Type to search

What The NRA’s ‘School Shield’ Would Cost

Memo Pad National News

What The NRA’s ‘School Shield’ Would Cost


David Cay Johnston, long one of the country’s top investigative reporters, has covered crime, the LAPD and written for police magazines and other publications on policing strategy and tactics. He has also been a gun owner (revolvers, rifles and shotguns), and got a near-perfect score in LAPD combat simulation training.

The National Rifle Association has proposed a bold plan to make children safe from mass murderers by creating a “shield” around these schools whose primary defense mechanism would be guns.

We should examine this idea to see what it would cost, what societal changes it would entail and, most importantly, whether it would be effective.

If the NRA is right, then we ought to do it. But is the NRA on target?

Asa Hutchinson, the former congressman and federal prosecutor who chaired the National School Shield Task Force, will not say how much he and the 12 other committee members were paid or how much of that money came from the NRA, which formed the committee three months ago following the murders of 20 children and six adults at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newton, CT.

None of the 13 committee members named in the 225-page is an educator. However, all of them have a financial interest in security training.

Five of the 13 committee members describe themselves as employed by  Phoenix RBT Solutions. Its website says it “offers reality-based training solutions for law enforcement, military and private sector security at the national and international level. ” One of its products is called “ultimate training munitions.”

The report says each district should make its own decisions, which is smart since the committee has no authority and is simply an arm of the National Rifle Association.

But to examine its proposal we should look at the cost of placing a “school resources officer,” as the NRA euphemistically calls these “sworn law-enforcement officers” at every school. Why?  Because that is what a shield implies and protecting only some schools would simply make the unguarded schools more inviting targets for mass murder, an idea marketed by the NRA.

America had almost 99,000 public schools, another 33,000 private schools and close to 7,000 colleges in 2010.

That’s almost 139,000 locations to guard without counting daycare centers and other places where children gather, like YMCAs/YWCAs and Little League fields. For simplicity, we will stick to the schools.

The committee report cites a cost of $10,000 per school for a security consultant. That’s $1.4 billion, though the report suggests this cost could be lower, so we’ll count it at just a billion.

Many kindergarten through 12th grade schools are open from 7 in the morning until 9 or 10 at night because of pre-school and after-school programs, night high-school and evening college classes, not to mention weekend programs, sports contests, student newspapers and broadcast stations, band practice and other ancillary activities.

And while schools generally let out for long summer vacations, many continue to operate, offering summer schools, sports, childcare and so sports, debate and other teams can practice, as well as other activities. Since the NRA does not propose to end these activities and they take place at schools, we can reasonably include them within the proposed NRA shield.

So while many campuses are busy up to 15 hours a day during the week and for 10 hours on weekends, let’s not count all 85 or so hours of operation each week, but be conservative at just 50 hours a week of armed guarding.

One armed guard on duty at all times would not be enough.

Columbine High School had an armed guard, but he was outside helping some of the 21 wounded, not shooting it out with Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold as they murdered 12 of their classmates and one teacher.

When police arrived, they did not enter the school to shoot it out with the murderous pair, either. Instead they secured the perimeter, showing that the presence of armed officers does not mean someone on a murderous rampage will be stopped with police bullets. Harris and Klebold shot themselves.

To cover meal and bathroom breaks, meetings and the like means each school would need at least two guards to make sure at least one is on duty at all times.

At many schools two guards would not be sufficient because of the size of the campus and its openness. My California high school is as open today as it was when it opened in 1963, so you would need perimeter patrols or fencing. Ditto each of the schools my eight children attended over the years in Northern and Southern California, Illinois, Michigan, New Jersey, Pennsylvania and western New York.

Fencing would allow funneling everyone entering a campus through one or more points, but that would mean both delays (time is money) and more guards to check those coming and going. We will ignore the labor costs of teachers and others waiting in line.

Basic, classic school chain-link fencing would not keep schools safe. A determined killer could just cut the fence and enter in a minute or so.

That suggests a need for security cameras and either live monitors or sophisticated software that can distinguish between a bunny and an armed intruder at the perimeter. Some, perhaps many, locations would require tennis-court high fencing or  razor wire atop the fences to prevent scaling them.

Ignored here is the whole idea of our turning schools — where we want the human mind and spirit to flourish — into something akin to a junior-grade prison.

So what will armed guards cost?

Police officers and detectives at the median – half make more, half less – made $55,010 in 2010, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Average pay was higher. Adjust for inflation and the median pay this year would be $58,600.

Of course security guards can be hired for much less. Median pay for security guards was less than half that of cops at just under $24,000. So adjusted to 2013, that would be about $25,500.

But security guards typically are not armed and are not, as the NRA report calls for, “sworn law enforcement personnel.”

David Cay Johnston

David Cay Johnston won a 2001 Pulitzer Prize for his coverage of taxes in The New York Times. The Washington Monthly calls him “one of America’s most important journalists” and the Portland Oregonian says is work is the equal of the great muckrakers Ida Tarbell, Lincoln Steffens and Upton Sinclair.

At 19 he became a staff writer at the San Jose Mercury and then reported for the Detroit Free Press, Los Angeles Times, The Philadelphia Inquirer and from 1995 to 2008 The New York Times.

Johnston is in his eighth year teaching the tax, property and regulatory law at Syracuse University College of Law and Whitman School of Management.

He also writes for USA Today, Newsweek and Tax Analysts.

Johnston is the immediate past president of the 5,700-member Investigative Reporters & Editors (IRE) and is board president of the nonprofit Investigative Post in Buffalo.

His latest book Divided: The Perils of Our Growing Inequality an anthology he edited. He also wrote a trilogy on hidden aspects of the American economy -- Perfectly Legal, Free Lunch, and The Fine Print – and a casino industry exposé, Temples of Chance.

  • 1


  1. Dam Spahn April 3, 2013

    Considering two recent mass school shootings had armed guards on duty at the time of the attack, and these guards could not stop or even impede the attackers, shows that this whole NRA dog and pony show is serving one purpose: sell more guns.

    1. tdm3624 April 4, 2013

      More guns are being sold than ever before, driven by gun-control proposals that are popping up over the country, and the concern of people that they might not have a chance to own the firearm of their choice. I believe that it isn’t pro-gun groups that push to sell more guns, it is actually anti-gun groups whose actions and rhetoric scare pro-gun people in stocking up that cause the spike in gun sales.

      1. TheSkalawag929 April 4, 2013

        You may be right in that gun-control proposals may have started the fire but it is the pro-gun lobby that is fanning the flames turning it into an inferno.

        I don’t think for one minute that pro-gun people are afraid. I think if anything the spike in sales comes from the fence setters. The people that don’t necessarily want a gun in their home but with all the hoopla being cause by the pro-gun lobby figure what the heck I’ll get one “just to be on the safe side.”

        They are the novice that, after the newness of owning a gun wears off, puts the gun in a drawer that they think is safe and readily accessible in case they need it.

        They are the parent of the child that finds the gun and accidentally shoots himself a sibling or playmate.

        They are the parent of the child that you hear about on the news that takes the gun to school to show off to their friends.

        They are the people that make you ask the question; why would someone leave a loaded gun around where a child could get to it.

        They are the ones whose teenager takes the gun to school to settle some issue with some other teen or teens.

        You know. The law abiding citizen that just wanted a gun for protection.

        1. tdm3624 April 4, 2013

          I think you may be right about the fence sitters grabbing a gun just in case and then not taking the time to really learn how to use it, respect it, and teach their children the same. Gun owning parents do have a greater responsibility then gun owning non-parents for sure.

        2. RobertCHastings April 7, 2013

          A great deal of the spike in gun sales over the past 4 1/2 years, according to the Southern Poverty Law Center out of Alabama, in the simple fact that there is a black man in the White House, and this scares the crap out of a lot of white folks.

          1. TheSkalawag929 April 8, 2013

            That is all too true. But be careful voicing that opinion. Someone may label you a you know what.

          2. RobertCHastings April 8, 2013

            Well, as the right complains, it’s hell having to be politcally correct. If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, and craps like a duck, there’s a pretty good chance it is a duck.

      2. Barbara Morgan April 5, 2013

        The increase in gun sales is due to the NRA feeding the panarodia(Not spelled right) of gun lovers that the government is going to take their guns away from them and that recent gun laws passed show that is what is going to happen. When not one new gun law passed that I have read about suggests taking any guns from any legal gun owners not even the ones that ban certain types of guns, ammo holders and so on. You believe wrong, because there has been a steady growth in weapons buying since President Obama was elected and the NRA planted a lot of seeds that he was going to have every one’s gun taken away and let the government and law enforcement be the only legal ones to be able to have guns in this Country. The NRA and other gun groups like it are pushing these increases in gun sales so that weapon and ammo makers will make piles of money of which the NRA and other gun groups will get big donations from for being shrills for the weapon and ammo makers.

      3. RobertCHastings April 6, 2013

        kAccording to an article I read in a recent issue of “Rolling Stone”, gun sales had grown stagnant about eight to ten years ago, when, basically, everyone who wanted a rifle, a shotgun, or a pistol had already bought one. The gun industry came up with a plan that involved the development and production of newer weapons, and marketing to an entirely different demographic. It has worked, for now the largest segment of the public buying these newer weapons is women and kids, and it has proven to be a bonanza. Excellent marketing strategy and a wise business plan, if your product is something more innocuous than firearms.

