Nra calls for armed police officer in every school

[meltzerboy]

The best defense against a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun. I fully support the idea of armed guards in schools.

I also support the idea of teachers being armed as well. I’m not suggesting we just start handing out guns to teachers and saying “Here. Now you’re protected.” No. But going forward, firearms training should be integrated into teacher training right from the start. Starting when would-be teachers are freshmen in college, firearms training should be part of the curriculum. The would have to score well at the target range in order to graduate.

Once they began teaching, they would have to requalify their marksmanship skills every year just like they take continuing education courses. Requalifying would include psychological testing to ensure the teacher can keep their wits about them if they need to use their gun.

With modern technology, it would be very easy to design a gun specially made for teachers. A tiny radio receiver could be installed in the gun’s trigger mechanism. The teacher would then wear a ring equipped with a tiny radio transmitter on his/her index (trigger) finger. The gun could not fire unless it was receiving the radio signal from the teacher’s ring. This would eliminate the danger of the gun being fired if a child got ahold of it.

We live in troubled times. I’m all for turning the other cheek but sometimes you have to fight fire with fire.

So you believe that in addition to drug and alcohol education training, which public-school teachers in New York are required to have, as well as education courses in teaching methods and testing, including student teaching, plus sensitivity training in sexual harrassment, and of course academic qualifications in the subject they teach, teachers should now be required to learn how to use a gun. I wonder which other roles teachers must be able to play in their job, besides parent, psychologist, doctor, nurse, and police officer?

 

[kimmielittle]

Here’s my question: How many senators/representatives that oppose armed guards at public schools (because it’s “too dangerous” or “makes no difference”) would be willing to REMOVE the armed guard at the private schools attended by THEIR children? If having armed guards is so dangerous and ineffective, let’s see the President dismiss his daughters’ Secret Service detail and the guards at their school.

Are their children worth more than any of ours?

The Gregory children go to school with the children of President Barack Obama, according to the Washington Post. That school is the co-ed Quaker school Sidwell Friends.

weeklystandard.com/blogs/gregory-mocks-lapierre-proposing-armed-guards-sends-kids-high-security-school_691057.html

 

[meltzerboy]

The Gregory children go to school with the children of President Barack Obama, according to the Washington Post. That school is the co-ed Quaker school Sidwell Friends.

weeklystandard.com/blogs/gregory-mocks-lapierre-proposing-armed-guards-sends-kids-high-security-school_691057.html

Of course, you must realize that the President’s children are more at risk than the children of other parents, just as the President himself is. I’m not necessarily saying armed guards should not be in school districts which request them.

 

[kimmielittle]

Of course, you must realize that the President’s children are more at risk than the children of other parents, just as the President himself is. I’m not necessarily saying armed guards should not be in school districts which request them.

The school has as SOP - 12 armed officers.
NOT including the Presidents Secret Service detail.

 

[meltzerboy]

The schoo las SOP has 12 armed officers.
NOT including the Presidents Secret Service detail.

And this is a QUAKER school? Something is wrong with that picture.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Why is there such resistance to a common sense suggestion of having an armed guard at every school? Would you prefer teachers to arm themselves? Or the financing of it?

So, protect the schools, but ignore the other places where innocent people are being attacked?

Mass shooters have hit theaters, malls, first responders, private residences, etc. If we’re going to protect the public, we have to protect them all, and the only suggestion from gun right advocates so far it placing guards at school.

Why is there a resistance to stricter registration, and requiring documentation of all sales including private sales?

Why is there a resistance to a gun buyer disclosing mental health problems for everyone in the household, that may have an access to the gun?

Why is there a resistance to a gun buyer disclosing members of the household with a criminal history, that may have access to a gun?

Why is there a resistance to requiring guns, not in use, to be stored in a gun safe?

Why is there resistance to smaller magazines?

Why is there a resistance to insuring guns?

Why is the only solution offered to put more guards in one location of an attack and not all the places we see attacks happen? It seems to minimize the problem, in my opinion.

 

[kimmielittle]

And this is a QUAKER school? Something is wrong with that picture.

Wrong or Right - This is where the elite MSM ] who say “Armed guards at schools won’t work” - Pay to send their kids.

 

[Angel_Bradford]

How is that relevant? New gun laws won’t prevent drunk driving either.

