We talked earlier about Democratic responses to the massacre in Newtown, Conn., during discussions on the Sunday shows yesterday, but Republican policymakers had some thoughts of their own on the subject. Though GOP senators were reluctant to appear on "Meet the Press," Americans got to see Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Texas) on "Fox News Sunday."
For those who can't watch clips online, Gohmert said of the principal of Sandy Hook Elementary School, "I wish to god she had had an M-4 in her office, locked up so when she heard gunfire, she pulls it out and she didn't have to lunge heroically with nothing in her hands, but she takes him out, takes his head off before he can kill those precious kids."
This is the same lawmaker who said, after the massacre in Aurora, Colo., "It does make me wonder, with all those people in the theater, was there nobody that was carrying a gun that could have stopped this guy more quickly?"
Before you dismiss this as more nonsense from a nutty congressman who few take seriously, it's worth noting that on "Meet the Press," William Bennett, a former Secretary of Education, also talked up the notion of arming officials. "I'm not so sure I wouldn't want one person in a school armed, ready for this kind of thing," Bennett said, adding, "Has to be someone who's trained. Has to be someone who's responsible."
I can only hope that if Friday's tragedy does spark a larger national conversation, we can explore how truly amazing it is to hear prominent conservative voices arguing that elementary schools need well-armed officials standing by, just in case.
For his part, Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) also appeared on Fox News, where he chastised "the entertainment culture," most notably the violence found in "video games and movies." He added, "We've got to ask the entertainment industry, 'What are you going to do to try to tone that down?'"
Leave a Comment:
It's going to happen Rach. Accept this as fact ;)
The Israeli's have already done it. As I understand it, every teacher is eligible for a free gun.
Don't forget, shooter, that every Israeli is also required to serve in the Israeli military for two years. The situation in Israel is slightly different.
It does when knowing how to handle weapons.
No....it doesn't. So you are saying that they wont take a class or be able to learn? Wow, way to marginalize. Teachers everywhere are chomping at the bit. They will take whatever test you want them to. They have already passed Meaghan's law and a ton of other background checks....they can EASILY clear a Concealed Carry license. so yeah no...it doesn't.
There is a big difference between a culture that prides itself on having one of the best and most well trained military's in the world and just anyone with no gun safety training, no certification, no crisis experience, and who may well have issues of their own being put in that kind of situation...
Remember the "stand your ground" case from a few weeks ago...the guy was drunk and emptied a clip into a car full of kids because he thought their music was to loud. And you think these people are capable of defending themselves let alone anyone else? Seriously??
But what about the armed teacher whos been having a really bad time like going through a divorce or something else traumatic and snaps and suddenly we have a room full of dead kids?
Listen I was career army I served more tours of duty than I care to remember I am a professional and I can tell you a few things.
First I have actually had to not only carry a weapon but to personally Kill people it is not something to be taken lightly or casually by the uninitiated because of some paranoid reasoning or romantic idea of heroism under fire.
Second I have seen genuinely courageous men who were experienced veterans of combat choke, panic, and become completely disoriented under those circumstances and anytime anyone is shooting at you THAT is combat.
Third and most importantly: Friendly fire ISN'T. Those bullets don't just seek their target or even stop because they hit something. Bullets don't care!
Guns are not magic wands that can be waved at a bad guy to make them go away. They are not a "Safety Precaution" they are killing machines. Period full stop.
The reason the Israelis have those arms is because they live in a war zone of their own creation. I for one will not! I will not give in to fear! I will not give in to paranoia! I will not give in to visiting that kind of violence on another human being! Never again! NEVER!
How can you be flippantly joking about this? What is wrong with you?
Antimaddow:
I am a teacher, and you are wrong. What the majority of teachers want is for this country to have better mental health services and fewer guns. As your assumption is incorrect, your argument is demolished.
It would take 1 hour or less to instruct teachers in the proper use of a firearm, after that it is just practice. Teachers are intelligent capable people dedicated to the well being of their students.
Doesn't the fact that these shooters wear bullet proof vests make it harder to take them down? How would one lone teacher have brought this guy down unless she was combat trained?
No. Just no. This is not the way to go. More guns and more bullets flying around the children is not the right answer - assuming that there is a right answer to find.
Were I a teacher, I would conscientiously object to any requirement that I have a gun in my classroom. I do not have one in my home. My husband and I do not believe more violence is the answer to violence.
The solution we're looking for is wholistic and we have to make progress on all fronts in society: healthcare and mental healt care access for all, jobs and the economy, the pervasiveness of the portrayal of violence in the media, entertainment, videogames and sports - and the regulation and licensing and background checking of the gun sales industry, too. But let's not run off half-cocked, so to speak, and rile up the wholly-owned NRA Congressmen for nothing. They'll block gun control legislation just to embarrass the President on something else. We have to be more intelligent than that.
It only would take a second to determine where the body armor was not placed.
And if you remember, Adam took his own life when when armed responders arrived. Just like the shooting at the Oregon Mall.
Carolina actually raises a very valid point what about "Conscientious objectors" People with religious or moral convictions about guns and violence
Do they loose their jobs? What if something happens and they "Fail" to take out the bad guy are they then responsible? what if they only wound him are they protected by self defense or are they liable?
Just one more thought...Why is it that pro gun people always respond with the idea of "Lethal Force"
The police carry pepper spray, tazers, handcuffs, there are a lot of things on the table before you get to "Shoot the F#$Ker!"
Yes, because what would keep kids the safest would be *cross-fire*.
You @!$%#ing dolt.
A gun nut is at the school when the shooter arrives. The gun nut, just like everyone else, doesn't know what the @!$%# is going on and pisses his pants in fear, seizing up completely. Eventually the gun nut figures it out, pulls out his sidearm and points it at the shooter, only to realize he still has the safety on. Shaking like a dog @!$%#ting razor blades, he manages to squeeze off a few shots, missing wildly and by the grace of god not hitting any innocent people. The sociopathic @!$%# shooter notices and executes the gun nut on the spot.
As the gun nut lays dying, his last thought is, 'Why didn't my fantasy play out? I thought buying a gun made me Batman, goddammit.'
So their answer to gun violence is MORE GUNS?
ShadeTail and Dragoon
Some good advise for when/if ever you own a gun.
Always assume it is loaded.
Never point it at anything that is not your target.
