E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSSouth Dakota school districts could arm teachers under a bill introduced after the Connecticut school shooting rampage and signed into law on Friday.
The bill came a day after Georgia lawmakers advanced legislation to end a ban on firearms in bars, churches and college classrooms.
The "school sentinels" law signed by South Dakota Governor Dennis Daugaard, a Republican, allows the state's 152 school districts to decide whether they want to arm teachers, other employees, hired security guards or volunteers.
School boards must get approval for their program from local law enforcement officials, and sentinels would have to pass a training program to carry weapons in the schools. District residents could put the issue to a voter referendum.
The law in South Dakota and the proposal in Georgia are two moves by state legislatures that aim to expand gun rights at a time when other state and federal leaders consider new limits following the December killing of 26 children and adults at an elementary school in Connecticut.
In Georgia, the Republican-led state House voted 117-56 on Thursday to advance the measure to restore gun carry rights that have been chipped away over the years, said one sponsor, state Representative John Meadows, a Republican.
The Georgia legislation also would allow licensed gun owners to take weapons inside some unsecured government buildings where they are currently banned, starting on July 1. They would still be outlawed from college dormitories and sporting events, Meadows said on Friday.
The bill does not specify or make any exemptions on the types of weapons and applies to all legal guns, Meadows said.
Angry students with guns?
Democratic state Representative Karla Drenner, who opposed the measure, said it was part of a backlash against a national push to strengthen gun control laws after the Connecticut killings.
Drenner, an instructor at several colleges, said she was concerned about the impact on potential confrontations with angry students, recalling on Friday how a student once screamed at her for mispronouncing his name.
"If he had a gun, the outcome could have been much different," Drenner said.
Asked about Drenner's concerns, Meadows said, "She ought to be armed."
The measure next moves to the Georgia state Senate for consideration. Meadows predicted it would pass, based on the response he said he had received from senators.
Senate President Pro Tem David Shafer, a Republican, said in a statement on Friday the bill would be assigned to a Senate committee next week.
"The Senate passed strong pro-Second Amendment legislation of its own, and I am confident that we will reach agreement with the House," Shafer said.
Any measure advanced from the legislature would go to Republican Governor Nathan Deal for his signature.
On Friday, Deal spokesman Brian Robinson said the governor agreed with language in the proposal that would make it harder for the mentally ill to obtain licenses to carry concealed weapons. He declined to say whether Deal supports other parts of the proposal.
Related:
Guns already allowed in schools with little restriction in many states
Report: School employee accidentally shot during concealed weapons class
After Newtown, states slow to embrace new gun laws
Leave a Comment:
All over the U.S. this is happening. Here in Colorado the dems hold a majority and are jamming their anti second Amendment agenda down the throats or a population that is mostly rural - raised on the outdoor sports. Not the mention the tourism that these sports bring.
The Dems will learn a different lesson than the GOP did. They can't play Santa Obama so they are not purchasing votes. They are pissing off millions of people.
Most of the laws will be reversed and ALL will be challenged in Court.
Can we arm american citizens with ICBMS? How about if we allow people to park F16s in their drive ways. I mean these are all the right to 'bear' arms in a 'well regulated' militia.
P.S. I wonder how people would feel if the NRA had their own DRONE Program.....
Dems are not against the second amendment, that's the GOP/NRA kool aid served with a heap of lies and deceit. Congrats, you fell for it.
You need to fight back. In NYS ,the county legislatures & NYS Sheriffs Association at there annual meetings have voted referendums against the NYS Safe Act. So far the Sheriffs assoc. & 95% of the countys have voted against Cuomo. Plus 2 NYS Judges are hauling Cuomo/NYS into court telling them that they have to prove the the Safe Act is constitutional ,otherwise the law will be thrown out of court. Plus the numerous individual lawsuits. Cuomo career is in the toilet !!!!! Do not give up the fight ! We did not let NYC/Albany beat the rest of our state. Neither should you.
Well that's just nuts. Good reason to stay out of bars and churches ... but it looks like they're itching for a VA Tech-style incident down there in Georgia.
Has global warming softened their brains?
"Here in Colorado the dems hold a majority and are jamming their anti second Amendment agenda down the throats or a population that is mostly rural - raised on the outdoor sports."
Oh yes -- universal background checks, limiting clip capacity -- I guess that means the end of all guns. Colorado's population population is NOT mostly rural and NOBODY is taking your hunting rights away. The melodrama coming from some gun owners reminds me of a bunch of 11 year old girls.
It'sabouttime
Dems are not against the second amendment, that's the GOP/NRA kool aid served with a heap of lies and deceit. Congrats, you fell for it.
B.S. The dems here in Co are after every gun they can take away. One of their proposals is to ban ALL shotguns that can be adapted to hold more than 8 rounds. According to that law, my 20 ga. pump rabbit gun will be illegal along with EVERY other pump, semi-auto, lever, and bolt action ever made. That is 90%or more of ALL shotguns used to hunt with. Maybe they don't want to take away the 2nd amendment, They just want to limit it to a "Shotgun Joe" double barrel. I didn't fall for anything except the TRUTH. And, I'm not falling for your B.S. lies and deceit either. So, go preach your lies on a soap box with Das Fuhrer Obummer and Commandant Bloombutt!
And Charlie, maybe you should read the proposed laws a little closer to see what they actually trying to take away and lok at a map of Colorado to see where people live. On the Front range outside of Denver and Co Springs, it is almost ALL rural. The Western slope is the same except for the I-70 Corridor.
Yup, we're gonna get all the Anti-Gun/NRA people out here freaking out.
Saying all kinds of @!$%# from another win for the NRA, to here we go again etc...
"BUT", when a teacher takes out a perp that's about to take out 30 kids, they'll get the message however, I doubt it'll shut them up.
The old, "This time it worked but it won't work all the time" crap will come out...
Their Motto is, "If you can't beat 'em, keep trying" rather than join 'em...
NYS residents are not giving up the fight,neither should the good people of Colorado. You will win over the liberal clowns!
Your fantasy is based on fear rather than on reality.
A far more likely scenario is an accidental shooting. Wait and see.
Not with proper training!
Which is why South Dakota's students will only be as brilliant as its policies.
Heck of a job, South Dakota.
But, what would one expect from a Red State?
Since a small majority of people believe the second amendment gives everyone the right to carry a gun, maybe we should take the other part of the amendment, that says Militia, which at the time of writing, meant serving in the Military. All the gun nuts should have no problem reinstituting the draft, so that every man and now woman, can defend their homeland, instead of less than the population, of some medium size cities. Then we can draft some of these wingnut legislators to do their duty.
Wonderfull. Now when some idiot teacher gets P.O.d a some kid he canjust shoot him instead of sending him to the principals office. Bet that'll get him some respect in the classroom after that!
Half Cherokee All American
BS. Show me sources in which all democrats in the state of Colorado want to ban all guns. Please make sure your sources are NEUTRAL and not something put together by Faux News (The GOP department of ministry) or by the Christian religious taliban or the obama haters.
P.S. I support a ban on assault weapons, high capacity magazines, stronger background checks, and HARSHER Punishments for all violators. I do NOT support the ban of all guns, that's absurd. I am a Texan, and I do not need to have an assault weapons to defend my home, my property, or my family. If you do, go to the gun range and get some practice
My, but there are some really ignorant folk out there:
Here's the truth, recorded for all posterity:
.
Straight from the Mouth of a U.S. Government Attorney
The U.S. government argues in federal court (U.S. v. Emerson information page) that there is absolutely no right of an individual to own firearms!
Steven B
Straight from this DEMOCRAT: Show me where I am against the second amendment. Show me one POLL in which 100% of all registered democrats are AGAINST the second amendment.
For the record, NOT ALL Democrats (including our leadership in DC) is against the second amendment. Drinking the GOP Kool AID and NRA helpings of lies and deceit be YOURS
Sorry, your opinions are meaningless, and ignorant.
An AR-15 is NOT an 'assault weapon'.
The Second Amendment isn't about hunting, or simply the defense of one's home and property.
It's about the necessity of the security of a free state,
If you knew anything about firearms, you'd know that the AR-15 is a small caliber round.
Since when is the criteria 'every Democrat'?
Or "every Republican"??
.
Did 100% of Democrats support Obamacare??
Smarten up, and read what #1.14 describes.
Since you're such a clever soul, I am sure you can explain how passing your inane laws will prevent criminals from getting and using firearms.
.
Steven B
Sorry but my opinions REFLECT the majority of the United States of America. If it doesn't, please prove me wrong
The second amendment is MORE than security of a free state. Apparently, you do not know very much about the United States Constitution or Constitutional law.
Oh and where is that article that says 100% of all democrats are against the second amendment. Read your own comments and with comprehension.
No laws can prevent a criminal from getting a firearm. Hmmm.. but if it SAVES ONE INNOCENT CHILDS life, is the PRICE not worth it? IF it's not, go up to the survivors of every single family in Sandy.. and tell them, your rights to OWN a gun are more important than the rights of their 20 murdered children.
P.S. I am more concerned about criminals and responsible gun owners' hurting my property, my family, or myself then some 'tyrannical' government or foreign 'government' attacking me.
Your high capacity magazine ban that you support is the law that will make my 20 ga illegal!
Copied from Denver Post.
House Bill 1224 passed through the House chamber by a 34-31 margin in
February, and was originally sponsored by state Rep. Rhonda Fields, D-Aurora.
To open floor debate Friday afternoon, lawmakers passed an amendment that
bans any shotgun capable of being modified to hold more than 28 inches of shotgun shells.
Shells vary in size, and originally the bill outlawed any magazines with more
than eight shells.
This isn't FAUX NEWS.
Half Cherokee All American
http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_22746922/colorado-gun-bills-limits-ammunition-magazines-be-debated
Ahh.. I see, this means all democrats are against the second amendment in Colorado and want to get rid of all guns. Yep, that's what a BILL ON LIMITING the ammo magazines means.
again, show me something that says all democrats are against the second amendment.
P.S. Why do you need something that would fire more 10 rounds? Go to the gun range and get some practice.
From the story-
Yes, because every time someone carrying a gun gets upset they start shooting. Dumb bitch.
capable of being modified
Do you understand that?
My 20 ga only holds 5 but is capable of geing modified therefore it is now illegal. I never once said I need more than ten so get off your high horse and quit telling me to go to range. Also my J.C.Higgins .22 has a tube magazine that holds 18. That gun is now illegal as are most semi-auto, pump, and lever .22s. These include Marlins, Rem 552, Nylon 22, Winchesters, Henrys, Glenfields and MANY MORE. Come to think of it, maybe you should go to a range and learn something about different guns.
Why do you need something that would fire more 10 rounds?
