START A PETITION 25,136,189 members: the world's largest community for good
START A PETITION
x

Newtown Shooting: Gun Lobby Defiant as US Remembers


US Politics & Gov't  (tags: gun control, Newtown Massacre, gun violence, children, news, government, ethics, media, lies, politics, americans )

Cal
- 481 days ago - bbc.co.uk
The US has observed a moment of silence for the 26 victims of the Connecticut school shooting, as a gun lobby group called for armed security at schools.



Select names from your address book   |   Help
   

We hate spam. We do not sell or share the email addresses you provide.

Comments

Rose NoFWDSPLZ (264)
Friday December 21, 2012, 1:52 pm
I don't agree with the gun lobby Thanks Cal
 

John B. (215)
Friday December 21, 2012, 4:27 pm
Thanks Cal for the link to the BBC article. The NRA and the CEO need to do a reality check. Kudos to the two protesters that showed up. Read and noted
 

BMutiny TCorporationsEvil (465)
Saturday December 22, 2012, 1:39 am
The NRA ONLY wants to SELL LOTS AND LOTS OF GUNS, sell to ANYone, men, women, little kids, law enforcement, criminals, crazy people - the NRA ONLY WANTS TO SELL MORE GUNS. They do NOT represent responsible Gun Owners, any more! The NRA ONLY represents MANUFACTURERS AND SELLERS OF LETHAL WEAPONS. The NRA should be IGNORED! and not be allowed to make legislation for the rest of us!

IGNORE THE NRA! They are ONLY interested in their huge PROFIT$$$, NOT in our safety or that of our precious children. IGNORE THE NRA!!! when drafting legislation... and, everybody, pledge to NOT VOTE FOR CONGRESSPEOPLE WHO ACCEPT MONEY FROM THE NRA. That is BLOOD MONEY for our very LIVES when they accept it from the NRA powerful lobby...
 

Patricia H. (477)
Saturday December 22, 2012, 8:30 am
noted
 

duncan burns (0)
Saturday December 22, 2012, 8:33 am
i am ex military and for armed guards and teachers. works well in Israel. ZERO successful attacks on schools since they adopted that in the 70's. BTW hippies, if gov has only arms, what nonconformists do you think they'll round up FIRST? w/o 2nd amendment, the rest of the constitution is just suggestions! Peace! (through superior firepower)
 

annelies j. (71)
Saturday December 22, 2012, 12:23 pm
Close the gun show loophole is a start. I had no idea this existed, 'till my husband pointed it out.
 

Thomas B. (1)
Saturday December 22, 2012, 12:24 pm
A teacher in every gun store!

Apparently, Ft. Hood doesn't have enough guns.

 

James E. (16)
Saturday December 22, 2012, 1:35 pm
Mike Hodgson, “hippies”? You are behind the times in many ways. You may be ex-military, but I am retired Army and combat Ranger, and your argument using Israel as an example is not accurate. Israeli teachers haven’t carried guns at school since the 1970s, although they do employ professional security officers.

For those trying to use Israel and/or Switzerland as examples of low crime rates and guns, they should read the following:

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/12/18/a_league_of_our_own?page=0,0&wp_login_redirect=0

While it is true that guns don’t kill people, people kill people, guns make it much easier to kill.

I would never support the total ban of guns, but reasonable licensing and registration should be the normal. This in not 1787, but 2012, and a far different world than our “founding fathers” could have ever imagined.
 

Tom Edgar (56)
Saturday December 22, 2012, 3:05 pm
The N R A spokesman said. "The answer to a bad man with a gun is a good man with a gun." This medievil (misspelling intended) thinking doesn't say how children are to be armed, or the Teachers, who in the main, have had no training in firearms use. and I have yet to see where any of these crazy killers gave notice that they intended to give anyone the opportunity for an even break. Most of the mythical Wild West shootings were "Dry Gulchers" Billy the Kid preferred back shots. and Earp liked the shot gun as it was more capable of registering a hit. Forget the White Hat Black Hat R N A. There are no honourable shoot outs when the victims are not expecting it.
 

Gloria H. (88)
Saturday December 22, 2012, 3:25 pm
What sane person needs a gun that can ejaculate many bullets at a time? How about selling smart guns that go limp or shoot sblanks if the person holding them is a "bad guy"? If it is a "good guy" the hand gun turns from a puny handgun and swells into a viagra enhanced assault rifle to save the day.
Not sure about the lady handguns. Probably just makes bullets. Lots of them. In pink.
 

Gloria picchetti (279)
Saturday December 22, 2012, 5:50 pm
I don't have a gun and no one needs one except the police and the military.
 

(8)
Saturday December 22, 2012, 6:04 pm
Why do Americans put up with gun lobby idiots? The NRA should be outlawed for promoting weapons of mass destruction.
 

Wayne W. (12)
Saturday December 22, 2012, 8:27 pm
NRA Chief Wayne LaPierre A 'Desperate, Cornered Rat,' 'Lobbyist For Mass Murderers
'http://occupyamerica.crooksandliars.com/diane-sweet/lawrence-odonnell-nras-lapierre-lobbyi

A police officer in every school would cost $6.7 billion / year. Grover Norquist is on the board of the NRA.