    2. Dennis Mullins April 4, 2013

      I have never heard the NRA come up with any sensible idea to help solve the problem. They care only for the Gun Manufacturing company’s. Another reason for me leaving their membership.

      1. TheSkalawag929 April 4, 2013

        I think members of the NRA who are of the same mindset as you canceling their memberships is a bad idea. It would be better if more people that feel the way that you do joined the NRA. That way the NRA could be changed from the inside as well as of from the outside.

        1. A_Schick April 4, 2013

          It’s not the members of the NRA who run it. It’s the gun manufacturers. It is not a lobbying arm for it’s members, 70% of which agree that stricter background checks are necessary. It is a lobbying arm for the gun makers that stuff its pockets.

          1. TheSkalawag929 April 4, 2013

            That’s interesting.
            An organization whose only apparent reason for existence today is to be a cover for an entity whose sole purpose is the sale of implements of death and destruction.

          2. A_Schick April 4, 2013

            A foreign idea, I realize…

          3. RobertCHastings April 6, 2013

            Not so difficult to understand if you look at the tobacco industry, or the former asbestos industry, or any one of a number of industries whose goals were to make money from the sale of dangerous products long after they knew the product itself presented serious health hazards. Why do you think the coal industry came up with the “clean coal” myth?

          4. TheSkalawag929 April 6, 2013

            Understood RobertCHastings.
            My fervent hope is that the gun industry goes the same way of the tobacco and asbestos industries.

          5. RobertCHastings April 6, 2013

            Unfortunately, the NRA bought immunity from lawsuits for gun manufacturers a few years ago, when several mayors were trying to sue the arms industry. The lobby has enormous influence and more than one congressman in its pocket.

          6. TheSkalawag929 April 7, 2013

            I agree. But just as the tobacco and asbestos industries found out that they weren’t untouchable we should also find a way to make the gun industry accountable.

            If an amendment to the Constitution can be repealed then surely laws giving the gun industry protection from accountability can be overturned. It may not be easy but for sure it won’t get done at all if no one tries.

          7. RobertCHastings April 7, 2013

            The individuals who actually manufacture firearmsare skilled artisans, and their jobs would be in jeopardy if the industry collapsed with something to fall back on. Tobacco farmers, and the poppy farmers in Afghanistan, are facing difficulties adjusting to a less toxic crop. Asbestos is no longer in use, and the Grace company is still paying for mesothelioma and other asbestos-related problems. I still like the idea Obama came up with of requiring gunowners to carry liability insurance on their guns, just as car owners must carry liability insurance. Some others on this site also like the idea. Perhaps we should get on the White House web site and sign a petition.

          8. TheSkalawag929 April 8, 2013

            You are right in that the people that actually make firearms are truly artisans. However I disagree that their jobs would be in jeopardy if the gun industry were to collapse.
            On the contrary their skills would be in more demand because of the fact that firearms would no longer be mass produced. If they banded together to produce quality weapons they would be able to name their own fee for their services and pick and choose their customers depending on their skill level and cut out the middle man. The gun industry owners.

            Of course what I’m saying is pie in the sky daydreaming but think how much better off we would all be if it were to come true..

            I could agree to a liability insurance proposal on gun owners and would sign a petition proposing the idea.

          9. RobertCHastings April 8, 2013

            You are absolutely right about the value of the skills of those who actually make firearms, the skilled tradesmen (and women) who machine and lathe the components. However, like the tobacco farmers(and bootleggers)who have been put out of business by appropriate government regulation to control dangerous social and health issues, those people also would have to find a new profession, or at least a new industry. Unfortunatley, because of the transfer oveerseas of so many American manufacturing jobs, many of them will be lost unless, as you suggest, they make guns by subscription.

          10. TheSkalawag929 April 8, 2013

            It is so sad the so many average Joes and Josephines have to suffer so that a few can acquire more wealth.

    3. labrown69 April 5, 2013

      Yea … so lest disarm our police departments and our military and do away with air marshals on our flights cause you just proved it … “guns don’t work”……What a schmuck! LMAO

      1. RobertCHastings April 6, 2013

        Is that what you got from his post? I don’t think you even read it! You are so paranoid and so hateful of this president that you have completely ignored the obvious – what Dam Spahn says is absolutely true about the single purpose of the NRA and its sponsors is – to sell guns. Several years ago, believe it or not, gun sales had leveled off, simply because everyone who wanted a rifle, a shotgun, or a pistol had one. How do you six that if you are a gun manufacturer? You do exactly what they did – you start manufacturing different guns, with larger capacity magazines and – now wait for this – you change your target market! Develop a product for the right market and, as Kevin Costner said in “Field of Dreams” , “Build it and they will come”, and that is exactly what happened. Believe it or not, President Obama was a Godsend to the arms industry in this country – the marketing and the hype are so obvious even you should be able to see it.

  2. Urbane_Gorilla April 3, 2013

    The NRA estimates the cost to be $1.4 Billion…and there are 4.5 Million dues paying NRA members? Send them the bill…That’ll be $311 per member per year with escalation for inflation….We do take credit cards.

    1. neeceoooo April 3, 2013

      I like your thoughts, let them pay for the expense to put an armed guard in each school.

      1. Dominick Vila April 4, 2013

        Are they also planning to pay for guards in universities, movie theaters, places of worship (Sikh Temple), public gatherings and in every street in America where gun related crimes are committed every day?

        1. Marty Zonkoski April 4, 2013

          Add another $200 a year for the legal fund….Cause when the school Rent-a-Cop shoots my kid….I’m gonna own somebody’s ass.

        2. TheSkalawag929 April 4, 2013

          The NRA’s answer to those situations is for everybody to have a gun. Cause if everybody is packing heat then you won’t need law enforcement or security guards.

          Of course you’ll need more doctor’s, nurses and hospitals equipped to handle firearms trauma. But what the heck since you don’t need the police you can divert those funds to your new needs.

          See problem solved.

          1. lana ward April 4, 2013

            I’ll keep my gun, good luck with your sissors!!

          2. TheSkalawag929 April 5, 2013

            I guess that has meaning in your alternate universe.
            Oh and what makes you think I don’t own a gun?

          3. lana ward April 5, 2013

            Sissors is the way dems want us to fight against attackers with guns. Don’t tell me you didn’t see it. And for a woman just pee and shit your pants. Lovely suggestions aren’t they.!!!

          4. TheSkalawag929 April 5, 2013

            Where did you get that dumb stuff?
            I’ll bet you got that from one of those dumb wrong-wing internet sites you go?

          5. lana ward April 5, 2013

            It was on CNN. Dems were talking about how to “protect” yourself from a would be shooter or rapist with a gun. I couldn’t believe it!!

          6. Barbara Morgan April 5, 2013

            Ignore Mr Lana Wood. He has escaped is keepers again and got on the computer against his doctor’s orders once again. He is a pitiful person that needs mental health help and needs his guns taken away if he has been able to buy guns with his mental state of mind.

          7. TheSkalawag929 April 5, 2013

            I know. i’m just trying to keep him(her) occupied until the people in the white coats realize he(she) has escaped and is doing mischief on the computer again.

    2. davidcayjohnston April 3, 2013

      If you read my piece above in full you will see that the total cost is vastly more — $34.6 billion annually, at a minimum, and that by the NRA’s own teaching it will not work.

      1. thin_bluine April 4, 2013

        Although in alot of what you wrote is correct, I think you may have over estimated costs in some things and also unintentionally misrepresented what it is the NRA was trying to point out. I am by no means a conservative Republicon and I certainly do not back anything the NRA is trying to sell when it comes to this whole debate about gun control and stuff like that. I am a school resource officer that works in the mid west, and have been a police officer for 11years and an SRo for more than 7 of those years and am very very concerned about school safety. All that being said, I would first like to say that hiring a security guard for every school would be a mistake, they are not trained as thoroughly as police officers and frankley they are a low cost alternative to an SRO and when we are talking about childrens lives just not an option. Now where I think your article went a little askew is when you talk about the amount of time SRO’s would be needed to guard the school and what their jobs actually entail. An SRO’s job is basically the Chief of Police in a small town of generally under 3000 people. They are pretty much the only one in town and they are responsible for all aspects of Law Enforcement for their town (school). So our job is much more than guarding, we are also in the school to cultivate relationships with the students to help make them comfortable enough to come and talk to us about problems that they are having at home, relationships or any other thing they want to talk about or discuss. That helps us to be in the know to see when a kid is under stress or duress and may be at the breaking point. Are we going to always be able to detect when a kid will go over the edge and become a school shooter? Heck no, no one can, but in almost every case of school shootings there have been signs and in almost every case those signs have gone un noticed or un detected.
        As for how the armed guard(s) reacted or failed to react at Columbine and other schools, after Columbine Police Officers were trained in rapid deployment and no longer is it acceptable to sit and wait and surround the building and show a presence of force outside. Now it is first unit on scene goes in and runs to the gunshots and their only job is to eliminate the threat, not tend to the wounded, not show people the nearest exit, it is to eliminate the threat that is hurting or killing the innocent victims inside.
        This is the reason you do not hire Security Guards for schools and that it must be trained ARMED Police Officers. A security Guard does not get paid enough especially if they are not armed and protected to put their lives on the line in the event of a school shooting. As a police officer I know every day when I get up and put on my uniform and gun that I have that chance of not coming home to my family at night. I also know as an SRO if I hear gunshots in my school I am going towards the bullets and not away from them and am willing to lay my life on the line for the kids and staff in my building.
        I know I may have contradicted myself in a couple of the comments in my post but I just want to make sure that people know that the best option for school safety is #1 a certified School Resource Officer, #2 Schools that practice lockdown drills at least as many times a year as they do fire drills, #3 that they have their doors locked at all times and have access policies in place to limit who comes and goes in their buildings from day to day, #4 that the school districts train their staffs on what to look for in a disturbed student and not to just brush a students behavior under the rug and hope it goes away, #5 parents understand that violent video games and violent movies can and do have an influence on how children behave, and last but not least kids can lose and it is okay, society has really gone down the crapper when we came up with this idea that in competition everyone must come out feeling like they won so as not to hurt someones feelings. Kids have to learn that sometimes you fail and that its okay to fail once in a while, it helps build charactor and makes you a stronger person in the end.