Why do you need a car that is capable of going 100mph plus when there is nowhere in this nation that the speed limit is over 75? When you can give a solid reason for that one, then you can ask why I need more than ten rounds!
All four magazines that i have for a handgun (not classified as an assualt weapon), carry 17 rounds. The gun is for personal defense. Obama's bleeding heart Democrats can't tell me that my magazines are suddenly illegal because some crazy azzed white boy killed a bunch of kids. The shooter was mentally disturbed much like many serial killers over the years. The Democrats can't actually perform their elected duties, but they can attack the second ammendment. Sequester is a good thing... it might force the Dems to actually do their job.
Despite any Obama/Biden law, I will keep all my clips loaded at 17 rounds. Sorry Dumbocrats, you can't retroactively make these magazine size illegal.
The strategy of the far left is to demonize certain classes of weapons and anyone who uses them. The lunacy of banning assault weapons or high capacity magazines is that, like illegal drugs, anybody who wants one can get one. I live in California where high capacity magazines have been banned for years. Yet if I was criminally minded and wanted one I could drive to Nevada and buy all I want. If the far left's approach to gun control worked then cities like Chicago, Wasnington DC, Detroit, New York and Oakland California would be the safest to live in. Instead more people were killed in these cities in one year than America lost on overseas combat. Since the gun control act of 1968 we have had more and more stringent gun control laws and all we have reaped is more and more gun violence because the only people impacted by these laws are the good people who you have no reason to fear.
All these idiotic policies do is make you feel good. But they do not make you one whit safer.
Now that should create order in the class rooms.
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/quickquestion/2007/november/popup5895.htm
.
.
What about the right to life of this baby?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Elx8nUWZ63w
How liberals can claim to 'care' and be so heartless is amazing...
.
Right on LP! The biggest bunch of crooks on the planet-both parties-and some people want us to give up our Second Amendment.
Democrats have always been against the second Amendment.
You can't have slaves with guns for one.
Rather than creating the environment where people argue about various definitions of weapons, wouldn't it be more prudent and agreeable to both sides if the laws simply made the following illegal?
No person shall murder another
No person shall physical assault another
No person shall steal from another
No person shall enslave another
All straight forward and don't require further limitations.
What do you mean these are all illegal now? Then the argument should not be about the tool used.
That slippery slope might start with actions this guy suggested:
"Among the prescriptions Obama put forward that day, according to a Dec. 13, 1999 Chicago Defender article, were increasing penalties for the interstate transportation of firearms, increasing the federal tax on the sale of firearms, requiring federally licensed gun dealers to sell firearms in their storefront, restricting gun purchases to one a month, ..., banning the sale of firearms at gun shows except for "antiques," and increasing licensing fees.
You know who said that? Barak Obama.
"Assault weapons are not for hunting. They are the weapons of choice for gang-bangers, drug dealers and terrorists."
“I think it is a scandal that this president did not authorize a renewal of the assault weapons ban,” he declared after the assault weapons bill expired." - Barak Obama, May 8, 2004.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/23/barack-obama-guns_n_1696708.html
Filling out a 12-page questionnaire [part 1 of questionnaire, part 2 of questionnaire] from an Illinois voter group as he sought a state Senate seat in 1996, ... “Do you support state legislation to … ban the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns?” asked one of the three dozen questions. “Yes,” was Obama’s entire answer.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1207/7312.html
Itsabouttime, if saving one child's life is your agenda lets make several other dangerous things illegal that kill children every year. After all, if we can save ONE it's all good. Let's start with sleds, skateboards, bicycles, trampolines and riding in automobiles or airplanes. Several children are killed every year riding with drunk parents. I'm sure we could save a few hundred every year if we banned all of these things. Why is it kids used to take guns to school for shooting clubs and nothing bad ever happened? A part of it is because instead of being parents and being involved in their children's lives people load their kids up on too much TV and drugs to turn them into little zombies instead of active kids. Young people rarely interact anywhere other than social media today either.
It's About Time
You miss the point. All rights are equally important and they should not be ranked.
A worthless, cowardly POS murdered children. Unfortunately, it has happened throughout history and will continue to happen regardless of the tools used. Physical assault and murder are already illegal; he didn't care about those laws, why would he care about others?
Responsible gun owners won't hurt you, your property or family. I, too, am greatly concerned about protecting my family and property from criminals and a tyrannical government. I'll even protect yours if the need were to arise.
When a murder is committed, liberals tend to focus their outrage on the weapon. The problem is, no weapon has a will of its own and to focus your outrage and legislation on the weapon misses the problem entirely. If your approach had any validity the courts would be convicting the gun of murder instead of the miscreant who used the gun. Many states coddle these people. We are told we must understand their rage or that they commit crime because of not being breast fed by their mothers. Human beings solve difficulties in one of two ways; by force or persuasion. Some people can only be persuaded through a force greater than their own. A gun equalizes things. My 100 pound wife survived an attack by a 240 pound would-be rapist because she was armed. Without her gun, I doubt she could have persuaded him with kindness. If only one life is saved through legal use of a gun aren't they worth keeping? Thats always been your argument for getting rid of guns - If it saves only one life we should pass this or that legislation.
A few decades ago, marksmanship was taught in public school as part of the PE program.
Many schools were full of guns. Ever read about all the mass shootings back then? So what changed?
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_shooting:
Armed classrooms
For years, some areas in the US have allowed "armed classrooms" to deter (or truncate) future attacks by changing helpless victims into armed defenders. In 2008, Harrold Independent School District in Texas became the first public school district in the U.S. to allow teachers with state-issued firearm-carry permits to carry their arms in the classroom; special additional training and ricochet-resistant ammunition were required for participating teachers.[47] Students at the University of Utah have been allowed to carry concealed pistols (so long as they possess the appropriate state license) since a State Supreme Court decision in 2006.[48][49] In addition to Utah, Wisconsin and Mississippi each have legislation that allow students, faculty and employees with the proper permit, to carry concealed weapons on their public university's campuses.[50][51] Colorado and Oregon state courts have ruled in favor of Campus Carry laws by denying University's proposals to ban guns on campus. Ruling that the UC Board of Regents and the Oregon University System did not have the authority to ban weapons on campus.[52][53] A selective ban was then re-instated, wherein Oregon state universities enacted a ban on guns in school building and sporting events or by anyone contracted with the university in question.[54]
A commentary in the conservative National Review Online argues that the armed school approach for preventing school attacks, while new in the US, has been used successfully for many years in Israel and Thailand.[55] Teachers and school officials in Israel are allowed and encouraged to carry firearms if they have former military experience in the IDF, which almost all do. However, statistics on what percentage of teachers are actually armed are unavailable.
American Usage and Style: The Consensus. Here's what he has to say:
[Copperud:] "The words 'A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,' contrary to the interpretation cited in your letter of July 26, 1991, constitutes a present participle, rather than a clause. It is used as an adjective, modifying 'militia,' which is followed by the main clause of the sentence (subject 'the right', verb 'shall'). The right to keep and bear arms is asserted as an essential for maintaining a militia.
"In reply to your numbered questions:
[Schulman:] "(1) Can the sentence be interpreted to grant the right to keep and bear arms solely to 'a well-regulated militia'?"
[Copperud:] "(1) The sentence does not restrict the right to keep and bear arms, nor does it state or imply possession of the right elsewhere or by others than the people; it simply makes a positive statement with respect to a right of the people."
[Schulman:] "(2) Is 'the right of the people to keep and bear arms' granted by the words of the Second Amendment, or does the Second Amendment assume a preexisting right of the people to keep and bear arms, and merely state that such right 'shall not be infringed'?"
[Copperud:] "(2) The right is not granted by the amendment; its existence is assumed. The thrust of the sentence is that the right shall be preserved inviolate for the sake of ensuring a militia."
[Schulman:] "(3) Is the right of the people to keep and bear arms conditioned upon whether or not a well regulated militia, is, in fact necessary to the security of a free State, and if that condition is not existing, is the statement 'the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed' null and void?"
[Copperud:] "(3) No such condition is expressed or implied. The right to keep and bear arms is not said by the amendment to depend on the existence of a militia. No condition is stated or implied as to the relation of the right to keep and bear arms and to the necessity of a well-regulated militia as a requisite to the security of a free state. The right to keep and bear arms is deemed unconditional by the entire sentence."
[Schulman:] "(4) Does the clause 'A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,' grant a right to the government to place conditions on the 'right of the people to keep and bear arms,' or is such right deemed unconditional by the meaning of the entire sentence?"
[Copperud:] "(4) The right is assumed to exist and to be unconditional, as previously stated. It is invoked here specifically for the sake of the militia."
[Schulman:] "(5) Which of the following does the phrase 'well-regulated militia' mean: 'well-equipped', 'well-organized,' 'well-drilled,' 'well-educated,' or 'subject to regulations of a superior authority'?"
[Copperud:] "(5) The phrase means 'subject to regulations of a superior authority;' this accords with the desire of the writers for civilian control over the military."
[Schulman:] "(6) (If at all possible, I would ask you to take account the changed meanings of words, or usage, since that sentence was written 200 years ago, but not take into account historical interpretations of the intents of the authors, unless those issues can be clearly separated."
[Copperud:] "To the best of my knowledge, there has been no change in the meaning of words or in usage that would affect the meaning of the amendment. If it were written today, it might be put: "Since a well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged.'
[Schulman:] "As a 'scientific control' on this analysis, I would also appreciate it if you could compare your analysis of the text of the Second Amendment to the following sentence,
"A well-schooled electorate, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read Books, shall not be infringed.'
"My questions for the usage analysis of this sentence would be,
"(1) Is the grammatical structure and usage of this sentence and the way the words modify each other, identical to the Second Amendment's sentence?; and
"(2) Could this sentence be interpreted to restrict 'the right of the people to keep and read Books' only to 'a well-educated electorate' — for example, registered voters with a high-school diploma?"
[Copperud:] "(1) Your 'scientific control' sentence precisely parallels the amendment in grammatical structure.
"(2) There is nothing in your sentence that either indicates or implies the possibility of a restricted interpretation."
Professor Copperud had only one additional comment, which he placed in his cover letter: "With well-known human curiosity, I made some speculative efforts to decide how the material might be used, but was unable to reach any conclusion."
