By @LOLGOP

The Republican Solution To Preventing School Shootings? Armed Teachers

December 18, 2012 3:23 pm Category: Memo Pad, Politics 120 Comments A+ / A-
The Republican Solution To Preventing School Shootings? Armed Teachers

For the past two years, the right’s hostility to public school teachers has been impossible to ignore.

In Wisconsin and Michigan they’ve fought to take away their ability to collectively bargain or organize as a union. In Indiana, when a group of teachers confronted Governor Mitch Daniels (R-IN) about his attacks on teachers, he said, “You teachers are all making too much money. You are all making 22 percent more than the taxpayers who are paying your salaries.” (At an average salary of $47,255, they were earning about half of what governor takes in a year.)

But suddenly after the horrendous massacre of  20 student and six adults at Sandy Brook School in Newton, CT, the GOP has a new use in mind for teachers.

Republicans in Tennessee have introduced legislation that would have one armed faculty member in each school.

“Say some madman comes in. The first person he would probably try to take out was the resource officer. But if he doesn’t know which teacher has training, then he wouldn’t know which one had [a gun],” state senator Frank Niceley (R-TN) told Talking Points Memo by phone. The teacher would be a volunteer and bring a gun from home.

Govenor Bill Haslam (R-TN) has said that he’d be supportive of such legislation.

Governor Bob McDonnell (R-VA) also says it’s time for “a reasonable discussion” about having armed adults inside schools.

Congressman Louis Gohmert (R-TX) immediately reacted to news of the massacre in Newton by imagining the principal of the school, who confronted the assailant and lost her life, being armed. ”I wish to God she had had an M-4 in her office, locked up, so when she heard gunfire, she pulls it out … and takes him out and takes his head off before he can kill those precious kids,” Gohmert said.

“Gun control supporters have the blood of little children on their hands,” said Larry Pratt, executive director of Gun Owners of America. “Federal and state laws combined to ensure that no teacher, no administrator, no adult had a gun at the Newtown school where the children were murdered.”

Republicans don’t trust teachers to unionize, but give a teacher a gun and suddenly she’s a Navy SEAL?

But the fact is that students are less likely to be killed at school than anywhere else, and school shootings are actually down since the 1990s due to measures taken after the Columbine massacre.

In Michigan, governor Rick Snyder (R-MI) announced Tuesday that he will not sign a bill that would allow concealed weapons on to school campuses. Snyder’s popularity has been rocked by his sudden support of anti-union legislation. Perhaps he decided that now wasn’t the best time to take a stand that would lead to more guns in schools.

 Photo credit: AP Photo/Jason DeCrow

 

The Republican Solution To Preventing School Shootings? Armed Teachers Reviewed by on . For the past two years, the right's hostility to public school teachers has been impossible to ignore. In Wisconsin and Michigan they've fought to take away the For the past two years, the right's hostility to public school teachers has been impossible to ignore. In Wisconsin and Michigan they've fought to take away the Rating:

More by @LOLGOP

Donald Trump

LOL Of The Week: The GOP Is Closer To A ‘Death Spiral’ Than Obamacare Ever Was

While Republicans have been plotting about what to do with control of the U.S. Senate, they’re trying to ignore how the debate over Obamacare has now shifted to whether the law has “won” or is simply “winning.” Some Republicans want to dull its sudden veneer of success by delaying any verdict about the law until

Read more...

Barack Obama, Joe Biden

5 Elections Obamacare May Help Democrats Win

Want to reduce the number of uninsured people in your state three times faster? Here’s a crazy idea: Stop sabotaging Obamacare! A new poll from Gallup finds that states that built their own insurance exchanges and expanded Medicaid reduced their uninsured population by 2.5 percent, compared to .8 percent in states that did not, despite

Read more...

colbert

LOL Of The Week: Middle-Class Conservatives Don’t Get That The Joke Is On Them

Conservative pundits exploded on Thursday when CBS announced that Stephen Colbert would be replacing David Letterman as the host of The Late Show. And they weren’t just mad because a highly paid and powerful position didn’t go to a member of the Bush family. “Low-Rated Hyper-Partisan Lefty to Replace David Letterman,” screamed a headline from

Read more...

Tags

Comments

  • David Jones

    Would any teacher “volunteer” to be holding a firearm when law enforcement is currently trained to neutralize anyone with a gun in an ‘active shooter’ situation????

    • FredAppell

      How dare you make sense, you’re not supposed to think beyond the ludicrous. Damn you for bringing up the obvious. Seriously though, America does seem to be full of a lot of John Wayne types doesn’t it! Gun nuts think they can unholster their firearm and get the drop on someone when that person is already holding a gun. Cops train all the time for scenario’s like this and things still can go very wrong in a big hurry as evidenced by the amount of cops killed in the line of duty. 2 police officers were killed just the other day by the same gunman. When are the teachers going to have all this time to train properly to protect the lives of their charges?

      • Bob in Boston

        So it’s better to be 100% defenseless – that makes a TON of sense! When there is an active shooter situation, an armed teacher wouldn’t be wandering around the school trying to find the shooter, they would be protecting the kids in a room, in a defensive position. Cops would have no problem telling the difference between the criminal shooter and a defensive teacher – saying otherwise just shows a complete lack of understanding or training on defensive tactics which are *already* taught to teachers, just not yet with guns. People who comment on these issues without any understanding of the real situation are exactly why there is such fear and misunderstanding.

        • FredAppell

          Unless you actually have any personal experience of what you are saying than you are equal in your lack of understanding. By the way, there is also plenty of gun on gun violence so tell me where the deterrent there is. Why are you even commenting on a blog that is counter to what you believe in culturally and politically? Certainly you have that right but what are you hoping to accomplish?

        • http://profile.yahoo.com/HFYZP2APYPP7H6PWS2ZDQRWFEQ Hillbilly

          Have you ever been in such a situation? If you haven’t you don’t know what in the hell it is like and if a policeman could tell a teacher with a gun from a hostage taker.

          • Bob in Boston

            I’ve taken “tactical shooter” courses at a gun club. They are courses offered by the NRA to help people react better and understand concepts like “cover” versus “concealment” and how to pin someone down until help arrives – the basics of what to do when dealing with dynamic situations.

            Guess who attends these courses… Concealed carry holders and local police officers. That’s right – concealed carry holders often take the EXACT SAME COURSES as the cops. I know anti-gun extremists often have this unfounded belief that cops and military are these hyper-trained soldiers who have perfect control and know exactly what to do in any situation, but the reality is that for about $250 ANYONE can take the same courses the cops take. It’s not perfect (as demonstrated by the NYC police who shot 8 bystanders while trying to take down that murderer near the Empire State Building) but the belief that somehow cops are going to be able to handle the situation without your dreaded “cross fire” or a concealed carry holder is going to be spraying bullets into children are just completely unfounded. Again, even if you have no intention of EVER getting a gun, you should go take the concealed carry courses in your area so you at least know what you are talking about.

      • http://profile.yahoo.com/HFYZP2APYPP7H6PWS2ZDQRWFEQ Hillbilly

        Fred people that think teachers need to be armed have no idea how much work there is in being a teacher and don’t care. They don’t realize that a teacher’s job isn’t over when bell rings in the afternoon to dismiss school and that a teacher’s day begins before the morning bell rings so they think that a teacher will have plenty of time to be taught how to handle a gun in a chaotic situation. When in actuality teachers hardly have time for their families let along to be trained to use a gun in situations that could be made worst by them having guns.

        • FredAppell

          I agree with you 100% Hillbilly. Teachers are burdened with a lot more than people realize, maybe burden isn’t the correct word to use but it’s the one that i’m choosing to go with. I haven’t heard one convincing argument to arm teachers yet.

