I don’t think this is a good idea at all. I wouldn’t want my kids going to school knowing the teachers and staff were packing heat. Would they really be cool-headed enough to react in this kind of situation? I think it spells more trouble. We don’t need more guns to solve the problem of too many guns.
Your kids would be much safer if their teachers knew how to shoot a gun and would protect the kids with it. Sacrifice your kids if you want for your silly little liberal agenda, but I want my grandkids protected.
I’m not sacrificing anyone and I don’t have a silly little liberal agenda. I wonder if these teachers, who are not trained peace officers, would actually be able to respond in such a stressful situation whether they’ve taken some little gun safety class or not. In the meantime, we have loaded firearms in our schools where they could be accessed by the bad guys, kids, or vandals. Your post lacks any type of intellegience, only gun-loving rehtoric.
I agree, Libby. I can just imaging the control and restraint that a trained police officer needs to not pull the trigger in a given situation. I can only imagine the little control an inexperienced person with a gun would have. I’m for the second amendment but they have to remove any rights to civilians with assault rifles…that is non-negotiable. But you’re right in saying we don’t need more guns to fix the problem of there being too many guns out there in the wrong person’s hands.
Yes, assault weapons need to go. There’s no good reason to have one, in my humble opinion.
December 24, 2012 at 2:58 pm
Got Insurance? says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
So….are you saying that all police officers and trained law enforcement officers always respond 100% correctly and accurately in stressful situations? In the minutes that it took for police to arrive to the school in Newtown…..most of children were already dead.
Is the inherent problem really too many guns, or is it really negligence on the part of the gun owner and people in general? I have 4 healthy kids and they don’t have access to any of my firearms or ammunition. The options available for securing your property – safes, trigger locks and such – would have helped tremendously. If anyone in my home suffered from a condition that caused me to remotely question their mental well-being, I’d even find another location to secure my firearms. It’s just not worth the risk.
If you think schools should continue to be PRIME TARGETS due to their “Gun Free Zones” (which excludes criminals, because by definition, criminals do not obey laws), how do you stop future mass murders?
Why does a civilian need to have a semi-automatic assault weapon?! The deer are organizing and fighting back?? I have no issue with (and have used) pistols and rifles but I cannot grasp the reason that someone would need an assault weapon other than 1) planning a mass revolt, 2) planning a mass murder, 3) to overcome an emotional need that isn’t being met elsewhere (I’m a big man because of my gun…) If there is another reason, please let me know because I want to be open to other points of view – I just don’t see it.
By the way, my wife teaches and is TERRIFIED of this idea. Between the teachers who are nearing (or past) retirement age, have trouble seeing or moving around very quickly, who have mental instability problems of their own, and the children who have mental instability issues or the children who only play video games all day and would honestly just think that the gun is another toy to play with, making teachers carry guns is a very, very bad idea.
I firmly believe that our country suffers from a lack of accountability and responsibility. When students in a bus are killed because of a drunk driver, no one calls for us to restrict the use of vehicles. When medication or food is tainted and causes sickness or death, no one calls for us to stop the manufacturing of food or medicine. Each of these scenarios is caused by individuals being either negligent or down right irresponsible. Why is this situation any different?
First of all, I certainly agree that this country suffers from a lack of personal responsibility. I just don’t see what that has to do with assault weapons. When students are killed by a drunk driver, no one calls for the restriction of the use of automobiles because in this case the automobile was not being used for its intended purpose – to get people somewhere safely and quickly. There may however be a call for stricter sentences for drunk drivers. When medication is tainted and causes sickness or death, there is not a call for a cessation of production of all medication or food, but if there is a defect in the product, and it causes more harm than it helps, then the manufacture of that product is stopped. That is exactly what I’m saying. Handguns are wonderful for target shooting and protection. Hunting rifles are wonderful for hunting. I’m still not sure what assault weapons are for.
To clarify. All everyone is asking (myself, Kev1n, Libby, CT Agent, Captain Planet, Ron, etc) is
WHY DO WE NEED ASSAULT WEAPONS?
WHAT ARE THEY USED FOR?
Fairly simple question. Just looking for a straight answer.
December 27, 2012 at 2:24 pm
Taxpayer says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Vehicles, medication and food cannot be compared to Assault guns. Those items are essential for society to survive and each has a purpose. Assault Guns are a hobby, at best. Get rid of them!
December 19, 2012 at 2:40 pm
Stacey says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Teachers have a huge responsibility already. I think adding the responsiblity of having guns on hand goes above & beyond their call of duty. Then there is the other side of the equation where we are seeing more and more cases of teachers being accused (and often charged) with abusing students. How do you regulate what teachers are mentally sound to carry a gun and not go off the deep end, and misuse their weapon?
This is a wonderful idea!! (note the sarcasm) If we give the teachers guns we will make sure that no media outlet or attorney goes without work in the future. Of course the next headline will read “TX School tragedy – Student takes teacher gun and accidentally shoots classmates.” If a parent cant keep a firearm locked and protected from their children what makes us think a teacher can.