Read more here: http://constitution.org/2ll/schol/2amd_grammar.htm
--------
The conclusion is thus inescapable that the history, concept, and wording of the second amendment to the Constitution of the United States, as well as its interpretation by every major commentator and court in the first half-century after its ratification, indicates that what is protected is an individual right of a private citizen to own and carry firearms in a peaceful manner. - Report of the Subcommittee On The Constitution of the Committee On The Judiciary, United States Senate, 97th Congress, second session (February, 1982), SuDoc# Y4.J 89/2: Ar 5/5
----------------
In recent years it has been suggested that the Second Amendment protects the "collective" right of states to maintain militias, while it does not protect the right of "the people" to keep and bear arms. If anyone entertained this notion in the period during which the Constitution and the Bill of Rights were debated and ratified, it remains one of the most closely guarded secrets of the eighteenth century, for no known writing surviving from the period between 1787 and 1791 states such a thesis. - Stephen P. Halbrook, "That Every Man Be Armed", 1984
------------
"Historical examination of the right to bear arms, from English antecedents to the drafting of the Second Amendment, bears proof that the right to bear arms has consistently been, and should still be, construed as an individual right." - U.S. District Judge Sam Cummings, in re U.S. vs Emerson (1999).
No. It's not worth it. Saving lives is a criterion, but not the only criteria. If that were the case then, by your logic, the speed limit should be 5 MPH at all times and on all highways.
-Cesare Beccaria
No thanks Atlas. We already have those laws. I thought we were supposed to be a civilized society. The thought of gun obsessed paranoids free to carry deadly weapons everywhere I go and my children go is a form of enslavement (of me and my loved ones). While they may or may not choose to employ them on me, their constant presence is an infringement on my pursuit of happiness (constant anxiety is not happiness). I also believe that the profound paranoia exhibited by the gun obsessed raises a reasonable concern about their mental stability. While I have some small fear of a mass shooting, the fear of guns everywhere all the time is a legitimate concern to those of us who are NOT gun obsessed. The NON paranoid NON gun-obsessed have rights too. It's not all about your gun fetish.
Let's hope so.
That being said, I DON'T think arming TEACHERS is the way to go. Guards yes, electronic detectors and ID scanners at entrances, yes. Armed teachers? no.
Kaybee:
Your fantasy is based on fear rather than on reality.
A far more likely scenario is an accidental shooting. Wait and see
CAR43:
...because no one with training ever had an accident? Stats prove otherwise.
Then there are the anger/availability shootings....So when the first teacher shoots his wife, or her husband at home, what will you have to say then? That, in my view is much more likely than defending a school shooting perp.
Wasn't Nancy Lanza a responsible gun owner? By all accounts, yes she was. And so were my friends whose children accidentally shot and killed their playmates. Of course, it wasn't the gun's fault.
The paranoid fringe thinks a criminal is hiding in the bushes, waiting for darkness to fall so he can break in and murder you. The greater danger is that you or a family member will be shot with your own gun, either through accident or in a fit of anger. Let's not ban guns...let's let all the idiots shoot each other.
I have a security system...leave me out of it.
So many scared weenie-babies.
Nobody is going to take your guns.
The intent of all of these rules is to limit easy access to them by criminals and crazy people. What's wrong with that?
If you (the law-abiding citizen) have to wait two weeks or reload more often, what are you bellyaching about?
It's more like you guys are defending: "the right to freedom from paperwork shall not be infringed."
Then you should not fear the rest of your comment.
You'd be surprised how many guns you're walking by every day and don't know it. Why? Because those that are carrying don't typically wear a shirt saying, "hey, I'm packing heat. Fear me."
I'm not paranoid, I am ready. I don't fear mass shootings as they are very rare.
I agree.
HotTicket
Who's paying for that?
Sensible gun rules are paid for by buyers through permits--the people who should be paying--not the rest of us taxpayers.
We already have those laws, criminals aren't following them.
I can wait two weeks, even more. I'm already armed.
I'm not worried about me reloading more often, I'm concerned about my wife or children having to reload more often in the event of an attack.
kaybeetoys
She was, her POS son was not. Even if she had no guns, he would have possibly murdered a neighbor to take theirs, unless of course they fired first.
I don't have a security system. Who's paranoid? Why do you have a security system?
"the profound paranoia exhibited by the gun obsessed" - This statement always amazes me. It is not the people with guns that exhibit paranoia, but rather those that are afraid of guns.
Gun owners are not paranoid, they have their guns. If guns causes one anxiety and pursuit of happiness, I believe there are other countries they should consider, because this country was founded on the right to have them.
Atlas,
So what's wrong with strengthening them with real penalties for straw buyers, for example? That's one of the things being proposed, and the NRA/GOP is opposed. Why? Too much paperwork?
"...freedom from paperwork shall not be infringed"
Who exactly do you expect to attack you where you need 3 or more people to defend? If you have to shoot more than 1-2 shots, you've got a bigger problem than any gun control law would effect. Really, you've probably watched too many movies.
Statistically, you and your family are more likely to injure or kill one of each other, and the likelihood of you having to actually defend your home is minuscule.
Renee,
Do you fondle your gun daily? Does that make you happy?
Having a gun better not be high on your list of things that make you happy, or you may be one of the people subject to seizure.
Do you want to shoot me now?
Gotta go to do real "pursuit of happiness" things, like going to kid's sports. cyall
WELLLLL.....
Then, Mrs./Ms. Drenner.......MAYBE YOU should not be a teacher if you cannot control a situation in class.
Apparently, YOU are part of the problem.
Because fear and adrenaline are a mother! You get shaky and pull the trigger faster than you wish you would. Granted, if I'm at the top of the stairs and shooting down at the front door, I'm not likely to need more than two rounds, but I bet I fire more than that. I'm certain that my wife or kids would keep firing until empty.
And I don't expect all of us to have to defend in an attack. I want them to be able to act individually if they are alone.
For clarity, are you a small business owner or do you own a small bus (VW with flowers painted all over it)?
Allowing teachers and other school employees to be armed is an excellent idea and now we will hear from the anti gunners that will no doubt predict accidental shootings, etc.
I would remind anyone that cares that teachers have been armed in Israel for the pact 40 or so years and this has worked out very well for them. These armed teachers in South Dakota would be the ones already in possession of a CWP so the law in reality just extends the limits of where they may carry their weapons to the schools where they work.
One thing of note is that the state where I live have issued CWP for more than 14 years now and with many thousands of CWP holders, the number of incidents involving improper use/discharge of a firearm is exactly zero.
This logic and reason will be completely ignored by the anti gunners because they're so completely wrapped up in their ideology and will still insist on perpetrating fertile hunting grounds (aka, gun free zones) maintaining the politically correct delusion of safety.
Finally, the left continues to cling to the lie that this anti gun push has something to do with preventing shootings or gun crime in general. The reality is that this is all about disarming the American people in accordance with UN agenda 21, something Obama fervently believes in and has promised them he will do this, one way or another.
hs321 - That analysis of the Second Amendment is interesting, but fatally flawed. It uses the amendment as proposed, rather than the official version, which was ratified by the states.
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
This version of the amendment is composed of two clauses, an independent clause and a dependent clause. The independent clause is the "RKBA" clause. That means it can stand on its own and doesn't need the "militia" clause. This is literally true, because the militia clause merely promotes one reason for the right of the people; it is not intended to be exhaustive. (It is similar to the Constitution's "general welfare" clause. That clause does not enable Congress to make any law that promotes the "general welfare." If it did, there would be no need for further enumeration of authority in Article 1. The purpose of the clause is to direct Congress to make those laws it is authorized to make with the "general welfare" in mind. Like the "militia" clause, the "general welfare" clause is not an exhaustive list of reasons - e.g., some state constitutions also cite defense of self, family, community, and the state, so there are obviously other reasons for the RKBA, not just the maintenance of a militia; there are other considerations for Congress when it exercises its authority.) It is also literally true that the militia is dependent upon the people having their own arms. So the grammatical structure of the amendment reflects real-life accurately. The next thing you should notice is that the term "well regulated" modifies "militia," not "rights." It's the militia that's to be regulated, not the people or their rights. The word "regulated" meant to the authors of the amendment "to make regular." "Well regulated," in the context of a militia, means "well trained" or "well ordered," it refers to military preparedness. It has nothing to do with the common use of the term today. Constitutional construction demands that we accept the meaning of the words as they were used at the time of their writing, and not impose any other interpretation upon them, as the authors could not have used them at the time in a manner that they could not have foreseen. (This is similar to JS Bach's "well tempered clavier." The term used by Bach means "properly tuned," and doesn't actually mean "tempered" as we would use the word today. To construe the meaning in any other way would make nonsense of Bach's term.)
Implying authority to "regulate" from an amendment that exists, according to the Preamble of the Bill of Rights, to illustrate government's incapacity to make certain legislation (in this case, legislation pertaining to "arms") is an improper interpretation of the amendment. It makes a mockery of the BOR's stated purpose. The rights in the BOR, according to the Preamble, are not the true bars to government authority; the true bar is the fact that government was granted no enumerated authority to make laws that infringe upon the rights cited in the BOR. A reader looking for authority in the BOR for government to do anything is completely missing the point of the entire BOR. The BOR does not grant government any authority, the enumerated powers of Congress are found in Article 1. Anyone looking for government authority in the BOR is looking in the wrong place. It's also exactly what the opponents of the BOR feared would be done - taking the language of the BOR and construing it to empower government to infringe upon a right. Those opponents felt that the lack of authority in Article 1 to make the legislation that would eventually be "prohibited" by the BOR was sufficient. Apparently, they were both right (people misconstrue the BOR) and wrong (the enumeration of authority has proven insufficient to restrict government to that authority).
I'll end with the Ninth Amendment. (Although this is not the end of the arguments I could make, I believe I will have made my point.)
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
This prohibits any construction of the language in the BOR from being "construed to deny or disparage" other rights "retained by the people." In other words, you can't use the language of the Second Amendment to deny any rights, even those that may not have been enumerated. (The "others retained by the people" language of this amendment conveys the idea that the list of rights in the BOR is not exhaustive.) So, again, an interpretation of the Second Amendment that bestows authority on government is looking in the wrong place for it; the Ninth Amendment prohibits the seeking of that authority in the BOR. It also means that if the Second Amendment were repealed tomorrow, we'd still have a RKBA, because that right was "retained by the people" (the use of the word "others" in the Ninth Amendment means that all of the rights enumerated in the BOR were "retained") at the time of the adoption of the Constitution and the BOR. The right to arms does not exist because of the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment exists because of the right to arms.
Asked about Drenner's concerns, Meadows said, "She ought to be armed."
Yes, let's have shootouts in our classrooms. Meadow's response is perhaps the most ignorant comment I've ever seen.
itsabouttime - You wrote: "Dems are not against the second amendment, that's the GOP/NRA kool aid served with a heap of lies and deceit. Congrats, you fell for it."
Really? Guess you haven't been paying attention.
Diane Feinstein:
"If I could've gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them -- Mr. and Mrs. America turn 'em all in -- I would have done it. I could not do that. The votes weren't there."