    • Paul Browne

      You’re just confusing the gun nuts there. One ridiculous idea at a time, please. Why not have the school counsellor, armed with a sniper rifle, on top of the school cafeteria. They could take out the obvious lone pyschos, and fire “warning shots” at the police to signal the situation’s under control. Problem solved……. except for the planned assault by a battalion of midget ninja government assassins……

  • FredAppell

    So let me get this strait, guns don’t kill people but they do prevent crime! That is an interesting hypothesis and also not true. But I guess little Suzy and Johnny and their parents can feel safe knowing that when the kids are in school they’ll be surrounded by adults carrying firearms. Of course, there is no possible way that an accidental shooting could ever happen or that any of the kids could end up with a gun. I feel better already knowing that there will guns everywhere. Hell, we’ll just turn America into one gigantic gun utopia. Sounds like we’ll have crime defeated in no time.

  • Michael Kollmorgen

    I would think the best possible situation is a Teacher(s) who was a Combat Veteran first.

    • Sand_Cat

      The best possible situation is where no one can buy assault weapons, and lunatics can’t buy any weapons, and where those who legally own weapons keep them well secured, where illegally selling any weapon carries a life sentence. Somewhere after that comes your suggestion. If a teacher is a veteran w2ho returned without mental damage and is cool and competent, he/she’s probably the only teacher who should be armed, ASSUMING WE HAVE TO HAVE ARMED TEACHERS, which seems like a really poor idea to me.

      • Paul Browne

        Do you mind!!! I was just getting used to completely ludicrous solutions to non existent problems, and you come up with rationality.
        Arm everybody with biological weapons and the people that can hold their breath longest win??

      • Michael Kollmorgen

        I totally agree, we should institute all these changes you mentioned FIRST if possible.

        In the absence of common sense however, what is left but to arm at least some of these teachers?

        Sure, we could lock and all the windows and doors, put in metal detectors galore. But, eventually, some nut is going to find a way in.

        Sooner or later, someone is going to find a way of getting around all these laws and security. Then, the only protection you have left is a armed teacher who was a combat veteran.

        Another point, sure, we could institute many new laws which is great. But, what about all the weapons that are already “out here”. We’ll never get all of them out of society.

        I don’t see any other solution to be honest about it.

        • Justin Napolitano

          OK, so what about school buses, should we have armed guards on them? How about school playgrounds, should they have ten foot walls with barbed wire on top? Get rid of the guns, they are killing our society.

          • Michael Kollmorgen

            I agree, this can get way way out of hand.

            But, even IF we do ban all these weapons now, look how many of these weapons are still out in the public that people have in their possession. What can we do about these?

            How many of these people are going to Willingly give them up? How many of these people would turn them in, even if we instituted a lucrative buy-back program?

            We can’t go into everyone’s home and confiscate them. This would be exactly what these wing nuts and the NRA would love to see – a Police State. Within a month, we’d have Civil War.

            So, please tell me, how does society get rid of ALL these dangerous mass-killing Guns peacefully and without bloodshed?

            Tell ya, the 2nd Amendment has been taken way too far out of context over many years. This is not a new development.

          • http://profile.yahoo.com/HFYZP2APYPP7H6PWS2ZDQRWFEQ Hillbilly

            Make the people that own guns pay a high insurance fee every year to help pay for the medical attention that innocent gun shot victims have to have and put a higher tax on ammo and also have a fee for ammo.

  • agnessue

    I have several friends and family members who are teachers and none of them would ever consider being armed in school.
    Who are these wingnuts?

    • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_B6RROC4IUESHT322QS5VJVPYRM Lynda

      The leaders of the 47% who voted for Ryan/Romney. Scary isn’t it what passes for intelligent discourse from our elected leaders these days. Reason and reality tossed aside in the name of ideologically driven drivel.

      • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_KOPKDFAUQPIIRAFI3HEXNMSHLQ Ed

        This is the leadershipyou get after 30 years odf “wedge issues” and single concept voting.

  • charleo1

    Sounds about right. They were wrong about teachers, when they said they didn’t care about
    the kids. They were wrong when they said the more guns we have in our homes, in our schools,
    or in our Nation, the safer we are. And, they are wrong when they expect our teachers then,
    to stand between the results of their wrongheaded gun policies, and our irreplaceable children.
    The President was right. We cannot tolerate this any longer. We need to change.

    • Bob in Boston

      You’ve got it a little backwards there – this tragedy, especially the number of casualties, is DIRECTLY a result of legislation that bans carrying firearms in schools. If there was even ONE concealed carry holder in that school, then at least there would have been a chance of reducing the casualty count. But thanks to the gun-grabber extremists, those children and teachers were rendered harmless victims with no chance to survive. Thanks gun grabbers!

    • STMBT

      If you remember that during the republican primeries Mitt Rommney said that one of the 1st things he would git rid of when he got elected was the N.E.A. (NationalEducation Assoc). and in his campaign he said that teachers make too much money and that the only reason that they want smaller classes is because they just want to hire more teachers. the republican party has a very big push on to do away with collective bargaining rights and unions, and the teachers unions are among the top ten. once they, (repugs) get rid of the teachers union they want to privatize the education system and hire private companys, which will hire the teachers, that dont have don’t have a union and no rights and will pay them what ever they want, and you can bet your ass it wont be a decent wage. probably mininum wage!
      And now they want to arm the teachers? WTF ??? is wrong with this picture?? I have always thought teachers were underpaid!! you stop and think about what a teacher really does for a living. a teacher doesn’t just teach! ABCs. they care! they love! they comfort! and YES they protect! even if it means they will loose there own lives. and the repugs think that teachers makeTOO MUCH???

  • Bernard How

    OK, let’s say we start arming teachers in schools, then we arm school bus drivers in school buses, daycare workers in daycares, nurses and doctors in hospitals, cashiers in supermarkets, lifeguards at beaches. Did I forget any other public places where there are infants and kids? Please anybody chime in. I want to make sure that I cover all the bases so that these armed volunteers can shoot at anybody that looks like a sociopath roaming around public places. Then these kids will be 100% safe.

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1117325568 Bryan Dawson

      You forgot movie theaters, post offices and fast food restaurants, all places where gun violence has killed people.

    • FredAppell

      Well you forgot about amusement parks, sporting events and concert halls because everyone knows that where there is little kids hopped up on sugar and excitement, there is bound to be trouble.

      • http://www.facebook.com/people/Cecil-De-Santos/100001599193464 Cecil De Santos

        Get all those people armed and they turn on the kids and kill then in mass numbers when these Republicans decide that they cant unionize.

    • gahoof

      Okay, has anybody considered what I think is the obvious? What happens if one of the people we have armed then goes off the “deep end” and decides to take as many people with him (or not to be accused of sexism – her) as possible?

      • FredAppell

        I thought about adding that to my first comment but decided it goes without saying.

        • Sand_Cat

          Americans are irony-deaf.

    • http://www.facebook.com/dominick.vila.1 Dominick Vila

      Should dog owners arm themselves with sub-machine guns when they walk their pooch? No, we are not suffering from paranoia, and we all know guns are inanimate objects that do not harm. The new Tea Party motto: Guns are good, we are not suffering from paranoia; guns are good, we are not suffering from paranoia…

    • ococoob

      Where does it end??

    • Bob in Boston

      Or you could just let the people who decide to take on the responsibility of legally carrying firearms (since you have to go through training, get background checks, etc before you can get one legally) carry where and when they want to so they can protect the people not smart enough to carry.