Always assume you will kill your target if it is a living creature.
Never pull your handgun from the holster unles you are going to make it safe or you are going to fire it.
If every teacher is armed, then it is inevitable that eventually one of them will snap and blow away an obstreperous student...and then another one will...and another one...
Liebermann is also calling for a Senate Commission. Talk about doing nothing!
Dan-p,
Forget Lieberman. Let's make this point: A while back, a deranged, young, terrorist-to-be got on a plane with a bomb in his shoe. That was one, isolated incident. Luckily, no one was hurt or killed.
As a result your little 5 year old and your 84 year old grandmother in her wheelchair can't get on a plane in the US without the indignity of having to remove their shoes and being searched. It is a typical over-the-top useless policy. Still, it remains in place.
So, please, do not tell me nothing can be done to end this gun violence and these horrifying massacres. What is missing is congress's will to change this.
The NRA has been bully and lobbying congress for years. Let's start by ending that.
sorry, bullying and lobbying congress for years was what I meant.
adifferent Phil
"serving in the military has nothing to do with the security of their schools
It does when knowing how to handle weapons."
Didn't serve in the military did you? When I was in the AF, the primary skill was that you aimed at the targets and didn't turn around with a loaded weapon.
Liebermann should be shunned. The NRA should be banned from lobbying or contributing to any member of congress or candidate. But all these shoulds will never happen they will only be talked about.
Banning assault weapons and limiting size of clips for any weapon to 10shot max...plus strict handgun licensing is something we can get done within a month. At least it is a start. If you want to own a gun you must prove you have a reason for owning one in order to register it.
What a great idea! What could possibly go wrong with having a loaded assault rifle in every school?
There are idiots and then there are idiots like Gomert...
Heck, why not just have a gun rack at the door to each school and each person who enters the building can just take one off the rack. Everyone will be perfectly safe then!
Sadoldveteran,
Really, there's a helpful idea: MORE guns in the schools! Good Lord.
Some of the things that come out of the mouths of Republicans just plain boggle the mind.
The "armed citizen to the rescue" is largely a myth.
It is one of those pseudo-logical arguments that gun advocates promote. But there are approximately 85 gun deaths every DAY in this country. How many armed-citizen hero stories have you heard? I know of stories, but none verified. Gangs shooting each other don't count.
The "armed citizen to the rescue" is not a myth.
The shooter at the Oregon Mall stopped his shooting spree when he was confronted by an armed citizen.
There is actually a newly elected assemblywoman in Nevada that is putting forth a conceal carry law for college campuses. There was a girl killed and another raped on a college campus so she believes all college kids should be able to carry concealed weapons to protect themselves. Yeah, that's what I want to see.....drunken college kids partying down with hidden, loaded weapons. Isn't America great?
"Largely a myth" eh? Justfacts.com says otherwise:
Based on survey data from a 2000 study published in the Journal of Quantitative Criminology,[17] U.S. civilians use guns to defend themselves and others from crime at least 989,883 times per year.[18]
A 1993 nationwide survey of 4,977 households found that over the previous five years, at least 3.5% of households had members who had used a gun "for self-protection or for the protection of property at home, work, or elsewhere." Applied to the U.S. population, this amounts to 1,029,615 such incidents per year. This figure excludes all "military service, police work, or work as a security guard."[19]
A 1982 survey of male felons in 11 state prisons dispersed across the U.S. found:[21]
• 34% had been "scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim"
• 40% had decided not to commit a crime because they "knew or believed that the victim was carrying a gun"
• 69% personally knew other criminals who had been "scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim"[22]
US census data for 2006 (I picked a random year - this is not exactly academically rigorous, but should give an idea of the significance) shows a violent crime rate of 474 per 100,000 people (http://www.census.gov/statab/ranks/rank21.html). We reached 300 million people in October of that year, so we can say about 1,422,000 incidences of violent crime occurred that year. Compare that to the above data, suggesting about a million crimes are prevented yearly by gun ownership, and you can start to see how this factor is significant. It's certainly valid to debate whether guns are worth it considering that access to stolen weapons may lead to more violent crime, and more guns available means more gun accidents; but it is a fact that a significant number of crimes are prevented by civilian gun ownership.
I see the NRA folks are out in full force.
Have a gun debate, and there they are. Talk about the most organized group of nuts.
Self reporting in a survey is useless. Anyone who keeps a gun in their house "for protection" can say they "used it" for protection even if all it did was make them feel better. What I would want to see as evidence is police reports. And I'm not talking about protecting your home from invasion or larceny. I'm talking about this crazy idea of arming principals and teachers.
@kpm58-- I will believe that when you give me a credible source. That was not in the reporting I read at the time. It does not make any sense to me that a person wearing body armor would be scared off by anyone who was not at least similarly armed and equipped.
Okay, you discount the self-reporting. I discount the number of police reports, because there is a direct incentive not to report protecting yourself with a firearm - fear of being charged with a crime for doing so. Media reports are similarly biased (in the statistical sense, not the political sense) - if the criminal flees and no shots are fired, there's nothing to report on. That being said, The Cato Institute this year published a study analyzing media reports of crime prevention using firearms earlier this year, and it's littered with media-reported examples: Tough Targets
In fact, just skimming the article I found a perfect example of an "armed citizen to the rescue" situation that you were claiming is mythological. From the article:
Note that while Assam had the training of a police officer, he no longer *was* a police officer, and would not have the right to carry a firearm if they were restricted only to law enforcement.
MIM
Source is a MSN news report from yesterday, Bing it.
Body armor does not cover the face or hands or neck. And the proper use of a firearm includes aiming.
A gun nut is at the school when the shooter arrives. The gun nut, just like everyone else, doesn't know what the @!$%# is going on and pisses his pants in fear, seizing up completely. Eventually the gun nut figures it out, pulls out his sidearm and points it at the shooter, only to realize he still has the safety on. Shaking like a dog @!$%#ting razor blades, he manages to squeeze off a few shots, missing wildly and by the grace of god not hitting any innocent people. The sociopathic @!$%# shooter notices and executes the gun nut on the spot.
As the gun nut lays dying, his last thought is, 'Why didn't my fantasy play out? I thought buying a gun made me Batman, goddammit.'
A LWNJ wants to show everyone that guns are bad. The LWNJ gets a gun and goes to a school and murders innocent children. The LWNJ shouts proudly, "see, I have proved guns are bad".