The solution Wayne LaPierre suggested today to stop school shootings has already been tried in many places across America, including Columbine High School, where 13 years ago 12 students and one teacher were shot dead. Columbine High School had an armed sheriff`s deputy at the school that day and every day prior to that. But when the moment came, the deputy could do nothing to stop the mass murders.
 

James Maynard (62)
Saturday December 22, 2012, 9:46 pm
Mr. La Pierre's rant just confirmed to me the NRA
is nothing less than another terrorist organization.
Time to shut him down.
 

Louise D. (34)
Sunday December 23, 2012, 2:24 am
The gun lobby is only concerned with profit, as demonstrated with the ridiculous comment made on Saturday, it appears that watching too many westerns has got to them. When six year old children are taught to shoot through doors at people and carrying a gun is seen as self defense will it get through their thick skulls that it is not the wild west but then I think that may take another two hundred years.
 

Colin R. (0)
Sunday December 23, 2012, 2:26 am
The only two countries on this planet that have or want to have armed guards at schools are the USA and Israel. Israel as a result of their illegal and brutal occupation of Palestine and it's people, which invites retaliation, and the US because there is a significant number of citizens who have been born, bred and raised with a cowboy mentality. Small wonder that these are the two countries that head the list of countries that promote, support and finance wars across this planet. Why? Because the arms sales is big business. Carrying arms has NOTHING to do with freedom or democracy or rights as a citizen. It's purpose is solely to make LITTLE people with minimal or zero brain cells feel BIG.
 

Kenneth L. (321)
Sunday December 23, 2012, 5:34 am
There's a FACT that trumps the old 'guns don't kill people, people kill people'.. it's that the vast majority of a population DO NOT kill other people. Only a small minority do. The vast majority of a population are not criminals, only a minority are.
Crimes can be so heinous and contagion of fear so rampant that it APPEARS more threatening than it really is. The NRA and 'everyone needs a gun' mentality feed on this and use this.
It's like way back when you were a kid and the teacher kept the whole class after school because one or two kids didn't behave. The majority are targeted or suffer because of the actions of a minority.
 

Angelica C. (80)
Sunday December 23, 2012, 5:43 am
Wayne W. brings up a good point about the armed Sheriff at Colombine. Schools are usually large buildings with many, many rooms. Some of those rooms lead to more rooms. There are numerous hallways and often, various levels. There may be several or numerous buildings. It would be hard to pinpoint all the many entrances, through windows alone, available to a homicidal maniac. I'm not even talking about side entrances apart from the main entrance. How would anyone know exactly where the murderer was or get there in time to prevent deaths? No. More guns are not the answer.

Wayne LaPierre claims that armed guards at entrances would solve the problem, a point that is utterly ridiculous. He assumes that anyone crazy enough to murder small children as they sit in their classrooms will be polite enough to come through the main entrance. It shows that LaPierre's argument took not so much as a moment of thought. It was designed to keep the money rolling in to the NRA. That's all he cares about.

That his ignorant, greedy, self-serving words were presented as an actual plan would be laughable if the tragedy at Sandy Hook had not occurred.

I bet the Koch brothers have donated huge sums to the NRA since the Sandy Hook massacre.
 

Sharon F. (0)
Sunday December 23, 2012, 12:03 pm
What if the armed guard in a school is in the restroom or on lunch break when an intruder enters the school??? The NRA spokesperson is pathetic; must be related to some of the old, white boneheads in the US Congress!
 

Joanne Dixon (34)
Sunday December 23, 2012, 12:55 pm
NRA. Yup.

http://www.arcamax.com/politics/mikeluckovich/
 

Lois Jordan (55)
Sunday December 23, 2012, 2:26 pm
Thank you, Cal. Yes, the NRA is the lobby arm of gun manufacturers, and refuses to speak for the majority of its members, who say in "private NRA polls" that they want more restrictions. The NRA isn't listening to its own members, and many are giving up their memberships because of this now. Let's keep pressing on and getting the word out and shrink the NRA down to such a size that it can be drowned in a bathtub. Tell your members of Congress you want an Assault Weapons Ban passed.
 

june t. (62)
Sunday December 23, 2012, 2:37 pm
So the answer to a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun. Trouble is, what if the bad guy thinks he is being the good guy, and people just don't understand him... he thinks he is being attacked by bad guys, who think they are being the good guys...
 

Tom Edgar (56)
Sunday December 23, 2012, 2:55 pm
June T. So succinct and so right. Nearly every murderer can justify, to themselves, their actions. Be they personal, political, or military .
 

Dave C. (204)
Sunday December 23, 2012, 5:19 pm
NRA is a four letter word even if it isn't spelled that way.....
 

Pat A. (117)
Monday December 24, 2012, 3:21 am
Thanks Cal - stars to several people - Columbine High had an armed guard - but that didn't seem to prevent any deaths, most sadly.... Canada seems to have fewer problems like this - and has stricter gun laws.... hmmm!
 

Diane O. (151)
Monday December 24, 2012, 4:54 am
It appears that we are divided on gun control, security guards at our schools, etc. It is true that Israel protects their children and it is working. If a "killer" knows that he/she will face an armed guard at a school they may think twice about going there. That is my point. i believe our world has changed and we need to protect our children. There appears to be a sick trend to attack innocent children while at school. We must react to that. The mentally ill are reading about this behavior and know that if they choose to do this there will not be anyone at the schools to stop them. Their 15 minutes of fame....very sad.