      • awakenaustin

        It is an article of faith with the NRA that gun control laws don’t work because they don’t prevent bad people, crazy people, mean people and generally unsavory people from getting firearms and committing crimes, yet it is also an article of faith that only good, honest, and righteous (and expert marksmen) folks will ever get concealed carry permits. Although every other human endeavor is subject to fraud, corruption, malfeasance, nonfeasance and misfeasance, concealed carry laws are not. Apparently, the law of concealed carry is perfect! No one who ever got or who will ever get a concealed carry permit could ever do wrong or harm. Just as there is no corruption and crime among police, no bad doctors or crooked lawyers and no shady politicians there will never be any harm from concealed carry. The perfect solution to an imperfect world. Just let me go get my gun and I will fix everything.
        Responsibility? Please! Guys carry to boost their ego and sense of self-worth or because they have this misstated and paranoid view of how dangerous the world is and where the real danger to human existence lies. Concealed carry as a solution to the violence of others is like putting a band-aid on a bleeding artery. At its very best it isn’t a solution to anything, it is merely another form of damage control. If the gunman comes into the room prepared to die, as so many of them seem to have been, then where is your deterrence? In fact, you might argue, and not unreasonably, that believing or knowing there will be others with guns will make some places more attractive targets.
        Concealed carry doesn’t train you to kill people. If you aren’t willing or able to kill people then you packing heat isn’t going to deter another willing or intending to kill. So what next, we start teaching killing in concealed carry classes. I am sure making it easier for people to kill other people is no problem. I am sure there is no downside to shedding the natural disinclination to harm others. We can start real young and it will be easier. A nation of killers. Everyone with his or her gun and everyone willing to use it on whomever. Sounds like paradise to me.

        • Bob in Boston

          There are so many nonsensical statements in your post that I don’t even know where to start! It’s funny, you talk about how having everyone armed will cause criminals to seek those places out – that must be why there are SO many mass shootings at gun shows! LOL
          No, there’s a reason they all happen in schools, and government buildings. Almost ALL shootings happen someplace where the shooter *believes* they won’t face armed opposition, and the only times these shooters are STOPPED before they kill too many people is when there is a citizen or off duty cop carrying. Active duty police almost NEVER stop these shootings because when the shooters see/hear the police coming they usually kill themselves.

          Since you obviously aren’t a concealed carry holder (it’s obviously to anyone who’s been through the lengthy process) you have no idea what you’re talking about, but it’s VERY hard to game the system and get a CCL unless you really are an upstanding citizen. Many municipalities require you to get references from non-family members, and *everyone* gets a background check. Does that 100% guarantee that someone won’t flip out? No more than you can guarantee that a soldier or cop will flip out, so the net increase in danger is zero. As for “training people to kill”, no you are not trained to kill, but how can anyone in their right mind believe that if you are, God forbid, faced with a situation in which the only thing between a gunman and your family is YOU, that you’d rather be unarmed and helpless, versus at least having a chance to protect your family?!? That just defies any sense of logic or responsibility. Your family counts on you to protect them, and it’s completely irresponsible to shirk that responsibility. I’ll just ignore your pithy comments about all concealed carry holders being paranoid egomaniacs and the other crap you said. You’d probably be surprised how many people around you already carry and you just don’t know it, unless you live in one of the backwards cities like NYC or Chicago…

          • awakenaustin

            Obviously you didn’t actually read what I wrote. Try again. This time read all the words and read for understanding. They chose the places for the victims and not because the victims are unarmed. They go to kill for a purpose at that place. There is always a connection to the place and there is always some grievance associated with it.
            Why do they kill themselves?

            It is no harder to game the CCl system than it is any other system set up to regulate guns. Do you have any factual basis for believing you cannot game this system? You are invested in this idea and system and so you believe in it. Your faith in it is not a justification for believing it foolproof. The process is only lengthy to someone who hasn’t spend much time getting any other kind of serious license. I spent more time hearing Sgt.s talk about shooting in basic training than you spend getting concealed carry permit. Every Tom Dick and Harry without a criminal history and who doesn’t have a doctor saying he is crazy can get a concealed carry in Texas with a 10 to 15 hour gun proficiency course. The ads for getting licenses tell you if you can buy a handgun legally then you can get a permit.
            You can believe people can’t shoot in life threatening situations because there is hard evidence that people can’t pull the trigger in such situations or they hesitate or they panic or they just flat ass miss by a mile. You clearly were never in the military or had any serious law enforcement firearms training or you would know these things. They (police and military) teach people to shoot at people and they teach soldiers to kill people for a reason. They teach killing primarily and they teach gun safety and marksmanship secondarily. They teach them to do this in high stress circumstances. We carry a hardwired genetic disinclination to kill each other. It ain’t so damn easy, even though all the gunfighter heroes think it is and think they are up to the task. I live in Texas, I have no illusions at all about how many people carry legally and illegally. I live in Texas and I don’t have any illusions about the personalities of those who wear camo as walking around clothes and talk guns and concealed permits all the time either. Simple facts and simple probabilities, if you think carrying a firearm makes you safer than driving slower, then your bubble is a little off center.
            I protect my family by not taking them dangerous places or putting them in dangerous situations, by feeding them good food, by driving carefully and teaching them to drive carefully, by teaching them to make good decisions and exercise good judgment, by teaching them to associate with good people and to love their neighbor, by teaching them not to do bad to others, by making sure they get a good education, by getting them regular exercise and lots of outdoors activities, by locking my doors at night and trying to make the city, State and country they live in a better place. Probabilistically speaking that is much more likely to extend their lives than me carrying a firearm.

          • Sand_Cat

            People who write nonsense shouldn’t project their incoherence on others as you have just done. Every statement made by awakeinaustin was respectful, reasonable and thoughtful. He obviously gave your moronic comment far more respect than it deserved.

            So you thank him by insulting his intelligence, which is obviously so far above yours as to be invisible to you.

            Don’t make stupid comments and expect people to treat you as well as he did; most of us will show you the contempt you deserve.

          • Bob in Boston

            There do you feel better now, like you added value to the conversation? Good for you…

          • Diego Saa

            You are right Bob, calling a person who is evidently a moron ‘moron’ is trivial and does not add much to a conversation. Good luck with your guns! I hope they make you feel like a whole man, or safe at least.

      • http://www.facebook.com/warren.nicholson.77 Warren Nicholson

        OK smart ass how do the good gunners know who the bad gunners are? Tilman was in uniform but he was killed by so-called fire!

      • http://profile.yahoo.com/HFYZP2APYPP7H6PWS2ZDQRWFEQ Hillbilly

        To many people can get guns without background checks etc all they have to do is buy their guns at a gun show or from a private individual and they have a gun and are able to get a permit with after three hours of instruction. The smart people are the ones that don’t carry guns that way they don’t accidently shot and kill or injure innocent people while trying to play hero.

    • chrisconnolly

      Yeah, then we could get the news of the scores of men, women, and children killed in the crossfire at the bus stop coral, but the gunman was taken down by an armed bystander that was held up as a hero because he was armed and ready to keep us real safe.

      • http://profile.yahoo.com/HFYZP2APYPP7H6PWS2ZDQRWFEQ Hillbilly

        The hero also shot and killed or injured 5 innocent people at the same bus stop

    • joyscarbo

      All these crowded places with all these people crowding the places….bunches of elderly- they move kinda slow….little kids darting hither and yawn….and then add an armed man with bushmaster and an AK-47 and lloooonnngg clips and hundreds of rounds. And then the good guys start shootin! Wham…a kid is down….plop…an elderly person was hit by a cop’s stray bullet. Now you got yourself one, big clusterfuck.

    • Yappy2

      How about when the kids are outside during recess. Should there be a ring of armed guards roaming the playgound? We need to keep military style guns out of the general public’s hands.

    • http://profile.yahoo.com/HFYZP2APYPP7H6PWS2ZDQRWFEQ Hillbilly

      You forgot about public transportation, greyhound buses,and buses for the handicapped.