If we round up all the guns, it won’t stop all gun crimes, but it will massively reduce them. America has repeatedly shown that it does not have a culture of responsible gun ownership (we are not Switzerland). We have to get rid of the guns.

The problem is not the responsible gun owner who has legally obtained a firearm: the problem is the people who obtain them illegally to commit crimes. Connecticut has some of the toughest gun laws in the country and it didn’t matter. Unarm the people who will comply with the law and you will still have armed criminals.

 

[Lost_Sheep]

So, protect the schools, but ignore the other places where innocent people are being attacked?

Mass shooters have hit theaters, malls, first responders, private residences, etc. If we’re going to protect the public, we have to protect them all, and the only suggestion from gun right advocates so far it placing guards at school.

Teachers are a special case because children, for the most part, are unable to defend themselves.

Why is there a resistance to stricter registration, and requiring documentation of all sales including private sales?

Do you want the government to know all your private information?

Why is there a resistance to a gun buyer disclosing mental health problems for everyone in the household, that may have an access to the gun?

There is no evidence that says a person with a mental illness is going to commit mass murder.

Why is there a resistance to a gun buyer disclosing members of the household with a criminal history, that may have access to a gun?

Because in this country you cannot punish a person for crimes committed by someone else.

Why is there a resistance to requiring guns, not in use, to be stored in a gun safe?

If you own a gun for personal protection, it doesn’t do you much good if you can’t get to it quickly is someone is breaking into your house and threatening you.

Why is there resistance to smaller magazines?

I don’t know about you, but if someone means to do me harm and I have to defend myself, I want MORE ammunition at my disposal; not less.

Why is there a resistance to insuring guns?

Not sure what you mean by that, but my guns are insured just like all my other personal property.

Why is the only solution offered to put more guards in one location of an attack and not all the places we see attacks happen? It seems to minimize the problem, in my opinion.

No one is saying we should only arm teachers. There is no reason we can’t arm anyone who feels they need to protect themselves or others. The answer to gun crime is not to limit guns; it is to enable people to better protect themselves.

You may have heard this story, but it bears repeating. In 1982, the Kennesaw, Georgia, City Council unanimously passed a law requiring heads of households to own at least one firearm with ammunition. The ordinance states the gun law is needed to “protect the safety, security and general welfare of the city and its inhabitants.”

Then-councilman J.O. Stephenson said after the ordinance was passed, everyone “went crazy.” “People all over the country said there would be shootings in the street and violence in homes,” he said. “Of course, that wasn’t the case.”

In fact, according to Stephenson, it caused the crime rate in the city to plunge.

Kennesaw Historical Society president Robert Jones said following the law’s passage, the crime rate dropped 89 percent in the city, compared to the modest 10 percent drop statewide.

And it has remained that way for the 30 years since the law was passed.

 

[Lost_Sheep]

So you believe that in addition to drug and alcohol education training, which public-school teachers in New York are required to have, as well as education courses in teaching methods and testing, including student teaching, plus sensitivity training in sexual harrassment, and of course academic qualifications in the subject they teach, teachers should now be required to learn how to use a gun.

Yes, that pretty much sums it up.

 

[Lost_Sheep]

The problem is not the responsible gun owner who has legally obtained a firearm: the problem is the people who obtain them illegally to commit crimes. Connecticut has some of the toughest gun laws in the country and it didn’t matter. Unarm the people who will comply with the law and you will still have armed criminals.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Teachers are a special case because children, for the most part, are unable to defend themselves.

Then we have to have all people armed so they can defend themselves?

Do you want the government to know all your private information?

As a law abiding citizen, I don’t see the infringement on my rights.

There is no evidence that says a person with a mental illness is going to commit mass murder.

So, people with known mental illnesses should be allowed to own guns?

Because in this country you cannot punish a person for crimes committed by someone else.

If you leave your keys accessible to a teenager, you are liable for what happens when that teenager takes your vehicle and does damage.

If you own a gun for personal protection, it doesn’t do you much good if you can’t get to it quickly is someone is breaking into your house and threatening you.

How many guns can a person carry at one time for protection? When the gun is not being utilized for protection, it shouldn’t be safeguarded?

I don’t know about you, but if someone means to do me harm and I have to defend myself, I want MORE ammunition at my disposal; not less.

The first responders that were just killed, one was a police Lt. Even armed people lose in a gun fight. In these instances, that are the center of debate, the gunmen have enough ammo at their disposal.