You’re so ignorant of responsible gun ownership and handling your unenlightened statement doesn’t deserve a response. You’re hopeless. The only remedy to what happened at Ct. would have been for someone to have shot Lanza before he did so much damage.
I guess you haven’t read all the headlines where children are killed by their parents guns, innocent people are shot while hunting, a police officer accidently discharges his weapon at a party injuring a guest… I could go on and on, but there is no such thing as responsible gun ownership and handling. You don’t know who might get ahold of that weapon and what they’ll do with it. A locked gun cabinet? Joke. “Hidden” where no-one can find it? Joke. If it’s in a gun cabinet or hidden, it’s not going to protect you. You have to keep it out, loaded, in the night stand or on the table to be sure you’ll have it when you need it. Your whole mindset is a joke.
Let’s just train the military to teach the youth and turn this system truly into a police state, then. Just how long does it take to train today’s teachers to be soldiers? Heck, even the police officers have to wait for SWAT. Otherwise, like what happened in New York, they just start shooting innocent bystanders. Adam Lanza wasn’t afraid of being killed either. Pointing a gun at him isn’t going to scare him. He pointed a gun at himself and pulled the trigger. If he didn’t have several clips and the weapon he chose to massacre those kids, he at least couldn’t have shot so many. What Lanza needed was some mental health assistance. Maybe that could have avoided this tragedy. I’m not against guns, but maybe without a weapon with the purpose of only killing other people and at a rapid pace, this also could have avoided, again, at least some of the bloodshed.
My personal position on the Sandy Hook tragedy is that it is too soon to address gun control issues. It is time to reflect, to mourn, and above all, to be humbled and awestruck at the actions by heroic teachers and staff on that day, some who made the greatest sacrifice, so that children might have a chance to live.
Their lives aren’t currency to be spent on *any* political agenda.
Amen, Jon. However, you heard the president say Joe Biden will report back to him in january with a solution. He doesn’t want anyone to have time to reflect, mourn, etc. He wants emotions running high in order to push his legislation forward to take away our right to protect ourselves. He has always been against anyone having a gun. There is no easy solution but passing more laws isn’t the answer.
He has not “always been against anyone having a gun.” Quit spreading lies. He doesn’t give a shit who has a gun and never has. He’s never spearheaded any gun legislation. For you to defend guns after what happened in CT is unconsciounable. Why does anyone need with an assault weapon?
I never claimed to be unbiased on the issue. I for banning of assault weapons and large magazine clips, closing the gun show loophole, and requiring background checks on all gun purchases. Plus, I think if you own a gun and it is involved in a crime you should be responsible along with the criminal. Keep your target shooting and hunting, but no-one needs an assault weapon or military weapons. They’re good for nothing but killing people. And I don’t fear the gun, I fear the nut holding the gun.
December 20, 2012 at 2:49 pm
CT Agent says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Do you need an assault rifle to protect yourself, Perplexed? Don’t think so.
So, if nobody has one, then nobody needs one. Thank you for the endorsement to ban assault rifles.
December 21, 2012 at 11:29 am
Jon says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
@Ron
In a perfect world–yes.
So, what’s your plan to keep assault weapons out of the hands of criminals–who had them even during the assault weapon ban?
December 21, 2012 at 12:00 pm
Ron says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
If you think about it, the evil things that have been using these assault weapons against innocent people were not criminals before the attacks and obtained the guns legally. The criminals that you mention are not the ones committing these attrocities with illegally obtained firearms.
December 21, 2012 at 12:54 pm
Jon says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
@Ron
Please cite your resources to support those statements.
Also–the two arguments are dissimilar. You are much more likely to be the victim of a violent crime than you are to be involved in a situation like Sandy Hook or the Colorado theater shooting.
December 21, 2012 at 1:38 pm
Ron says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
My resource is my memory. I do not recall any report that any of the shooters using assault rifles to shoot innocent people had criminal pasts or obtained their weapons illegally. If that is incorrect, please provide that information with your source and I will retract my statement.
December 27, 2012 at 3:10 pm
FFA says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Not if your a good shot. Only takes one bullet to kill.
December 21, 2012 at 10:09 am
Ron says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Obama has signed only 2 bills regarding guns. Both expanded gun rights. The right to carry on Amtrak and in National parks.
Ron, to refute your earlier statement, see the South Side of Chicago. Gang Banger carry these assult weapons all the time. They have criminal past.
Chicagos top cop was quoted as saying after the Colorado shooting that was a typical day in Chicago (the number murdered).
I can not agree that someone in a civilized society should have an assult – military style rifle, hand gun – anything that could fire a massive amount of bullets in just a few seconds.
I dont agree with arming all teachers either. I do think that someone in the school should be armed and trained – maybe a princlple that sits right by the entrance of the school. Someone referred to the insurance risk of that. A big obstacle to over come. A big expense that will be debated.
What ever the solution, glad its not up to me. People think it cant happen here. The folks in CT learned the hard way it can happen ay time, any where. In a school. In a movie theater. On a college campus. Oak Creek Wisocnsin.
All I can do is cross my fingers and pray it dont happen in my back yard.