        1. charleo1 April 4, 2013

          I know police officers often like to steer clear of politics, especially
          when speaking as, “The Police.” But, It seems to me, since law
          enforcement must deal with the weapons that are on the street
          today, it would be helpful to hear a few more their thoughts. Have
          Police been advised in any way, to withhold comment?

          1. thin_bluine April 4, 2013

            I think it depends on the department that you work for more so than anything. I try not to speak as a police officer because I dont want people to think that what I might think on a topic is what all police officers think

          2. Barbara Morgan April 5, 2013

            Police chiefs have been speaking out and have said they are for control gun and using SRO officers to protect schools but that they would need more man power and money to protect all the schools in cities,towns and counties in their areas.

          3. tdm3624 April 8, 2013

            I get the impression that police, who generally patrol urban areas, favor gun control, while sheriff departments, who generally patrol more rural areas, do not. Has anyone else noticed this?

        2. davidcayjohnston April 4, 2013

          @thinbluline, thank you for those thoughtful comments on my piece.

        3. Barbara Morgan April 5, 2013

          One of the best post I have seen for having SRO officers in schools and never having security guards at schools. I would rather we not have a need for guns to have be in places of learning but it need be that it be SRO officers. SRO officers can be attacked from the back by an angry teacher or student that wants their guns,which they have to carry if all times if other state laws are like the ones in Tennessee, where you are on duty even when off duty and have to have badge and gun at times with you unless on vacation out of your area,so be careful.

        4. RobertCHastings April 6, 2013

          If you are open-minded, look at back issues of “Rolling Stone” magazine for an article about the NRA. They are no longer serving the interessts of their dues paying members, but the interests of the largest source of their money – the arms industry. A recent poll (Quinnipiac) found that over 90% of the people surveyed SUPPORTED universal background checks, a number that I am sure includes many dues paying NRA members. So,why is the NRA going against the desires of even its own members? Follow the money.

  3. ACME Sales Rep. April 3, 2013

    The far cheaper option, of course, would be sensible gun control – but so-called “conservatives” will oppose that on the grounds that gun owners have to be able stand off the government should the need arise. Given that rationale, would it not make more sense to defund the military, reducing the government’s ability to violently oppress its citizens, _then_ pursue sensible gun control? Surely the removal of military capability would satisfy the concerns of those “conservatives”…

    1. TheSkalawag929 April 4, 2013

      Nah. They would probably manufacture some other fictional crisis to take its place.

      The conservative mind reminds me of a fallow field. There’s nothing growing there but weeds.

    2. TheSkalawag929 April 6, 2013

      ACME Sales Rep. (Cool handle BTW) what I think the 2nd Amendment advocates fail to come to grips with is the fact that even with a stock pile of orgasm inducing weapons all they would be able to accomplish is martyrdom. They think they would be a viable force against U.S. GOVERNMENT forces.
      They would be no match to the greatest fighting force the world has ever known.
      I doubt that they would be able to withstand a local police force assault let alone a national government assault..

  4. I Zheet M'Drawz April 3, 2013

    WHY is anytone listening to what the NRA has to say on this issue?
    They’re only one million members, the Klan has more members than that.
    By acknowledging what they say it only perperutates the confusion & gives them credence.
    The People of America have spoen & they want reasonable firearms controls.
    Let US face it, the gun manufacturers of America make their money from military & law enforcement sales NOT the yahoos. They can’t ca’t afford to wash thei rpickup trucks nevermind support an entire industry.
    Either pass Federal laws governeing firearms (and remove the responsiblity from the states) or take the damn things away from the yahoos.

    1. TheSkalawag929 April 4, 2013

      “Either pass Federal laws governing firearms (and remove the responsibility from the states) or take the damn things away from the yahoos.”

      This is just what the NRA is having Bubba and them there yahoos arming against. You’d just be playing right into their hands.

      1. labrown69 April 5, 2013

        “Take them away from yahoos” – now there is an intelligent position! LMAO

        1. TheSkalawag929 April 5, 2013

          Really? Are you agreeing with me or mocking me?

    2. davidcayjohnston April 4, 2013

      @ Zheet, I hope you read the end of my piece, which shows that by its own standards the NRA plan does not work. But since they are out pushing this I felt we ought to analyze its economics, social costs and whether it could work.

      Knowing it will not,and the reasons it will not, is more effective than just saying you dislike something.

  5. middleclasstaxpayer April 4, 2013

    So let me get this straight……we can’t invest in protecting children, but we can sink billions into “shovel ready projects” that are not shovel ready, per the wizard Obama who did this, plus invest MORE billions into propping up failing schools and unmotivated members of society who find it more “efficient” to be on the dole than to find meaningful employment……..makes perfect sense (if you’re a liberal dunce)!

    1. Justathought April 4, 2013

      The investment is in making sensible laws and then enforced them instead of the stupid idea by the NRA. I have guns. I use to be an NRA member. I am a retired military and know what it takes and how much it cost for initial training and then making sure they are qualified year round. If you think it is going to take 100 hours minimum than you need to go back to school before you start running your mouth. Each school is unique and has unique requirements. The area and location of the school is also a problem. Buildings in the area as well as other obstacles will also be problems. There are hundred other things that need to be considered. Consider money, personnel, and all of the other sensible requirements and you would find the above article is quite conservative in its cost estimate. By the way I hunted ever since I was 13 years of age and like you a middle class taxpayer. I am a Christian to boot and a God fearing American and will never ever vote for a Republican. I do not believe in same sex marriage, abortion, or the likes. However, I do believe each American has the right to make his or her own choices. Neither you, nor I have the right to tell someone else what to do with their lives. Let God be their judge. It is our responsibility to warn, forewarn, and love them to boot. They are after all our sons, daughters, brothers, sisters, and friends whether you like it or not.
      We should teach our children correct principles and allow them to make their own choices.
      I cannot figure out how it is that many conservatives hate big government, taxes and the likes and yet they take the time to push for a bigger military and then try to make laws dictating how others must live. Lets stop being two faced and allow others the same rights and privileges you and I enjoy.

      1. middleclasstaxpayer April 4, 2013

        I also believe in FREE CHOICE…..the choice to defend myself & my family. Every government that has disarmed their people in the name of safety has ultimately turned on some or all of their citizens with deadly results. The only folks “regulated” by tight (or tighter) gun laws are honorable, law-abiding citizens who have already complied with all gun laws. The only people NOT regulated by tighter gun laws are criminals & psychopaths. When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns. I come from a military family, and NO ONE I’ve met has ever supported the ideas you submitted.

        1. Justathought April 4, 2013

          I am not advocating a government take our gun policies or laws. I am for sensible laws such as background checks, doing away with military style weapons that fire fully automatic and the likes. I am sure as law abiding citizens we can come up with others worthy of discussion and perhaps agreed on as measures to help ourselves, communities and more importantly our CHILDREN. Perhaps when a private citizen sells a gun, he or she must take it on him / herself to make sure the new owner is not a pervert or a criminal. There are ways of finding out. Little ounces of prevention will go along way in making it a safe society.

          1. middleclasstaxpayer April 4, 2013

            You, like most of the population, are being misinformed about what guns are being proposed for severe regulations. You mention “fully automatic guns”, which have been outlawed SINCE 1934 for the general population.
            This intentional misleading by gov’t bureaucrats is designed to arouse concerns within well-meaning folks like yourself. What your liberal bureaucrats are suggesting is the severe restriction on guns that have functioned almost the same way for OVER 100 YEARS! When someone attaches a front hand grip on a 100 year old gun, it now is called an “assault weapon” when in fact the front grip, as one example, does NOT make the gun any more or less deadly. Once liberals get a “foot in the door” with their misleading facts & descriptions of common firearms, it’s only a short step from banning ALL guns. Fact is, ANY common item like a gun, a baseball bat, a canister of propane, etc, can become deadly in the wrong hands. We cannot logically remove all danger from the world. If we did, you would have to move out of your OWN HOME, as most injuries & deaths occur at home (or in your family car). You need to learn the true facts, not just what liberals want you to think, or trick you into believing.