If we go the route of having armed guards at school (I prefer our veterans who have returned from war) and it saves one school from attack then it has to be worth it. It may not be 100% effective but to save one school is the point.

I believe we have a right in America to own a gun. If we meet all of the qualifications to be approved to own a hand gun then I'm all for it.

We have to be realists and understand that criminals can break into our homes during the day or night and if we are home we need to protect our families. I will protect my family at all cost. The intruder might have a butcher knife but I'll have a gun and perhaps three children standing behind me. It's a no brainer IMO.
 

Ro H. (0)
Monday December 24, 2012, 6:47 am
no guns
 

Lloyd H. (46)
Monday December 24, 2012, 7:54 am
LaPierre actually doubled down on the double down on "Meet he Press" Sunday. He actually had the brass balls to actually say that there was absolutely no such thing as the "Gun show Loophole". And I hope that I am not the only one sick and tired of the disgusting lie that banning assault weapons and extended clips/ammo drums(the round clips that hold 50 and 100+ rounds) and requiring a back ground check using a National Data base for ALL gun sales is the same as or leads to the banning of all gun sales or the confiscation of every gun in America. Second Amendment rights must come with equal responsibility for protection of the common good and the NRA opposes any and all responsibilities for gun ownership and the sale of guns and ammo.
And let's cut the crap about the NRA representing America or most Americans or even lots of Americans.The NRA always brags about 4 Million members, I know that facts and real math are anathema to Repugs and the NRA but damn 4 Million members is 1.3% of the American population and more importantly for politicians it is ONLY 2.7% of Voting Americans. The NRA controlling the discussion and making of Gun regulations is the tyrrany of a Tiny Minority over the vast majority, hell LaPierre and the Board of the NRA do not even represent more than 25% of their actuall membership when it comes to assault weapons and extended ammo clips.
It is time to tell the Murder for Profit Lobby aka the NRA to go to hell!
 

Carol D. (98)
Monday December 24, 2012, 7:56 am
How come people like the gun lobby in America have been allowed to have so much power over the government
Does not make sense
 

Eddie O. (95)
Monday December 24, 2012, 12:49 pm
I'm opposed to guns for various reasons, one being that we can all be emotional, irrational, people who momentarily get angry, depressed, etc., and do things that we later regret. And if guns are readily available, some people can do instantaneous, irreversible, harm in a nano-second, and never be able to take back the lives that they destroyed.

Also, statistically, it's been shown that many, many, more innocent people, including friends and family members are killed every year with guns than any of the bad guys we're all so afraid of. Part of the reason for this obviously is that a bad guy has a major jump on us, no matter how heavily we're armed. We typically don't expect to be attacked at any given moment, whereas the bad guy knows exactly that he's planning on killing people at that moment. So, by the time we could get out a gun we'd already be dead if the bad guy was attacking us.

But, beside all of this, one can argue for or against having a personal gun for hunting, self-defense, or whatever. The truly unbelievable thing here is someone trying to argue that common people need semi-automatic, or automatic assault weapons with 30 to 100 bullet magazines, Norquist and the NRA just can't come up with an honest defense for this insanity, and when they're pressed on it, they deflect the issue and say that focusing on gun regulation will take us away from focusing on mental health, and other issues here.

This is obviously BS as we can, and absolutely should, do everything and anything we can to reduce the mass murders and insanity, including gun regulations, better mental health care, security measures, etc...

And, of course, stitistics show vividly that countries with fewer guns are extremely more safe than our country is. More guns dramatically lead to more deaths and more suffering and a much less safe society. After all, if we're all afraid of each other and start stockpiling dynamite, or nuclear weapons, would that ever make us safer? And, the same thing applies in regards to us all amassing more assault weapons with massive clips and hundreds of bullets, it only makes us much less safe.

But, as various people pointed out here, it's all about money. The NRA is a massive lobbhist for the gun manufacturers, and none of these groups seemingly care one bit for people's safety and happiness, just their own financial bottom line. There's massive money at stake here, and the NRA isn't about to lose out on any of this money if they can avoid it.
 

(8)
Monday December 24, 2012, 1:03 pm
It's not all about semi=automatic guns and big bullet clips. - I guess the USA is the only industrialised country left to allow hand gun ownership. Civilised countries do not allow this.
 

Diane O. (151)
Monday December 24, 2012, 1:09 pm
Greg, anyone can buy a gun even if it is banned in their country. Check out the murder rate by gun per "civilized" countries.

There's money on both sides of the political aisle where the NRA is concerned.
 

Sheri Schongold (9)
Monday December 24, 2012, 1:52 pm
The NRA thinks it has the God-given right to do as they please. They have plenty of money to bribe Congress. They don't want to admit that some guns shouldn't be allowed except in the military.
 

Gene Jacobson (233)
Monday December 24, 2012, 2:07 pm
The headline on today's Minneapolis StarTribune says: NRA Rejects Any New Gun Laws.

