Slaughter of 20 children and six teachers has prompted congressional proposals for gun bans, but no suggestions from President Barack Obama. He might propose restrictions on violent video games, movies and toys, for a start.
When National Rifle Association leader Wayne LaPierre recommended adding a security officer in every school, his words were mostly met with protests and disdain. But he was correct in saying, “The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.”
Virtually all schools are now gun-free zones.
That sounds fine, but it only attracts psychos looking for soft targets. The killing of our soldiers in Fort Hood, Texas, was incredibly in a gun-free zone. Their alleged killer, Maj. Nidal Hasan, was well aware that his 42 dead or wounded victims were unarmed. Soldiers who cannot carry a weapon on their base is a cruel joke. That could be changed by executive order.
Better identification and treatment of mental problems is a more difficult problem, and the president should suggest added research, at the very least.
An alternative and less costly way of providing security for schools would be to allow teachers, with proper training and background checks, to carry a concealed weapon. Many teachers would be willing to be armed. Each state could define and pass such laws.
You realize that we lose on average something like 100 police officers a year, most thru shootings. And these are people who are trained and equiped to respond to a shooter, and usually have to qualify a basic skill level every year or so. But somehow teachers, whose main focus is teaching and dealing with unreasonable parents somehow are going to do better? And that still doesn't address malls, movie theatres, county fairs, amusement parks, etc.
How about the fact that the CO movie theater shooting lasted less than a minute. Less than a minute to kill 12 people and injure 58. I know I read somewhere the exact number of seconds, but I can't find it now. He was also wearing ballistic armor. Even if an armed gaurd was at the theater entrance, dpending on the layout of that theater, it would not have been unreasonable for the gaurd to take longer than that time to get to the right theater. Realize which person in the chaos was the actual shooter, then get a clea
Using yer logic on guns perhaps we should illegalize hammers as more people in th US are bludgeoned to death with hammers an clubs than are killed by guns.
Th point of my comment here is ta illustrate that no matter what ya do people are still gonna kill one another. Doin away with hammers or guns ain't gonna stop that. But a heavy handed approach ta those that commit such crimes an preventin em frum havin access ta mainstream society will reduce such acts of violence.
Use a gun ta commit a violent crime, get yerself publicly executed. Note, this penalty wouldn't extend to usin a gun fer self protection or th protection of some one else who is th victim/recipient of a violent life threatening crime being perpetrated against em.
If these shooters thought thair was someone present that could lethally resist them they wouldn't go there to commit thair crime.
But since it's a "gun free zone" it basically says to th criminally minded, "Welcome, do your bidding we don't have the capability of defending ourselves against you."
Point in fact. Guns do not kill people, people kill people or themselves. How they do it sometimes involves a gun.
Regardless if they use a gun, knife, poison, a sharp stick or a hammer, if people are going to violently threaten people an kill them they are goin ta do it.
So th question remains, since th PD can't be everywhare at once an it's economically impractical ta have a cop at th front door of every household, how would you propose th average law abidin citizen protect th lives of his family, neighbors an himself?
There are currently over 1400, that's FOURTEEN HUNDRED, gun laws on the books, numerous ones that were ignored by the Conn lowlife. And you thing adding MORE laws would have stopped him? Ok, how about this....Best case in your mind I'm sure would be to outlaw all guns. (Thankfully the Supreme court and blown that idea out of the water!). However, if that were to happen, do you really think criminals would not have ways to get them? All that would do would be to make every man woman and child in this country totally defenseless! Guns are the only reason the Japanese didn't attack the continental U.S. in WWII. They were positive that behind every tree was a man with a gun!
Onnley has the right idea. Bring back public executions. Speed up the court system so we don't have these reprobates living for 20 years after they should have been put out of OUR misery!
I live in a "must issue" state and percentage wise we have approximately 20% of Ca. gun violence. And you guys have the most restrictive laws in the country. Yea, that's really working for you, isn't it? Right up there with "hope and change" and Feinstein!
Anyway, while I personally could have easily written it more eloquently and intelligently than you did, I do agree with the gist of your response to SpikeVFR. And since I agree with you this time, I helpfully suggest that you hold off on making one of your usual babbling rants as a further response. Those only seem to damage your credibility (which you certainly don’t need), and I have a feeling that even the most intelligent argument you could muster up would be lost on SpikeVFR. He seems like one of those lispy Bay Area kids who shops at Abercrombie & Fitch, thinks tennis is an actual sport and listens to high school girl music in his Prius whenever he manages to take a break from ogling photos of women in yoga pants on the Internet and annoying all his neighbors in Mountain House.
ON SHEEP, WOLVES, AND SHEEPDOGS
By LTC(RET) Dave Grossman,
You all want guns in schools.
What happens when the oversized male teen over takes the female teacher whom has a gun locked up but was over taken by him . He will now use it on her and a few more of the kiddies in the process.