If every teacher is armed, then inevitably a teacher will snap and blow away an obstreperous student...and then another teacher will...and another...
There is no evidence to support that what so ever. The shooter was never confronted. Stop using disinformation to support your position.
@kpm above
5 police officers opened fire on one shooter standing behind a tree and 7 bystanders were accidentally shot...and these were trained shooters. Throwing more shooters in to the mix will more often than not get more peopel killed not less. Even the man who jumped on the Gabby shooter was nearly shot by an "armed citizen to the rescue" because he thought he was the shooter.
Your 'hero myth' reminds me of the man who said " there are over a billion chinese and if I could get each one to buy an aspirin I'd be a multimillionaire"...They want to do the same thing with guns and bullets...the war profiteers also own the gun factories and are trying to convince you how the best thing is always more guns. Evidence is to the contrary. Just look at Australia's new gun control law's results. A teacher with an AR-15 at home and a son she knew was mentally disturbed...if only she would have had her gun at school, locked in a cabinet huh. This is fantasy thinking.
So the answer to gun crime is...more guns?
yeah... and stand your ground laws too ...it's the American effin' way baby
Welcome to Dodgecity and the OK corral...Yeehah
No kidding! Can't you just imagine a gunfight in a school? Pause for a moment to let that sink in.
For one thing, in an event like the one in Newtown, the school officials were taken by surprise. No one made an appointment for a break-in ahead of time. So this principal was in a room in a meeting with a parent and other staff members at the moment that Lanza started shooting. She was nowhere near her proposed M-4 locked away in a drawer.
Secondly, a "designated person" to man the school's gun won't be a trained sharpshooter, able to maintain his or her composure to aim the gun accurately in a moment of surprise and panic. That's why we have police and not vigilantes in the United States.
And thirdly, it's only in hindsight that you would think this a good idea. What if some deranged person came into the building, without a gun. Should we shoot first and ask questions (see if there's a weapon) after we can look through the dead person's pockets?
You people, who think arming school officials is the answer to school shootings, have been watching way too many action movies.
And one other thing I wanted to say. I saw a bunch of comments (not on this post) over the weekend saying that this was exactly why we need to keep guns in the hands of "the good guys," so that they can defend against the crazies. Well, Nancy Lanza was certainly well armed and able to protect herself. How's that workin' out for her?
Nancy Lanza did not recieve any help from law enforcement either.
In the end, the questions for these idiots like Gohmert: So what you are saying is basically we ALL must carry guns in order to be safe? Then, must I get a BIGGER gun than my neighbor because his can kill me from further away? Maybe I should have some plastic explosives just in case he tries to get in my house?
Should we remind him that at one time we did ALL carry guns. I think they called it, "Shootout at the OK Corral".
Not the point, kpm58. This Randian I-can-take-care-of-myself view is what's behind the proliferation of *human-hunting* firearms. None of the guns found with this shooter are intended for any purpose other than killing a person. It's just sick. . . .
You evidently do not know about firearms or hunting, so I will give you an example you can see with your own eyes.
Watch the tv show Alaska Frontier, one of the native americans on the show uses an AR-15 almost exclusively for hunting.
Yeah, I do know something about that, kpm58. My ex-husband had an AR-15, along with a Glock 9mm and a couple of smaller handguns. It's a sniper rifle, capable of shooting someone from a half-mile away. You're not much of a hunter if you can't get any closer than that to your elk.
Or squirrel or rabbit. Blow that bitch right up! Yeeee-Haaaa!
The scarier thing is, the so-called 'Wild West' was a lot safer even though a lot of people had guns. Not due to them owning the guns, but due to the fact that they were required to surrender them to the sheriff when entering a town (and they were returned when they left town). The only time true 'gunfights' broke out was when someone decided to flaunt the law.
http://www.buzzle.com/articles/the-wild-west-of-myth-and-reality.html
Amazing to think that people were safer over 150 years ago than they are now, due to actual laws governing the ownership and carrying of firearms. Imagine that.
To kpm, Nancy Lanza was in bed when her son shot her, probably asleep.
JL
In one post you say the AR-15 is only used to hunt humans but in another post you imply your ex used it to hunt elk.
Which one is not true?
kpm: reading comprehension is your friend. At no point in her post did JL say or even imply that the ex- used that human-murder tool for hunting.
ShadeTail
The post mentioned an AR-15, a 9mm and some smaller hand guns. I do not think you would hunt elk with a 9mm or smaller handgun.
kpm58: I want to thank you for your ceaseless efforts in this thread to clearly demonstrate that if we had an IQ test you morons had to pass to have your penis replacements, you'd just have to spank that little pee-pee of yours all by itself.
Go back to Wacko World and get shot by one of your fellow "patriots" - it'd be the thing you're good at.
TCinLA
Kind of small minded of you to assume I am male considering whose blog site this is.
And I think this is not the proper vine for you to be playing out your sexual fantasies.
"Or squirrel or rabbit. Blow that bitch right up! Yeeee-Haaaa!"
It's the manly thing to do!!! Yeah, buddy!
kpm: Once again, reading comprehension is your friend. The post does not say or imply that the ex- did any hunting whatsoever. You just made that up.
To clarify (ahem!), my ex-husband obtained all of those guns as "protection." He never, at least as long as I knew him, set foot in the wilderness to hunt anything. My point is that kpm58 said this Native American used the AR-15 for hunting, and I don't think (not that I'm an authority, never having gone hunting myself) the sport of hunting is about shooting game at long distances.
Since we're talking about my ex-husband, I'll tell you this. He was an ACOA--that's an adult child of an alcoholic family. He did very well in many ways, in spite of this, putting himself through college and medical school. But he had demons that haunted him.
In 2000, he attempted suicide. He took a whole slug of barbiturates, washed down with Jack Daniels, and I found him almost dead with all his guns beside him. Police confiscated those guns, and he was barred from getting them back later on. He miraculously survived, went through extensive rehab and eventually returned to practice.
However, the behaviors continued, and I finally made the decision that I needed to separate myself legally and financially from him. Once the divorce was final, we remained great friends. He really was an excellent person, just tormented. In August 2009, I got a call from his sister-in-law that he had shot himself. Obviously got another gun somehow. I mourn for him to this day.