Andrew Cuomo:
"Confiscation could be an option."
For some weapons, confiscation is the law in California now. When the owner of certain weapons dies, his family has three choices - destroy the weapon, turn the weapon in to the state, or transfer the weapon out of state. All three choices amount to confiscation, because the family can't inherit the weapon, as they can any other property of the deceased. The firearm is taken from them (or they are forced to relinquish it, with the same result - it is no longer in their possession). If a national ban on the transfer of such weapons goes into effect, the third option will no longer be available, leaving only destruction and surrender.
There are jurisdictions in which it is impossible (either literally or effectively) to acquire a concealed carry permit AND illegal to carry a handgun openly. Because the Second Amendment acknowledges a right to "bear" (i.e., carry) arms, these jurisdictions (all controlled by Democrats) effectively abrogate the right and disparage the amendment.
Democrats aren't out to deny Second Amendment rights? Yes, they are. And several other rights along with them, like the right to remain silent (they want you to register your guns), rights to property (they want to stop you from transferring/selling your property, want to limit your use of it for lawful purposes - e.g., magazine capacity restrictions), and in some places it's been suggested that firearms owners must be subject to warrantless searches (by random, no-warning inspections of homes known to have firearms - i.e., known to have a firearm because of registration). I'll remind you, SCOTUS says 1.) the exercise of a right cannot give probable cause for search and seizure, 2.) the exercise of a right cannot be converted into a crime, and 3.) a citizen cannot be forced to give up one right in order to exercise another.
He might have done a lot of things. but your scenario is based on speculation and fantasy. It was his mother's guns that killed her and the 20 children at Newtown. She was a responsible gun owner.
We travel a lot and don't wish to leave our home unprotected. A security system works 24/7 while we are at home or not. A security system harms no one. A security system gives us peace of mind. You can't say any of that about a gun.
The AR-15 IS an assault weapon, with the high velocity .223 ammunition that tumbles when it enters soft tissue and acts like a dum-dum bullet which was banned in the past.
I am a democrat, or at least I am not a republican and I am not against the second amendment. But I am not against banning the public ownership of nuclear weapons, 5th generation fighter jets, RPGs, chemical weapons and assault weapons like the AR-15.
We can get into an argument about the outright lies of the NRA later.
I'm a resposible gun owner, but saying that having more guns in circulation makes us all safer is like saying having more planes in the sky makes the sky safer. It's a ridiculous argument.
Creek Dog
Let's say we put guns with all teachers. And, in order to be truly effective, they must either pack it on their person or in their desk. And I assume we'll have an absolute lock on training on how to shoot, when to shoot, and how to keep the gun safe from accidental discharge or mishandling by a violent or just curious student. And how to handle ammunition... keep it in or near the gun?
Funny... you have no pretense of being able to control "the crazies" and tell us time and again that "people kill people, guns don't kill people", yet you think you can control the new mass of gun handlers called teachers and students? No crazies in that class? Ever read the stats on how often a cop's gun is taken from them? How about stats on accidental shooting?
Available guns breeds their use... it's really that simple. Those are FACTS... not just scare stories.
Next we'll be equipping students to defend themselves against teachers... where does it end?
Is in over reactive, over zealous, YES woman.
No conscience of the Constitution and speaking for the people.
She doe’s nothing but support her party, not the constituency.
She over dramatizes and scares people.
She needs to GO……
Flip-N Idiot
There is no specific class for the term "assault weapon." Politicians simply like to invoke fear by using the redundant term to describe semi automatic rifles that look the same as those in the military, yet function completely differently. Anything can be used to assault someone, and once you assault someone with said object, it becomes a weapon.
You realize ALL ammunition when fired is high velocity, right? I don't think I would want to defend myself with a low velocity bullet. Obvious praying on people's fears with wordplay, acting like a .223 is massively different than any other bullet.
You realize the .223 is used in numerous weapons not classified as an "assault weapon," right? I suggest you look up half of Remington's catalog as well as Ruger's and that doesn't even scratch the surface of weapons that use the round that would be perfectly legal in the event of another ban. The .223 as well as it's military counterpart the 5.56 are rather small rounds. It's essentially a .22LR with a large casing.
And this was... when?
The AR-15, a weapon that isn't even in the same remote class of destruction as nuclear, chemical, or explosive weapons nor is it anywhere close. If I were to set up a pyramid chart with nuclear weapons being at the top and rocks being the bottom, you'd be surprised how low an AR-15 would class.
How about now? I've already seen your jumble of misinformation and general lack of knowledge regarding firearms, I wanna hear more.
@GreyArea
By your logic, the military is effectively useless. Seeing as everyone has a gun, soldiers must have the highest homicide rate among each other, right?
Why do you think soldiers carry two guns and work in teams with other people carrying guns? Because it's safer. Just because you can't fathom the logic doesn't make you right.
Assuming that statement is true, we have to remember that, given the nearly universal draft in Israel, those same teachers have been taught how to handle them by a multi-year stint in the military. I'm willing to allow teachers in the US to be armed if they have the same level of military training as the teachers in Israel.
"By your logic, the military is effectively useless. Seeing as everyone has a gun, soldiers must have the highest homicide rate among each other, right?"
Hmmm no, not really. The military is highly trained and disciplined, and operates in an environment that is conducive to weapons fire. Propogating weapons amongst a civilian population who are anything but, is not quite the same thing. Sorry, but as far cities with people in them go, putting more of ANYTHING destructive usally results in moderately poor outcomes.
OldGrey...Great post.
Grey Wolf
There was absolutely NO misinformation in my post. Everything I said was true. But one thing I see is that you do believe we need restrictions on our interpretation of the 2nd amendment. I get the distinct impression you believe that schoolteachers should not have unrestricted access to nuclear weapons. Therefore, as I agree, we are arguing where we draw the line. Not that the 2nd amendment is sacred as written.
Grey Wolf
There was absolutely NO misinformation in my post. Everything I said was true. But one thing I see is that you do believe we need restrictions on our interpretation of the 2nd amendment. I get the distinct impression you believe that schoolteachers should not have unrestricted access to nuclear weapons. Therefore, as I agree, we are arguing where we draw the line. Not that the 2nd amendment is sacred as written.
I think it is unreasonable to arm teachers in schools. That being said, I think it is reasonable for these folks to decide for themselves. Time will tell if either makes our kids safer. As it stands there will be a difference depending on the majority in each area, liberal or conservative. That should provide plenty of evidence to study which is the best approach..... of course however, I am sure whatever the data reveals it will be bastardized for political purposes.
SpokaneWA
The data already exists and, yes, is being bastardized for political purposes. Do a search on the effects of the Australian gun control laws... you'll see two supported outcomes: 1) It worked, 2) It made it worse. Both cite "facts" in and around the data. "One city saw it's homicide rates double"... was a city that went from one homicide to two homicides.
My point is that I agree, we'll get more data, then render it useless by twisting it so it is unrecognizable.
@GreyArea
As are the police. Tell me, how are those pedestrians from the Empire state building doing? How about the two women fired upon by the LAPD for no reason AFTER Chris Dorner's truck was found incinerated?
Tell me, how many weeks of weapons training does the Marine Corps go through?
The answer is quite shocking.
So guns are so sophisticated that civilians cannot hope to possibly master 3 simple mechanisms but can easily drive a car which can have up to 20? Guns are so dangerous that civilians cannot defend themselves but criminals have some special forces like training when using them to murder that we are so afraid of that we have to ban and restrict them?
If you honestly believe in safety, it's going to smack you in the face someday that that fantasy doesn't exist. Safety can be measured, but nothing is ever truly safe.
@Ferrosynthesis#####
So, give me your source, when was the .223 banned in the US? Until then, misinformation.
And where did I say that I believed that?
Tell me, where do you think they plan on harvesting the uranium, plutonium, purchasing rocket fuel, buying the trillion dollar equipment necessary to activate the weapon, etc., etc? Where do you think the funds will come from the job of a school teacher to purchase a nuclear device?
If it is legal, do you think the public will allow someone to build it?
I am for the second amendment as written, to the true patriots, it is sacred. When you find ammunition for your RPGs, lessons to drive and fly your tanks and aircraft, and a weapons manufacturer who will construct depleted uranium tank shells and JDAMs for you, come speak to me again.
This really isn't hard, folks. All you need to do is spend a few weeks mastering guns on a range, learn the inner workings of the weapon you fear so much, and then realize it is only a tool.
In the rifleman's creed it says "Without me, my weapon is useless, without my weapon, I am useless"
I don't care about what you believe or what you are afraid of. I care about what works.
Provide me with statistical information from a reliable source that restricting firearms brings down violent crime... I bet none of you can.
Violent crime and death by firearms are not the same thing, and it's misleading and disingenuous to suggest it is. If you entire argument boils down to: "lets get everyone a gun, and the world will be a safer place" then you're a moron, plain and simple. Weapons do not make for peace or safety. Period. I'm not saying you shouldn't own a gun. I'm simply saying that the more guns in circulation, the greater the potential for gun violence. That is a statistical fact that is self evident to anyone with rudimentary math skills. The more cars on the road, the more accidents, the more planes in the air, the more accidents. The more guns in circulation, more gun crime. And don't bother quoting Australia as an example. Banning the sale of guns does NOT remove those already in circulation. It will take decades for that law to play out. Cherry picking this short term result or that does not bolster your argument.
Old Grey Wolf,
Excellent posts, measured, referenced, educational and POLITE. Four Gold Stars
Thank You.
ferro., # 1.58,
SILLY.
One of the primary purposes of self defense is SURVIVAL OF SELF. You can't throw a hand grenade far enough to be outside its lethal range (its why you take cover after tossing one). So Nukes and Nerve gases, get a grip please. That's just kindergarten level.
The AR-15 is a semi-auto rifle, the M-16 is the assault weapon, as it IS a full automatic or machine gun.
The dum-dum (oh lord the jokes I could make) or expanding bullet is banned for MILITARY USE by the Hague treaty. The USA is NOT a signatory. But the Army's std issue is FMJ.
Now that you've been educated, please, no more ignorant posts.
Oh, Super sonic fighter jet, if you got the bucks, totally legal to own. WITHOUT bombs, cannons, & MGs.
Better luck next time.
Recent news accounts of shootings by dogs:
If you can't trust man's best friend not to shoot you, why would want your mean old math teacher to have a gun?
Right, and what I'm pointing out is the correlation between violent crime and homicide with firearms. Stay on topic, it's misleading and disingenuous to distort people's words.
According to who? You? Don't make me laugh. As I've said before, safety is a measurement.
I also made no mention about the theory that everyone owning a firearm would make the world safer.