Excuse me? Just when did the NRA become an elected body responsible for passing laws about anything? They are nothing more than a lobbying group who happen to enjoy killing. Oh, they call it the sport of killing, but that doesn't change the truth of it. Killing isn't a sport. It is just exercising the left over primoridial brain that seems most prevalent in men. No one needs a weapon capable of firing 150 rounds a minute to kill Bambi. There is no legal purpose outside law enforcement and the military for such weapons to be in the hands of anyone because if they are left unchecked and uncontrolled they will inevitable end up in the hands of madmen. Yes, men. Virtually no mass murderers are women. It is time we brought some common sense to this issue - assault weapons ought be banned period. We don't let civilians take home F-16's to light up their neighborhoods, nor anti tank weapons, nor mine their property lines, there's no reason to continue allowing weapons like this to be on the street. None. We've lost enough children to the insanity of the NRA and its paranoid bloodlust. If we are to have a national database of dangerous persons, it will have to start with their membership. The very idea that we create a database of mentally ill people is nauseating in a free society. Maybe we should make them sew gold stars on their sleeves too. And make members of the NRA wear emblems so that we can know when someone in our midst is packing. And go somewhere else. This whole silly argument of guns not killing people, people do that should be buried along with the automatic weapons. Guns, all of them, have but ONE purpose. Killing. Easy, not messy, not up close look them in the eyes killing, the kind that is hard to do. I'm a veteran, I believe in the national defense. But I don't believe an armed populace is the way to heaven, well at least not for the armed ones, it certainly may be for others, like the children of Newtown.
 

Gene Jacobson (233)
Monday December 24, 2012, 2:14 pm
"If we go the route of having armed guards at school (I prefer our veterans who have returned from war) and it saves one school from attack then it has to be worth it. It may not be 100% effective but to save one school is the point."

Sorry, Diane. I am one of those veteran's and you may not volunteer me for such duty. I haven't owned a weapon or hunted since my service. I saw all I needed during those three years. And your solution won't work anyway. If all the schools are armed, then it will be malls these madmen turn to, or the streets, or parks, or workplaces. We'd have to have armed guards everywhere, all the time, and that just isn't going to happen. Too pricey for the times for one thing and there are plenty of neighborhoods, you couldn't pay a man, or woman, enough to wander into with a weapon to "keep the peace". Wyatt Earp is still dead last I heard and to be completely safe we'd need one of him on every street corner, on every bus, everywhere. Or we could just stop this insane love affair with killing machines. That would work too. Better.
 

Nancy L. (139)
Monday December 24, 2012, 9:40 pm
Sending a Green Star is a simple way to say "Thank you"
You cannot currently send a star to Diane because you have done so within the last week.
 

(8)
Monday December 24, 2012, 10:52 pm
@ Diane..."Greg, anyone can buy a gun even if it is banned in their country. Check out the murder rate by gun per "civilized" countries"

From Washington Post blog:

Chart: The U.S. has far more gun-related killings than any other developed country
Posted by Max Fisher on December 14, 2012 at 4:50 pm

Data source: United Nations (Max Fisher — The Washington Post)

The Sandy Hook Elementary shooting that killed 27, including 20 children, is already generating the same conversation that every mass shooting in America generates: Why are there so many shootings?

One piece of this puzzle is the national rate of firearm-related murders, which is charted above. The United States has by far the highest per capita rate of all developed countries. According to data compiled by the United Nations, the United States has four times as many gun-related homicides per capita as do Turkey and Switzerland, which are tied for third. The U.S. gun murder rate is about 20 times the average for all other countries on this chart. That means that Americans are 20 times as likely to be killed by a gun than is someone from another developed country.
 

(8)
Monday December 24, 2012, 10:53 pm
Link to the blog

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2012/12/14/chart-the-u-s-has-far-more-gun-related-killings-than-any-other-developed-country/
 

BMutiny TCorporationsEvil (465)
Tuesday December 25, 2012, 1:25 am
Gun culture is ingrained in the U.S. - part of our "pioneer heritage", our American Mythos.
It is futile to try to "ban all guns". I used to believe in that, but I DON'T anymore.
The NRA likes to make propaganda, that ANY gun regulation of ANY kind means a "slippery slope" where "they are going to come and take away ALL your guns". The NRA deliberately and continuously foments Hysteria this way, to serve their purposes.

HERE ARE THE FACTS THE NRA DOESN'T WANT YOU TO KNOW:
Quite a number of years ago, the Gun Market was SATURATED - that is, PRACTICALLY ALL AMERICANS WHO WANTED TO OWN GUNS, HAD THEM. And a good hunting rifle or handgun can last a lifetime, or longer - be passed down to your heirs.
The NRA {who represents GUN MERCHANTS, MORE than gun owners}, realized that their Market had reached a LIMIT, they weren't going to sell lots more guns at the rate they were going.
SO, THE NRA STARTED MARKETING TO PEOPLE WHO ALREADY HAD GUNS - FOR THEM TO HAVE *MULTIPLE* WEAPONS. And bigger firepower and MORE EXPENSIVE, MILITARY-STYLE WEAPONS and MORE EXPENSIVE AMMUNITION.

WHOOPEEEEEE! HUGE PROFIT$$$$$$$ FOR GUN MANUFACTURERS AND SELLERS, and a BRAND-NEW MARKET CREATED FOR ITEMS, ASSAULT WEAPONS, THAT ARE OF NO SOCIAL USE AT ALL!

That's the Free Market, WITH NO REGULATION;
and THAT'S what brought about these killings we see now.... PROFIT$$$$$ ABOVE PEOPLE, ABOVE LIFE ITSELF, ABOVE THE LIVES OF OUR CHILDREN..... HUGE, HUGE, HUGE PROFIT$$$$$.....
 