          2. Barbara Morgan April 5, 2013

            No we know what guns the government is talking about, we just don’t know what gun lovers call them and use the terms that we hear most often including from gun lovers and owners. So that saying that we don’t know what type of guns the government is talking about is as crazy as many gun owners are. Liberals are not trying to take your guns away from you now or in the future and if you believe that pack of lies you need a mental elevation to see if you should be owning guns. You are one of the many gun owners that are spreading the the lies of the NRA that keep people buying guns and making money for the weapon and ammo manufacturer that in turn donate big sums of money to the NRA so it can keep spreading lies about what non gun owners and the government want in regards to gun control thus making more money for the weapon and ammo people making bigger donations to the NRA who then makes bigger donations to the Republican party so it can spread lies. You just showed your true color with the post above mine with accussing Liberals wanting to bann all guns and the fact that you aren’t in the middle of the road taxpayer but an extreme right Republican who is posting under false colors.

          3. middleclasstaxpayer April 6, 2013

            Barbara, were you ever taught what a ‘run on sentence” was??? Now the facts: When those uneducated in what they are defining describe wanting to “ban semi-auto” weapons, they are saying that almost ALL firearms made for over 100 years must go! 98% of them…..real smart! Gov’t liberals realize that many (or MOST of you) do NOT know the correct terms or what they are referring to, making their efforts to ban most guns easy. It’s not unlike obamacare…..they sucked you in with wild promises, and now the chickens are coming home to roost. 30 % increase in health insurance THIS YEAR, employers dropping coverage in droves, etc. Did they tell you THIS would happen? Of course not!

          4. Barbara Morgan April 7, 2013

            Yes I know what a run on sentence is and have a tendency to write such sentences which I am trying to break. Well I was not sucked in by wild promises in the Affordable Medical act nor I am sucked in by your agrument and guns being taken .

          5. middleclasstaxpayer April 7, 2013

            Barbara, think of the situation like this…..if you, as a liberal female, were told you could NOT protect your right to end an unwanted abortion, you would scream holy hell. All we are asking is for the right to PROTECT ourselves & our loved ones. In your case, you might END a life for your right of protection. In our case, we might SAVE a life for our right of protection. We BOTH want our rights protected, so where’s the problem???

        2. A_Schick April 4, 2013

          Well then lets dump speed limits because the only people who follow them are “honorable, law-abiding citizens.”

          1. middleclasstaxpayer April 4, 2013

            No one has suggested dumping current gun laws & regs….there are already over 10,000 rules & regs in the 50 states regarding guns & gun ownership. Creating more rules will NOT stop a madman from wrecking havoc with ANY item, gun, car or even something so common as a 20 pound canister of propane, which could demolish an entire building if detonated inside. Get real…. I’m sure you have homeowners insurance, which would replace physical things, but how would you replace your wife & kids if the unthinkable occurred, like a home invasion. Try asking the poor doctor in Connecticut who had his home invaded by two killers. Even though they complied with all their demands, the Doctor was beaten & tied, while the two raped, tortured & murdered his wife & two teenage daughters. Would you be prepared for such an occurrence??

          2. A_Schick April 4, 2013

            So you SUPPORT laws making it harder for people who shouldn’t own firearms to purchase them? Glad we got to this point. Our nation’s weak gun laws lead to women being 11 times more likely to be murdered by a gun than any other developed nation. In states that require background checks, 38% fewer women are shot to death in their homes by their intimate partners. States with the weakest gun laws have twice as much gun violence versus states with strong gun laws. We can go on and on, but as a supporter of stronger gun laws you already know all of this!

          3. middleclasstaxpayer April 4, 2013

            Let’s look at the REAL facts, not some misguided or made-up stats from a CNN or a Wolf Blitzer….The FBI crime data for 2011 reports that “violent crime” has declined for 18 of the last 20 years, 49% overall, to a 41 year low. Murder has fallen 52 % in last 20 years, to a 48 year low. But California (one of the toughest gun controlled states) has a murder rate 73% higher than the rates in 30 other states!! And the vaulted “Brady Campaign lawyers” brag that there are 10 states with the TOUGHEST GUN LAWS. Unfortunately, those 10 states have an average murder rate almost 220% HIGHER than the 10 states they bemoan for having the weakest gun laws. More guns mean less crime….criminals depend on weak, defenseless victims, NOT armed citizens determined to protect themselves & their loved ones. Your “facts” are conjured up to “prove” your defenseless point! Read the FBI stats (and weep).

          4. middleclasstaxpayer April 5, 2013

            Although I challenged your initial premise earlier, you do raise a valid point. I am certain that men do use their usual superior size & strength to assault, injure & kill women by all means. And of course women are less likely to own firearms than men, putting females are even more risk. However, when women are armed, the playing field is instantly leveled, and as more women are encouraged to carry firearms, I am 100% certain that vicious men, jilted suitors and others will definitely be much more cautious in attempting to injure or kill the women in their lives. More guns, less crime, especially against women!

          5. A_Schick April 5, 2013

            I appreciate the response, truthfully. But those numbers don’t tell us whether guns are owned by men or women – just that if a gun is present in a household, women are in greater danger of being killed.

          6. middleclasstaxpayer April 5, 2013

            I’ve heard this “fact” before, but am suspicious about its veracity. I believe firearms are used very frequently to PREVENT assaults, rapes, robberies and worse atrocities to both men & women every day. If a woman is in a relationship with a violent or aggressive male, ANY household item, including the man’s own hands, can injure or kill a usually smaller female. Men don’t need guns to harm or kill others, including the women in their lives….all they need is a lack of caring & a violent disposition to wreck havoc. But again, if more women were encouraged to protect themselves with firearms or other means, I believe more men would think twice before attempting to harm or kill the females in their lives. We all have “insurance” against loss of cars, property, etc, but our own lives, and the lives of those we love (husbands, wives, kids, etc) are MUCH more important to protect, and a firearm is the simplist & fastest way to do this IF & WHEN required. Planning ahead is the best defense!

          7. A_Schick April 5, 2013

            It’s great thinking, yes, but where is the historical evidence supporting that? Where are the numbers of assaults/rapes/murders prevented in homes with guns every year and how does it stack up against inhabitants (not intruders) killed with guns in homes each year?

          8. middleclasstaxpayer April 5, 2013

            All you have to do is read the news feeds from any police station on what went on last night to know how many times guns are used to HELP people, when they are available. A family member was a 30 year police veteran who told many stories of this happening. But your local TV or newspaper probably won’t share this info because it’s NOT newsworthy.

          9. Barbara Morgan April 5, 2013

            The playing field is not instantly leveled unless the woman breaks the law and shots her attcker while he is sleep because he is still stronger and bigger than she is and that has been proven time and time again. As for a spurned suitor , vicious men or others being stopped by a woman having a gun you must be thinking about fantsy island, because these same men know that a woman has to sleep, bathe or drive to work and other places and kill her in those places sometimes with the very gun she was carrying for protection. You and the rest of the gun lovers don’t get it, guns do not work to stop violence instead encourages violence because the person with the gun think they can’t be killed or shot because they are holding a loaded gun in their hands and can shoot faster than anyone else with gun.

          10. middleclasstaxpayer April 8, 2013

            Barbara, so your idea is to do NOTHING to protect yourself??? Versus arming yourself with the possibility (likely the PROBABILITY) that you can simply kill your assailant before he kills you. Your plan is very well thought out….I hope you’ve prepaid all your final expenses, as you may need the preparation.

          11. Barbara Morgan April 9, 2013

            I protect myself I just don’t carry a gun to do so. A woman’s purse can knock people out because of all the stuff we carry in them. I have used mine to protect myself against a would be rapist and broke his jaw. There are other things that can be used to protect yourself that are faster than pulling a trigger on a gun. So yes I protect myself but not with a gun.

          12. Barbara Morgan April 5, 2013

            Where did the criminals get their guns that thet used to make the victims go along? By stealing it from a legal gunowner that didn’t secure his gun when he was gone from home. So in a distance way that careless gun owner was as much as responible for the rape and murder of the wife, and two daughters of the beaten husband and father as the two lower lifeforms that did the actual crime. Also how many other murders, rapes, robberies and other crimes have been committed by criminals that didn’t even have to look for guns when they broke into a gun owners homes because they were out in the open where they could be seen and taken?
            There are to many legal gun owners that are not the type to try and keep their guns from being found if their home is broken into by a gang or crimihal so they are contribute to the carnage of deaths bys guns yearly.

        3. TheSkalawag929 April 4, 2013

          You believe in CERTAIN FREE CHOICES. Like only the ones YOU believe in. All others not so much.

          1. middleclasstaxpayer April 5, 2013

            So you DON’T believe in having the choice to defend & protect your wife, kids & family?????

          2. TheSkalawag929 April 5, 2013

            I don’t know how you made that leap.
            Just because I believe we should have universal background checks, a ban on CERTAIN firearms and a limit on the number of rounds a magazines can hold doesn’t mean I don’t believe in protecting myself and family. I believe in using ALL means necessary. Including LAWS.

          3. middleclasstaxpayer April 5, 2013

            Here’s the sad fact……in an attempt to “protect us all”, liberals have defined firearms that have existed for over 100 years as “assault weapons” simply because someone affixed a front grip (or some other accessory) on an old-style gun….thus outlawing guns that have functioned the same for over a century……by attempting to ban “semi-auto” firearms, they will end up eliminating ALL firearms from our possession. Not all at once of course, but incrementally and with certainty. Look at the logic: If a 10 round magazine is the most we are allowed to own, who’s to say (or argue) that maybe it should be only 7 or 5 or even ONE round??? Very easy to do once the process is in place. Once guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns!