He was from a family of four siblings. One shot herself shortly before I met my husband, and I never knew her. A second, his brother, killed himself in late 2007. My ex was the third of those four to kill himself with a gun. Very, very tragic. Aside from my ex and his brother, I know of three others, including my own brother, who are dead as a result of firearms. Two were murders. So you all may have an inkling of why I feel this way about guns.
JL in Montana, #5.20
Thank you for sharing that sad story with us. I admire your ability to have removed yourself from what had to be a very difficult situation. I wish you well.
Alcohol and guns are a really lethal combination.
I, too, lost someone to a crazed person wielding a gun, a long time ago. You don't forget that. Ever.
JL
You proved me correct in my original post to you, thank you.
Can't imagine how in the world you've come to that conclusion, kpm58. And with that, I'll say, "Adios!" From here on out, you're on Ignore.
"Engage brain before operating mouth" is a useful instruction here.
Putting a cop in every school is an example of an idea that sounds good, until examined. Combine the element of surprise with superior firepower, and the cop is the first casualty. Oh, and who is going to PAY for a 'cop in every school'?
For a very good examination on the 'gun control' issue, take a look at:
http://wonkette.com/493036/earnest-wonkette-think-piece-here#idc-container
-yes that wonkette; no snark this time!
"Ridiculous?"
Topeka Police Chief Ronald Miller called the Sunday night shootings of Cpl. David Gogian and Officer Jeff Atherly "unspeakable." He said Gogian, 50, and Atherly, 29, were both shot in the head by a gunman who opened fire on them within minutes of their arrival to investigate the vehicle.
Perhaps I should have said "Engage Google, before using keyboard. . "
We don't know all the details of the latest incident. But these massacres are not spontanious or random--they are planned.
And I agree that if there is a police officer or security guard or an armed principal, then that is the first person that the shooter will target. He shot the principal and other staff and then two teachers before he shot a single kid.
Yup, there are now cops in each of the schools in my town. As to who's going to pay for this, well, it sure won't be the NRA. It's us. Our kids.
But oh yeah, guns are what keep us free! This is freedom?
DAY, I believe we currently have a law where little car seats for toddlers have to be installed in cars properly and there is a law stating that if they are not, the person driving can be fined. I don't believe it is legal to drive with an unsecured toddler or infant in your car.
I KNOW it is illegal to drive without seatbelts for all passengers, including children.
People cannot smoke in bars and restaurants anymore, or in any public buildings. Second hand smoke is dangerous.
But there's NOTHING we can do to legislate proper gun safety laws? Give me a break.
Nothing we can do to get assault rifles off the street? Right.
Seems to me guns are just as dangerous as second hand smoke or driving without a seat belt. Just a hunch.
And speaking of "cops in every school," wouldn't that cost money? And isn't the TEA Party moniker derived from Taxed Enough Already?
Funny how some people wring their hands and say we're just too broke as a country and need to cut Medicare, Social Security and Medicaid. Can't afford those programs. And then the very same people expect there would surely be money to fund salaries for--how many? 100,000? 500,000? more?--trained security personnel to patrol the hallways of our public schools.
Would that include charter schools, too? And parochial schools? How about trade schools, community colleges and universities? Is there no end???
Sorry, Gomer the answer is NOT arming the principal & teachers! That is part of the problem! The other part of the problem is that some Americans have come to glorify and worship their guns! I understand the "Right to bear arms" - I'm tired of assault weapons and magazines that hold more than 7 bullets being far too easy to get! I'm tired of people saying "it's the Castle doctrine, or there is mental illness to blame"! Frankly if you or your children have "mental issues" than you should be unable to keep a fire-arm period!
We have to take tests to drive cars which are just like a loaded gun and can cause the same horrific damage - and yet NO skills are required for gun ownership, WTH?!? What makes gun ownership special? Do people not realize that when the Constitution was written - those people were forming a new nation - this country was pretty much "open" land and hunting is how people got meat if they didn't have farm animals! WE are in the 21st century and have almost hunted the animals to extinction, it's time to stop pretending that this is still the wild, wild west and start recognizing that other people have the right to be free from terrorists among US! As Osama bin Laden was labelled a terrorist, this young man, the Aurora shooter, the guy in Oregon, et.al are terrorists and should be treated as such - I for one am tired of hearing after another massacre that these people have "mental issues" - it's the fall-back that people use to justify silencing the conversation when these massacres occur! ENOUGH!!
As usual, Zora, you're exactly right. A huge part of the problem is the romanticizing of guns. Lieberman wants to blame the entertainment industry and video games, but the media also is a large part of this problem. Remember the Tea Party rallies of 2008? All the holsters and assault rifles present at those?
Then we get the common, and very incorrect, claim that the Second Amendment gives us the right to unqualified gun ownership and the right to carry it anywhere we darned well please! That is not what the Supreme Court found in 2008, when it ruled upon what the Second Amendment offers individuals on gun ownership rights. Problem is virtually no one corrects that perception of what the Second Amendment guarntees.
http://www.csgv.org/issues-and-campaigns/guns-democracy-and-freedom/supreme-court-and-the-second-amendment
This is also a pretty good article regarding automatic weapons:
http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2012/08/09/just-because-you-the-machine-gun-doesnt-mean-its-legal/
@HaddieNuff: Not to mention the infamous "crosshairs."
Actually, on this one point, Lieberman is the "stopped clock that's right once a day."
Remember back when the first "first person shooter" game came out, how shocked everyone was? Those are now 60% of video games. The Army uses them to desensitize soldiers to the idea of shooting at humans, and to improve their aim. And those games don't have the same effect on civilians? I'd like to know how many of these shooters were found to have these "games" on their computers.
The cowardly and inhumane way the NRA is acting in the wake of this tragedy is disgusting.
People should cut up their cards and mail them in to them as a protest against this cowardly silence and the removal of their facebook page.
And when the principal accidentally shoots the wrong person, or shoots someone as collateral damage, or someone realizes the principal has an M-4 in her office, goes and shoots her first to steal the M-4 and use it to kill more faster - then are you going to arm the children? Should we start handing over a pistol with every birth?