BMutiny TCorporationsEvil (465)
Tuesday December 25, 2012, 1:38 am
Please FLAG the December 23rd AD by bu D.
These STINKING ADS are for CONTRABAND, FAKE GOODS. They are of course NOT the brand names specified in the ads, brand names that are subject to INTERNATIONAL COPYRIGHT LAW.
They SNEAK their ads onto Care2, because THEY CANNOT *LEGALLY* ADVERTISE THESE CONTRABAND FAKE GOODS ANYWHERE.
These ads which are NOT PAID FOR, COMPETE WITH THE REAL MANUFACTURERS OF THESE BRAND NAMES. This is a HUGE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL BUSINESS.
Please ALWAYS FLAG THESE ADS.
They BREAK INTERNATIONAL LAW by being on Care2!
Care2 should BE MORE CAREFUL TO EXCLUDE THEM. WE CAN HELP. PLEASE FLAG AND KEEP ON FLAGGING.
 

John S. (294)
Tuesday December 25, 2012, 6:35 am
Thanks, noted.
 

Craig Zimmerman (86)
Tuesday December 25, 2012, 9:42 am
The United States has by far the highest murder rate among industrialized countries. All those guns do not make us safer.
 

Mitchell D. (123)
Tuesday December 25, 2012, 11:32 am
We can't igore the NRA, but we don't have to listen to, or buy into, their prpaganda. As BT Mutiny states, thet are only interested in making money for their corporate sponsors: that's what lobbyists do.
It is a sad commentary on our political system, what lobbyists do, but it is what it is, part of how the Plutocracy remains in power.
 

(8)
Tuesday December 25, 2012, 12:21 pm
We have to totally ignore the NRA gun manufacturers/promoters and pass some heavy anti-gun legislation ASAP. The mere idea that more guns will make Americans 'safer' is the height of absurdity. Therefore the NRA must be ignored and treated as a terrorist organisation with a very small brain, They don't want anti-gun laws passed, we do. Simple?
 

Mary Donnelly (44)
Tuesday December 25, 2012, 12:43 pm
Thanks Cal--these sorts of changes require grass roots support; that is difficult to achieve on emotionally charged issues;let's hope these recent incidents move attitudes more than at any time in the past.
 

Chris W. (91)
Tuesday December 25, 2012, 2:45 pm
we have no vote becuse of a nice little thing called 9-11 and a wondeful guy named george w bush who passed this wonderful law named the PATRIOT ACT, that took our rights away to vote on anything like gun laws!...lets get our grass roots in action and repeal this ancient pos out and get our votes back and get some gun laws replaced and start taking the country back!
 

Dandelion G. (401)
Tuesday December 25, 2012, 8:45 pm
Stop the madness get these assault weapons out of our society and then we won't need to arm every doorway in every public building. I see the typical right wing crap being downloaded onto the threads. They wait for the leaders to give the talking points and sure enough word for word it ends up on the threads.
 

Dorothy N. (63)
Wednesday December 26, 2012, 12:19 am
Here's a teacher responding to (profitable) NRA suggestions of placing armed guards in schools while continuing to sell extended clips and assault weapons to civilians.


http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/12/21/1172968/-On-the-issue-of-arming-people-in-schools

Fri Dec 21, 2012 at 03:53 PM PST
On the issue of arming people in schools

by teacherken

I oppose putting more guns into schools

A policeman with a sidearm will be no match for someone with the AR-15 Bushmaster shown above. I do not want to turn our schools into armed camps.

I wrote a version of this as a comment in an on-line discussion about Terry McAuliffe's proposal to place armed policemen in every school in the Commonwealth. Since then we have had a parallel proposal from Wayne LaPierre of the National Rifle Association to have armed NRA trained volunteers in every school. Governor McDonnell has argued for training school personnel to carry weapons as a means of keeping students secure. All three are wrong.

Keep in mind there was an armed policeman at Columbine.

Keep in mind that the Fort Hood shooting took place in the midst of a heavily armed military base.

And keep in mind that just as LaPierre was holding a press conference, a man was walking down a highway in rural Pennsylvania shooting people. He killed three and wounded several others, including State Policemen, before he himself died.

The best use of policemen in schools is the building of relationships.

Please continue as I offer my thoughts beneath the fold. I write this as an educator, someone who had military training with firearms, and someone who is well aware of how unprepared even trained police are to handle a situation like Columbine or Sandy Hook Elementary. ...

... Remember the attack on the Capitol by the insane guy who was off his meds? He shot and killed TWO armed US Capitol Police. Just having an armed policeman does not solve the problem.

The idea of having more guns in schools is frightening. First, even most policemen are NOT trained for how to fire in a crisis situation - their qualification is using stationary targets without adrenaline pumping. Even trained police sometimes get tunnel vision - the way a quarterback does on a receiver and failing to notice the defensive back who promptly picks off his pass.

What kind of ammunition? If it is NOT frangible, then even if shooting a real threat, the chance of a through and through hitting a bystander and/or ricocheting around is significant. If a frangible round is used, anyone hit by that round is probably going to die because of the internal injuries before you could transport them to a hospital, hell, before you could respond an ambulance. ...

... I think Terry McAuliffe is taking a position of political expediency, which while not as bad as McDonnell urging the arming of school personnel is still stupid.