As I said before, stay on topic, please.
And anyone with basic common sense could recognize the keyword: potential.
There is no correlation between the number of guns on the street and number of homicides with firearms. I bet you can't even find a reliable statistic that says otherwise.
I suggest you take a class in basic ceramics and metals.
Metal rusts and becomes unreliable, therefore removing the tool from circulation.
Unless you prefer buying a rusty, oxidized wrench over a polished new one.
So if what you say is true, then the "decades to play out" is why 30 round magazines cost an upwards of $300 in 2003? Is that price gouging, or is it supply drying up?
Cherry picking? Why don't you admit that I just used the tactic of divide et impera and systematically destroyed your arguments, one after the other?
I'm sure you would rather have someone not expose the details and flaws of your beliefs.
Stare the truth in the eyes, you want to force your belief on others and care not for facts.
The govenor of South Dakota had better hope that no children are ever shot or he could be looking at all kinds of lawsuits. There are some teachers in the state that I would not trust with a pea shooter let alone with a gun.
one could say the same thing about the police and some in the military so for you doing nothing is better. What SD did is better than what NY did, lets make laws to restrict the good people because gun have a mind and could get up and kill people.
Oh come on, there could be a unstable teacher with a gun? Really? How about the teacher who stops a crazy rampage because they are trained and armed and ready to protect the children? Why is it that people still think it is the gun's fault and not the crazy person holding it? That is like saying the President shouldn't have armed secret service men protecting him because one of them could possibly be crazy....guns are not the problem, drugs, mental health and little jail time are the problems.
And someone has to scream lawsuit! Let's all just lay down and do nothing becuase we're afraid of a frickin' lawsuit. The lowlife's that are out to shoot someone are the only one's not afraid of a lawsuit. So sue me if you don't like my take and I'll sue you because I don't like yours. But in the meantime someone needs to arm the good guy's so we have a fighting chance. The bad guy's figure out they might get shot back at it may make them think twice!
Good for SD. Now they should post a sign, "Teachers and staff highly trained and armed" "Any attempt to harm our children or staff will be met with lethal force"
Good for South Dakota!!!!! They actually have a brain!!!
I am sure that in every school there must be at least one person that was active in the military. If that person is mentally sound, let them be the designated person . Who ever is picked, should be properly trained and compensated for there additional responsability.
Teachers are hired to teach, not to serve as bodyguards. How about we focus on training our teachers to teach English and Math?
...instead of wasting all their time and energy on your paranoid doomsday fantasies? Heck, why not arm them to repel space invaders too?
kaybee - I hope they don't allow you to have a gun, logic befalls you.
Exactly, Watt.
And nuclear bombs don't kill people, either. So we can stop worrying about Iran and North Korea.
Just how far do you want to extend this kind of 'logic'?
Nice try, but those weapons DON'T kill people, the maniac despots that control them KILL PEOPLE. We have had those weapons for decades. How many people have our nukes killed? Maybe that's because we generally don't allow maniacs in those positions of power.
If guns make us safe, why isn't the US the safest nation in the world?
There are many students who can not be trusted with a pea shooter let alone a gun.
Disarming innocent people, does not protect innocent people...
Great! Then we can all get nukes.
I'm so relieved that we won't have to go to war in the Middle East anymore. Maybe we can just pull out all our troops, and put them in our schools instead.
Whew! That's a relief.
I find it hard to believe that you were a physicist considering what appears to be a lack of broad thought. You opinion is yours, and that is certainly your priviledge but you really need to do a better job defending it.
Thanks for my chuckle of the day! You clearly don't know what 'befall' means, so here's a definition for you:
Not sure what your point was, but I am just as legally entitled to buy and own a gun as anyone else, and a lot more so than most. I'd pass the background check (if there was one) with flying colors, never even having had a speeding ticket in my life.
So watch out for me and my arsenal, Einstein! BWAHAHAHA
Wait til the innocent young girl does what the big bad teacher wants her to do because he has the gun.
Gee, pilots manage to do it. Aren't teachers just as intelligent?
Israel decided to arm teachers after the terrorists attacked a school.
Hasn't happened since.
.
Typical liberal nonsense. Make up scenarios...do anything except the logical thing.
Fear mongering at its finest.
.
Poorly thought out.
Do nuclear weapons detonate themselves??
NO.
PEOPLE kill.
Not inanimate objects.
First thing that came to my head was a smart alec comment that at least the SD teachers will be able to neutralize the occasional invasion to the schools by wild animals (this does happen more often than you urbanists are willing to believe).
Then I thought, what a great way to help reduce tax payer costs...lower food subsidies, hmmm...venison! Critters for the biology class!
I am all for it!
Somehow these democrats that occupy less than 20% of the geographical country want to make those that live in the other 80% (by choice BTW) live under their urban rules and conditions. Even though the rural people spent their entire lives trying to disassociate themselves from the urban crap.
What you say is true, but also irrelevant, unless you wish to claim that nobody should ever do anything they weren't hired to do. If you are consistent in that belief, you must also believe that if I saw you being beat up on the street I should just call the cops instead of jumping into the fray, because I was hired as a carpenter and not a bodyguard.
I'm from South Dakota...so that kind of blows your 'urban crap' theory out of the water.
When it comes to defending a classroom full of kids, they damn well better be trained. I can see it going something like this: The principal tells a teacher applicant that he's hiring the better marksman, even though that person has inferior teaching skills and credentials.
Great idea.
Great deflection.
2.22
KB, Chuck, Charlie, Gary..
But, Gee, IF it saves ONE child's life, we should be arming ALL teachers and school staff.
BHO and KB could have a photo op surrounded by school kids. It could even be at the golf course.
America is going to turn into a fast draw contest, and the results are not going to be good. I'm wondering how many of the people advocating for carrying weapons have ever been in an honest-to-goodness close range shootout. I've heard you don't necessarily react the way you think you might. So, if teachers do choose to get guns, they are going to need a whole lot more training than is just required for a permit.
How many cops or solders have ever been in a close range shoot out....is that a prerequisite. All you need is about four hours and maybe some recurrent training periodically to be reasonable good. No one ever knows how one will react when needed but allowing that to freeze us in fear is no way to move forward.
If you look at data [hopefully facts don't confuse you] more guns correlate to lower murder rate.
If I was a teacher I would have no problem receiving the training needed. Doing nothing is not the answer, let the states and schools decide. I will send my kids to a school where they have a fighting chance of surviving a crazy rampage and you send your kids to the school where they have no protection at all because you feel guns are bad....
I agree watt75! I stand quite firm on the fact that they probably won't even try it if they know someone will shoot back. Guns are not bad. It's the person pulling the trigger! And if I were to get in a close range gunfight I'd at least like to have a gun!!!
Right on, both of you. I support it as well. The teachers and staff must WANT to participate and be willing to spend the time for the proper training.
The right person & proper training is all it takes. And there is no perfect world,mistakes do happen. But look at the alternative ,would you rather have 20 people slaughtered. Whoever takes on the duty to do this is going to fully understand the reponsability.
Look at the last graph at this link, Oh No:
Guns Per Capita vs. Homicide By Firearm Rate
If numbers don't 'confuse you', a correlation of p < 0.0001 is, simply put, astounding.
NRA will slice and dice this kind of data, including countries like Honduras (extremely high crime from drug cartels, one of the least safe countries in the world), and South Africa (extremely high racial tension, poverty and wealth disparity, and a history of apartheid) in with developed countries like the U.S., Europe, etc - all in an effort to obfuscate the correlation.
But when you look at apples-to-apples, the data is quite clear. In developed countries, more guns = more homicides by guns. Period.
And we have more guns per person than any country in the world - followed closely by Pakistan.
Take you data and shove it where the sun doesn't shine!
The only data that matters to anyone with half a brain is how many unsuitable gun owners have guns in the US. All other data is completely meaningless unless you're a politician, lawyer or forum warrior.
physicist-retired you're right on. but nra not only obfuscates the correlation, it obfuscates common sense.
Take your gun and shove it Car-43 says... but he forgot to add, "or I'll blow your head off." LOL I love how guns make people think they are real men when they really need a $1.00 surprise from a truck stop bathroom.
Who said take your gun and shove it? I don't think so Bad Knob.
The factual history of the Wild West says that most gunfights took place with drunk participants.
Just what we need in this country, more yahoos with guns who think with their trigger fingers.
If they think at all.
Exactly! The 'teacher' will hesitate because they will think that maybe it's not a REAL threat (and well they should). In the meantime the killer will open fire. We'll have a dead 'teache'r and the killer will have a new gun and ammo to add to his/her arsenal.
Oh yeah! BTW nobody expected any of the recent shooters to be crazy. All the evidence in that direction came AFTER the shooting. So what is to say that the 'teacher' isn't going to go on a rampage?
So do you really feel safer knowing that they are inviting guns into the classroom?
Well, what's your plan to convince criminals to give up their guns??
.
[crickets.........]
Speculation.
Sorry, your opinion is meaningless in this context.
.
Here's a free clue!
http://frontpagemag.com/2012/dgreenfield/how-an-assistant-principal-with-a-gun-stopped-a-school-shooter/
Physics may be your strong suit, but demographics haven't entered into the equation.
The US is not the homogenous society of, for example Japan, or Sweden.
Japan has relatively low firearm homicide rates, but their suicide rates dwarf those of the US.
Israel and the Swiss both have very high firearm ownership per capita, but lower firearm homicide rates than the US.
.
Physicist-retired It's your right not to own a firearm. As for people like me, I will always own a gun for protection. You may be a pacifist, but you can't infringe upon my rights to protect myself and my family with lethal force. A well aimed bullet travels much faster than a 911 call. Keep biting your pillow Physicist-retired.
More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun Control Laws, Third Edition
“A compelling book with enough hard evidence that even politicians may have to stop and pay attention. More Guns, Less Crime is an exhaustive analysis of the effect of gun possession on crime rates. . . . Mr. Lott’s book—and the factual arsenals of other pro-gun advocates—are helping to redefine the argument over guns and gun control.”—James Bovard, Wall Street Journal
“John Lott’s More Guns, Less Crime revives the wisdom of the past by using the latest tools of social science. By constructing careful statistical models and deploying a wealth of crime data he shows that laws permitting the carrying of concealed weapons actually lead to a drop in crime in the jurisdictions that enact them. . . . By providing strong empirical evidence that yet another liberal policy is a cause of the very evil it purports to cure, he has permanently changed the terms of debate on gun control. . . . Lott’s book could hardly be more timely. . . . Lott’s work is a model of the meticulous application of economics and statistics to law and policy.”—John O. McGinnis, National Review
Steven B, stole my thunder...thank you.