"Congratulations, Mrs. Smith, you have a beautiful baby girl. Here's her birth certificate and here's her gun license. You can pick up her Glock on the way out."
and we will be sending you a gift certificate for her "My first Uzi"
I remember in Tucson a guy who pulled his concealed weapon nearly took down a first responder not knowing who the perpetrator was.
http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/human_nature/2011/01/friendly_firearms.html
Katherine, you are on to something. The government should give away guns at birth. Free, of course and American made. Replace that silly free phone thing. The constitution doesn't say anything about the right to a phone.
AntiMaddow - It's happened, it's happened many times. Untrained people responding with guns to a shooting situation usually result in more wounded. Police officers aren't even immune to accidentally shooting the wrong subjects or misfiring into a crowd.
Also stow your gender essentialism - you're talking to a transgender woman here, and that's horribly offensive.
Okay, you've been reported. Hateful bigots like you don't deserve a forum like this.
Yes, Tigersharktoo, the poor should get free "Obama Guns." Imagine the conspiracy theories if he did that! "He's arming his base to exterminate us!"
"This Christmas get your child the new "Pistol Packin' Barbie." It comes with a pink gun that matches Barbie's."
And of course, instead of cigar's, new fathers should be handing out blue or pink guns to commemorate the occasion, because what better way is there to celebrate a new life than with an instrument that can extinguish it the fastest?
Katherine
As much as I hate to say it Yes they do...but fortunately they also get an unlimited supply of rope. They are their own worst enemies
Okay, well they can get the forum, but we don't have to listen to them.
Is there a way to close down the "AntiMaddow" - the comments are neither helpful nor useful nor do they display anything other than ignorance and bigotry. I get snark/sarcasm/irony/et.al - it's comments are not that and I think it's just a bit much right now...
If you click the ! next to the arrow on the bottom right hand corner of the box there's an "Ignore this Author" option. You can also report him.
Thank you for that info! Anti was gonna make my head explode.
The 1st amendment guarantees the right of free speech and also the right to be completely ignored
Well actually the First Amendment only applies to government suppression of free speech. Private forums (like this one) can and do have limits to speech, and they're not considered a violation of the First Amendment.
And when the teacher accidentally shoots the wrong person, cross-fire kills a kid or two, who's on the hook for that or those deaths? How does a person who is not military (and even some who are) learn to deal with the fact that they killed someone?
Freaking NRA nuts...guns are the solution to all problems. The NRA is the problem. They have no sanity at all when it comes to guns.
Thank you Katherine.
I'm guessing the anti-m (auntie M,,,tee hee) can't get his 2 cents in at the biggot bar so they (biggots) come here.... closed minded vitriol
"Well actually the First Amendment only applies to government suppression of free speech."
Thank you for pointing that out. One of the reasons the US is in such sad condition is that malicious people (e.g., Anti-...) are allowed to abuse the First Amendment far too often. I wish I had money for every time some First Amendment zealot or political/religious smut-peddler has acted like the First Amendment gives him or her an absolute right to say whatever they want, whenever they want, and wherever they want.
Snark aside, I understand the logic in thinking that if everyone knows that our schools have people - teachers or other administration or actual guards - who are armed and trained and ready to take down an intruder with murder on his mind, that they'll think twice about wanting to shoot up a school...
But Adam Lanza went into that school ready to die. He did not walk out of that school alive, even with no one in the school armed when he walked in. There's no guarantee such a "protector" would have dissuaded Lanza from what he did if that's what he wanted to do or thought he had to do given the state of mind that thought shooting up a school was a good idea in the first place
There's also no guarantee a "protector" would have stopped Lanza before he did all the damage he did.
There's also no guarantee Lanza would not have first taken out the "protector" and used his gun to inflict more damage.
There's also no guarantee the "protector" would not have killed innocent people in the crossfire, or panicked and shot someone he thought was the assailant only to hit someone running from Lanza in a blind panic.
And given how huge some school are, there's no guarantee someone who is hellbent on taking lives before losing his own just wouldn't figure out where the "protector" is and start shooting up the part of the school farthest away, or the gym field or wherever the "protector" isn't.
And if there's ONE designated person in a school who is armed and prepared to shoot to kill, what happens in a Columbine situation, when there's more than one shooter?
What guys like Gohmert & Bennett are doing, at the risk of using a violent image as analogy, are releasing countermeasures. Before us lowly godless liberals can assemble and focus and demand change as one, they're throwing stupid statements in the air hoping we'll pay more attention to that, to them, and pretend their points deserve time and attention so we'll focus less on actual legislation. They don't want to have ANY of these conversations, if those conversations might result in gun legislation. So throw everything at the wall, maybe something will stick (and based on the fact that nothing ever gets done, clearly, they're usually right).
Someone will point out to Gohmert that his plan is already doomed to fail; if the events play out as he depicts in his quote it's already too late - unless the principal has Superman-like abilities - faster than a speeding bullet - she won't be able to pull out her gun after she hears gunfire, run down to the classroom and take off the head of the gunman.
I'm sure he'll then up the ante and go with a gun for every teacher. Of course, then you'll start hearing about schools being broken in to because some one knew that's where they could get guns - which would mean each school would need night patrols, but then we wouldn't be able to afford it, which would lead to home-schooling for all - but hey Republicans don't want women out in the work force anyway, what with them asking for equal wages and such. /snark.
BP
The scenerio in this situation works. The principal confronted and was killed before Adam entered a classroom.
Apparently, quick drawing in the faction of a second when someone armed walks, unexpectedly, into their office, as well as sniper training to make a clean head shot, will be required of all school personnel. Curiously, nothing is mentioned of all the military personnel who fail at sniper training, but all school personnel will, again apparently, be able to become sniper rated.
The level of absurdity is astounding.
Ms
You do not need "sniper training" to make an on target shot from 25 or less feet away.
Nor, apparently, brains to make such a silly comment on any blog.
It takes a lot of practice to be any good with a pistol. Target shooting, for me anyway, was a drag; I couldn't hit a large dead tree from 15 feet with lots of bullets, bullets are a buck eachish, really noisey, even in a contoled setting it's still dangerous,, with a rifle I couldn't hit a bottle at 25 feet.
You need proper instruction and/or glasses.
You really are a relentless troll, aren't you kpm58? It's been fun clicking the exclamation point on each of your posts twice - once for "No Value" and once for "Inflammatory." And the system lets me do that multiple times for each.
But we really do want to thank you profusely for demonstrating so clearly today how ignorant ignorance has to be, to be one of you drooling fools.
TC...,
Trolls in general do tend to be relentless...also p!ssy snots.