          4. TheSkalawag929 April 5, 2013

            What firearm existed 100 years ago that was simply modified with front grip and is in use today that anyone wants to ban?

            What is your definition of “some other accessory”?

            Your “by attempting to ban” argument is way over the top. Like the commercials they use to get people to buy the latest and greatest new-fangle gadget.

            Suppose we reverse your logic argument on 10 round magazines. The results of which seem to be more plausible since it has already happened.

            The number of rounds a magazine can hold has grown to the point where they are no longer called magazines but drums that hold a 100 or more rounds.

            At what point do you call a halt to the growth of magazines and destructive capabilities of firearms for civilian use? What is YOUR upper limit?

          5. Barbara Morgan April 5, 2013

            The so called middleoftheroadtaxpayer is no more middle of the road than there is a man in the moon, He showed this in his post before he started posting about 100 year weapons being called assault weapons because of grip or acesssory being added. He is an extreme far right gun owner that thinks he and other gun owners are the only ones in this Country that has rights.

          6. TheSkalawag929 April 5, 2013

            I hear you loud and clear. We have our work cut out for us.

        4. Barbara Morgan April 5, 2013

          If you fear your government then move where you think you don’t have to worry about the government where you live. I don’t fear that the government we have now is going to take any of our rights away, but I did fear the government when ran by George Walker Bush, Dick Cheney and the Republican majoritory because George Walker Bush made the a statement in 2005 that scared me, after being taken to task for breaking every Constitutional law he was allowed to break, he made the following statement “The Constitution is just a piece of paper that I wadded up and threw out the window. It means nothing to me” and the way everything Dick Cheney did he declared was top secret so no one knew what the two of them was planning. Also all the legal gun owners are the main reason that so many criminals have such a big variety of guns from stealing them home break ins and home invasions, stick ups and buying guns from legal gun owners No one is trying to disarm you or any other gun owner and that has been proven with the grandfather clause in all gun control laws that have been passed or being discussed that even if certain types of guns and ammo holders are banned, if you legally own that type of guns and ammo holders, you keep them the government doesn’t want them.

          1. labrown69 April 5, 2013

            Ironic given that Obama has perpetuated almost all of Bush’s worst policies including beefing up the Patriot Act and adding the NDAA on top of it. This not to mention appointing the former Vice President of Monsanto as our “safe food czar” at the FDA and 5 years into his presidency allowing banks to fraudulently steal the homes of American citizens using forged documents with the help of vermin like Tim Geithner and Eric Holder. You should be more scared of Obama who I myself voted for because he is smarter and more cunning than Bush was. I voted for Obama to prevent the Bachmans and Santorums from getting a foothold but lets be honest. Obama is a plutocrat, an oligarch of the first water and a corrupt dirt bag who is a major disappointment to any liberal with an IQ over 40.

    2. Barbara Morgan April 5, 2013

      Research the Welfare Reform Act 1996 and see how that people can’t stay on welfare forever and while receiving welfare have to be getting training in order to find a paying job before their time time drawing welfare is done or to find one by the time they can no longer draw on the public dole, also there would be less people on food stamps if they were being paid a salary that allowed them to feed, house, clothed , have medical and dental care for their famililies instead of being paid the least amount of money that can an employer can legally get away with paying. If the real numbers were released as to who gets food stamps that you will find that more people working and not making a decent salary are getting foodstamps than people on the public dole. Also why are you complaining about the big businesses that are on the public dole with their Corp Welfare, tax loopholes that allow them to pay not taxes yet get refunds from the IRS each year and the rich that make millions and don’t pay taxes on them until 30 years later if at all. But being a conservative dunce you rather that the big businesses get corp welfare, tax refunds and pay no taxes and that the rich not pay any taxes on millions made last year but 30 years down the road if they are paid then.

    3. TheSkalawag929 April 5, 2013

      You got it about as straight as a corkscrew.

      The “shovel ready projects” that conservatives like to deride would have produced tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of new jobs if the republicans had just gotten out of the way.

      Those shovel ready projects would have produced more freedom and liberty had they been allowed to proceed.

      Those shovel ready project would have produced more customers who would have been more than ready to buy the products and services from the businesses that republicans claim to care so much about.

      But NOOOO it was more important for republicans to do everything they could to see to it that President Obama was a one term president rather than what was best for the country and their own financial health.

      The dunce hat is now the crown of the conservative movement.

      Conservatives have broken their own First Law. Never let principle get in the way of “Wealth Enhancement”.

      Look at all the money you let slip through your fingers because of ideological intransigence.

  6. Eleanore Whitaker April 4, 2013

    If Adam Lanza didn’t have access to his mother’s guns, 20 children and adults would still be alive. No matter how the pro gunnies try to salvage their “I Want MY Way” act, this is the fact. They don’t want background checks, bans on assault weapons or minimal load magazines. Why? What precisely do these loonies plan to do with AR 15s and Bushmasters and 30,000 rounds of ammo? Stockpile them? For what? In case, they perceive government confiscation? This country has never before had the kinds of mass murders since 4 billionaire gun manufacturers in 4 red states began flooding the country with guns and assault weapons. What next? Army tanks in the streets? And, oh joy! Isn’t that just what these pro gunnies REALLY have been spoiling for? Anarchy and civil unrest in the US? No sane person stockpiles military weapons without a hidden agenda.

    1. lana ward April 4, 2013

      No matter what is done, gun violence WILL NOT stop!! Never!!! If those teachers had been armed, those kids would still be alive

      1. TheSkalawag929 April 5, 2013

        That is pure speculation on your part but you expect people to accept it as gospel.
        I agree with Eleanore. I say if we had common sense regulations in place at the time everybody would be alive today including Adam Lanza and his mother.
        The people you ought to be concerned about are the ones pushing the “Doomsday” scenarios. I have found that at the end of their presentations they usually direct you to some site where they will SELL you something to keep you safe.
        It’s all a scam.

        1. lana ward April 5, 2013

          It’s not speculation, it’s fact. NOTHING will stop gun violence. There has to be a change in peoples hearts before it will stop, and I don’t see that happening,so speculate that!

          1. TheSkalawag929 April 5, 2013

            As long as there are hard hearted pessimists in the world like you who are unwilling to take any steps toward changing hearts then I guess you’re right.

          2. lana ward April 5, 2013

            Only God can change hearts and the dems take him out of everything!!

          3. TheSkalawag929 April 5, 2013

            Only fools believe that statement and if you believe that YOU are truly a fool . Because how else does God work his wonders but through human interaction.

          4. lana ward April 6, 2013

            Christianity is demonized by the dems. All other religions are forced upon us

          5. TheSkalawag929 April 6, 2013

            I would truly like to know WITF you came up with “Christianity is demonized by the dems. and All other religions are forced upon us”.

            All of you rational people out there please forgive me but lana ward you are TRULY “More soft minded and stupid than beyond compare”.

          6. lana ward April 6, 2013

            If you don’t know Christians are demonized you sure as hell aren’t paying attention!!

          7. TheSkalawag929 April 6, 2013

            If you think they are then you have had your brain dry-cleaned.

          8. RobertCHastings April 6, 2013

            And you sure as hell are not thinking. Christians are NOT demonized in this country, nor is Christianity itself either demonized or demeaned. The principle of separation of church and state is one our Founders thought through, thoroughly, and there were long, hard fights. IF, God forbid, one particular sect were to become predominant and be able to assume control of society and the government, what do you think would be the result? And don’t make the foolish assumption that the sect that would become dominant would be the one to which you adhere. There is a very real and very practical reason for the separation of church and state.

          9. lana ward April 6, 2013

            Dems have taken God out of everything. They are trying to get rid of Christmas and now are going after Easter. Professors and teachers are punishing students for being Christian. There is a war on Christianity!!!!!

          10. RobertCHastings April 6, 2013

            I am quite sure that Glen Beck sincerely appreciates that you are fully engaged in his hysteria.

          11. lana ward April 6, 2013

            The main stream media is very good at hiding news–they should all be hung!

          12. RobertCHastings April 7, 2013

            And the folks you listen to are very good at – shall we say embellishment? Glen Beck, Bill O’Reilly, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity CLAIM to be fair and honest, when a little fact checking on virtually anything they say will readily prove otherwise. A typical Beckism was his statement that the devil in the recent miniseries by Roma Downey “The Bible” looked like President Obama, and, therefore, Obama must be the devil. While the similarity was there, the rest of Beck’s statement was straight out of a Three Stooges or Laurel and Hardy movie, just absolutely inane and that is NOT insane, without the “s”, although either would be appropriate.

          13. lana ward April 7, 2013

            Glen Beck is right about everything he says. Obama is one big lie. Everything about him is a lie, everything he says is a lie. He is a communist muslim, an anti-America traitor and soon to be dictator just like Hitler

          14. RobertCHastings April 7, 2013

            Really? Do you REALLY believe that? No wonder gun sales have picked up so much since Obama’s election, since you seem to be like so many others who so readily adhere to the dark side of the right.