When should we have the discussion? An innocent person is shot and killed every day in this country. Just because those incidents are not covered by the national news, should we not mourn them as well?
Should we wait until we have gone a week, 2 weeks or a month without some innocent person getting killed by gunshot to have the discussion?
Or, perhaps when emotions are not running so high that it blindsides logical discourse and debate?
How about when people are able to see that base hyperbole is not, in fact, logical discourse?
How about the fact that it is morally reprehensible that people are using these children’s lives to push their own rhetoric (pro, or anti gun) without more than a passing glance at actually taking the time to reflect on the tragedy itself.
It’s disgusting. And the people who perpetuate it are a large part of the problem.
Good or bad, this is how public discourse takes place. Have you not noticed how short our attention is span as a country? We discuss things when they are in our face because there will something else tomorrow.
My point was that if we do not have the discussion until we are done mourning, the discussion will never take place. If that is the goal, then so be it. Just don’t say that we can have the discussion later because it just won’t happen.
Could you imagine if President Bush waited until all of the victims of 9/11 were buried until he addressed terrorism?
The 9/11 attacks were from outside our country by foreign nationals.
This loss is an internal issue within the US.
And yes, I remember Bush’s immediate response. The Patriot Act–an insidious infraction of our civil rights that unfortunately still persists.
That actually proves my point. Thanks.
December 21, 2012 at 11:41 am
Libby says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
And don’t forget the attack and war on Iraq that had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks.
December 21, 2012 at 11:57 am
Ron says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Jon,
My point is that we have always addressed issues as they are presented. The longer we wait, the more likley something else will take its place and the issue will not be resolved. That is exactly what the NRA is banking on by remaining silent. They know that if they enter the conversation, it will just keep the issue on people’s minds. But if they wait, the anger will dissipate as it usually does.
December 26, 2012 at 7:33 pm
Bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Libby:
I’m sorry, Saddam harboring Osama Bin Laden had nothing to do with us going after the 9/11 attackers?
Your 9/11 bias is showing again. You do not know what you’re talking about with 9/11. As I showed before, you didn’t even know where Osama was found, and why that was important. He was being hidden (known for a fact through intelligence) by Saddam.
Saddam was not complying with UN Sanctions, and would not let us check for Bin Laden, who we knew was in the area at the time.
Stop trying to state that 9/11 was used to start a war with Iraq. Bin Laden used 9/11 to start a war against the United States, and attempted to include Iraq in that war. That is what happened.
No one was mislead regarding Iraq. We put forth the information that said Bin Laden was there (from the same sources that eventually lead to Osama’s death) and we put forth the UN Sanctions, quoted on day one for the reasons for going to war with Iraq. There was no twisting whatsoever, other than by liberal media to try and spin a lie.
You do not even begin to compete on Iraq knoweldge in comparison to me. You don’t even know who was tortured that lead to Saddam. You don’t even know there’s more than one Abu who was held and gave information on Bin Laden. You don’t even know that Saddam DID hide Bin Laden, and that Bush explicitly said let us inspect your weapons, let us come for Bin Laden, are you’re gone. Saddam had a choice. He fucked up. Not Bush. Bush stepped up. So let’s stop with the Iraq comments.
December 20, 2012 at 11:32 am
Bubba says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
I personally don’t believe we could ever adequately prepare teachers or administrators to react responsibly in such a shocking, horrific situation. There’s a major difference in some basic training course to learn how to fire a weapon versus using the weapon responsibly, i.e. being fully aware of your “line of fire” at all times. Even cops sometimes get caught up in the adrenaline and chaos and will surround a suspect’s car, all drawing weapons from each side of the car. If one pulls the trigger, there’s a great chance they will strike a fellow officer. That goes against basic, responsible gun use, and even these guys are supposedly trained for these scenarios. I still think installing an armed cop at every school, from elementary up to high school, would be the best option to help deter these cowards from attacking innocent kids. I sure wouldn’t mind paying a little bit more in taxes to help subsidize this. We have to do something…
That would be a good job for some of our veterans retiring from the military. However, I disagree that teachers or principals couldn’t be trained to do the same thing. However, I’m not exposed to too many people that aren’t mature enough to be trained. Some areas of our country would be hard pressed to produce a general population level headed enough to do the job. Where do Libby and Planet live?? that’s the regions I’m referring to – Blue areas. Wouldn’t want to give Planet a gun.
I have a ton of respect for our military, but with them being jerked around over the last few years with countless tours,and the issues many already have with PTSD, I don’t particularly like the idea of using military vets. Too hard to tell which ones would be a good fit or more of a liability. I mean no disrespect, because there are a lot that would make great candidates for this type of job. When I served in peacetime in the mid-90’s at Ft. Bragg, we had a sergeant in our company “snap” one morning (10/27/95), didn’t show up for formation, hid in the woods and shot at us while we were forming to head out for a 4-mile run.. killed one officer and wounded 18. Watching about 1,000 airborne infantry soldiers, unarmed, run for their lives as it unfolded REALLY makes me humbled with the utmost respect for these female teachers that charged the CT gunman. They are true heroes in every sense of the word. Of course, there are some “bad apple” cops out there, too. Just a tough situation to try to resolve. You can’t predict a bat-sh1t crazy individual that decides one morning to become a household name. These psychos unfortunately have the element of surprise and therefore, the upper hand, alot of times. I sure hope we figure out something to protect our innocent kids.