No, snipers shoot targets from far away...you just want a school official to be so proficient that they can shoot a 10" x 6" moving target at 30 paces.
NOTHING like a sniper - a person who is heavily trained. Who pays for the hours upon hours of target practice required to become that proficient? How are school officials compensated for the number of hours it takes to become that proficient? How is a person certified to be proficient enough to blow away a honeydew melon from across a room? What happens if they cannot become proficient?
You guys are so freaking crazy it's not even funny.
Guns don't kill people, people kill people...with guns. Guns don't shoot themselves, but people have a hell of a lot of a better chance of surviving after being knifed than being shot with that gun that didn't shoot itself.
The idiotic logic astounds me. Completely. Please resume hiding your head in the sand.
The gunman in Connecticut was an evil monster; there will always be such and society can neither predict nor prevent their actions. What enabled the scale of his carnage, however, were the puerile fantasies of an old woman who trusted neither god nor society to protect her from imaginary dangerous neighbors. The very protections she sought in her social paranoia brought about the result she most feared, and then allowed evil to rampage in the community. She is also guilty, as are those who helped her ignore the gun regulations where she lived, and those who manufacture Kalashnikovs whose only purpose is the extinguishing of multitudes of bright, sacred consciousnesses.
But evil is a religious concept, and we like to believe we are a rational people. Let us rather look to the Supreme Court, whose sclerotic minds myopically examine the words of each constitutional amendment as if they were tea leaves, seeking the “original intent” of the founders. They forget the founders did not fight and die in the Revolution for the bill of rights, but for higher concepts of self-government, freedom, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Some rights will conflict, and when they do words are poor guides.
The judges tell me that the second amendment guarantees me the rights to live in a fortress piled high with Kalashnikovs and to stroll anywhere in public with one on each arm. This judgment comes in the same solemn tones as when they inform a penniless, homeless woman she is free because the law also prevents the wealthy from sleeping in the street or stealing the bread on which to live. Our patriot ancestors sacrificed and fought for an open and tolerant society which rejected the ideological ravages of Europe. We the people must fight just as patriotically for our rights — to rule by law, domestic tranquility, and the common welfare. We must stand up to that minority who would strip them from us.
"I wish I had a gun." seems to be a common reply as to a possible solution to prevent or mitigate damage from an armed attacker. Many schools already have armed guards, but unless they frisk everyone entering the school I doubt one could have prevented this trouble. Also, collateral damage is always a risk as well if the guard was in the right place at the right time. Putting guns in the hands of ordinary citizens as a form of protection is just as likely to not prevent such attacks and opens the door for other tragedies to occur, including giving the attacker another weapon. There isn't one sure fire way to prevent tragedies like this, including stricter gun laws, but stricter gun laws is a partial solution and will likely reduce the number of incidence. I don't see giving guns to personnel at schools as even a partial solution, but potentially making things worse.
Except teacher's and principals are not ordinary citizens. They all go through extensive background checks as well as crisis management and a host of certification trainings. They are high and above average joes who could easily handle the responsibility of carrying a firearm .
You keep saying that and you're still wrong. Police, who deal with gun violence very frequently, and who have to take monthly certification tests, still only hit their targets about 50% or the time. Teachers, who have not been through the police academy, and who have not taken any sort of law enforcement oath, and who are not required to qualify with weapons every month, and neither legally nor physically suited to the role of armed defender of the classroom.
But even the best teacher/principal could snap and then we have someone in the school with a weapon and lots of targets available. How would the weapon(s) be secured? You dont want everyone to have access to it? Would they be able to access the weapon quickly enough?
Interesting how at this time teachers are "high and above average joes" but any other time they're: lazy, do-nothings that fail, corrupt and liberalize our youth. If they're in a union, they're "thugs" who expect benefits that the average joe has to pay for and how dare they be in a public union because we're their employers.
Got it.
Why do Conservatives think more guns are the answer???... My Sister had a teacher pull a gun on her class in the 60s he was mentally ill, and ended up in a State hospital.
Wasn't it in AZ with Gabby Gifford that a guy had a gun, and almost shot the wrong person, and ended up not using it.
No one in the theater shooting chose to use their gun.
There are shootings in Dayton almost every single night. No one ever seems to jump in and help, and we have concealed carry rights here..
More guns more tragedy. Change the freaking laws.
Dayton is not a good example here. In Dayton (like Chicago or Cincinnati) La Shaun is shooting Dewayne for dissing him or stealing some of his rock. Both LaShaun and Dewayne have illegal (unregistered firearms) Nobody tries to stopLaShaun because Lashaun's brother Jerome will come after him and "bust a cap in his ass". Give the teachers an option to be properly trained and quit trying to leave law abiding gun owners unprotected from Lashaun and Jerome.
Could this inspector person be any more racist?
Schmuck.
Yes ma'am I could be more racist. But in this case I'll call it how I see it. Please look up the statistics for murders in Dayton. Most are black on black crime with illegal weapons Or is it better on this blog to use the term "undocumented weapons".
Could this msjoanne person be more uninformed about the real world?
Ditz!!!
No, you couldn't be more racist, or more white.
Shade...,
Unfortunately, those people (and I use the term loosely) seem to have a limitless capacity for malice.
newsine.com. Report racist hate. it has no business here.
The story was not racist. It was true. The point I was making is that inner city crime has nothing at all to do with the topic of this post. You people don't apparently want facts to interfere with your little rants. Give the teachers an option to be properly trained in the use and storage of firearms. Teachers are not all lilly livered liberals, I know plenty that would love to protect themselves and their students from mentally ill spawn of terrible parents.
I am not sure it is a great idea, but I am not sure I have heard anything better from the left. Realistically, what steps can be taken. Don't say "take away guns." That isn't going to happen. Anyway, taking away guns doesn't stop anybody who can acquire a gun illegally.
For me the sad state of mental health treatment in this country is a travesty. Most of the recent shooters have had problems known by their family and friends who were helpless to help even if they tried.
See, the thing about this is that if you do take away guns from people (not a likely solution, but I'll go with your argument) you do remove an awful large number of guns from the situation. A large number (I haven't got the exact numbers here) of gun deaths are the result of accidents or suicides - done by persons who are legally entitled to their guns, to whom guns are registered, and such. By eliminating guns entirely, you're dropping the level down dramatically of gun deaths.