          15. lana ward April 7, 2013

            Obamas’ parents were communists, his Grandparents (his moms side) were communists. He was mentored by communist, Frank Marshall Davis, who is Obamas’ real father. That’s why Obama had plastic surgery so he wouldn’t look like FMD, but he still does. Obama has had 4 years and things are only getting worse instead of better, don’t you even wonder WHY that is??? Things are getting worse because he is using the communist playbook, destroy things slowly so the public doesn’t notice–just like Hitler did

          16. RobertCHastings April 8, 2013

            What is your source? Is it one like The Rightscoop again? Or is this direct from the mouth of Glen Beck? You have got to be, absolutely, either the stupidestpersonI have run across, or the most gullible. Glen Beck and Rush Limbaugh could feed you turtle shit and tell you it was caviar and you would be delighted, just as happy as, (as the saying goes) “a pig in shit”.

          17. lana ward April 8, 2013

            I know more than you, that’s what’s inportant to me :))

          18. RobertCHastings April 8, 2013

            I seriously doubt that, on pretty much any topic. However, there is little value in comparing since our sources would be entirely different, and we would answer virtually any question differently – you say to-may-to, I say to-mah-to.

          19. lana ward April 8, 2013

            Why is Obama going to push banks to give loans to those with bad credit??? Isn’t that what started the mess 5 years ago that we are still in????

          20. RobertCHastings April 6, 2013

            My dearest Lana, Christianity is NOT demonized by Democrats. Simply because the Constitution states that government shall make no laws regarding the establishment of religion do not evenimpl that Christianity is being demonized. The “religious freedom” clause in the First Amendment in no way restricts YOU from practicing YOUR religion, whatever it may be, and it protects me from being required to practice ANY religion or for being criticized or demonized for not doing so. Prior to the Revolution, each individual colony observed their own religion, and that religion was the law. From Maine to Georgia, all thriteen colonies practiced different religion, although ALL were merely different Christian sects. If you lived back then and did not adhere to the theology of those who were in charge in your colony, you were “demonized, excessively taxed, sometimes run out of town on a rail, or even the subject of a witch hunt. If you wish to live under those conditions then, by all means, do whatever you can to repeal the First Amendment, or at least the “religious freedom” clause. Or, easier still, move to Iran.

          21. lana ward April 6, 2013

            Anything goe’s in this country except Christianity. Obama is the head demonizer!!

          22. RobertCHastings April 6, 2013

            Please enlighten us by naming your irrefutable soources for your statements.

      2. thin_bluine April 5, 2013

        Well Lana I agree gun violence will not stop.
        Now the part I cannot really agree with is that if the teachers were armed those kids would still be alive, the reason I don’t agree with you is as follows: the dirtbag had a semi automatic rifle which would have defeated any handgun that a teacher in the building would have carried. Secondly the teachers mindset or instinct is not to go towards the gunfire (most normal people’s response is to duck and cover and stay down, teachers especially), teachers are protectors and certainly would take a bullet to save their students but would not leave them to fend off an attack somewhere else in the building. Now before any teachers reading this come unglued on me, I do realize that there are teachers that would chase the bullets and go after the shooter to protect their kids, but as a general rule I think a majority would react the way I have described, which is still outstanding. Now had a teacher come to the door where the bullets were flying they would have been the first victim(s), once inside remember “Dirtbag” still has semi automatic rifle, he walks down hall teacher victim “B” pokes head around corner and takes a shot, dirtbag sprays multiple bullets (10-15) vs. single or maybe 3 or 4 bullets if they are proficient. Teacher “B” becomes victim 2. Dirtbag now has 2 additional handguns at his disposal from 2 armed teacher victims. Dirtbag goes to classroom and game over.
        There is another scenario where dirtbag is walking down the hallway shooting at things and people, and armed teachers hear this and peak heads out and start firing back at dirtbag, of course teachers having no training in rapid deployment and shooting angles and crossfire situations, end up shooting across the hallway at dirtbag and miss, bullets go thru wall into classroom and hit students who are hunkered down in the corner, not to mention possibly shooting and killing their armed teaching comrad across the hall who is also trying to shoot dirtbag and save their students. So you see now you have kids still getting shot but now not only by the bad guy dirtbag but also by the teachers who are there armed to protect as well as teach them. My personal view of armed teachers in school is it is a ridiculous idea,teachers do not go thru the training that police officers do and they are mentaly brainwashed so to speak to run towards the bullets and to be prepared to give their lives every time they get up and put on their uniform. Teachers got into the business because they love kids and they want to make a difference in a kids life by inspiring them and teaching them. I also do not believe that a school should hire private security guards either. the best protection other than lockdown drills and limited access buildings is to have a certified School Resource Officer on site, Now if the school is in a rural area and they do not have law enforcement in their town then obviously there needs to be something different and if that’s arming teachers then so be it. So as you can see because someone has a gun does not mean they know how to use it, and it certainly changes the game when someone is shooting back at you.
        One last thing I need to mention when it comes to this whole gun debate, people fail to think about gun retention, statisticalley if you look at home invasions where the homeowner gets shot and killed by the robber it happens more often with home owners own gun. So again just because you have a gun and have seen one used its a new ball game when you get into a tussel with someone trying to take your gun away from you and then using it on you, or shooting at someone who in turn has a gun and is shooting back at you.

        1. lana ward April 5, 2013

          My son was shot and killed during a home invasion , he didn’t have a gun. If you have a gun, at least you stand a chance. Everyone, especially in this corrupt time, you NEED a gun!!!

          1. TheSkalawag929 April 6, 2013

            I’m truly sorry for your loss.
            Maybe if your son had had a gun the outcome might have been different but it is also equally possible that if the currently demanded laws and regulations had been in place your son might be alive today.
            We can speculate all we want but we will never truly know.

          2. lana ward April 6, 2013

            Thank you !!

        2. TheSkalawag929 April 6, 2013

          If I could agree with you more than I have here I would.
          Maximum Kudos to thin_bluine

    2. middleclasstaxpayer April 5, 2013

      You are completely uninformed about firearms ownership…..when I was a kid, we all took our target rifles to school for marksmanship training after class….and before 1968, anyone could order any handgun or rifle thru the mail….guns were everywhere, and lightly regulated. Nonetheless, we never saw school shootings, drive-by shootings and mass murder was rare. Of course, we also did NOT have vicious & graphic video games & movies that glorify murder & mayhem. What is your reaction to the game “kindergarten killers” and other horrible examples of killing kids are now exposed to??? Guns don’t kill by themselves…..PEOPLE pull the trigger! Get real.

      1. Barbara Morgan April 5, 2013

        Wrong guns can kill by theirselves. How about the school employee that shot in the leg last month after a gun shooting class was held and a gun jammed and why the instructor and owner of the gun was trying to unjam it went off and shot a janitor in the leg or the gun that went off when in a state trooper’s holster while he was adjusting the holster after he sat down. or guns that have fallen from hiding places and shot the owner when it hit the floor. So guns can kill and there are many more people in this Country today and many that have medical and mental problems that they don’t know about or ignore that can cause a person to go on killing sprees and not know why. Violence in movies, games and other stuff can cause a person to over the edge and start killing but the main reason for all the killings now days is that people have so many guns avaiable that they would rather use one of them instead of having fistfights like people did when I was growing up and settle their differences. I grew up in age when there were pickups running around town with 1 up to 4 rifles in a rack in the back window and left their windows down, because our differences were settled by fists not guns and after losing a fist fight drove off wih all rifiles or shotguns still in the rack unlike the majoritory of people nowdays, lose a fight, get a gun and shoot the person that won the fight.

        1. labrown69 April 5, 2013

          You can drown in water or burn up in a fire. Shall we ban fire and water?

        2. TheSkalawag929 April 6, 2013

          Barbara I’m not a gun advocate nor am I defending gun advocates. But each of the cases that you outline have a human component to them.

          And they all boil down to the fact of, whether it be the instructor and gun owner, the State Trooper or people hiding guns set to be readily fired, not respecting how lethal guns can be.

      2. TheSkalawag929 April 5, 2013

        When you were a kid what would have happened if you showed up at school with a military style weapon? I suspect that it probably would have taken ten minutes for your head to stop spinning when you were taken to the principles office.

        Sure there was a time when you could buy guns though the mail but there were a lot of hoops you had to jump through too.

        No we didn’t have vicious and graphic video games back then. We just took our toy guns, knives, swords and bows and arrows outside and played soldier, cowboys and indians and knights in shining armor.

        I have no reaction to the violent horrible video games of today or the past because I don’t and didn’t play them. As far as the effect they had on my boys it was zero because as a responsible adult I didn’t but them or allow my kids to play them. I found other things for them to be involved in such as sports, music and academic activities.

        You’re right “Guns don’t kill by themselves”. It’s People that use guns to kill people that’s the problem.

        I Am Real.

  7. itsfun April 4, 2013

    Since when did this government worry about spending money. How much are we in debt. If we can afford to pay a million for Biden to spend 2 nights in a hotel, we should be able to afford guards to protect our kids!

    1. TheSkalawag929 April 4, 2013

      And this is from one of those wanting to kick kids out of Head Start programs and shut down School Lunch programs.

      Millions for guns and ammunition but not one damn dollar to help kids’ programs.

      Yep that’s the conservative mindset.