Not sure what you mean by that, but my guns are insured just like all my other personal property.

You have a gun insurance for your guns, on and off your property?

No one is saying we should only arm teachers. There is no reason we can’t arm anyone who feels they need to protect themselves or others. The answer to gun crime is not to limit guns; it is to enable people to better protect themselves.

Teachers are a special case because children, for the most part, are unable to defend themselves.

You may have heard this story, but it bears repeating. In 1982, the Kennesaw, Georgia, City Council unanimously passed a law requiring heads of households to own at least one firearm with ammunition. The ordinance states the gun law is needed to “protect the safety, security and general welfare of the city and its inhabitants.”

Then-councilman J.O. Stephenson said after the ordinance was passed, everyone “went crazy.” “People all over the country said there would be shootings in the street and violence in homes,” he said. “Of course, that wasn’t the case.”

In fact, according to Stephenson, it caused the crime rate in the city to plunge.

Kennesaw Historical Society president Robert Jones said following the law’s passage, the crime rate dropped 89 percent in the city, compared to the modest 10 percent drop statewide.

And it has remained that way for the 30 years since the law was passed.

So, we don’t inconvenience gun owners, even at the cost of requiring everyone to own a gun, even against their will? People should not have a right not to have a gun?

 

[kimmielittle]

Some stats:

cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5214a2.htm

Yes, you can look for trends, but the Centers for Disease Control already did that for you. During 2000-02, a CDC task force “conducted a systematic review of scientific evidence regarding the effectiveness of firearms laws in preventing violence, including violent crimes, suicide, and unintentional injury.” Here was their conclusion.

"The Task Force found insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of any of the firearms laws or combinations of laws reviewed on violent outcomes."

americanthinker.com/2012/12/listening_to_the_latest_media.html

the murder rate is historically low and is already trending downward. In fact, the murder rate in 2011 was the lowest since 1961: 4.7 murders per 100,000 people. In only 5 years since 1910 has it been lower: 1955-59, when it was only slightly lower at 4.5 or 4.6.

Today’s murder rate is essentially at a low point of the past century. The murder rate in 2011 was lower than it was in 1911.

And the trend is downward. Whatever we’ve been doing over the last 20-30 years seems to be working, more or less.** The murder rate has been cut by more than half since 1980: from 10.7 to 4.7.**

We can only speculate on what might be behind this trend, but I will point out a few interesting facts.

• From 1980 to 2000 our prison population more than quadrupled.

• From the 1980s to 2000, the number of prisoner executions more than quadrupled.

• From 1986 to 2006, the number of states adopting “shall issue” Concealed Carry permits nearly quadrupled.

SOURCES AT LINKS

 

[kimmielittle]

More stats

junkscience.com/2012/12/27/reasoning-through-logically-what-can-and-wont-work/

 

[Lost_Sheep]

Then we have to have all people armed so they can defend themselves?

If they want to arm themselves for self-defense there should be no restriction to them doing so.

As a law abiding citizen, I don’t see the infringement on my rights.

Really. You’re such a squeaky clean law-abiding citizen that you don’t care if the government knows your business? For example, you’ve never fudged on your income taxes? Not even once? Would you be willing to let the government to come into your house just to have look around?

So, people with known mental illnesses should be allowed to own guns?

“Mental illness” covers a very wide spectrum; from mild depression to severe psychosis. And again, just because a person has a mental illness does not AUTOMATICALLY mean they are a danger. Such things would have to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. And even if a psychotic person is not allowed to *purchase *a gun doesn’t mean they can’t get one by some other means.

If you leave your keys accessible to a teenager, you are liable for what happens when that teenager takes your vehicle and does damage.

When they are children; yes. If your brother gets drunk, steals your car and does damage, you aren’t responsible.

How many guns can a person carry at one time for protection?

One for each hand.

When the gun is not being utilized for protection, it shouldn’t be safeguarded?

Carrying a gun for self-defense does not necessarily mean danger is imminent and you don’t have to be actually shooting it to be using it for self-defense. If you keep a gun on your nightstand for protection it is statistically unlikely someone will break into your house. Is it then being “utilized for protection?” You probably think it is not so it should be locked up. But if someone does break in, having it locked up doesn’t do you much good.

The first responders that were just killed, one was a police Lt. Even armed people lose in a gun fight. In these instances, that are the center of debate, the gunmen have enough ammo at their disposal.