As a percentage of households there are more than a few countries that have higher percentage of homes with firearms. Like the Swiss, Norway, and Sweden. But like you said in #3.17, they are homogeneous societies with a more defined cultural environment. That changes the playground, so to speak.
The other point I would like to make, without sounding too callous, take the flipp'n suicides out of the equation. This has no bearing on crime.
And, I am sick and tired of hearing "you do not need those large magazines". You might not most of the time, but the one time you do and you do not have one...oh well.
The lefties are probably right that being in a situation requiringa large capacity magazine, is slim to none. Well that slim to none has occurred personally to me quite often in the last fifty years. From wild animal attacks to armed robbery attempts, I can see where a larger capacity mag is a plus.
Besides, the second amendment is about the perception of the populace being able to contain government. Hard to do that if all the people have are cap guns.
But it has a bearing on death. Fifty percent of the 13,000 suicides commited in the U.S. annually are by self-inflicted gunshot. That number doesn't include all the attempted suicides by gun that result in lifelong disability and disfigurement.
Unimportant, of course, to the merchants of death and their minions.
And the current "Gun Free Zone" sign prevents that from happening now? C'mon.
Suicide rates:
USA = 12.0 people per 100,000 kill themselves (lots of guns)
Japan = 21.9 people per 100,000 kill themselves (no guns)
.
Looks like firearms have NO bearing on suicides, do they??
.
Unless, of course you really don't care about how people die, unless it is with a gun.
If you really cared about innocent children, you'd care about this:
.
.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Elx8nUWZ63w
What about the right to life of this baby?
How liberals can claim to 'care' and be so heartless is amazing...
.
It is so wonderfully funny watching the anti-gun crowd accuse the gunners of 'cherry picking' data.
Only to see the antis point to Europe and its gun control as perfection....while ignoring Switzerland, that is heavy with MACHINE GUNS in private homes.
Do cherries grow in the Alps?
Who's going to give them the guns. What make of guns. What cal. I need more info.
why is all that so important?
Why Mary? Are you part of the decision making process or in South Dakota ?
No one is going to give them guns, Mary. The headline is just MSN's usual hysterical anti-gun reporting. They won't be passing out the guns like pencils before the start of school. Many of the teachers that decide to take the training have their own weapons and are comfortable with both handguns and in trying to protect the children in their class. They just want to make sure that there is an added layer of protection against what happened in Connecticut. Some teachers feel that something better than calling 911 needs to be done.
@--Oh, Car,Sam. I just want to know who pays for them and are they talking 9mm Berettas or Colt 1911s or 22s. It's just a question. You don't have the answers. I don't know if a teacher has the money to buy any of them.
Guns, guns and more guns!!!
Yeeehawww!!!
...and guns in bars. Now what could possibly go wrong with that?
nothing, the same thing that would happen when the guns are outside the bar.
Indeed. Drunks with guns are just as dangerous outside a bar as inside.
I didn't know bars were a gun free zone.
Lots of guys that walk into bars pack heat all the time.
Drunks with cars are much more dangerous than drunks with guns.
Ban cars!
And booze!
http://www.madd.org/blog/2012/december/2011-State-data.html
LOL, don't give Obama/Biden any ideas. Prohibition and anti-Cars will be their next legistlation. They can't pass laws that strengthen the country, but they will try to pass laws that weaken it.
And you've gotta wonder about the logic behind guns in churches!!
Grits for brains...God love 'em.
Not venturing south of the Mason-Dixon Line until they've all shot each other.
We have people all the time packin in bars here in Idaho. During the Harmonica Festival there, you will see people with sidearms all the time.
PRETTY DAMN FUNNY YOU DON'T SEE PEOPLE WHO'VE BEEN DRINKING SHOOTING AT EACH OTHER ALL OVER THE PLACE
kbt., # 6.7,
Yes, visit Chicago, Detroit, DC, Philly, each city a gem, well run by BHOs team for decades, and soooo safe to walk late at night. Do enjoy the visit to the ER.
Doesn't it ever occur to anyone why as law came to the wild west that sidearms and guns in general started disappearing from the general population and left to the law men or that carrying a concealed weapon started requiring a license?
I say go ahead and hunt or target shoot, but get the damn things off the streets and out of public buildings. And most of all repeal the laws that guarantee that gun manufacturers zero liability for the lack of safety devices on the tools they produce. They are at least as culpable as the tobacco industry is for deaths caused by addiction to cigarettes.
Liberals moved in and started stealing them?
More like people started wanting to live in a civilized manner without the fear of daily random violence from drunken cowboys and thugs.
double post edit.
Well how did that work out for them?
Fact, drunken cowboys and thugs have been around since the dawn of time, we have not figured out how to reduce that to zero yet.
Russia has the most restrictive gun laws for a modern country, legal gun ownership is 4,000/100,000 as compared to the US with 90,000/100,000 yet their murder rate is 20/100,000 compared to the us 4.8/100,000. Luxembourg has 0 legal gun ownership yet their murder rate is 9/100,000.
Jurisdictions in the US [Chicago] with the most restrictive gun laws have the highest murder rates. The US is experiencing the lowest murder rate in 50 years yet we have the highest gun ownership rate in our history.....you think there is something there.
I don't think drunken cowboys are our problem.
Culheath,
How are you going to get guns off the streets? What do you propose? Do you think the criminals are going to just turn them in? Drugs are against the law and they are on every street in America. You can't take guns away from the good guys because they will have no protection against the thugs....
Culheath, we no longer live in a civilized society. That is why we are reverting back to what we once were. It is impossible for the cops to stop every crime ,or even the majority. They are not mind readers.Guns will never be removed from the streets. There are at least 300,000,000 out there.
legal ones
If you outlaw guns, then only outlaws will have guns....
They passed laws banning guns. Wyatt Earp would be a joke now.
Actual fact: cowboys have been around a couple hundred years at most. Humans haven't been riding horses since 'the dawn of time'.
I suppose you think planet Earth is 6,000 years old too...?
We aren't ever going to reduce crime, murder, and gun violence to zero. Does that mean we should just let it escalate to the point where we can't go to a mall, a movie, or to elementary school without being gunned down like dogs?
Sorry, but your logic is as full of holes as Swiss cheese. REDUCING gun violence is the goal, and that is a worthy goal whether you think so or not.
CamachoMan - It then follows if we outlaw murder only outlaws will murder so are you suggesting we legalize murder?
Your comment is nothing more than an argument for having no laws at all, since some people may break them.
KBT., # 7.11,
If you were a cop, you'd pull over and ticket the speeders, NOT pull over all cars.
That is ineffectual and a waste of time and resources.
So too is bothering the owners of 99.9 % guns that NEVER harm a single soul.
It would be efficient and cost effective to focus on the less than one-tenth of one percent of the guns used to harm citizens.
If you actually wanted to help solve the problems, that is how you'd focus your attention and efforts.
As you do not, the only conclusion is, you have a political agenda. That makes your posts worthless.
AMERICA IS STARTING TO WAKE UP
Criminals love an easy target. They have a difficult time when "targets" shoot back. Way to go SD. May the rest of the country follow their example.
WAKE UP AMERICA
Waking up dead!
John N..your post is hysterical...waking up dead? A perfect example of sayin anything to support your view logical or not...lol
This is getting more stupid all the time. Tell me South Dakota is kidding. Where has common sense gone.
The world is changing, Gramps. Brings a tear to my eye too, but things have changed and at least some action needs to be taken. I'd put highly trained and well paid professional protectors in the schools, in plain clothes, if it were up to me.
Grampa is your thought process gone? Stupid? Really? I cannot fathom how you can call a topic like this stupid! Go back to your checkerboard and get on with serious things!
The World has been changing for a long time. So what. There is still not any need for knee jerk reactions. Gun Control laws could be a good thing. The NRA needs to go back to what they should be for. I believe that is gun safety, not gun sales. The Liberal\Conservative fight is defining our society. The lines need to blur between the two. Most people I know are liberal in some ways and conservative in some ways. It is time to start to work together.
Grandpa
You obviously did not do well in History 101.
The world is not so different today than it was in the past, it is just that you are alive now and see and hear things first hand for yourself.....what happened in the past for you might as well not have happened.
Do you think the world was a better place in the past as we killed Indians for their land, enslaved a people because of the color of their skin, St. Valentines Massacre was a good thing, we settled our differences out in the street with a six shooter.
Bad has always been and will always be with us.
Murder rates have been dropping for the last 50 years in the US, we are at a historical low today while at the same time gun ownership has been going up. While the shooting of kids are tragic we should not react in a senseless manner ignoring our improving situation in reducing murder rates. Data clearly shows that more guns does lead to a safer society. We allow pilots to be armed, air Marshall's on airplanes why not teachers and armed security in schools.
Your reply is exactly what I'm talking about. You do not have any idea what I am talking about and you insult me by saying I do not know History. Data shows more guns more chance of gun deaths but you do not subscribe to that theory so it must be wrong. I am not saying take guns away. I am saying use your common sense.
Common sense says don't bring a box of Crayola crayons and a ruler to a gun fight.
It also says no guns no gunfight. Jeez, grow up.
I doubt it is a knee-jerk reaction. It will be a well thought out plan with the help of law enforcement. Don't be so paranoid.
That's where you lose me. There WILL be guns in the hands of maniacs. Period. Forget your gun control plan, it may have worked at one time but it's too late for that.
Grandpa
You can't just look at gun deaths only.
Here is the problem, most [over 90%] murders [with guns, hammers, baseball] are committed by people who are already criminals. When they don't have guns they use other means...Russia is a prime example of this point. When you have restrictive gun laws the law abiding citizens are unable to effectively defend themselves and the criminals become bold and have the upper hand....that is a fact.
You asked with regards to SD where has the common sense gone but you have not explained to us what is wrong with what SD is doing so to answer your question
yes you are correct, I have no idea what you are talking about....no logic no reason.
And yet you will not even consider giving it a try, because, Why?
Why? Because the only people that will abide bythe law is a law abiding person. Duh is it that hard to realize that it is not the good,normal people that commit these crimes? You do not get this fact? It's criminals, people with problems that do this! Do you think for one second that the bad guys will get rid of their firearms to make it fair? If they take away guns it will make it EASIER FOR THEM!It will only be the law abiding that will pay the price! Oh and also the CHILDREN THEY ARE UNABLE TO PROTECT.
Tell it to Canada.