      1. itsfun April 4, 2013

        I have read and reread my post. Can’t find a word about Heat Start of school lunch programs. You have a good idea though, lets use the million Joe Biden spent on hotel rooms for 2 nights and buy some school lunches. Yep the conservative mindset – help and protect the kids instead of millions for hotel rooms and golf outings (Obama may pay his green fees, but who pays for security and their transportation) .

        1. TheSkalawag929 April 4, 2013

          I think you’re referring to my mention of HEAD Start OR School Lunch programs.
          No you didn’t mention either of those. I did to contrast what I think is important to complain about in comparison to your whining about some imaginary amount of money spent on Joe Biden’s hotel stay.
          And by the way you might want to invest a little time proofreading your post before you post it. That way your snide remarks don’t lose their zing because to type-o’s.

        2. Barbara Morgan April 5, 2013

          There is no Conservative mindset to protect the children, if there was they wouldn’t be doing all they can do to tear down the safety nets that keep children from going hungry, without medical and dental care, homeless and in clothes that fit. I have an idea why don’t you and all conseratives write your members of Congress and tell them to start paying for all their air flights all over the Country, to and from their home states twice a week because they don’t move their families to DC to live, and all over the world and to stop using military planes and only use commerical airlines to do their traveling and pay from their trips out of their money not tax payers money and save millions on airfare for members of Congress, also take away their free use of a tax payer finished car while in Congress and all the other stuff they pay for but we do for for their personal use and save millions more. Also did you see a reciept that said the vice President spent one million dollars on a two night stay in Vatican City or is that something that has been reported with nothing to back the claim up?

          1. itsfun April 5, 2013

            typical response, every news media reports the cost of Joe Biden’s hotel room for 2 night and you want a receipt. The million was for a one night stay in England and a one night stay in France. You must be right the conservatives want all kids to starve and die from no medical care, and lose their teeth because of no dental care. Did Obama show anyone a receipt for his green fees he says he paid for?

          2. Barbara Morgan April 5, 2013

            Yes I want to see a reciept because you can no longer trust what the news media says or prints, they have been know to print and reports out and out lies and to twist the truth to show what their bosses want it to show not the whole truth. I am waiting to see that reciept also.

          3. itsfun April 6, 2013

            Can’t argue with you take on the media. It has got so bad, that I won’t even watch some channels anymore.

  8. Allan Richardson April 4, 2013

    I do not know how many of these recent suicide massacre perpetrators (they usually do kill themselves when they run out of victims; I suggest the term “personal apocalypse” for this behavior) were actual MEMBERS of the NRA, but they seem to have been brought up in the NRA culture, usually in rural small towns (the “ghetto” gangsters do not go for mass murder, rather they shoot each other and sometimes hit bystanders). It seems that NRA rhetoric affects some unbalanced people by supporting their paranoia, encouraging them to arm themselves to “defend” against their “enemies”, convincing them that society and law enforcement are their enemies, eventually triggering these PA outbursts. So maybe the NRA leadership should be the first to be screened for mental disturbance?

  9. latebloomingrandma April 4, 2013

    What a picture this paints of America! Turn our schools into prisons, then teach the children in civics class what a wonderful free country we have. As we continue beating our chests over our “exceptionalism”, imagine the YouTube videos going over the world about how our children go to school here in this lawless land, that everyone needs weaponized. Maybe that will halt illegal immigration.

  10. Jim Myers April 4, 2013

    The argument always starts with “only the criminals will have guns if we outlaw guns.”

    I do not think we should outlaw guns, but semi-automatic rifles, fully automatic weapons, and magazines holding more than 10 rounds can and should be kept out of the hands of the public.

    As for the argument that the criminals will be the only ones that own these items if we outlaw them, stop and think.


    How they ended up in the hands of criminals is the real problem. And, yet, no one seems to want to address this problem.

    1. Barbara Morgan April 5, 2013

      How true Mr. Myers, guns are stolen everyday from legal gun owners and end up in the hands of gangs and other criminals because people that are gun lovers own so many gun., How often is a gun that a criminal has used to committ crimes actually been bought in a gun store or at a gunshow by the criminal and not stolen when said criminal robbed a gun store or broke into a legal gun owner’s home or bought the gun from the legal gun owner not one that I know of. Had police officer tell me one time that when criminals do a home invasion or break in they are looking for (1) guns, (2)drugs (3) money (4) jewelery (5) small valuable electronics and other small vaulables and (6) big screen TVs and the like. He also said that most criminals do not believe a person that says they don’t own a gun and wouldn’t have one in their home.So all these criminals that gun owners claim to be buying guns to protect themselves and their families against are using legal gun owners guns for robberies, auto jackings, rape, murder, home invansion and drug dealing and everything else that they do that is llegal .So to all owners that claim your guns is for protection know well that the gun the criminal is holding in your face might be one of your own that was stolen in years gone by.

    2. labrown69 April 5, 2013

      Mr. Myers – AUTOMATIC WEAPONS ARE ALREADY ILLEGAL AND HAVE BEEN FOR A LONG TIME! It is dishonest of you to suggest otherwise. Secondly, in recent years most states, particularly my home state of CA have passed strict rules regarding safe storage, trigger locks, gun safes and the availability of weapons in the home. The bottom line is they must be locked up when you are not home and available when you are home because a gun under lock and key is as useless as no gun at all and that aint gonna happen.

  11. Alfred Sonnenstrahl April 4, 2013

    Americans need to keep guns to ensure that ALL Americans will be able to vote!

    1. TheSkalawag929 April 4, 2013

      How does that work?

  12. Richard Kiefer April 4, 2013

    It’s gratifying to see that the NRA is so interested in the education of our youth, but they have really dropped the ball on this one. By having adults responsible for the safety of our tykes, they have wasted a great learning opportunity for the kids.

    We want to raise independent, fast-thinking kids, right, so why doesn’t the NRA furnish guns to every kid in class to defend him (her) self? Just think, It will then not be necessary to spend sparse education funds on outside help, teachers can concentrate on teaching, and kids – packing heat – will then be safer going to and from school. This would insure, also, that the gun and ammo peddlers can sell twenty or thirty guns in each class instead of just one to a teacher or school security specialist. Thus, as well as aiding in security and education, would we be ameliorating the employment problem.

    Speaking of education, instead of being force-fed the garbage about “a well-regulated militia,” which some drunk liberal must have inserted into the 2nd Amendment, and our “Founding Fathers,” who vowed their “sacred honor” to each other, and for their country, they would more appreciate the valiance and courage of Wayne LaPierre. This is the head of the NRA – who, to prove his stated devotion to the Constitution and to his country – managed to avoid fighting for his country (like his fellow patriot, Dick Cheney, who said that he “had better things to do,” ) while convincing millions of Americans that they should fear and fight against their own country – and making plenty money for himself and many of our legislators while doing it. So let’s hear it for education.

  13. Mark McKennon April 4, 2013

    One of the most abjectly senseless, pointless and useless proposals I think it is possible to make. About anything. And that’s just at first glance and taken at face value. It becomes more useless when one weighs all the details in this well-reasoned article–training, vests, lockers, and all the costs. Tens of billions! LUDICROUS! Zero of this can be taken seriously. And it burns into the realm of the absurd and disturbed when one can draw the conclusion that the NRA doesn’t really care about schools or the students. It’s primary purpose is just to distract, deny and delay with this pathetic theater. Every day, more innocent people are shot and killed by guns that are too easily sold, or illegally obtained, and many of those casualties are preventable by appropriate and effective laws. Every injury or death that is a result of the delay wrought by the NRA and its allies is their moral responsibility.

  14. labrown69 April 4, 2013

    Leftists who are concerned about “the cost” of protection for children. Now I’ve seen everything! Can you say “disingenuous”?

    1. TheSkalawag929 April 4, 2013

      Conservatives NOT being concerned with “the cost”. Now THAT is inconceivable.

    2. davidcayjohnston April 4, 2013

      Wriyer of the piece here…

      You really should read my books, which show how your tax costs are being driven up through many government policies that make little sense. These range from loaning unlimited sums at zero interest to many of the highest earners in America, who legally can earn money today and pay their taxes 30 or more years from now.

      Or how individuals companies I name, and whole industries, derive all of their profits from the taxpayers instead of the market.

      Or how the rigors of market competition are kept in place for smaller firms, but not the 2,600 biggest (which own 80% of all business assets).

      My work has saved taxpayers more than a quarter of a trillion (note that T) dollars, as measured by Congress. So my track record shows almost 50 years of concern about costs and how your tax dollars are used.

      Perfectly Legal (taxes), Free Lunch (subsidies) and The Fine Print (thwarting competition) are all concerned with costs.

      1. Barbara Morgan April 5, 2013

        Mr Johnston, when trying to point the out the problems in our tax system and how it helps the rich and big businesses and hurts the rest of you , you are posting to the blind, deaf and dumb ones.People like labrown69 who believes every lie that people like Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck and so called news networks like Fox not News tells them and do not believe the truth when shown to them with the proof proving it. I don’t know if it has to do with the way students have been taught in the years after the 70’s till today or if we just have to many l don’t want to read and learn things myself, spoon feed me what you want me to know people that believe everything and anything that all people say. Your article was very informative, thank you.

        1. davidcayjohnston April 6, 2013

          Hope springs eternal.