We should remember that the vast majority of school shootings - and workplace shootings - are not done by random outsiders, as was the case last Friday. Most school and workplace shootings occur because of perceived grievances by members of those communities. If we want to keep our schools safe the last thing we need is more guns in schools - and colleges.

I remember an off-the-record conversation with one state's top law enforcement official after Virginia Tech, when one of us asked him if he thought have students or teachers armed could have stopped the tragedy. Himself the owner of many guns he argued it would have made it worse. What if an undercover officer pulled out a gun, might someone else shoot him? If you think this is a stretch, remember that at Tucson Jared Loughner had been disarmed while he was reloading by unarmed civilians. A man with a concealed carry permit came out of the market, saw a man with a gun, unholstered his weapon and took off the safety and was about to fire when he realized the man holding the gun had taken it away from the shooter.

Remember the collateral damage by trained policemen last year in New York City when a lot of civilians were hit by police rounds.

As a long-time teacher, who has taught in the comfortable suburbs of Arlington Virginia and now teaches in an inner city DC school, the presence of additional guns does not make students - or faculty - feel any more safe. ...

... More guards or armed people or police - these do NOT address the issue of too many guns with too much firepower too easily accessible to people who might do us harm.

Yes we need to address mental health issues.

We are less than 5% of the world's population, yet we have over half of the world's firearms.

We also have the highest rate in the world of deaths from firearms of any industrialized nation.

We may have violent video games, but so does Japan, yet they have NO mass shootings and the national total of gun deaths in a country with a population of over 100 million is less than that of some major US cities.

It is our gun culture that we must address and address honestly if we truly want to keep our school children safe. We certainly do NOT want more guns in schools.

 

Rose NoFWDSPLZ (264)
Wednesday December 26, 2012, 1:03 am
Then the children could KILL THE TEACHERS
 

Diane O. (151)
Wednesday December 26, 2012, 7:35 am
The school President Obama sends his two daughters (The Sidwell Shool) has ELEVEN ARMED GUARDS EVERY DAY. IMAGINE THAT...ask yourself the hard question, "Why does Obama send his girls to a school that has 11 armed security guards?
 

Faye Swan (23)
Wednesday December 26, 2012, 7:40 am
No guns for anyone except the police and the military. Police and military personnel should undergo rigorous checks on a regular basis.
 

Kenneth L. (321)
Wednesday December 26, 2012, 7:49 am
Diane, are you out to lunch? He's the POTUS and his children. Targeted by every wacko that is against 'the 'gov't.'
Gene Jacobsen makes an excellent point, as well as most others except Diane, that any mass shooter will just find another target other than schools if they were all armed. There's daycare, malls, churches, community centres, the list is endless..
As one person commented after the recent ambush of the firefighters in Rochester, it would just be like the NRA's 'logic' to now advocate armed guards on every fire truck!
 

Dandelion G. (401)
Wednesday December 26, 2012, 10:53 am
Ok, deflection.....well I'll bite this time.

All Presidents and their families are offered protection, simply because they ARE a target for the position they hold. Is always amazing that when Obama does the same thing, says the same thing, offers polices that the right had always supported, or has the same things offered to him as past Presidents of both parties it seems to be a problem or an issue with some people.

I'm so tired of having that thrown out all the time along with his birth certificate that he is a multipurpose whatever they want to conjure up to bash him on; the so called Socialist Fascist Communist Muslim Gay blah blah blah on and on President, is getting old, is wearing, and the stupid crap is a waste of time when we should be working on actual "real" issues. I'm not even an Obama supporter but I look at his polices not the ridiculous crap others throw out which I do feel and have always felt are racially motivated; perhaps not by all but by many it is. Guise it in what you will most see through the cover.
 

Seth E. (55)
Wednesday December 26, 2012, 2:56 pm
I posted this in a few groups already, but I'm adding a few edits to it here:

After the shooting in Arizona, the NRA preached that someone could have returned fire (even though there were people there who were armed and still found themselves unable to do so).

After the shooting at Virginia Tech, the NRA insisted that if some of the students or faculty had been armed, they could have defended themselves (there was armed campus security, but they obviously couldn't get there in time).

After the shooting at the movie theater in Colorado, the NRA scoffed defiantly that if someone else watching the movie had had a gun, they could have shot back, regardless of the lack of logic about how this could have been done in the midst of the dark and confusion and crowd of people, without hitting unintended targets.

If one of those NRA pricks makes a statement defending gun rights, in the light of the Connecticut massacre, I think it would be justified to use a gun to remove that spokesperson from the gene pool (unfortunately, I was right about the tone of their comments; still waiting on the hoped-for repercussion).

A well-regulated militia, in colonial times, meant a group of civilians committed to defense and protection of their community. The guns they had were manually-loaded, single-shot, blackpowder guns that were very inaccurate. Since then, however, we have developed better firearms, capable of greater range, accuracy, and capacity and power of ammunition, and we have created a standing and reserve military and numerous law enforcement agencies. Those are our modern 'well-regulated militias', so there is no longer a reasonable need to allow civilian ownership of firearms, and if anyone insists that they still want them for hunting or target shooting, we need strict, consistent regulations, at a federal level, and it should be limited to low-capacity weapons used and possessed by well-vetted people only. Furthermore, as military and law enforcement professionals are required to certify with their weapons every year or so, any licensed civilians should similarly be required to submit to re-certification of competence, with failure requiring them to lose their license and surrender their firearms.