    • Bob in Boston

      The government doesn’t mandate that you bring your kids to any of those places, PLUS it’s legal for a parent to carry their firearm when they are in those places, so there won’t be as many shootings in those locations.

      It’s only schools where guns are prohibited, which is why there are so many shootings in them.

  • Greenteal

    It’s Sandy HOOK school, and not Newton but NEWTOWN. I basically agree with you but check your spelling.

  • 13hotdee13

    This idea is not far fetched at all; The Gun Free School Zone is a welcome Mat for the School Shooters; And if teachers are trusted with young minds by all means they would be competent to be armed citizens and could receive training; Statistics document that crime decreases when concealed carry laws are enacted; A gun is an inanimate object and only bad in the hands of the bad. So why not allow permit holders to carry in a school; Accidents wont happen if the Adult armed follows sound judgment and care; If new laws would work fine; But if that were the case there would be no Murders as there are laws; Gun laws will work no better than Drug Laws and that’s the sad fact; So a system for defense and deterent isn’t a bad idea because a Republican had it; The country would be much better off forgetting left/right and Democrat/Republican and consider we are all Americans first and foremost and should work together to find what might work not what sounds and feels good; Those whom died deserve more than rhetoric from either political faction.

    • 13hotdee13

      A PS I do believe all workers should UNIONIZE and if any thing The Teachers are underpaid if anyone is deemed overpaid it would be elected officials of either party; The Public Servants whom by that definition work for us making us the masters; If that be true how do the servants dictate to their masters regarding union membership or excercising their right to keep and bear arms as stated in the Bill of Rights? We have a duty as Citizens to be the Masters not the sheep; “ASK NOT WHAT YOUR COUNTRY CAN DO FOR YOU BUT WHAT YOU CAN DO FOR YOUR COUNTRY” We have gone down hill a good ways since President Kennedy Gave that speech.

    • Justin Napolitano

      So now an additional requirement to be a teacher is to be a law enforcement officer.
      Yes, they would have to be proficient with a fire arm and carry it at all times when in the classroom, right? Do any of you have any idea what a pain in the ass it is to carry a firearm and have responsibility for it 24 hours a day 7 days a week. Just ask a law enforcement officer about that and then please rethink having armed teachers.

      • ococoob

        Don’t forget Justin, they don’t want them to unionize and yet want them to carry concealeds and not pay $$ more in their salaries to do so.

      • Bob in Boston

        Much of the pain LEOs feel for carrying is because they open carry. Concealed carry is MUCH easier. And while I wouldn’t want to see it happen to the general public, maybe they could use biometrics on teacher’s guns so they will only fire for that particular teacher – that would completely eliminate the “accident” issue, although that is more of a dramatic issue, not a real one. In real life, with a decent inside waistband (IWB) retention holster, it’s pretty much impossible to get the gun out if the owner doesn’t intend for it to be out.
        There are FAR too many people commenting about nonsensical issues here – people need to learn a little bit about gun safety before commenting on something they don’t understand.

        • http://profile.yahoo.com/HFYZP2APYPP7H6PWS2ZDQRWFEQ Hillbilly

          How much is the NRA paying you to post their garbage?

  • http://www.facebook.com/dominick.vila.1 Dominick Vila

    Since handguns are not going to be very effective against semi-automatic rifles with high capacity magazines, should we assume the GOP is planning to provide AK47s to first grade teachers? Can you imagine them teaching the ABCs with an assault rifle strapped around their chest? Is this the kind of society the GOP is striving to have?

    • Bob in Boston

      Why are pistols not effective against someone with a rifle? I can assure you, pistols do as much (or more) damage when properly aimed, and in the case of Newton, CT we’re talking about a 22 year old kid with the rifle, not some battle hardened veteran. One shot to the leg, arm or anything else and they would be on the ground. You do realize that these mis-characterized “Assault Rifles” only shoot a .223 bullet, right? Yes, the terrifyingly evil AR-15 is only shooting a 22 caliber round, which is half the size of a .40 caliber smith and wesson or .45 caliber pistol round…

      And why does everyone keep mentioning high capacity magazines? Do you not realize it takes 1 second to change magazines no matter how many rounds they hold? Also they aren’t “high capacity”, they are “normal capacity” – the ones the backwards states like Massachusetts, NY, and California mandate are “low capacity magazines”.

      • Bob in Boston

        Actually it’s now coming out that the guy didn’t even HAVE a rifle – the AR15 was in the car and he only had two pistols in the school with him!

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_4HKCTSVHCQJCJUU2VYCERLWWDE Richie T

    They’re insane, we already have WAY to many people that don’t have a clue how to use a gun A person pulls a gun in a school, their teacher, TRIES to shoot them. How many bullets go through the sheet rock walls and kill kids and teachers in other classrooms?
    Sheet rock DOESN’T STOP BULLETS!

    • Bob in Boston

      Actually there are plenty of bullets that are made specifically to reduce over-penatration, specifically “frangibles” are made for precisely this purpose. Yet another bit of misinformation from people who have no idea about gun safety! With all the hysterical mis-information on this site, you guys should ALL go take a gun safety course even if you have zero intention of ever getting a gun. At least then you’ll have some idea what you’re talking about!

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/KU3Q2F4NZUIM2GEEKIIOZLACMI Lynx

    Gawd – Republicans make me sick!

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/C22AJV5GXSF4QE3YJY5IGBTULU TSB

    Fortify the schools with barbed wire, solid steel walls, etc. or, ban the bullets, save the children and teachers.

    • Justin Napolitano

      Sure, let’s send our children to a school that resembles a penitentiary. How about guard towers and machine guns. A school is the antitheses of that kind of atmosphere. A school is a place where people learn to be enlightened, civilized and social. Guns are just the opposite and convey a message of authoritarian rule through intimidation and threat of great bodily harm or death. When a gun is used all semblance of rational discourse is abandoned and brute force becomes the deciding factor. Yes, let’s teach our children all about fear by turning our schools into armed camps.

  • Jim Lou

    Giving guns to teachers will result in shootout in OK corral.

    Can you imagine bullets flying around with students?

    • karinursula

      can you image if a teacher is running amok?

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_KOPKDFAUQPIIRAFI3HEXNMSHLQ Ed

    One asshole missed the fact that the principal was the first shot fired, no time to unlock the cabinet and return fire. She did however, have the good sense to turn on the speaker systemn so the whole school was aware of the danger. I dioubt that any tea party people would have acted any braver or calmer than those teachers.

    • Bob in Boston

      Every account says that the principal heard the shots first, while they were in a meeting, and then walked out to find out what the commotion was. If she had heard that noise and had a weapon available, obviously it would have been a completely different story in that the principal would have at least had a CHANCE to defend the school. What all of you seem to be missing is that the way things were, there was NO CHANCE to protect those students. NO CHANCE. Zero. Some number of children were guaranteed to die, because that just can’t be helped in these sorts of situations – a criminal who wants to create mayhem can find ways to do it, and it doesn’t require guns. But the real tragedy here is that MORE children were guaranteed to die because of the “no guns” legislation.

      If there was an AR in a biometric safe in the office, OR if teachers had been allowed to carry their own weapons, then at least they would have had a CHANCE. Some number of little lives could have been saved – maybe most of them. Just like in that mall in Oregon the week before the Newton shooting – a concealed carry holder confronted and stopped an armed assailant after only two deaths – without that armed citizen who knows how many people would have died!

      All the talk about “cross fire” and “accidents” and stuff like that is mostly coming from people who have ZERO experience or training with guns, and just believe the anti-gun propaganda because they don’t know any better. A gun accident while firearms are locked in a biometric safe is statistically almost impossible, and “cross fire” just wouldn’t happen in real life because one of the first things you learn is not to shoot when you don’t know the target and what’s behind it. Frangible bullets, besides being really good for stopping targets, don’t penetrate drywall with any real force, so you don’t have to worry about penetration as much.