Data shows more
gunschainsaws more chance ofgunchainsaw deaths.Grandpa, you seem to be a senior citizen and so am I, I am also a retired police officer and survivor of two gunfights, your comment of "want you even try it" appears to be an appeal to try gun control. It has already been tried and has proven to be totally worthless because the crime rate rises exponentially when people are unable to defend themselves, especially the weaker people. Check out the real facts of England and Australia, the violent crime rates of those countries since gun control has risen as much as four thousand percent. If you are a criminal you don't need a firarm to be violent. This doesn't even begin to address the problems of tyrannical government. I would suggest that perhaps if you want to address something to stop killing lets address abortion of american children. The last figure I heard for this was thirty million and climbing which is moree deaths then have been commited by all the wars this country has ever been involved with. Why is it that the liberal people that talk of deaths by a firearm never want to talk about doctors killing children and those that allow the same.
"Why is it that the liberal people that talk of deaths by a firearm never want to talk about doctors killing children and those that allow the same?"
It might be that "children" aren't killed during an abortion, (a potential child) or fetus is. How can you compare a fetus to a six year old child? You can't!
sam., # 9.16,
Actually, you can compare anything, observe, compare, assess. Sort of how our brains work.
Fetus vs. six year old child: double helix DNA; two each arms, legs, eyes, ears; one head...see easy.
I doubt you will find many takers in the ranks of school teachers. Typically they are women of the liberal mold and not likely to have much use for firearms. The male teachers in your higher grades maybe. As far as Gary's comment about not trusting a teacher with a pea shooter, trust me there are cops who carry a gun on their hip and have no clue how to hit their target. The biggest thing is training, it must be mandatory and often. When your body is in a stressful situation (like a gun battle) you will need to rely on muscle memory to be proficient. Little problems and uncertainties become big problems and complete failures in the untrained person. As far as South Dakota goes, I don't think anyone, anywhere can tell the people of that state what's right and what's wrong. They wrote the book on decency and common sense.
I have taught since 1980. I am sick and tired of being told to shut the door, huddle the kids together, and if the perp enters the room and starts shooting, to throw books and pencils at them. If this is so effective, maybe we should train our military in the same procedures.
Sticks and stones may break their bones, but a Glock will end this nonsense.
WAKE UP AMERICA
Bravo, Kenny.
I would hope that you can tell the difference between a school zone and a war zone.
Kenny,
That kind of cowboy idiotic mentality is exactly what is going to get your kids killed. Sorry slappy, this isn't the wild west and it isn't your time to play Jesse James. If you want to play Cops and Robbers, get some of your other ignorant buddies together and spend some time in the woods together.
It is sad to think someone like you is actually teaching our next generation.
Doctor - don't have kids I hope.
You think ... someone obviously has not told the thugs and criminals that....why don't you go spread the word and while you are at it tell them crime is illegal.
Doctor logic ,how do you even know what training they will have. And I am sure they are real interested in your opinion.
Ah yes let's huddle them together so they are easier targets! Obviously when these shootings occur there is only one side doing the shooting .Why do you think they call MASSACRE! Yes there may still be a loss of life...no argument, but at least they have a chance!
The perp will just come with body armor. as in Newtown. What's the next escalation, gun-lover?
John, Shoot the perp in the @!$%#ing leg,end of story!
John,
Well John, they can't do that...that's breaking the rules and makes the pro-gun people look even MORE moronic than what they do now.
But, you raise a great question and it is one that will get "forgotten" by many of these nitwits on here.
Yep, it's that easy. Plus, I think the guy is still going to be able to shoot after being shot in the leg. Maybe next, the teachers who will receive a day of training will be trained to shoot the perps through the carpals of their hands so they cannot pull the trigger!
Yep, this is a rational conversation!
Doctorlogic, would you rather put a blankie over the perps head and then take him too the nurses office?
CAR..
No, I'd rather deal with the REAL problem of guns in society. Not come up with some ***inine scenario like you are doing above. Even you have to think about what you are writing and say it is complete and utter bull ****.
Your latest response reminds me of the really stupid kids on the playground that know they are outmatched intellectually, so they resort to sarcasm and moronic statements. It's embarrassing.
John the armor cannot be so well concealed. So out in public they may be more noticed. This is a deturrent. And I happen to have state of the art body armor because of my job and I can tell you I can still be shot in the face, legs and arms. Also I do enjoy my guns for legal purpose and self defense is legal. Again it's not good people that commit these crimes soyou can "what if" all you want. If someone shoots at me I want to be able to shoot back.
That is right. Shoot them in the leg. IT WORKS!!! I was shot below my left knee by an idiot pretending to be a hunter 15 years ago in Missouri. It only did some muscle and skin damage but I can tell you, I WASN'T ABLE TO SHOOT BACK. ALL I could do was lay there holding my leg and screaming for help while the trespassing idiot ran off. After a few minutes I was able to get my cell phone out and call for help. DoctorLogic not so logical, why don't you try it and see if you can shoot back. Oh, BTW, the first body armored shooter in the Hollywood shootout, WAS STOPPED BY A SHOT TO HIS LEG!!!!!
wage...
This is the false narrative you people always bring up....NOBODY is saying you shouldn't be able to own a gun legally and even use it for self defense. You people always think it is an "all or nothing" type argument where we are either going to have ALL guns or NO guns.....it is either completely ignorant or completely dishonest.
What is your answer DR. Another worthless law that criminals will ignore? How about a judicial system that actually make criminals pay for there crimes & keeps them in prison for life. How about allowing our military too go after the drug gangs in this country and treat them as the terrorists that they are. But no,that would infringe upon there rights. I am waiting for your answer,not a line of bull!
Half....
So let's bring it back to the orginal argument....now, not only are you expecting teachers to have guns...but they should be able to hit the leg of a shooter from God knows how far away in the middle of something they we not trained for.
Plus, let's not forget....Lanza WANTED to die....he isn't some hunter in the woods for God's sake.
Yep....once again....total common sense. (sarcasm)
CAR...
You willing to pay higher taxes for this......I didn't think so.
Why the military....don't we have law enforcement officers doing that now? Plus, you are advocating the state going in against American citizens suspected of gang violence.....I guess so much for that "small government" or "Constitution" or "habeas corpus" stuff, huh?!
I'll take it one further.....let's send the military in against rednecks who accumulate too many guns (the exact same thing you're advocating for above). Wait a minute...that's exactly what the NRA says the military IS going to do.
Ridiculous.
I am expecting that whoever carries in any school. Will be properly trained by law enforcement .And once trained they will be expected to go through future training with law enforcement in order to remain proficient. I am still waiting for you remedy for the whole solution!!!!!!! Until you give me an answer ,you are just a waste of my time. So long.
#11.3 -
Looking forward to your well-reasoned ideas for convincing criminals to give up their guns!
Go for it, Doc.
.
Only those who wish to carry and are trained.
All Lanza needed was a super-soaker, a gallon of gas and a lighter.
He would've created just as much (if not more) carnage.
Want to ban those too??
.
STILL Waiting for the hoplophobe's Grand Scheme to Convince Criminals to Give up Their Guns!
Yep....once again....total common sense. (sarcasm)
Yep, it's that easy. Plus, I think the guy is still going to be able to shoot after being shot in the leg.
Try using some common sense and read your own line. That is the line I commented on. It has nothing to do with where it happened, in woods or what distance. I was not able to shoot back after being shot in the leg. The Hollywood shooter also was not able to shoot any more. Obviously you have no common sense. And that is NOT sarcasm.
That's the problem... they aren't. In term of education, America is falling further and further behind the rest of the world.
When a terrorist enters a school and starts shooting, it is a war zone!
WAKE UP AMERICA
Go back to sleep, gun-lovers.
These people are genuinely crazy. Let's think of how silly this proposition is.....we have people (police) whose job and years of training helps them make difficult decisions in high pressure situations where they have to decide things like, 'yes, I can shoot here because if I miss, others won't be hurt'. My God, what they are allowing people to do is form a circular firing squad and people who are trained to teach kids are now supposed to make clear, level-headed decisions on when or when not to shoot?! The whole premise is SO ridiculous it is beyond words.
In these people's minds, it is irresponsible to complete background checks so the wrong people cannot get their hands on a gun...but think THIS is responsible?! Surrounding our kids with deadly firearms...EVERY DAY!
I wonder who is on the hook the first time someone is unintentionally shot because the person pulling the trigger wasn't qualified? Does the city pick up the tab for the sure lawsuit that is to follow?
DoctorLogic - logic befalls you.
So letting the bad guys have the advantage is going to be better for the kids?
It is better if the good guys have the firearms than only the bad guys.
You think that maybe the same people you are trained to teach our kids could be trained to make level-headed decisions on when or where to shoot to protect their lives and those of the kids around them.
no....
What type of society do you live in for God's sake?
This statement of pure, utter ignorance will be allowed to stand and fester on its own.
It sure is a slap in the face of the law enforcement officers who train every day dealing with high pressure situations like a gun standoff...basically, according to your logic, why have cops in the first place?
I share your dismay at this idiocy. We are rapidly becoming the moral equivalent of Afghanistan, Somalia, Mexico, Iran, Iraq, Syria and the rest of the world's lawless, tribal mess. We mince about making macho noises while our children are being killed. Now we want to arm people who are barely fit, psychologically, to teach, let alone carry a weapon. As Rome fell, so are we on a downward spiral.
is to arrive after the event and go from there.
The job of the police is NOT to protect you!
Indeed. Some people seem to think that carrying a gun automatically makes a regular Joe Sixpack into a Steven Seagal or James Bond. Never mind that years of training and daily practice are necessary to develop and maintain not just skills with firearms, but a proper mindset, which is perhaps far more important. Unfortunately, the influence of Hollywood movies can be felt directly in some of the painfully ignorant commentary around here.
I think you nay sayers are missing the point. Most teachers would likely not opt to carry a gun, but this law gives those with the desire the right to do so. They must all be proficient, and pass a class. I would rather have a motivated teacher gaurding my kids than to allow another Sandyhook event to occur. South Dakota has it right. Allow people the right to protect themselves and their children.
dschlom....
No, the point is finding a way to best protect the children. Surrounding them with firearms HARDLY seems like the logical approach to "protecting" kids. Plus, do you HONESTLY think a teacher, even if they received training, are going to be able to make salient decisions during an actual event? What happens if they miss and hit another kid in the crossfire? Should they be put on trial?
If you THIS is the best remedy, you've been watching way too many movies.
What about this child, 'Doctor"?
What about the right to life of this baby?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Elx8nUWZ63w
How liberals can claim to 'care' and be so heartless is amazing...
Instead of your fantasies, consider that anyone intent on doing harm is more likely to avoid a place where some teachers might be toting firearms, instead of being confident in the knowledge that NO ONE else except the killer is armed.
.
DL., #14.1,
"Surrounding them with firearms HARDLY seems like the logical approach to "protecting" kids."
Sorry, not supported by the real world. Have you noticed POTUS BHO, surrounded by guns to protect him.