Also, right after the Newtown shootings, I spoke with my brother, a police officer in NYC, about the incident, and he not only agreed, but he brought up some additional points about the guns issue.

First, it should be kept in mind that all "illegal" guns started out as legal ones. However, they're either purchased in states with less regulation, then brought to other states to be resold illegally, or someone steals them from a person who bought them legally, and this is usually because they weren't properly stored in locked containers.

In fact, even those who legally own guns for home protection usually don't keep them properly. These are supposed to be kept unloaded and in locked containers, which makes them impractical for "home protection", so in most cases, these owners keep them loaded and accessible enough that they can be reached in the case of a domestic argument, or by curious children, or by burglars.

It's rare to hear of a legitimate case of a homeowner defending themselves with a legally owned firearm, especially when contrasted against cases of mistaken identity, where a family member is accidentally shot, or the person misses the criminal, or the gun never even gets used, and even when the gun owner isn't home, it's still possible for them to be robbed; the burglar probably doesn't know they owned a gun and doesn't care because no one's there for it to be used against them, plus it's one more thing they can steal, so it serves no deterrent purpose, either.

Also, not all guns used in crimes are illegal ones, which begs the question of why someone who would commit such crimes should have been allowed to own them in the first place.

Civilian gun ownership has been an absolute failure, and it's no fault of the founding fathers, as there's no way they could have foreseen the degree to which what had been a basic tool of survival, in their time, has evolved to become a very effective tool for doing harm, and no longer as important to our lives as it was to theirs.

Gun regulations shouldn't be seen as undermining the 2nd Amendment because we still would have our 'well-regulated militias' in the form of our police and military, and these idiots whining about how un-American it would be to infringe upon their rights should stop being so hypocritical when they claim to be so worried about the Constitution while insisting they need their guns in case the government ever decides to come out to get them.

To quote Lynyrd Skynyrd's song, "Saturday Night Special":

"Well handguns are made for killin'
They ain't no good for nothin' else
And if you like to drink your whiskey
You might even shoot yourself
So why don't we dump 'em people
To the bottom of the sea
Before some ole fool come around here
Wanna shoot either you or me"
 

(8)
Wednesday December 26, 2012, 4:12 pm
Want to stop school shootings? Get rid of the schools (and the NRA)
 

Diane O. (151)
Wednesday December 26, 2012, 4:33 pm
No, Kenneth, I'm not out to lunch. Rahm Emanuel's children also have an armed guard at their school. We should have an armed guard at every school at least one. We have a trend in our country where the mentally insane among us, especially the young, want their 15 minutes of fame...shooting innocent children and then the cowards put a bullet through their head. We must protect our children from the loons.

Banning guns won't work. Even the President knows that. However, he'll posture and do his bully pulpit sermons meanwhile he has his daughters protected. Think about it. We have armed guards at malls for crying out loud.
 

(8)
Wednesday December 26, 2012, 4:44 pm
"Banning guns won't work" ? - Maybe not immediately but as the population grows there would be less guns per capita. If we don't start now we will end up with more guns, more loonies and more mass murder. Armed guards in schools is absurd. If stationed at the front door a killer would enter through the back door.
 

Diane O. (151)
Wednesday December 26, 2012, 4:51 pm
Sorry, Greg, you live in America....Second Amendment. I'll have a gun in my home to protect myself in case a crazed drug addict decides he wants to break in and kill me. We have armed guards at airports, protecting the president, at malls and in banks, etc. The least we can do is protect our children with the same gusto.
 

Roseann D. (175)
Wednesday December 26, 2012, 4:55 pm
No ones talking about negating the Second Amendment. Relinquishing freedom for security and you'll have neither. I wouldn't want my kids growing up in a creepy police state which is what armed guards in schools, checkpoints, malls, banks, and everywhere else resembles.
 

Seth E. (55)
Wednesday December 26, 2012, 5:46 pm
Kenneth put it politely as "out to lunch", but I'll be more direct about it: Diane, you're either in denial or lacking in the capability to think intelligently and logically (that's direct, but without being so rude as to go with "stupid"...yet).

The 2nd Amendment doesn't mean that anyone and everyone should or can get guns.

As far as you wanting to have a gun in your house to defend yourself against a 'crazed drug addict', first off, not all burglars are drug addicts, nor are they crazed, and if they do wish to commit a burglary, they'll usually pick a place with no one home, so you're not likely to get a chance to use the gun to defend yourself.

In fact, it's more likely that the burglar might find that gun and steal it, and then they, or someone else they give or sell the gun to, will use that gun to commit other crimes, maybe even killing people.

Even if someone did commit a home invasion, if you bothered to read my previous post, a point my brother (an officer with NYPD) made when we discussed the Newtown incident was that gun owners are supposed to keep their weapons locked and unloaded, with the ammunition stored in a separate, locked container. If you were to follow these recommended guidelines, your gun wouldn't do you much good in defending yourself against such an invasion, and if you chose NOT to follow those guidelines, then you'd be leaving a loaded weapon available for theft (rather than the thief having to steal an unloaded gun, for which they'd have to obtain the ammunition elsewhere, making it less possible to use to hurt anyone), or it could make you quicker to pull the trigger on a family member walking down a darkened hallway, with you unable to tell the difference while half asleep and flowing with adrenaline, or it might make you tempted to pick it up to threaten someone in case of a heated argument, or you could consider using it in a moment of severe depression, or even if you were able to pull it on an intruder, you could kill someone who's unarmed, leaving them to bleed on your floors (which you'll then have to get professionally cleaned to eliminate the stains and biohazard contamination), or you could miss your target entirely, making it possible for them to rush and subdue you and then use your gun against you.