      So basically what you anti-gunners are saying is that having a gunman walking around literally putting the gun against little heads and pulling the trigger is preferable to having the slim-to-none chance of a teacher hitting someone with a stray round. That is the sickest thing I’ve ever heard, and I just can’t wrap my head around how any intelligent person could believe that!

  • howa4x

    The republicans want to bring back the wild west, gun fights and all. Why stop at just the teachers, why not arm the kindergardeners? We could teach them how to kill and give them a mini glock, and gym class could be target practice
    Just what we really want a gun battle in the school. That will really protect the kids. I think the red states all should experiment with this. Let them be the guinea pigs

  • http://www.facebook.com/michael.ross.7505468 Michael Ross

    Republicans only care about people when they can do one of three things:
    1) Vote for them.
    2) Pay taxes to support their pet projects.
    3) Provide commerce for one of their corporate sponsors.

    In this case, it’s #3. They don’t want teachers to be armed so much as want the gun manufacturers to be able to sell them guns.

  • patuxant

    Hey. How about this idea? Pay teachers their wage for teaching and a double wage for ‘policing’ the classroom? Then they wouldn’t need a union now, would they? That would satisfy these gun-right activists that need to suck on a gun barrel as a pacifier for their bogus fears of being attacked perpetually. They probably smoke and drink also so what do they care about the value of life, particularly their own?

  • stcroixcarp

    Arm teachers’ unions to fight state governments like Michigan and Wisconsin who want to take away the liberty of unions to organize, strike and negotiate. Arming teachers is a great idea. Then maybe Scott Walker and the like will listen when teachers come to the state capitol (where it is legal to carry concealed weapons but not cameras) to demonstrate!

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_CXAL5B72JQ7KRNOK5YT7WRSF4M norman

    Are these Republicans totally INSANE???? Arming teachers with M-4 rifles? My god! Is this REALLY the best way to address this issue? By having even MORE guns at the site of mass shootings? What if, GOD FORBID, even a “marksman” teacher has aim, on a shooter, but a student stumbles into the line of fire?

    Just as innocent by-standers are, frequently, shot, by D.E.A. agents, as well as drug dealers.

    If this is the way Republicans think, then I THINK it is time for these Republicans to have a mental health review, of their own.

    Besides, even if just ONE teacher is armed, then, by “process of elimination”, a devout shooter can take the time, find out who will be “playing John Wayne”, and shoot the staff member, FIRST! Thus eliminating the threat of counter attack.

    This really makes me ill, knowing that some Americans think that the “answer”, to gun violence, is “MORE guns on the street”.

    Wouldn’t it be much more sensible to remove the most potentially dangerous people, from our cities, and place them BACK under the “controlled conditions”, of nursing homes, etc.?

    Sure, an M-16 might cost only $500.00, with ammunition costing only $100.00, for a total cost, to schools, of only $600.00, but at what COST to the community?

    What if the shooter is trained, in combat? How many students will, still, die, while staff are “shooting it out”, with a trained killer?

    Sure, arming schools is tens of thousands of dollars per month CHEAPER than having the un-stable in secure facilities, but what will the Republicans tell the families, of the next sets of victims?

    “We THOUGHT that arming the school would prevent this”? Tell that to families which are at graveside, laying to rest children who were too young to understand the demented, adult, world.

    I can only Thank the Lord, Almighty, that the Republicans LOST Decision 2012, by such a landslide. Had they WON, imagine how rapidly the death toll would be increasing, in the next year, as shooters, both good and bad, use our schools, shopping malls, and so on, as domestic battle-fields! Picture Iraq, and Afghanistan, and one will understand what American cities would look like, under this insane proposal.

    Thank the Lord, Almighty, that President Barack Obama was re-elected.

    • FredAppell

      Norman, many gun enthusiast either have a paranoia, fetish or an addiction to fire arms. If you listen closely to what they are saying than it paints a pretty clear picture of their thought process. The one common thread they all share is fear. Fear of a tyrannical Government, fear of a gunman on the loose or fear that society is going to break down and cause mass chaos etc. By the way, Adam Lanza’s mother was fearful of the latter. It is ironic that the one person she was most trying to protect ended up being the person she should have protected herself from. My biggest concern is that this fear syndrome that has pervaded our American culture is going to destroy us. My concern is based in reality and not some twisted fantasy concocted by the right. They tend to live in a world of self delusion and the politicians they elect seem to reflect that. I’m not saying that Liberals always pass the most sensible laws either. There doesn’t seem to be a balance anymore. But I do place more blame on the right-wing. America is becoming a nation of extremists but I keep hoping for the best anyway. The one inconvenient truth that Republicans keep ignoring is the socio-economic conditions that create most of our criminals. I agree with everything you posted and I know we elected the better guy but I hope more importantly, we elected the right guy.

      • Bob in Boston

        Let’s turn that around for you Fred – seems to me that it’s the Gun Grabbers that have the paranoia, fetish and fear. We’ve already seen that there are psychopaths out there who would walk into a school and start shooting, and they can get guns no matter what you try and do to stop them. Even if you have a complete gun ban, they can steal a gun from a police officer, or they could just build a bomb like McVeigh – you CANNOT prevent that.

        But you’re basically saying that your neighbors (some of whom already have and/or carry guns) are somehow going to all turn into gun-toting madmen if they exercise their 2nd amendment rights? Even though they would have to pass a background check that includes their mental health records, which means they are probably much more stable than you are? Paranoid much?

        • FredAppell

          If by paranoid you mean do I obsess about it than the answer is no. I don’t lose any sleep over it. Just because you and I are complete opposites on this topic you have decided that I must be filled with fear. It isn’t fear that I feel, it is disgust because no matter how you try to package the wording, a gun is still a lethal weapon. I don’t care about gun safety, accidents can still happen. My beliefs on this matter have been shaped by the deep sorrow that has been caused tens of thousands of times by people using guns. So sorry if that offends your sensibilities but you are the one on this blog antagonizing everyone else. You have managed to name call and criticize people in your quest to enlighten all the so called naive and misinformed liberals all the while you claim to have all the facts. Go back to your conservative buddies if you want people to listen to your vitriol. If you want to have an honest conversation with us than try a little more civility, you might be surprised at how willing we are to communicate when shown some respect.

          • Bob in Boston

            YOU Made the statement “many gun enthusiast either have a paranoia, fetish or an addiction to fire arms.” I’m not the one who started talking about fear. I personally am not afraid – I *could* legally carry a pistol with me, but usually don’t just because where I live there isn’t really a reason to. Of course the same could have been said about Newton, CT, so I’m starting to re-evaluate whether I should start carrying…
            I feel a bit irresponsible for not carrying now.

            I keep my pistol mostly for home protection, but have an AR15 as well. Why you ask? First, it’s a very customizable gun and it’s an absolute blast at the range. If I have a fetish it’s for good design, and Stoner did a great job designing the AR15 platform. But the other reason I have an AR15 is Because the best way to figure out the gun you need is to ask “the experts”. What do police keep with them in case of emergencies? Some of them carry pump shotguns (I have one of those too) but almost all police forces now have AR15s either in the trunk of the car or in a rack in the front seat. Why? Because you really don’t know what you might be facing, and if you get into a situation where a criminal is heavily armed, the last thing you want to worry about is running out of ammo, or having to reload magazines. (not clips – my god people at least learn THAT much if you’re going to talk about guns!!) I can swap a magazine in about a second (if I drop them) but why take the chance? If I have to keep someone pinned down until police get there, why take a chance of using reduced capacity magazines (10 rds) instead of standard capacity mags (30 rds)? That wouldn’t make sense – I’d be giving an advantage to a criminal for no reason.