And in BHO's words 'if could save one child, we have to try'.
As to collateral damage, say the shooter and the armed teacher both shot five kids. That's ten dead kids, not twenty. Still terrible, but only half the body count of doing nothing.
I'd feel safer with the NRA having a drone program, than with Barry and Crazy Uncle Joe having one.
FOR ALL THE BRILLIANT MINDS OUT THERE
Most schools don't have cops patrolling the halls or even at the main entrance (Sandy Hook being the prime example).
Ask any police officer how long it takes them to respond to an active, school-shooting scene (5-10-15 minutes).
Ask any school teacher how long it would take them to respond to an active shooting at their school (5-10-15 seconds).
I wonder how many children would like to be around to thank their teacher for being a hero, instead of joining them in a mass funeral service.
WAKE UP AMERICA
Kenneth,
What happens if a teacher shoots at someone who they believe is a shooter, misses and kills a kid. Should they be put on trial?
How long would it take for a teacher to respond to a shooting at a day care center - Oh that is right - they don't work there and there are no police either. How about the beach, ballpark, mall, workplace, theatre, playground, summer camp, and on and on? How are the teachers and police suppose to stop shooting at these places? We need to ban assault weapons and high capacity magazines. End of story.
Markin...
The sad thing is, these clowns DO want firearms at the beach, ballpart etc.. These are not well people and are exactly the type of individuals who should NOT own a gun.
...my aunt has testicles? Then she'd be my uncle.
Interesting how the nay-sayers with liberal ideologies keep talking about lawsuits. This is the language of cowards whose only consideration is liability and by extension, butt covering. You SHOULD be ashamed, but you won't be.
No...you should be ashamed because you refuse to talk about the issue that COULD arise given this ridiculous policy.
jga....it is also my assumption you haven't stepped foot inside a school, not to mention a classroom with kids since the 8th grade. You might as well be talking about policy that helps run the space station because you probably have equal the knowledge of how that runs.
Doctor logic maybe you should have spent a few years in the military. Then you would not be so paranoid about guns. And the answer to all of your statements. There is no perfect world, so give up.
Your assumption is wrong, doc, and your argument has no substance. I am fully aware of what COULD arise. I don't spend my life protecting myself against a lawsuit. That's what cowards do and accomplish nothing because there is risk in everything. I play the odds. Good God man, a cop could go crazy and kill people, a judge could do it, a secret service guy could do it, a ninety year old bank guard could do it, anyone anywhere anytime could do it. Statisticly there is not likely to be trouble from any of those gun-carrying Americans. If you had read my previous comments you would see that I would prefer highly trained, well paid professional protectors of our children in civilian clothes rather than arming teachers. But, it could be done either way with success.
CAR-
What is the purpose of a gun? To end the life of something....plain and simple. It is pretty difficult to deny the science that when someone is standing on the other end of the barrel, it usually means very bad things for them.....that's not paranoia, that's reality.
jga....
What in heaven's name are you rambling about here?!?!
No...what intelligent people do is look at all the options, try to foresee any problems that could arise from changing policy of this nature, and are prepared to deal with those issues. It seems you are advocating for moving forward and throw caution to the wind.....yeah, that's brilliant.
Doctor logic ,you live in a make believe world.Prohibition failed,the war on drugs failed. What makes you think that anyone can get guns out of the hands of bad people.
You totally missed my point about the cops, judges, bank guards. It was meant to show you that you have to go with the odds, at times. You just refuse to see the opposition's point of view as anything but insanity, which means there is no point in arguing with you.
CAR...
I don't know...maybe you don't understand this....but they are not advocating for elimination of all guns; I know that is the way it is portrayed on the right, but it isn't reality. All they are advocating for it checking backgrounds of people who want to purchase guns....stiff penalties for straw purchasers....and removal of things like high capacity magazines and cop killer bullets.
Most people think that is reasonable. If we go with your logic, why do we have ANY laws...because murder is a capital crime, and people still do it. Then, lets do away with that law because it hasn't deterred EVERY person from committing murder.
It is a ridiculous argument.
You refuse to even acknowledge points that I make and make the cowardly statement you made above. In other words, you know you cannot win the argument with the small amount of ammo in your intellectual holster.
As the old saying goes, "when the going gets tough....just give up".
Dr Logic it keeps coming back to a FACT that no matter what bad guys will have guns. Good people need to be able to defend themselves.
wage....you have absolutely no clue what "FACT" you are talking about. Your "facts" are always based on wild assumptions in a schizophrenic like mind.
I prefer a "could" situation to a "definite" situation.
And what you propose means that a criminal/kook will definitely know there is no one to stop them.
.
Good odds for the criminal/kook.
VERY bad odds for the innocent and the unarmed.
.
I await the sad news that a child accidentally shot himself, or another student, when a weapon was left in a location with easy access for students. Last month in Michigan, a retired police officer who was serving in the capacity of School Security, inadvertently left his weapon in a bathroom stall at the school. Luckily, no one was injured, but the fact that mistakes can occur should suggest that knee-jerk reactions to previous mass shootings should be revisited with considerable thought and concern for those "What If" events.
Negative, Terry. The harm we seek to prevent is greater than the harm created in that circumstance. There are "what if's" in everything and although SOME consideration should be given to that, you cannot hold hostage a solution because you are unable to protect against every possible contingency.
I'm all for the 2nd amendment, to a point. If SD or any other state wants to pass legislation to allow teachers to carry guns, on school property, in the classroom, let them.
Teachers have a teaching mindset, not a soldier mindset. Even with weapons training, there is still the issue of the innate mindset of each individual. Even if a teacher has a gun, if there's ever a need for a teacher to use it, we have to ask, will they be able to? will they freeze? what happens if an unstable student takes the gun? There are a lot of "what if's".
I have no problem with schools having armed "guards" whose sole purpose is to protect the inhabitants of the school, which allows them to focus on that one task. And that leaves teachers to focus on their one task, educating our children.
And to think it's ok to allow guns in bars, ROFLMAO. And for those who say it's no different than having the guns outside of the bar... well let's see... if the guns are OUTSIDE the bar, that means they are most likely locked up in automobiles, which means it should take a little effort to even get the gun(s) for a gun fight. So no, it's not the same as actually having guns inside bars.
Go ahead, any state that wants to open a full range of places and people to carry guns, go for it. And when the first real gun fight breaks out and we see the devastation from it, then we can all take a step back and see "what just went wrong".
During the Columbine High School shooting of 1999 there was an armed guard on campus. The armed guard failed to make a difference, as 12 students and one teacher were killed. The guard was "outgunned" and stayed outside helping already shot victims until help arrived. A teacher with a gun and the proper training may have had a better chance of making a difference in that case.
Quick newsflash for all the nitwits who think more guns is the answer.....how do all (or most) of these things end? The wacko doing the shooting shoots himself. WHY? Because his living or dying isn't important..he's going in knowing this is going to be his last minutes on this planet. So, if you actually think others having guns is going to deter him, you are as crazy as he is. Actually, if anything, you've created the very warzone these psychopaths want in the first place.
Flippin' brilliant.
Deterrence isn't the only key, Doc. Neuturalizing the threat before he does much harm is the key. Kill dozens, or injure a few. There won't be a war zone.
jga... you state "neuturalizing the threat before he does much harm".... seems to me that would support having armed guards at every entrance, not guns in every classroom.
Once some deranged person enters a classroom, it's most likely already too late.
jga....
In Newtown, most of the children were shot in the first 20 seconds. Explain how a teacher should stop teaching....get his/her firearm.....get in shooting position....and take the shooter down before the 20 seconds eclipses? It is RIDICULOUS to even think that is possible.
Takes less than one and a half seconds for me to pull my gun out of my waistband and end the threat. I am an expert shooter and even allowing the human reaction lag of about a split second, it is still less than two seconds. Period. I know what I am talking about Doc, seems as though you do not.
dl., #20.3,
Nice lie, none of the big networks or the Conn news sources said '20 seconds'.
The Medical Examiner reported each child had been shot three to six times, with one child shot eleven times.
Fourteen children in the first classroom, six children in the second classroom.
The AR-15 is SEMI-automatic, not a full auto M-16. The number of wounds reported and two separate locations,
MEANS YOU ARE FULL OF BS WITH YOUR 20 SECONDS.
Obviously, made up by you.
The shooter would have needed 2 to 2 & half minutes (120 to 170 seconds) to commit that horror.
More than enough time for a teacher to draw and fire to save children's lives.
Lying about dead children. Doc Logic has ZERO credibility.
Those kids better learn to duck and cover!
SD has always been the Texas of the northern states. Has no one in your "hick" states ever heard of Albert Bandura?
Yes, he invented the Band Aid, and I am not talking about Michael Jackson and Prince.
HELL NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
We MUST keep our schools GUN FREE ZONES, so that killers and murderers will have NO OPPOSITION when
they come to kill our kids.
ALL SCHOOLS should be GUN FREE ZONES; killers should face NO opposition when they come to shoot up the schools.
Has anyone called the ACLU??????????????????????????????????????????????????????
Stand up for killer's rights. Support Gun Free School Zones.
We need to outlaw knives, paperclips, baseball bats, vehicles, body limbs, piano wire, tire irons, musical instruments, rocks, etc... etc... because they already have and can continue to kill people...
Of the stupid arguments from the pro gunners....this one is one of the dumbest.
Absolutely, a guy like Adam Lanza would've created the carnage he did entering the school with a paperclip......wait a minute, the kids are SURROUNDED by paperclips. Oh my God!
Camacho....go back to bed.
He could have doused the outside of the school with gasoline, and lit a match and caused the entire school to burn to the ground.
Yes, he could have done more damage with other things than a gun.
Or parked a car filled with homemade explosive and taken the entire building in matter of minutes.
Remember Oklahoma City ?
A small explosion is further fueled by gas lines.
Should we ban natural gas too to avoid this danger?
Communism....
Two things.....
First, what is the purpose of natural gas? As a fuel...correct? What is the purpose of a gun? To kill something...correct? Equating the two is abjectly ludicrous.
Second, you are again (like others) creating this false narrative. If all legislation passes as it has been written.....you may own 50 guns right now.....and you'd own 50 guns afterward. This notion that guns are being "banned" is nonsensical. But, I understand that is what the clown show on the right has to do otherwise their arguments look even more stupid than they do now.
A gun is for defense.
Otherwise let's ban bee killer, its purpose is to kill.
Or let's not kill germs, some groups like Peta would get all bent out of shape.
Anything can be used for killing.
If we ban guns for all then also police and the military shouldn't have them.
It's for killing, right?
And Obozo shouldn't have armed men to protect him.