Bubba, Something to think about, but people close to me have suffered with PTSD and the problems were there but they weren’t so unstable that they would have “cracked” and started killing people. PTSD doesn’t make people commit those kinds of crimes just like post partum depression doesn’t cause a woman to drown or kill her kids. Those people have character flaws or maybe even on a drug that can make one crazy.
Where did you get your psychiatric degree, Perplexed? The Sears & Roebuck catelog? You don’t know what you’re talking about. Stick to watching Criminal Minds and leave the diagnosing to real professionals.
February 1, 2013 at 2:59 pm
parazig says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
I dont know who you have been talking to but you are totally misinformed. I was an Airpliceman in the USAF for four years with a tour in Nam. Teachers are there to teach not to have to have the added burden of security. It is one thing to know how to handle a gun, it is a whole different matter to handle a situation. No short course is going to teach that. Ans as for PTSD we in Vietnam invented it. Almost 85 90% of those who have served there are productive citizens, the crazed PTSDed Vietnam era is over. Like you they have no concept of just what PTSD is. There are times when dealy force is not needed. One short course is not going to teach them that, only experience does. Yes CT was a bad incident, but we don’t need any “knee jerk” reactions. Most of those kind of shootings were committed by mentally ill people and there lies and along with gang bangers the problems. And the person whon said that 1 person a day gets killed by a gun, is bogus. The CDC states that 4.3 homicides are commited per 100,000 by a gun. More are killed by hammers than guns. All it would take is one mistake by a teacher a child perhaps, getting killed and all hell would break loose. It is one thing to be trained, it’s another to be faced with the real deal. It is a tough problem to solve and it is not going to be solved easily or soon. I cannot get a permit in my state even though they have an exemption for Military, honoraby discharged,even though I earned an ” Expert Marksmanship Ribbon and medal with the .38 cal. revolver.” And my DD214 says I was an Air Policeman. I stil have to prove I was trained in the use of small weapons. I would volunteer to serve as security to protect our kids without pay. And if I told you some of the hairbrained ideas in my state on this issue, your hair would stand up. There are many ex cops, ex service men and women, and ex federal secuity personnnel that could fill the bill. I would hate to think money is at issue here but I am beginning to feel that way.
I’m curious, Libby. Do you think Hollywood with their violent, sick movies, the violent games where kids can vicariously rape, shoot, beat up others have anything to do with the problem of mentally ill or evil people resorting to these violent acts?
How about the Cologne School massacre June, 1964 (8 kids, 2 teachers dead). Canada 12/1989 – 14 killed and 13 more injured). March 1996, killed 16 small childre and a teacher with .357 magnum revolvers, and 2 9mm pistols. 4/2002 18 died at a school in Germany. Then if you want to talk about the Jewish school children murdered by the Palestininans that could be proven also.
Article in our local paper today. All I want to add is it’s a good thing she had a gun and knew how to use it!
Police have released the following information about a fatal shooting this morning.
“On 12-25-12 at 2014 hrs, APD responded to a disturbance call in the 1000 block of Minda Lane. Upon arrival, responding officers contacted Lawanda Taylor. She reported her estranged ex-boyfriend, Earnest Gonzales, came to the residence and attempted to gain entry by kicking a side door. Gonzales fled the scene after he discovered Taylor called the police.
“On 12-26-12 at 0209 hrs, Gonzales returned to the residence and gained entry to the house by forcing open the front door, causing considerable damage. Gonzales entered the residence and assaulted Taylor. Also present in the house at the time of the assault was a 16 year old and a newborn child (both are children of Taylor).
“During the assault, Taylor retrieved a .380 handgun (which she was in legal possession of) and fired one shot, striking Gonzales in the left side.
“Gonzales left the residence and was located by responding patrol officers in the front yard of the residence. Gonzales was transported by ambulance to Hendrick Medical Center where he succumbed to his wound. Gonzales’ body was transported the Tarrant County Medical Examiner’s Office in conjunction with an autopsy order issued by J.P. Deatherage.
“Counselors from the Regional Victim Crisis Center and advocates from The NOAH project responded to the scene and assisted the victim.
“This case will be presented to a Taylor County Grand Jury for review. We do not expect any criminal charges to be filed in this case.”
The same day of the Sandy Hook massacre, twenty-two children were stabbed and brutalized in Central China. Horrific. However, they are all alive. Our children are dead. If the knife weilding man had an assault weapon, they would also be dead.
I don’t know. I would much rather see an apple on the teachers desk than a .45 automatic.
The solution to this problem is not more guns. Talk about escalating the situation.
I agree. When the authorities show up, how do they differentiate between the good guys and bad guys if everyone has a gun?
The bad guy would be laying on the ground with hundreds of bullett holes in them by the time the authorities show up.