Secondly, most people who instigate murders with firearms do so with legally obtained guns - whether they own the weapons themselves or they steal them from the person who owned the weapon.
So you've dropped the number of gun deaths by incredible amounts by eliminate guns entirely.
---
As I said, however this is not the most likely solution. Increased scrutiny of who can and cannot obtain a gun, removal of assault weapons and high-magazine clips, longer waiting periods between purchase and owning, and also ensuring proper steps of gun safety are met - either levying fines or jail time on people who do not properly use trigger locks/keep their ammo separate/usw.
Actually, taking away guns *does* stop people from getting guns illegally. It's no coincidence that states with the tightest gun laws have the lowest rates of gun violence. The problem is people who get guns *legally*, from neighboring states with looser laws or from gun shows which, by federal law, can't be regulated.
So stop pretending that sensible murder-tool control can't work. It can and it does.
I'm tired of these folks who are dumber than a bag of hammers ("Terra Babies" Gohmert and his chorus as evidenced in this thread) controlling the discourse on gun control. It's time to stop indulging these folks. It just is. Pres. Obama said it much more eloquently, and I agree with him that enough is enough.
It is. Enough is enough. Get guns into the hands of teachers NOW and protect our babies!
You keep saying that and you're still wrong. Police, who deal with gun violence very frequently, and who have to take monthly certification tests, still only hit their targets about 50% or the time. Teachers, who have not been through the police academy, and who have not taken any sort of law enforcement oath, and who are not required to qualify with weapons every month, and neither legally nor physically suited to the role of armed defender of the classroom.
Years ago, "All in the Family" did an episode where they had Archie take the @TAM's view -- it sounded ridiculous then, and it's still ridiculous. Exhibit A of what I'm talking about.
artfulskeptic
I do not know of any police force that requires monthly firearms qualification.
Proper firearms instruction would take an hour or less, then it is just practice.
KPM
The Denver Police Department does, just to mention the closest one.
And no it is not just practice. Just walk an average person through a shoot house and see how many mistakes they make.
Is it the general police force or the swat team that has monthly qualifications?
This is one time I agree with the conservative view. Train and arm our teachers. This is an ultimate empowerment for them. They are responsible for our children and should be given this tool.
Hasn't the "war on drugs" "prohibition" and all of the other restrictive you cannot have laws TOTAL failures proven that these types of laws only prevent the law abiding from using or possessing.
So you think the way to protect our children is to expose them to *cross-fire*.
And you also think that laws controlling guns are comparable to laws controlling illicit substances that people can manufacture from scratch in their closets and basements.
How excruciatingly stupid can you get?
Shade...,
They obviously don't care a flying fig about children...they just want guns, guns, guns!
EntropyRules, Man, they are out there the last few days. A massacre seems to have caused a massive exodus. Guess they can smell violence even under their rocks. They've crawled out en masse.
India...,
They seem to come out and infest non-conservative blogs any time there is a thread about guns or a gun-related subject.
Thats just what we need. Gun battles in schools. One armed with a handgun and one armed with a semi auto rifle. Let me see, umm which one would win. Whats needed in schools is going to have to be bullet proof glass, and alarm systems that notify police the instant something happens. It takes time to make an emergency 911 call. It will be expensive but how much are our childrens lives worth.
It's certainly been fun, A-M, clicking "No Value" and "Inflammatory" to every post you have made here today.
Thanks ever so much for the demonstration of how ignorant ignorance has to be, to be one of you morons. And now, your mommy wants the computer back, little boy.
i see. so they're willing to throw blame out to computer simulations like videogames and movies but actual realistic 3 dimensional killing tools like guns are okay. that makes sense.
Lieberman deserves a reply from the entertainment industry : Not a damn thing.
Their products are released and popular world wide but only the country with the screwy gun culture has massacres of the public.
Several big assumptions are being made: 1. Teachers are "chomping at the bit" to have guns in the classroom. How many would quit knowing that they, or their colleagues, would be expected to carry a weapon? How many education students would change majors knowing that this would be a new job requirement.
2. Parents want their teachers to have guns in the classroom. How many parents would pull their child out of the school district if they were aware that there would be a gun in the classroom their child was attending?
Not a requirement dick, they could carry them if they wanted to. That's the problem...they can't. No assumption there. And let them pull their kids. Private school 'em if they can't handle their kids being safe.
It's only inevitable that there will be an incident where a citizen is armed during one of these madman rampages and either (or both) of these occur:
1. Armed citizen kills innocent bystander when trying to shoot the madman.
2. Armed citizen gets killed by cops because they enter a scene with the information "Guy with gun killing people" and they see the armed citizen and open fire.
You think the "discussions" we are having now are interesting? Just you wait....you ain't seen nothing yet.
What is most cynical about the "arm the teachers" argument from the right is the implied or in some cases outright declaration that teachers are well-screened, stable, trustworthy, upright, caring, decent, honourable and noble ... etc. Fully-qualified and to be trusted absolutely with a gun in their school.
Are these not the same teachers who, according to the same people on the right, are union thugs who want to suck off the government? Who keep their job even when they are incompetent and stupid because the union protects them? Who aren't worth paying a living wage because they don't even work that hard or ever plan to ... "two months vacation every year! bastards!"
So ... it's OUR fault that teachers are highly qualified ... the same ones you think so highly of and want to arm because they're so qualified ...
Try a rationale argument. Just once, see how it feels.
I'm going to make a simpler consideration. Principals, despite the perception, don't spend the entirety of their day sitting behind a big desk. If and when this occurs again, the chances of the principal being in a position to access said gun are not nearly as great as some think.
Gohmert is a fool.
Saying that is an insult to fools. Gomert proves that white Texican males are lower on the evolutionary scale than amoebas, which is probably why he doesn't want to believe in evolution.
TCinLA, Too bad he doesn't believe in it; he is proof of it. There are quite a few missing links in Texas. One even ran for president this year.
When I think of that GOP primary.........Oh, did we get lucky or WHAT!