            If you want to contend that people don’t need the “assault rifles” (mis-named because real assault rifles are by definition fully automatic, NOT semi-automatic like AR15s) to defend themselves, then you can start by disarming police of them. Ask the police what they think of that. What do they say? They are probably going to say “absolutely not, because we need to fight criminals who may be heavily armed, and so we need to have at least what they are packing.”

            So are they fighting different criminals then the ones YOU might run into? No, they aren’t – they are all the EXACT SAME CRIMINALS. So if police need AR15s, then it stands to reason that armed citizens would want them as well. I don’t have as much training as many police officers, but I have enough to store, carry, and use my weapons safely, and I would NEVER get caught in a “cross fire” as everyone keeps saying. I can’t imagine ANYONE who has attended a concealed carry class doing something so stupid, even if people who have never even been to any firearms training seem to think it’s inevitable.

            BTW – the purpose of the 2nd amendment had ZERO to do with hunting and hunting weapons. Nothing. The 2nd amendment was about two things:
            1) being able to protect your life and property from others, and
            2) being armed in the event of a corrupt government. Our founding fathers specifically said that it is the DUTY of every citizen to abolish the government if it became corrupt. Not just that we could, but that it was our DUTY. I don’t think we’re anywhere near that (yet) but there was a very good reason they made the 2nd amendment about “the people” not the army/militia, and there’s a reason they made it amendment #2 – it’s the one that allows “the people” to enforce #1 and all other amendments. It’s just about the most important amendment, other than the 1st which allows us to talk about this stuff.

          • FredAppell

            Alright Bob, since your to toning down the rhetoric I will talk to you. I don’t have a personal beef with people who own firearms, but from my vantage point I don’t see the need for military grade weapons in the hands of civilians. I realize you are trying to educate most of us on the differences between the AR15 and the military version M16. But, when I hear weapons experts making a strong distinction between AR15′s and other guns than what am I supposed to believe. I am left with 2 choices. 1) I could trust the experts whom I believe to have the public’s best interest at heart or 2) I could take the word of people such as your self who sound like you are only protecting your own self interest. Please don’t take that as an insult because that is not how I intended it . Bob, there are millions of Americans out there who own guns from all walks of life and different political beliefs and many of them even said there is no justification for a civilian to have such a weapon. I admit I don’t know squat about firearms and I live directly next to an indoor firing range literally 60 or so feet from my back porch and I never give it a second thought. But when you give me the information such as you did , you might as well be talking Chinese to me. Bob, do you remember when Obama made the comment about when times get tough many people cling to god and their guns? He caught so much flak for saying that, I thought that was going to end his political career because it was taken way out of context. He didn’t mean it as a slight, he meant that he understood how they feel and he wanted to make things better for all of us. However, I have noticed that the people he was directing that comment towards actually do precisely what he described. The reason I used the words fear, paranoia and fetish is because from my perspective, that is exactly what they do. The over reaction of many gun owners does not help your cause. Most everyone knows the history of the wild west, do you really want to go back to that? I got news for you, in spite of what you think , people haven’t changed a whole lot since that period in our history. We really don’t need to have that good old fashion pioneering spirit any longer. It is an obsolete idea and frankly there are still to many Americans who embrace it. I don’t advocate for someone doing everything for us either but why does everything have to be extreme in this country? What about common sense? What about balance? I’ll tell you what, I will meet you half way on this. No, we should not be arming teachers, there are other solutions. Yes, you do have the right to arm and protect yourself but within reason.

      • Michael Kollmorgen

        This country ain’t gonna last much longer.

        Ever since Reagan embraced the Evangelical Movement, our country’s culture has gotten more fearful, more hateful, more discriminatory with each passing year.

        The Gun Craze is just a symptom of a much darker problem. We’ve divided our country into psychotic religious-non-religious/political camps vieing for power of whatever group approves of whatever party exposes the latest fear, the latest scapegoat.

        This country has been doing this since it was first founded. Only though, we’re reaching a critical mass which can topple the entire country.

        The Evangelical Movement has pitted neighbor against neighbor, white against black, citizen against non-citizens, the list is endless.

        Think of this, if nearly half of the country, so called Christians, voted, even against their own self-interest, for Mitt Romney, a Mormon Bishop, basically the perfect representation of the Anti Christ, what does that tell you about that part of our population?

        We are eventually going to tear this country apart internally. No foreign army will need to invade us. We’ll do it to ourselves.

        Not very flattering, is it…………………….

        This country has a 300 year history of war – externally and internally. There is not one generation that hasn’t experienced a war of one type or the other. Not a very good record for a country as young as we are.

        Save yourself and your family. Get the hell out of this country while you still can. No one needs to put up with all this BS. IF you do, its only by choice for the most part. It’s just not worth it. Maybe it never was.

        • FredAppell

          Not very reassuring Michael but I applaud your honesty. I hope your wrong about the hopelessness but I admit that I too see the same things you do. Though I don’t see this time as being unique and I think there’s enough of us to stop this madness before it is too late.

          • Michael Kollmorgen

            Fred, I hope you”re right.

            But, if I were any sane person, I’d still have a backup plan to get out when necessary, perhaps even sooner.

            Civil Wars and Revolutions, historically, the act of the actual break down, don’t evolve over a long period. It usually starts instantaneously when accumulated built-up problems reaches a flash point and society from that point on de-evolves into chasos. Sometimes it can happen literally overnight. Mostly it takes a few weeks.

            And, within those few weeks, you better know what you need to do to protect your family. If it happens overnight, even it it takes some time, everyone that wants to get out, won’t be able to due to declared Marshall Law and other countries closing their borders to us.

            Canada would probably be my choice of where to go. But, I’ve checked out a lot of other countries. Depending on where your value systems lie, there are places to go and re-settle your family.

            The biggest problem doing this is Culture Shock. Changing from one culture to another isn’t that easy as some believe. People who I have talked to, who have done it successfully, have told me it takes time to adjust and be fully aware of what you’re getting into. This is especially true for all the future county’s laws which might be different than ours.

            People who have done this has said they never regretted this option and lead perfectly normal, if not better lifestyles than we do here. And, they weren’t rich either when they made that choice. Yes, some are wealthy. But, the majority are just average people with some savings and a career that they can use “over there”. They just got totally disgusted with all the BS here.

            Patriotism has absolutely nothing to do with it. It is ALL a matter of Perspective.

          • FredAppell

            Hi Michael, I hope your after the end of the world day is going well. Sorry man, I couldn’t resist, these wackos slay me. Anyway, let’s get down to business. You really do feel that we will have some kind of armed domestic conflict in the near future huh? Though I don’t think it is impossible I am saddened at the prospect. Unfortunately if the shit really does hit the fan my family nor I are in any financial condition to move out of the country. The best we could do is to become refugees as early as possible. I don’t have anything to offer in way of expertise to another country either. I don’t have a preference in what country I would flee to just as long as I don’t have to deal with conservative politics. Are you going to stay or go if the unimaginable occurs or are you even prepared for whatever decision you make? I will say that part of me would want to stay and fight, that is not bravado, I am simply sick and tired of watching progressives take the blame for all the wrongs in the world. I would gladly send my family away to safety while I stay and take up the torch for what I believe is just. But I honestly hope it doesn’t come to that.

    • Bob in Boston

      I can’t believe how many idiots are bringing up the “cross fire” non-issue. Let me get this straight – there is a shooter in the school, walking the hallways shooting students, but you’re worried that if a teacher is armed that they might hit someone else by mistake?!? Does that really make sense to ANYONE? The shooter is literally walking through the school randomly shooting people! I can’t believe I’ve seen more than one person bring up that completely nonsensical argument! LOL

      • http://profile.yahoo.com/HFYZP2APYPP7H6PWS2ZDQRWFEQ Hillbilly

        One person being killed accidently is one person to many. Bullets can rickashea and hurt many people or even kill when you are shooting in a building with objects like in a school. Maybe you could handle shooting an innocent person but most other people couldn’t handle and would go insane from thinking about having killed an innocent person especially a child. You are the idiot because you are not looking at all sides of what could happen in a shootout between a killer and a teacher, we are.