I don’t think this is a good idea at all. I wouldn’t want my kids going to school knowing the teachers and staff were packing heat. Would they really be cool-headed enough to react in this kind of situation? I think it spells more trouble. We don’t need more guns to solve the problem of too many guns.
Your kids would be much safer if their teachers knew how to shoot a gun and would protect the kids with it. Sacrifice your kids if you want for your silly little liberal agenda, but I want my grandkids protected.
I’m not sacrificing anyone and I don’t have a silly little liberal agenda. I wonder if these teachers, who are not trained peace officers, would actually be able to respond in such a stressful situation whether they’ve taken some little gun safety class or not. In the meantime, we have loaded firearms in our schools where they could be accessed by the bad guys, kids, or vandals. Your post lacks any type of intellegience, only gun-loving rehtoric.
I agree, Libby. I can just imaging the control and restraint that a trained police officer needs to not pull the trigger in a given situation. I can only imagine the little control an inexperienced person with a gun would have. I’m for the second amendment but they have to remove any rights to civilians with assault rifles…that is non-negotiable. But you’re right in saying we don’t need more guns to fix the problem of there being too many guns out there in the wrong person’s hands.
Yes, assault weapons need to go. There’s no good reason to have one, in my humble opinion.
So….are you saying that all police officers and trained law enforcement officers always respond 100% correctly and accurately in stressful situations? In the minutes that it took for police to arrive to the school in Newtown…..most of children were already dead.
Is the inherent problem really too many guns, or is it really negligence on the part of the gun owner and people in general? I have 4 healthy kids and they don’t have access to any of my firearms or ammunition. The options available for securing your property – safes, trigger locks and such – would have helped tremendously. If anyone in my home suffered from a condition that caused me to remotely question their mental well-being, I’d even find another location to secure my firearms. It’s just not worth the risk.
If you think schools should continue to be PRIME TARGETS due to their “Gun Free Zones” (which excludes criminals, because by definition, criminals do not obey laws), how do you stop future mass murders?
Nt much notice in light of our problems, but a similar situation happened in China – with a knife. 22 kids injured: http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20121218/odd-news/knife-attack-in-china-school-caught-on-tape.450118
right – 22 kids INJURED not DEAD.
Why does a civilian need to have a semi-automatic assault weapon?! The deer are organizing and fighting back?? I have no issue with (and have used) pistols and rifles but I cannot grasp the reason that someone would need an assault weapon other than 1) planning a mass revolt, 2) planning a mass murder, 3) to overcome an emotional need that isn’t being met elsewhere (I’m a big man because of my gun…) If there is another reason, please let me know because I want to be open to other points of view – I just don’t see it.
By the way, my wife teaches and is TERRIFIED of this idea. Between the teachers who are nearing (or past) retirement age, have trouble seeing or moving around very quickly, who have mental instability problems of their own, and the children who have mental instability issues or the children who only play video games all day and would honestly just think that the gun is another toy to play with, making teachers carry guns is a very, very bad idea.
I firmly believe that our country suffers from a lack of accountability and responsibility. When students in a bus are killed because of a drunk driver, no one calls for us to restrict the use of vehicles. When medication or food is tainted and causes sickness or death, no one calls for us to stop the manufacturing of food or medicine. Each of these scenarios is caused by individuals being either negligent or down right irresponsible. Why is this situation any different?
First of all, I certainly agree that this country suffers from a lack of personal responsibility. I just don’t see what that has to do with assault weapons. When students are killed by a drunk driver, no one calls for the restriction of the use of automobiles because in this case the automobile was not being used for its intended purpose – to get people somewhere safely and quickly. There may however be a call for stricter sentences for drunk drivers. When medication is tainted and causes sickness or death, there is not a call for a cessation of production of all medication or food, but if there is a defect in the product, and it causes more harm than it helps, then the manufacture of that product is stopped. That is exactly what I’m saying. Handguns are wonderful for target shooting and protection. Hunting rifles are wonderful for hunting. I’m still not sure what assault weapons are for.
To clarify. All everyone is asking (myself, Kev1n, Libby, CT Agent, Captain Planet, Ron, etc) is
WHY DO WE NEED ASSAULT WEAPONS?
WHAT ARE THEY USED FOR?
Fairly simple question. Just looking for a straight answer.
Vehicles, medication and food cannot be compared to Assault guns. Those items are essential for society to survive and each has a purpose. Assault Guns are a hobby, at best. Get rid of them!
Teachers have a huge responsibility already. I think adding the responsiblity of having guns on hand goes above & beyond their call of duty. Then there is the other side of the equation where we are seeing more and more cases of teachers being accused (and often charged) with abusing students. How do you regulate what teachers are mentally sound to carry a gun and not go off the deep end, and misuse their weapon?
This is a wonderful idea!! (note the sarcasm) If we give the teachers guns we will make sure that no media outlet or attorney goes without work in the future. Of course the next headline will read “TX School tragedy – Student takes teacher gun and accidentally shoots classmates.” If a parent cant keep a firearm locked and protected from their children what makes us think a teacher can.