    3. Barbara Morgan April 5, 2013

      Since when did conservatives be concerned about the protection of children, period.? Since Conservatives are willing to cut money to the education of children, cut the money that feed and house the children and cut money for the medical care of chidren, it shows they don’t give a damn about protection of the children just the rich. We are concerned about the protection of children not only in school but i all aspects of their lives and the study is just another ploy by the NRA to make more money money for the weapon and ammo makers to donate to the NRA so the NRA can donate more money to the Republican Party whose only concern for the protection of children is zero unless their parents are worth millions, Liberals want ideas that will protect the children not ideas that will sell more guns and make weapons and ammo makers than they are already.
      I believe that Conservatives also called Rightists are concerned about the protection of the children when they enact real gun and ammo control laws and stop trying to cut the safety net for children that allows children to not go hungry, homeless, without medical and dental care or clothes and closes tax loopholes that allow the rich to pay no or little taxes each year on the millions they make and stop giving corp welfare to businesses and Corporations and others that don’t need it and close the tax loopholes they use to pay no taxes yet still get a refund from the IRS each year. Until you righists are willing to do that , you are not concerned about the children in any shape, form or fashion so go jump in a boiling vat of water.

      1. TheSkalawag929 April 5, 2013

        Well said Barbara. Very well said.

      2. labrown69 April 5, 2013

        Well, you have exemplified the problem. First you have done what almost everybody who reads this left leaning rag does and that is presume that because most of what you said is true about right wingers, utopian leftists therefore have the correct solution. That is not correct.Then true to form you have closed with an ad hominem attack. I’m sorry, our 2nd Amendment rights as reaffirmed by the Supreme Court twice during Obama’s tenure have nothing to do with tax loopholes for the rich or all the other confused leftist rhetoric that gets thrown around by those of you who like you, see this as a partisan football game.

        1. Barbara Morgan April 5, 2013

          No one has all the answers and that is why both sides need to work together.Which one side refuses to do and your post read as most post do that believe what Fox not news and the others speaking. Also you need to read the Heller case 2008 and the different versions of what people think the descision means, because it did not say that government doesn’t have the right to limit the number and types of guns but that it did. I was wrong about saying what post seem to be saying sorry but If it was right no sorry.

  15. elw April 4, 2013

    Clearly this report is just a thin cover over its real purpose, to make more money for the gun industry. I worry not so much about that as the reaction of the representative in Congress, who are spending their effort supporting the desires of the gun industry instead of doing what they are suppose to, protect and serve the American people. Come on, polls show you have overwhelming support for a national register for all gun and to enact a ban on assault weapons and large ammunition magazines. No wonder their approval ratings are in the low teens. They should be thrown out of office; they do not deserve to be there. I hope enough people remember this in 2014.

  16. JDavidS April 4, 2013

    $30 billion so that that looney-tunes LaPierre and the NRA can sell more guns…Yeah, that certainly makes sense. And the idiots in the GOP…read Paul Ryan and his ilk, who want to slash education funding in the name of “slaying the deficit” will just latch right onto this. These assholes haven’t got the brains God gave a three pound rat…

  17. silence dogood April 4, 2013

    When did any of the moonbats who read this crap ever care what a government program costs ?

  18. disqus_CmPS82g3vc April 4, 2013

    NRA management (Lapierre et al.) have been around lead too long. It’s obvious they are suffering from lead poisoning. Encourage their families to intervene.

  19. labrown69 April 5, 2013

    There is a vast distinction between what
    “government has a right to do” by virtue of Heller and other
    precedents and what will be productive, meaningful and
    effective. Even the radical self proclaimed
    ” strict constructionist” Antonin Scalia, has stated that states have a
    right to impose reasonable restrictions.
    With that stipulated, most of our legislators can not even
    define “assault weapon” which is truly a meaningless purely political term.
    They don’t have the slightest understand or possibly are in
    denial about the fact that most of the guns called “assault
    weapons” have an identical counterpart that is perfectly
    legal and/or used for hunting and target shooting with the
    only difference being some inconsequential cosmetic feature
    such as a pistol grip or a flash suppressor having been
    eliminated. The exact same gun. We are not having an honest
    national debate on this topic and it is driven from the left
    by people who don’t know and who don’t care to know and who
    are so married to an ideology that is opposed to guns that
    they believe the end justifies the means and thus will
    happily continue to ignore what I just mentioned even after
    it is pointed out. I voted for Bill Clinton and Barak Obama
    twice each, I not only support same sex marriage but I have
    written songs about it and donated the publishing to the
    repeal of Prop 8 in California where I live, I have two
    daughters and I am staunchly pro-choice so I am surely no
    Fox News viewer or right winger. Having said that, I feel
    the right to keep a gun in my home for the defense of my
    family is sacred and is pretty clearly what the framers
    intended in the 2nd Amendment. The enemy of my enemy is not
    my friend and clearly the NRA is over the top but they are
    not wrong about everything either and the reason that Heller
    and McDonald v Chicago are law is that the NRA stood up.
    There are millions more like me that insist that if you are
    going to limit the availability of weapons that have real practical applications
    such as was proven during the riots in South Central LA in
    which Korean business owners repelled hostile rioters using
    AR15s and tactical shot guns, it should not be because they
    are styled after a military looking weapon, it should not be
    because they are painted a khaki or olive drab color like
    the military look or any other idiotic reason because that is a
    sure tip off that they DO want to confiscate our guns as the
    ultimate goal. Every honest poll reveals that nearly 30% of the population believe all guns should be banned so lets cut the crap with the “nobody wants to take your guns away” stuff. I support
    reasonable restrictions on clip capacity, magazine size and
    I do not believe we need 100 round pancake magazines. I
    think 10 rounds is too little and I would opt for 16 round
    clips to be the limit but that is just my opinion. I live in
    Southern CA where home invasion robberies are common place,
    even in the burbs and if 3 or 4 intruders break in, as
    unlikely as that might seem I do not want to compromise on
    my capability to defend. With reasonable restrictions on clip size in
    mind, I conclude by saying it will not make any significant
    difference and it is more “feel good bullshit” because nuts
    cases will find ways to be nut cases no matter how many
    rounds they are permitted. There are so many clips and
    magazines in circulation that you will not put a dent in
    their availability with these laws even when your great
    Grandchildren are old and on top of that, every country in
    the world makes these and you will only create yet another
    lucrative black market because bad guys will get them.
    Cartels are killing Americans including border patrol and
    prosecutors along the border and our tax dollars paid for
    these murders with our idiotic war on drugs. Trying to
    prevent crooks from getting large clips will not nothing but
    the same … it’s yet another idiotic prohibition that makes
    Crips and Bloods and cartels into Beemer driving land barons.

  20. RobertCHastings April 6, 2013

    I remember watching the coverage of the Columbine shooting. As the writer states, the damage had been done and the shooters had eliminated themselves before the police even entered the building. Same thing with Sandy Hook Elementary. Same thing with the mass shooting in Sweden about two years ago, except the shooter had no intention of killing himself. The writer’s point on that issue is well taken, and well substantiated. The issue of cost makes the whole issue a non-starter. As he said, his estimate of costs does not include capital costs like fences, checkpoints, surveillance, etc. And this is the best the NRA could offer, when Congress is in no mind to spend an additional $36.5B on ANYTHING, let alone school security. And, as a previous poster has said, this was merely a way for the NRA to drum up more sales for its supporters – the gun industry.
    In other places it has been claimed that the power of the NRAis waning, even that many of its current members support thing like universal background checks. A recent Quinipiac poll found that 90% of respondents favored universal background checks, and that number HAS to include many reasonable and responsible gun owners. The writer of the article, himself a gunowner, has pointed the numerous flaws in the NRA plan.
    Alng with universal background checks, Obama has come up with another idea, that sounds good to me. If you want to own and drive a car in the state where I live, you are required by law (supported through court appeals) to own and have in continual force liability insurance. At many workplaces in my state, if you are a smoker or engage in other risky behaviors, you are required to pay higher health insurance premiums. This, too, has been supported through court findings. Guns DO present a public health hazard (after all, how many non-military people die in this country annually from gun violence?) and should be recognized as such, ESPECIALLY by those who INSIST on their Constitutional right to bear arms. We all realize that with rights come corresponding responsibilities. Obama has recently proposed requiring gun owners to carry liability insurance on their weapons. For those of you who own a car and have to pay liability insurance for it, you should be able to understand the reasoning behind this proposal. A car/gun is not, per se, dangerous, but they are POTENTIALLY dangerous, dependent upon the actions of the owner of the car/gun. If I, accidentally, cause an accident with my car that can be found to have been through my carelessness, recklessness,or negligence, I SHOULD be held responsible for the consequences. Should not the same hold true for gun owners?

  21. Rodger Malcolm Mitchell April 6, 2013

    Anyone who believes what the NRA says is a fool, but there is one thing I like about the proposal: If the federal government funded it, think of the additional employment for low-paid people who otherwise would be burger flippers, paper deliverers and gardeners.

    Then again, think about those people and visualize them carrying loaded guns near children. Yikes!

  22. Michael Ross April 7, 2013

    “Funneling” would also give the gunmen an ideal target. One of the copycat shooters following Columbine pulled the fire alarm and waited for his victims outside the fire exit.

    Not that pointing this out would make any difference. The NRA knows this plan wouldn’t work. All they care about is getting the taxpayers to foot the bill for a billion dollars worth of guns.


Leave a Comment

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.