There are countless other scenarios that could occur, but I doubt you've considered even the smallest fraction of them.

Even in the case of a school shooter, it's been brought up by others here that a security guard might become a primary target, with the shooter wanting to take them out first, before moving on to shooting others, or they might not be able to reach the shooter's location in time to be of any help, or they could have a bad day and become a disgruntled shooter themselves. It's also likely that even if they did reach the shooter, rather than killing himself or herself, the shooter might decide to engage the security guard, creating a crossfire and prolonging the danger to innocent bystanders.

You're even wrong about banning guns; if they're not available legally, it will significantly impede the chances for people to obtain them illegally because they won't be able to steal them from careless legal owners anymore, and they won't be able to get them from gun shows or shops in states with lenient regulation, from which they can be transported to other states and resold. Then it's just a matter of getting the illegal guns off the streets. That would probably even make it easier for them because they'd know who the bad guys are; if they have a gun, it's not going to be a law-abiding citizen who got too jumpy.

I know your right-wing disrespect makes you hate the President and his family so much as to wish to see them stripped of such protection so that they could be left open to attack, and that makes you a horrible person, as I've said to you previously on other threads, but it helps to have a clue about a topic before you offer such worthless input.
 

Kenneth L. (321)
Thursday December 27, 2012, 4:41 am
Yes you are out to lunch Diane comparing the POTUS who a a giant magnified target for wackos to yourself in your home or anyone else.
Diane O. is full of fear and spreads it. An active fear merchant.
Methinks Diane is an NRA member. I wouldn't want to be within 500 miles of 'survivalists' or their minds who fund and support the NRA and would defiantly blow their neighbors or friends to bits "if they 'try to get my food!" to save their own personal hide. Tooth and claw crapola that you were supposed to leave behind in your Neanderthal days.
 

Rebecca Y. (26)
Thursday December 27, 2012, 2:56 pm
I'll be 75 in 2013 and if I ever buy a gun and the bullets to go with it, I know exactly where I'd use it!!! The Constitution says nothing about ammunition so I say BAN ALL BULLETS....the NRA can go suck their own guns! and quote the Constitution anytime they want, no one will stop them from buying their stupid guns...the Constitution will be upheld and all of us other people will be happy once more.
 

Janine H. (105)
Sunday January 6, 2013, 6:22 am
maybe or maybe not... thinking about the news, that more weapons have been sold since these terrible killings... somehow it seems, as if everything to make the rights about weapons seems useless...

somehow wild west (or middle ages?) mentality?

Why not making these rights more strict: someone who wants a weapon has to have a minimum age (with 16 allowed to drive a car, with 21 adult and allowed to consume alcohol, and with which age allowed to use a weapon, isn't it weird?) and why not asking for a test about mental/psychic health? Someone who wants a weapon and who wants to use it should have a GOOD MENTAL/PSYCHIC HEALTH and he/she should be completely sure about this RESPONSIBILITY, that a WEAPON IS made FOR KILLING and that he/she does not use it for killing, running amok, etc. only as protection...

as child i went through hell (sexual abuse, caused by others in school and by confirmands - the priest left me alone, and so he killed religion for me, the others killed my childhood, and me, too) and too often i wished, i would have a weapon and hold it directly at the head of each of these tormentors, NOT to shoot, NOT to kill, but to let them feel, how it is to have fear...

i was thrown in hell, and still in it, without hope... i can imagine how the girl in India must have felt...
about the families i understand that they wish their children would survive, but what a life is this when it is only the body which is still alive, when the "soul" (or whatever)is
 

Diane O. (151)
Sunday January 6, 2013, 10:31 am
I also believe that all of our schools should have armed security guards. The liberals keep crying about our returning vets who cannot find jobs...this is the perfect job for them until they can find something more in their field.

The Sidwell School, where Obama's daughters go to school has 11 armed guards and they are actively seeking to hire one more. This is the way it should be IMO. Protect our children at all costs.
 

Pavel Tajc (1)
Saturday January 19, 2013, 5:23 am
All last 14 school shootings had ONE thing in common [something else than guns].
More data here
Please, support petition for proper investigation of school shootings.
http://www.thepetitionsite.com/967/364/876/demand-federal-investigation-into-psychiatric-drugs-school-shootings/
 
Or, log in with your
Facebook account:
Please add your comment: (plain text only please. Allowable HTML: <a>)

Track Comments: Notify me with a personal message when other people comment on this story


Loading Noted By...Please Wait

 


butterfly credits on the news network

  • credits for vetting a newly submitted story
  • credits for vetting any other story
  • credits for leaving a comment
learn more

Most Active Today in US Politics & Gov't

Cal Mendelsohn

Cal M.
Cal's contributions:
Stories noted recently: 168
Stories submitted: 22195
Front Page stories: 19124




 
Content and comments expressed here are the opinions of Care2 users and not necessarily that of Care2.com or its affiliates.