Absolutely, Jen. Tell Ms. Perplexed that. She thinks it’s a great idea.
You’re so ignorant of responsible gun ownership and handling your unenlightened statement doesn’t deserve a response. You’re hopeless. The only remedy to what happened at Ct. would have been for someone to have shot Lanza before he did so much damage.
Okay, but which insurance company is going to provide liability coverage for the school if the teachers and administrators carry concealed weapons?
I guess you haven’t read all the headlines where children are killed by their parents guns, innocent people are shot while hunting, a police officer accidently discharges his weapon at a party injuring a guest… I could go on and on, but there is no such thing as responsible gun ownership and handling. You don’t know who might get ahold of that weapon and what they’ll do with it. A locked gun cabinet? Joke. “Hidden” where no-one can find it? Joke. If it’s in a gun cabinet or hidden, it’s not going to protect you. You have to keep it out, loaded, in the night stand or on the table to be sure you’ll have it when you need it. Your whole mindset is a joke.
Let’s just train the military to teach the youth and turn this system truly into a police state, then. Just how long does it take to train today’s teachers to be soldiers? Heck, even the police officers have to wait for SWAT. Otherwise, like what happened in New York, they just start shooting innocent bystanders. Adam Lanza wasn’t afraid of being killed either. Pointing a gun at him isn’t going to scare him. He pointed a gun at himself and pulled the trigger. If he didn’t have several clips and the weapon he chose to massacre those kids, he at least couldn’t have shot so many. What Lanza needed was some mental health assistance. Maybe that could have avoided this tragedy. I’m not against guns, but maybe without a weapon with the purpose of only killing other people and at a rapid pace, this also could have avoided, again, at least some of the bloodshed.
My personal position on the Sandy Hook tragedy is that it is too soon to address gun control issues. It is time to reflect, to mourn, and above all, to be humbled and awestruck at the actions by heroic teachers and staff on that day, some who made the greatest sacrifice, so that children might have a chance to live.
Their lives aren’t currency to be spent on *any* political agenda.
They are more important than that.
Amen, Jon. However, you heard the president say Joe Biden will report back to him in january with a solution. He doesn’t want anyone to have time to reflect, mourn, etc. He wants emotions running high in order to push his legislation forward to take away our right to protect ourselves. He has always been against anyone having a gun. There is no easy solution but passing more laws isn’t the answer.
He has not “always been against anyone having a gun.” Quit spreading lies. He doesn’t give a shit who has a gun and never has. He’s never spearheaded any gun legislation. For you to defend guns after what happened in CT is unconsciounable. Why does anyone need with an assault weapon?
No offense, Libby–but while you are correct about Obama never spearheading gun legislation, you are way off-base about defending guns.
You have a deep self-admitted fear of guns. You’ve made that plain and clear in prior discussions. You state gun-ownership is an unconsciounable act.
You are far from being even remotely unbiased on the issue.
I never claimed to be unbiased on the issue. I for banning of assault weapons and large magazine clips, closing the gun show loophole, and requiring background checks on all gun purchases. Plus, I think if you own a gun and it is involved in a crime you should be responsible along with the criminal. Keep your target shooting and hunting, but no-one needs an assault weapon or military weapons. They’re good for nothing but killing people. And I don’t fear the gun, I fear the nut holding the gun.
Do you need an assault rifle to protect yourself, Perplexed? Don’t think so.
I need an assault rifle to protect myself ONLY if the other guy has one.
So, if nobody has one, then nobody needs one. Thank you for the endorsement to ban assault rifles.
@Ron
In a perfect world–yes.
So, what’s your plan to keep assault weapons out of the hands of criminals–who had them even during the assault weapon ban?
If you think about it, the evil things that have been using these assault weapons against innocent people were not criminals before the attacks and obtained the guns legally. The criminals that you mention are not the ones committing these attrocities with illegally obtained firearms.
@Ron
Please cite your resources to support those statements.
Also–the two arguments are dissimilar. You are much more likely to be the victim of a violent crime than you are to be involved in a situation like Sandy Hook or the Colorado theater shooting.
My resource is my memory. I do not recall any report that any of the shooters using assault rifles to shoot innocent people had criminal pasts or obtained their weapons illegally. If that is incorrect, please provide that information with your source and I will retract my statement.
Not if your a good shot. Only takes one bullet to kill.
Obama has signed only 2 bills regarding guns. Both expanded gun rights. The right to carry on Amtrak and in National parks.
Ron, to refute your earlier statement, see the South Side of Chicago. Gang Banger carry these assult weapons all the time. They have criminal past.
Chicagos top cop was quoted as saying after the Colorado shooting that was a typical day in Chicago (the number murdered).
I can not agree that someone in a civilized society should have an assult – military style rifle, hand gun – anything that could fire a massive amount of bullets in just a few seconds.
I dont agree with arming all teachers either. I do think that someone in the school should be armed and trained – maybe a princlple that sits right by the entrance of the school. Someone referred to the insurance risk of that. A big obstacle to over come. A big expense that will be debated.