        • Bob in Boston

          So in your eyes, avoiding the possibility of a ricochet is more important than stopping a gunman who is walking around shooting people one by one.

          Do you see why people think gun-control people are insane??? When you make statements like that, it shows that you have absolutely no grasp of the situation or what you’re talking about.

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/IVEHIGOTC6HDEKKLZGGL5URXMA D

    This idea of armed schools just for the protection from attacks by multiple clip assault guns is stupid, illogical and just demonstrates the wrong direction this country is going in with this problem…. The US leads the world with 88 guns per 100 citizens… does that seem like a problem worth addressing? This level of arming has lead to the many thousands of lives that have been lost each year….

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/D3BRP6KEMUGMJ6QLYA6VO5RDOQ Albert

    No one in US should have a fire arm in his, her posession, only the police and army people should be allowed. In the same way atomic arms are ban, pistols an all kind of arms should be prohited to people in this country. Sale of fire arms an ammunition shoul be prohited inmediatelly, not tomorrow, tomorrow will be to late an we going to blame the politician who don’t care.

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/KDZMXK7KBWI3ZXMKNV7DD6ED4M Milton

    Everbody is wrong about guns: gun control, waiting periods, background checks, arm the teachers, get psychologists for troubled kids every body is wrong. ONE solution is right , the only one.SHUT the factories down. Close them. Stop making all assult rifles and assault pistol. Stop Making. Shut the Factories down. Think of The United States as a computer with a virus. You don’t contain a virus, you eliminate it, disarm it, put it out of existence, kill it. ERGO shut down the factories. Shut ‘em down.

  • elw

    More the Right’s crazy ideas. If a little bit causes trouble more of it will cause less.

  • Bob in Boston

    If by movie theaters you’re referring to Aurora, then the reason there were so many deaths is because it was a “gun free” zone just like a school. Same with post offices. But keep on creating gun free zones – the criminals don’t feel safe yet and need your help!

    • tobyspeeks

      You’re an idiot!

      • Bob in Boston

        That’s a great fact-based argument you’ve got there smart guy!

  • phantomoftheopera

    a couple of thoughts: first, we have more and more guns and more and more shootings. chance or correlation? obviously, more guns does not equal safety.

    second, armed good guy (non-police) is trying to kill bad guy. SWAT enters. how do they know who to go after?

    third, armed good guy is trying to kill bad guy. second armed good guy comes on scene. doesn’t know good guy from bad one. who dies?

    finally, is the right willing to put money into this? should guns outrank education for funds?

    • Bob in Boston

      Police are specifically trained for active shooter situations. You’ll never hear about it unless you’re actually involved in the situation, but cops will ALWAYS announce themselves when clearing a location, and give a verbal command to drop weapons. The cops will give a second to comply, and then shoot whoever doesn’t lay down their weapons. Chances are the law abiding citizen will put their gun down VERY quickly and the criminal won’t – it’s actually very simple.
      And btw – we do NOT have more and more shootings despite more and more guns. The number of shootings have been going down since 1929 when they peaked. There was NO increase in shootings when Clinton’s gun ban sun-setted. And while liberal media will twist the statistics, there was an INCREASE in violent crime when the harsher gun laws went into effect. It may be true in some locations that gun-related deaths went down, but overall deaths went UP. If you’re one of the dead people do you actually care whether you were shot or stabbed? I know I would personally rather have the opportunity to defend myself – overall violent crime always goes UP when you ban guns because it prevents law abiding citizens from defending themselves against criminals who may be physically larger than the intended victims. That’s why sexual assault rates went up so much when Australia banned guns, and why violent crimes increased so sharply in Britain when guns were banned – to the point where Britain actually had a higher incidence of violent crime related death than the US did immediately after they banned all guns!

  • Bob in Boston

    You have to pass a background check that includes looking into your mental health history before you can get a license. Anyone can steal a gun, but there is definitely LESS of a chance of a concealed carry holder going ballistic then someone like the people commenting in here. Concealed carry people are definitely the MOST law abiding people out there, because the government looks for ANY reason to take your rights away…

    • http://profile.yahoo.com/HFYZP2APYPP7H6PWS2ZDQRWFEQ Hillbilly

      People buy guns everyday without a background check or mental health check, at gun shows and from private individuals so your reasoning is as fuzzy as your thinking.

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/HJIWONQOW4EAYMCA4QH2DDJMBU MARK

    Further evidence that republicans are running short of logic and reason.

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/7XDGFFFBHJ6WRRVQCQT3OR7NDU JA

    It doesn’t get more stupid than this.

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/7XDGFFFBHJ6WRRVQCQT3OR7NDU JA

    The Republican’ts, are not able to make any sense.

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/PPHJQFXFPE564LFJPGF3SLP57M orangeman65

    What the hell was the GOP thinking when they’ve formed their mouths to make this statement?! They need to start targeting the gun shops who sells these illegal weapons to individuals! I’m so sick and tired of hearing about someone getting shot and killed! It’s seems to be an everyday norm!

  • http://www.facebook.com/joseph.kasak.9 Joseph Kasak

    Fake gun nuts. They must have never heard of “crossfire”

    • Bob in Boston

      Ever heard of “don’t fire unless you know your target and what’s beyond it”? It’s one of the first 4 rules you learn in the NRA-sponsored class you have to take before getting a concealed carry license. Only someone completely uneducated on firearms safety would say something like this…

      • http://www.facebook.com/joseph.kasak.9 Joseph Kasak

        Yeah, I have, hence why these morons are labelled as “fake” gun nuts to me. “Someone completely uneducated on firearms safety” is what I’m worried about, hence I support tightening up the laws we’ve got and closing loopholes. The real problem is how we behave / treat others as a society, and I have no clue how to start there. Political atmosphere alone is too polarized.

  • http://twitter.com/LostAnarchist S-3

    Someone needs to shoot anyone who thinks like those mentioned in this article – especially if they are in power!!!

    Anarchy and violent revolt against those who think this in the US! It’s due time!!

  • Sand_Cat

    @Bob in Boston

    Why don’t you just shut up and stop making a fool of yourself. I’m sure you can find lots of sites for right-wing lunatic gun-nuts where the other morons will give you a warm welcome.

    • Bob in Boston

      How about you stop the name calling and leftie/righty crap, and actually try and offer some value to the conversation?

      • tobyspeeks

        Tell me exactly how you added anything to this conversation? You should shut your GOTeabilly trap because anything you have to say is outdated.

  • Sand_Cat

    @Bob in Boston when will this site fix the reply routine?

    Why don’t you just shut up and stop making a fool of yourself. I’m sure you can find lots of sites for right-wing lunatic gun-nuts where the other morons will give you a warm welcome.

  • lana ward

    Had those teachers been armed, 20 babies would still be alive. Teachers-Carry a gun, just don’t let anyone know. You ALL need a gun!!

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1463120597 John-Pierre Conques

    “The teacher would be a volunteer and bring a gun from home.”

    Right. Because we don’t already require teachers to do enough things that we don’t pay them for…

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/RCZFC5EWOXMNSWPUOXGEXKBW5Y ibincuft

    One of the reported problems with the U.S. infantryman during WWII was that he would not fire his weapon. I understand that training techniques were later developed that made the infantryman more aggressive.

