bad people out there anymore and to think otherwise is completely niave.

          • johninPCFL says:

            And, of course, the busses, play yards, Cici’s pizza, and every street corner. Seems like with 300 million people we can cover some of the places that children can be hurt.

            Ah, crap. That leaves the non-children at risk. Maybe we can import some thugs to arm so they can be protected too, right?

      • leedaily says:

        It can be done. Point being you can get off a lot of rounds b/4 the cops are even on their way. Like not having a fire extinguisher available and simpliy standing by and watch the fire spread. The lock them in a room is stupid also. All they do is creat a target rich environment. Even animals got sense enough to scatter different directions.


        Subject: [thenationalmemo] Re: The Answer To Gun Carnage Is Not Arming Teachers

    • Jim Myers says:

      Replying to leedaily –

      60 Rounds with a bolt action in a minute?

      Superman couldn’t load, shoot, reload, shoot again 60 times in one minute. And if someone could use a bolt action rifle that quickly, they would be wildly inaccurate.


      Would you?

  14. lucapacioli1492 says:

    While Ms Tucker “thinks” her father would be “horrified”, it might be that he could have been more logical than she and to label something “irrational” does not make it so. Even her own example of the Empire State Building shooting has people wounded but not killed. We really must be thankful for small things.

    I am not an NRA member, don’t own a gun and probably shot at a range once in my life. However, given that our culture will not change in my lifetime, and mental health laws will remain made impotent by the ACLU and the liberal viewpoint, I am disposed to look at the scholarship of John Lott and William Landes which shows that broadER gun ownership deters the kind of mass shooting that we all deplore.

    While the need for even semi-automatic weapons in the hands of civilians is not clear to me, banning them will have minimal effect especially since malefactors pay little attention to bans or laws. The Virginia Tech shooter used only two handguns, a .22 and a 9 mm, neither specially tricked out. It has been pointed out that Virginia Tech had an armed police force on campus BUT the classroom was a “gun-free zone.” The shooter barricaded the door and calmly shot and reloaded repeatedly, over an extended period of time, exactly like shooting fish in a barrel.

    The common element in most of these mass killings is their occurrence in gun-free zones ( except for the bad guys.) Gun violence requires societal change but reducing the MASS killing element is possible. Were there no “gun-free zones}”, and were civilians encouraged to get vetted, trained and licensed to carry small caliber handguns, it is very likely that someone intent on mass murder could be occupied and delayed until the actual police do come. It seems also that the kind of suicidal killers often dealt with, kill themselves when thwarted in any way. Failing to equip everyone with a small handgun, others could avail themselves of pepper spray, flash bombs or even tear gas grenades: anything to slow the killer in his urge for mass.

    This hardly seems irrational to me and more effective and cheaper than what even the NRA proposed. One identifiable armed guard in any institution is easy to identify and would be the first target of a killer. It is the gun-free nature of these target areas that makes them vulnerable to mass gun killers.

  15. leedaily says:

    It is unbelieveable to oppose someone armed in a school. When we can have armed guards in banks, sporting events, casinos etc. we should certainly be able to have them to protect our most valuable assets, our children. I guess some Americans value their money more than their kids. Doesn’t suprise me.

  16. idamag says:

    I am sick and tired of gun lobbyists and cowards trying to turn my country into a war zone where everyone is armed and suspicious. That is not America, but it might by what America will become if the nuts get their way.

  17. joeham1 says:

    Baron.. I can’t argue your point. I must agree totally. However, the real issues aren’t being covered. Mental illness combined with prescription medication and then throw an gun in. It’s a mixture for disaster! The problem I have is the montra of the left is to control guns first! that alone has already proven to be a failure!

  18. joeham1 says:

    Paranoid? My rights have nothing to do with your safety! How do you get that?

    Let me ask you a question: which is more likely to immediately save lives: 1) ban assault rifles. or 2) put a cop in every school

    Think before you answer. i will help you and say the answer in obvious.
    The next issue is to talk about the whole issue. The crazy left wants to ban assualt rifles but not talk about violent video games, mentally unstable people and medication.

    If the REAL problem is to be solved, and the REAL interest was to solve the problem, we would talk about and then come up with solutions! REAL solutions. The crazy left however REALLY doesnt’ care about the issue, beyond banning guns, otherwise we would be discussing how to really end this violence!!

  19. joeham1 says:

    Funny how not killing a baby turns into regulating a women’s body. You care more about taking guns than saving an unborn child! That’s radical!

  20. joeham1 says:

    Hey can pretend they aren’t related, and you can pretend an unborn baby is just a fetis and completely different from a 6 or 7 year old.

    However, somewhere in your soul is the truth! Oh…love your big word use!

  21. joeham1 says:

    Bill your obviously not to bright! I didn’t say ALL! However your ignorance continues saying republicans want to cut spending on low income people and whatever else. You lefties only attack. You have no facts! We can’t keep spending the way we are or our country will collapse! don’t you get that? No one wants to pollute. However, unless the rest of the world gets on board we will destroy our economy and not help the world reduce pollution. There will be no money for anything!

    You want women to have a choice to kill their baby, that’s ok. But don’t act indignant if someone is against it.

    Right now our President has one goal…raise taxes on rich people. Most of you people don’t realize that raising taxes and creating jobs have nothing to do with each other! Over 20 million people are looking and raising taxes makes their chances worse!

    For some reason most of you have the view that our President cares or really wants the economy to improve, however the policies are contrary to that goal!

    • bertye brown says:

      From my understanding, the President never equated raising taxes as a means to create jobs. If I am wrong then show me where in any of his statements has he said that. My understanding is that all of us should pay our fair share of taxes, even the wealthy. I would like the opportunity to shelter my income and few assets just as the wealthy do.

  22. bertye brown says:

    Despite all of the arguments in favor of arming teachers, to me that is no solution. I am a former teacher and I would not bring a gun or allow one in my classroom. If police or security guards are armed, that is enough for me.

  23. joeham1 says:

    You missed the point. The president has spent the last 2 years talking only about the rich paying their fair share. He has no interest in reducing the crazy spending or creating jobs. The proof of that is his 4 year history. The CBO has said that raising taxes on anyone would cause higher unemployment (CBO website August 2012) my issue is that so many people are looking for jobs and today the Government pay 800 million a day in interest on the debt.

    By 2016 the debt (even with a tax increase) will be over 20 trillion!

  24. Freddie says:

    Bring GOD back in the schools and the pledge of allegiance to the flag Of the United States Of America.. One Nation under GOD

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.