What ever the solution, glad its not up to me. People think it cant happen here. The folks in CT learned the hard way it can happen ay time, any where. In a school. In a movie theater. On a college campus. Oak Creek Wisocnsin.
All I can do is cross my fingers and pray it dont happen in my back yard.
Jon,
When should we have the discussion? An innocent person is shot and killed every day in this country. Just because those incidents are not covered by the national news, should we not mourn them as well?
Should we wait until we have gone a week, 2 weeks or a month without some innocent person getting killed by gunshot to have the discussion?
When?
How about after the victims have been buried?
Or, perhaps when emotions are not running so high that it blindsides logical discourse and debate?
How about when people are able to see that base hyperbole is not, in fact, logical discourse?
How about the fact that it is morally reprehensible that people are using these children’s lives to push their own rhetoric (pro, or anti gun) without more than a passing glance at actually taking the time to reflect on the tragedy itself.
It’s disgusting. And the people who perpetuate it are a large part of the problem.
Good or bad, this is how public discourse takes place. Have you not noticed how short our attention is span as a country? We discuss things when they are in our face because there will something else tomorrow.
My point was that if we do not have the discussion until we are done mourning, the discussion will never take place. If that is the goal, then so be it. Just don’t say that we can have the discussion later because it just won’t happen.
Could you imagine if President Bush waited until all of the victims of 9/11 were buried until he addressed terrorism?
That’s an incorrect comparison.
The 9/11 attacks were from outside our country by foreign nationals.
This loss is an internal issue within the US.
And yes, I remember Bush’s immediate response. The Patriot Act–an insidious infraction of our civil rights that unfortunately still persists.
That actually proves my point. Thanks.
And don’t forget the attack and war on Iraq that had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks.
Jon,
My point is that we have always addressed issues as they are presented. The longer we wait, the more likley something else will take its place and the issue will not be resolved. That is exactly what the NRA is banking on by remaining silent. They know that if they enter the conversation, it will just keep the issue on people’s minds. But if they wait, the anger will dissipate as it usually does.
Libby:
I’m sorry, Saddam harboring Osama Bin Laden had nothing to do with us going after the 9/11 attackers?
Your 9/11 bias is showing again. You do not know what you’re talking about with 9/11. As I showed before, you didn’t even know where Osama was found, and why that was important. He was being hidden (known for a fact through intelligence) by Saddam.
Saddam was not complying with UN Sanctions, and would not let us check for Bin Laden, who we knew was in the area at the time.
Stop trying to state that 9/11 was used to start a war with Iraq. Bin Laden used 9/11 to start a war against the United States, and attempted to include Iraq in that war. That is what happened.
No one was mislead regarding Iraq. We put forth the information that said Bin Laden was there (from the same sources that eventually lead to Osama’s death) and we put forth the UN Sanctions, quoted on day one for the reasons for going to war with Iraq. There was no twisting whatsoever, other than by liberal media to try and spin a lie.
You do not even begin to compete on Iraq knoweldge in comparison to me. You don’t even know who was tortured that lead to Saddam. You don’t even know there’s more than one Abu who was held and gave information on Bin Laden. You don’t even know that Saddam DID hide Bin Laden, and that Bush explicitly said let us inspect your weapons, let us come for Bin Laden, are you’re gone. Saddam had a choice. He fucked up. Not Bush. Bush stepped up. So let’s stop with the Iraq comments.
I personally don’t believe we could ever adequately prepare teachers or administrators to react responsibly in such a shocking, horrific situation. There’s a major difference in some basic training course to learn how to fire a weapon versus using the weapon responsibly, i.e. being fully aware of your “line of fire” at all times. Even cops sometimes get caught up in the adrenaline and chaos and will surround a suspect’s car, all drawing weapons from each side of the car. If one pulls the trigger, there’s a great chance they will strike a fellow officer. That goes against basic, responsible gun use, and even these guys are supposedly trained for these scenarios. I still think installing an armed cop at every school, from elementary up to high school, would be the best option to help deter these cowards from attacking innocent kids. I sure wouldn’t mind paying a little bit more in taxes to help subsidize this. We have to do something…
That would be a good job for some of our veterans retiring from the military. However, I disagree that teachers or principals couldn’t be trained to do the same thing. However, I’m not exposed to too many people that aren’t mature enough to be trained. Some areas of our country would be hard pressed to produce a general population level headed enough to do the job. Where do Libby and Planet live?? that’s the regions I’m referring to – Blue areas. Wouldn’t want to give Planet a gun.
I have a ton of respect for our military, but with them being jerked around over the last few years with countless tours,and the issues many already have with PTSD, I don’t particularly like the idea of using military vets. Too hard to tell which ones would be a good fit or more of a liability. I mean no disrespect, because there are a lot that would make great candidates for this type of job. When I served in peacetime in the mid-90’s at Ft. Bragg, we had a sergeant in our company “snap” one morning (10/27/95), didn’t show up for formation, hid in the woods and shot at us while we were forming to head out for a 4-mile run.. killed one officer and wounded 18. Watching about 1,000 airborne infantry soldiers, unarmed, run for their lives as it unfolded REALLY makes me humbled with the utmost respect for these female teachers that charged the CT gunman. They are true heroes in every sense of the word. Of course, there are some “bad apple” cops out there, too. Just a tough situation to try to resolve. You can’t predict a bat-sh1t crazy individual that decides one morning to become a household name. These psychos unfortunately have the element of surprise and therefore, the upper hand, alot of times. I sure hope we figure out something to protect our innocent kids.