    My experience with teachers, although surely not as extensive as that of former Education Secretary William Bennett, one high profile “arm the teachers” proponent, causes me to believe that most primary grade teachers also are unlikely to break out the trusty old AK and fire away. Must target identification, target acquisition and all the rest now be part of teacher education? Like they say on ESPN, “C’mon man!”

    Has anyone of a more serious and thoughtful disposition considered nonlethal responses like flash-bangs, pepper spray, etc. that a teacher could activate in a crisis situation? Would that be more realistic? Effective?

  • http://twitter.com/pogomcl pogomcl

    you would think that a school just having teargas or smoke bomb or a taser should be enough weaponry– if somebody had loaded pepperspray, it would probably be just as effective or more effective of disarming somebody… and at least the possibility of bringing the person to justice. Am far more in favor of havi8ing security cameras tht can locate an armed person and target them with pepper spray than armed teachers or security. a school should not be an armed prison for kids.

  • joyscarbo

    One question….a madman has blasted his way into an elementry school full of children.
    There isn’t a trained police officer who’ll start shootin like a cowboy in a crowd of kids!!!!
    It’s just not done!
    Most people, when asked to dig into their bag of emergency tricks and knowledge find that it all goes right out the window. People in these situations just don’t go from 0 to heart attack mode in less than the time it takes the first bullet to enter it’s first victim.
    Ca’ mon, people! THINK!!!

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/QPSAFXJZMA3BJTLPQCLWX3TXDE YODADDY

    Who’s going to protect the school children from the armed teachers? When the armed teachers start shooting the school children are you going to arm the school children then too?

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/FMUBMRNDEXOIF55F47MWM4U6ZY Right view

    Arming teachers ? You want to be the first country in the world to go nut ? What if
    the teacher was fired or divorced by his wife then he takes it out on the school and
    other teachers ? The most simple way is take away all PISTOLS & AUTOMATIC GUNS,
    people should only be allowed to own couple single shot rifles, shot gun and we are
    still not violating the 2nd Amendment !

    • Bob in Boston

      “Automatic guns” have been illegal since the 1920s. And teachers are no more or less likely to flip out then anyone else. If a teacher flipped out today, you would have the exact same scenario we had from two weeks ago, but if we allow and/or encourage trained teachers to exercise their 2nd amendment right, then even a teacher who goes crazy can be stopped before they do too much damage. As things stand today, a teacher could go amok and there would be nobody to stop them, so multiple teachers armed is still the most logical course of action.

  • Bob in Boston

    What you’re not realizing is that criminals will be able to get firearms just as easily AFTER you ban guns too, so only law-abiding, responsible citizens will be disarmed. Why in the world would you only want to disarm the law abiding people and make sure only criminals have guns?!?

  • Bob in Boston

    BTW – Just ready that he didn’t even have a rifle – he entered the school with two pistols and left the AR in the car. So all this talk about 30 round magazines (not clips) is not even relevant. Normal capacity for most pistols is only 15 rounds.

  • leadvillexp

    Silly comments. Yes arm teachers that want to be armed and TRAIN them. A small handgun in the brave principals hands might have stopped this. Navy Seals? Most police, military and evan SWAT are not Navy Seals. They are rare and few. How about a few teachers trained and armed like Air Marshalls. Unlike Guards they would not stand out and the school would not look like a prison.

  • Bob in Boston

    What it comes down to is that our founding fathers had a strong distrust of centralized government. To the point that they didn’t want ANY standing army, because a standing army under centralized control is inevitably abused. So they organized our Nation’s defense around state militias, and through the 2nd amendment ensured that the people would always maintain the ability to resist and even abolish the government if it got out of control and broke out of the constraints put on it by the constitution. So you can say that normal citizens shouldn’t have the same capabilities as the military, but if you read the Federalist Papers you’ll learn that that is EXACTLY what they intended the second amendment to accomplish. They understood that this represented some risk, but they wisely realized that the only way true liberty and freedom can be realized is by taking on that level of risk, as the alternatives were even worse.
    Now I’m not saying average citizens should have nukes (nobody should) or even full automatic weapons like M4s (the successor to the M16 you mentioned) or missiles or other such weapons, but we the people need to represent enough of a threat that corrupt leaders can’t abuse their power to the detriment of the country. There are plenty of people out there who are fine with the fact that we are currently borrowing 42 cents on every dollar from China and then giving that money to countries that don’t even like us, or that the 2012 NDAA (section 1021) opened the door for the US military to arrest and indefinitely detain (without charges or trial!) US citizens, or that our government kills thousand of innocent people in a manufactured “war on terror” that many believe isn’t worth fighting, killing and dying for, or that the federal government has used the threat of terrorism to justify shredding the portions of the constitution that say we shouldn’t be subject to illegal search and seizure, and should be secure in our “papers and effects” – the modern equivalent of which would be emails and cell phone conversations. We’re not quite at the tipping point yet, but you’ll know when it’s here because the federal govt will attempt to disarm the populace, just like every major empire before them, from China to Nazi Germany. Because once the populace is disarmed, evil people can do pretty much whatever they want, but while US citizens are armed, there is still the a chance for justice.

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/ALYOLBFEDHE2M65PG655WIZZHI Kevin

    “Say some madman comes in. The first person he would probably try to take out was the resource officer. But if he doesn’t know which teacher has training, then he wouldn’t know which one had [a gun],”
    Ever notice how the right always seem to couch their arguments in hypotheticals and “common sense?” It’s much harder to argue the facts with someone whose only “facts” are products of his own twisted imagination. One might respond to the above quote with another hypothetical. If I was a madman bent on killing myself (like say the one at Newtown or Columbine, or….) and as many others as I could, I might avoid a confrontation with Mr Schwartzenegger or Mr Stalone or whoever the action hero, err….resource officer might be. That way I could take as many innocent victims with me before having to face a lethal hero (sorry)…. responsive resource officer.

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/LIRUNXVBJLTXKMNPGCDINKO4DI Mark

    Bernie and Fred- you’re absolutely right: an armed society is a polite society. You’re plan is to take guns away from everybody. Well, criminals always seem to find a way to get a gun, don’t they, Kiddies? Yes, yes, they do. We have an illegal immigrant and illegal drug importation problem, and you think if we suddenly outlaw all guns in the US (“Oh yeah! Now we’ll all be safe and there will be no more murders because we’ve banned all those nasty, dirty, evil-looking, sinister guns that get up out of their boxes, load themselves and kill people!”) then guns won’t get across our border and into the criminals’ hands?! I want to take some of YOUR drugs, what a loony world you live in. But your plan doesn’t cover a contingency for when the criminal is invading your home, the school, the theater, and shooting people to death. The Bernie-Freddie, et al, Plan? Cower where you are and HOPE (Ah, HOPE as a plan, Nice.) the police get there to save your lives. Ah yes, when seconds count, the police will be there in minutes. Just like what happened in Newton, Aurora, Ft. Hood, Stockton, Columbine, Va Tech. And that’s not taking away anything from our brave policemen, but it’s not their responsibility to protect you, the individual. Why don’t you delusional types go ask your local police chief to take responsibility for protecting you and your family’s lives? He won’t do it. You know why? It’s NOT. THEIR. JOB! They come in after the crime is committed. YOU, the U.S. citizen, have personal responsibility to protect your life. I get it that you don’t want to exercise your right to own & bear arms. You obviously don’t have the maturity, responsibility and presence of mind to own a firearm, do I don’t want you to have a firearm. But don’t infringe on the rights of those of us who do.
    And really, Cats and Kittens, you want to directly tie the stance on breaking the tyrannical power of labor unions (using the power of the state to enforce their money collection) to allowing U.S. citizen’s to exercise their right to protect themselves- who happen to be teachers? Really. Get off the illegal drugs, and start taking your meds like your doctor told you to do.

scroll to top