Possessing Great Power should come great resposibility. How is it we sell guns like we sell baked goods, what is so threatining about making sure the person who obtains such a weapon of potential mass desturction should adhere to strick criminal and psychological background checks! Your 2nd amendment rights are not being taking away, you still have the right to bear arms, you just have to prove to your fellow citizens that you are worthy of that right. When your actions threaten the rights of others then you should lose those rights. Record of domestic violence, "Sorry No Guns for you", "Assualt and Battery? "No guns for you". Your have mental issues "Definately no Guns for you". There is no one way to stop the insanity of gun violence, but each potential gun owner should have no problem proving they are a worthy candidate to possess something that gives them the power to take another life.
Fellow gun owner,
jholmes724
jholmes724 hit it on the head. We don't need to confuse gun control with gun rights. An American citizen has the right to own a gun. But just like most of our rights, there are some common sense conditions as it pertains to the exercise and recognitiion of those rights. Restricting/eliminating gun rights for the mentally ill and people with a history of violence seems reasonable and common sense to me. ijs
Also fellow gun owner & Army vet,
dougsworld
Doesn't that already happen with background checks that are required for purchasing a firearm?
kpm 40% of weapon sales don't require them...
Gun shows require Zero zip nada bubkis
In my state they are required. You should contact your state representatives.
kpm: You're either lying or ignorant. Federal law prohibits the regulation of gun shows, so states can do nothing about it. And gun show merchants have been shown, on camera mind you, to sell people guns even if the customer admits beforehand that they would fail a background check.
ShadeTail
I think I would need to see the federal legislation that specifically prohibits any regulation of gun shows.
And there are people who have been shown, on camera mind you, to illegally sell all kinds of things. Duh.
Google is your friend.
So now we're going to make handling weapons a requirement for teaching in schools?
What happens when the center for the high school football team decides to overpower the teacher and take their gun?
Sounds like a well thought out plan to me.
TAM
Admit it your just afraid. You don't know what to do and your scared. It's ok to be afraid but it's not ok not to think or to do something stupid because then you just become what you are afraid of. And right now you are making a pretty good case for that.
It would be interesting to find out which weapons manufacturer anti works for.
TAM,
And where will the Republicans get the money to pay for that? Oh. I know. They cut the Ag and oil subsidies.
"I wish to god she had had an M-4 in her office, locked up so when she heard gunfire, she pulls it out and she didn't have to lung heroically with nothing in her hands, but she takes him out, takes his head off before he can kill those precious kids." -- Screwy Louie
Somehow, I don't get the timeline here. The glass window is shot out. The principal hears something. Not sure of what it is, she follows her instincts to rush to the scene. Encountering a skinny little kid with an assault weapon, she lunges at him and is killed in the process.
But if Screwy Louie's suggestion were in place, things would have presumably gone differently, to wit:
The glass door is shot out. Principal says: "Damn, what the hell was THAT? Rosemarie or George, get me the key to the gun cabinet so I can go find out what's going on!" The key is removed from its secured area, the gun cabinet is unlocked, the principal loads the gun, removes the safety, and about 5 minutes after hearing the first commotion rushes into the hall only to find that the killer has already slaughtered 20 or 30 people. At about the same time, the first responders get there, spot the principal with an assault rifle, shoot her thinking she's the one they were called about then find the perpetrator dead of a self-inflicted wound.
Some idiots would lol about the irony of the whole thing. (Lock them up, please, for the safety of the rest of us!) But they and their enablers, like Screwy Louie, Wayne LaPierre, and their low life ilk, will continue their inane drivel until the insane violence comes home to roost. Though I would like to see no tragedy like those we've been had to endure over these past few years happen again, I've little hope that will be the case. So if and when it does happen again, may it take place in an area inhabited by those who think allowing any and every one to have assault weapons is a good idea.
sam
You left out the part where the first responders burst into the classrooms like the keystone cops and kill all of the students.
kpm
So your answer is to swap the keystone cops for the nutty professor?
Stop and think about this for a second
In all of your posts I haven't seen a genuine legitimate reason for why something like this makes sense.
You aren't debating the issue because of a need to make schools or teachers safe. You are actually just trying to justify to yourself why "You" need a gun.
Dragoon
I will type slow so maybe you can understand.
If the teacher is armed and capable of using the firearm properly, then the teacher can use the firearm (at their option) to stop a murdering criminal from killing their students.
And no, I do not need a teacher or anyone else to have a firearm to justify my wanting or needing a firearm.
Reality, vs kpm's macho manhood fantasy:
A gun nut is at the school when the shooter arrives. The gun nut, just like everyone else, doesn't know what the @!$%# is going on and pisses his pants in fear, seizing up completely. Eventually the gun nut figures it out, pulls out his sidearm and points it at the shooter, only to realize he still has the safety on. Shaking like a dog @!$%#ting razor blades, he manages to squeeze off a few shots, missing wildly and by the grace of god not hitting any innocent people. The sociopathic @!$%# shooter notices and executes the gun nut on the spot.
As the gun nut lays dying, his last thought is, 'Why didn't my fantasy play out? I thought buying a gun made me Batman, goddammit.'
kpm
but that is in fact exactly what you are doing. You are saying "I am capable this is what I could do there for it is what everyone Should do"
Your entire argument rests not on demonstrable fact or even corollary evidence but rather on the supposition that you are correct and therefor justified.
I am willing to debate an argument based on assumptions but at some point there has to be a logical conclusion to it and no where have I seen any in yours that this doesn't have the possibility of going monstrously horrifically wrong. In this case The possible outcome does not overcome the barrier of genuine demonstrable risk.
sorry double post
ShadeTail
You assume I am male?
Dragoon
You need to read what people post, not what you want them to post to make you lok like you know what you are talking about.
And if you believe that you or any other human does not have the intelligence or capabilities to properly handle a firearm, then I hope to God that you you do not operate a motor vehicle on any road while I am anywhere near.
kpm
I am not making an assumption about "Any human being" I am discussing a specific set of human beings.
As for myself I am quite familiar with both firearms and combat situations and I understand what happens to judgment and mental facility under them.
Please understand I am not making this personal and you have shown yourself to be a thoughtful and reasoning person which on a subject people feel as passionately about as this one is greatly appreciated.
Mmmmmm - it's sooooo much fun clicking "No Value" and "Inflammatory" on you kpm58, whether you're a Stepford Wife or whatever.
kpm: No, I assume, or rather I know because your posts prove it, that you're an idiot who knows nothing about what really goes on in the midst of gun violence. Your gender makes no difference; you're indulging in a macho male fantasy of how arming everyone would fix everything, when the reality is that it would just kill more people.