Bubba, Something to think about, but people close to me have suffered with PTSD and the problems were there but they weren’t so unstable that they would have “cracked” and started killing people. PTSD doesn’t make people commit those kinds of crimes just like post partum depression doesn’t cause a woman to drown or kill her kids. Those people have character flaws or maybe even on a drug that can make one crazy.
Where did you get your psychiatric degree, Perplexed? The Sears & Roebuck catelog? You don’t know what you’re talking about. Stick to watching Criminal Minds and leave the diagnosing to real professionals.
I dont know who you have been talking to but you are totally misinformed. I was an Airpliceman in the USAF for four years with a tour in Nam. Teachers are there to teach not to have to have the added burden of security. It is one thing to know how to handle a gun, it is a whole different matter to handle a situation. No short course is going to teach that. Ans as for PTSD we in Vietnam invented it. Almost 85 90% of those who have served there are productive citizens, the crazed PTSDed Vietnam era is over. Like you they have no concept of just what PTSD is. There are times when dealy force is not needed. One short course is not going to teach them that, only experience does. Yes CT was a bad incident, but we don’t need any “knee jerk” reactions. Most of those kind of shootings were committed by mentally ill people and there lies and along with gang bangers the problems. And the person whon said that 1 person a day gets killed by a gun, is bogus. The CDC states that 4.3 homicides are commited per 100,000 by a gun. More are killed by hammers than guns. All it would take is one mistake by a teacher a child perhaps, getting killed and all hell would break loose. It is one thing to be trained, it’s another to be faced with the real deal. It is a tough problem to solve and it is not going to be solved easily or soon. I cannot get a permit in my state even though they have an exemption for Military, honoraby discharged,even though I earned an ” Expert Marksmanship Ribbon and medal with the .38 cal. revolver.” And my DD214 says I was an Air Policeman. I stil have to prove I was trained in the use of small weapons. I would volunteer to serve as security to protect our kids without pay. And if I told you some of the hairbrained ideas in my state on this issue, your hair would stand up. There are many ex cops, ex service men and women, and ex federal secuity personnnel that could fill the bill. I would hate to think money is at issue here but I am beginning to feel that way.
I’m curious, Libby. Do you think Hollywood with their violent, sick movies, the violent games where kids can vicariously rape, shoot, beat up others have anything to do with the problem of mentally ill or evil people resorting to these violent acts?
Obviously not. Movies and video games are played all over the world. But other countries don’t have the gun deaths and violence we do in the US.
Not that we hear of.
Comrade, how abou tthe gunman that gunned down 77 people in Norway, July 2011?
How about the Cologne School massacre June, 1964 (8 kids, 2 teachers dead). Canada 12/1989 – 14 killed and 13 more injured). March 1996, killed 16 small childre and a teacher with .357 magnum revolvers, and 2 9mm pistols. 4/2002 18 died at a school in Germany. Then if you want to talk about the Jewish school children murdered by the Palestininans that could be proven also.
Article in our local paper today. All I want to add is it’s a good thing she had a gun and knew how to use it!
Police have released the following information about a fatal shooting this morning.
“On 12-25-12 at 2014 hrs, APD responded to a disturbance call in the 1000 block of Minda Lane. Upon arrival, responding officers contacted Lawanda Taylor. She reported her estranged ex-boyfriend, Earnest Gonzales, came to the residence and attempted to gain entry by kicking a side door. Gonzales fled the scene after he discovered Taylor called the police.
“On 12-26-12 at 0209 hrs, Gonzales returned to the residence and gained entry to the house by forcing open the front door, causing considerable damage. Gonzales entered the residence and assaulted Taylor. Also present in the house at the time of the assault was a 16 year old and a newborn child (both are children of Taylor).
“During the assault, Taylor retrieved a .380 handgun (which she was in legal possession of) and fired one shot, striking Gonzales in the left side.
“Gonzales left the residence and was located by responding patrol officers in the front yard of the residence. Gonzales was transported by ambulance to Hendrick Medical Center where he succumbed to his wound. Gonzales’ body was transported the Tarrant County Medical Examiner’s Office in conjunction with an autopsy order issued by J.P. Deatherage.
“Counselors from the Regional Victim Crisis Center and advocates from The NOAH project responded to the scene and assisted the victim.
“This case will be presented to a Taylor County Grand Jury for review. We do not expect any criminal charges to be filed in this case.”
The same day of the Sandy Hook massacre, twenty-two children were stabbed and brutalized in Central China. Horrific. However, they are all alive. Our children are dead. If the knife weilding man had an assault weapon, they would also be dead.
I stand corrected.
.
A woman with nothing to say. Are you single, Jen?