All the more reason why people should be armed with sufficient defensive firepower. Most crooks know that firefighters don’t carry, so that makes them easy pickings. If a perpetrator knows that their intended victim is armed, they would be less likely to attack.

You have a gun insurance for your guns, on and off your property?

It could, in theory, be stolen or lost in a fire at home and it could be lost when I’m away from home. I would certainly report it to the police if it was.

So, we don’t inconvenience gun owners, even at the cost of requiring everyone to own a gun, even against their will? People should not have a right not to have a gun?

Of course not. If a person does not want to carry a gun no one says they have to. (And before you bring up the Kennesaw, Georgia law I mentioned earlier, the law said the head of a household must own a gun; not carry it with them at all times.

 

[liturgyluver]

More stats

junkscience.com/2012/12/27/reasoning-through-logically-what-can-and-wont-work/

Interesting that his analysis of crime stops in 1998. Crime in England and Wales is now at its lowest since 1983 and in Scotland since 1978. So how will that be explained, since we do not have less restrictive gun laws now than we did in 1998, and last year there were just 39 gun homicides in England and Wales. This simplistic analysis is frankly laughable and can be disproved in an instant.

Your earlier link about falling crime in the USA is more interesting and worthy of analysis but it would be more credible if a proven link could be shown between change in gun ownership over the century, the homicide rates and gun control. The US homicide rates were horrifically high until the 1950s before falling back and then rising again.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

If they want to arm themselves for self-defense there should be no restriction to them doing so.

What if they cannot afford that right? Should the government provide them guns, for ‘militia’ purposes of course?

Really. You’re such a squeaky clean law-abiding citizen that you don’t care if the government knows your business? For example, you’ve never fudged on your income taxes? Not even once? Would you be willing to let the government to come into your house just to have look around?

I am a law abiding citizen and have nothing to hide. Aren’t all in this discussion ‘law abiding’?

“Mental illness” covers a very wide spectrum; from mild depression to severe psychosis. And again, just because a person has a mental illness does not AUTOMATICALLY mean they are a danger. Such things would have to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. And even if a psychotic person is not allowed to *purchase *a gun doesn’t mean they can’t get one by some other means.

Would you support them getting a gun by other means, if they couldn’t get one through legitimate means? Is this why we need to keep gun registrations as they are between individuals, and in some cases at gun shows?

When they are children; yes. If your brother gets drunk, steals your car and does damage, you aren’t responsible.

But if you know your brother is a drunk, and prone to violence, and you leave your gun accessible to him, shouldn’t there be a responsibility for such an action, or inaction?

One for each hand.

So, if a person has 5 guns, they shouldn’t be inconvenienced to have to secure the 3 they can’t carry?

Carrying a gun for self-defense does not necessarily mean danger is imminent and you don’t have to be actually shooting it to be using it for self-defense. If you keep a gun on your nightstand for protection it is statistically unlikely someone will break into your house. Is it then being “utilized for protection?” You probably think it is not so it should be locked up. But if someone does break in, having it locked up doesn’t do you much good.

Actually, you’re wrong. I can see the need of a gun being ready, for self defense; however, if I go on vacation and can’t carry my gun across state lines, shouldn’t I be responsible to have that gun secured safely? Or, I can’t carry the gun at work, shouldn’t the gun be secured safely?

All the more reason why people should be armed with sufficient defensive firepower. Most crooks know that firefighters don’t carry, so that makes them easy pickings. If a perpetrator knows that their intended victim is armed, they would be less likely to attack.

So, it would be okay to change laws to allow firemen/medics to carry guns, but it’s not okay to use laws to prevent guns from falling into the wrong hands?

Next, most states allow off duty policemen to carry. I don’t know if this particular policeman had his gun or not, but it’s easy to show officers taken down by the bad guys with guns. There’s no guarantee that more armed people will lessen people being shot. In fact, it would be possible to create a cross fire problem.

It could, in theory, be stolen or lost in a fire at home and it could be lost when I’m away from home. I would certainly report it to the police if it was.

That would be the appropriate, law abiding, thing to do. I’d go a step further, in the interest of safety, and say one could be proven negligent, and accountable, if they didn’t report a stolen gun.

 

[Lost_Sheep]

It’s happening already:

cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-57560936-504083/free-gun-training-program-offered-to-200-utah-teachers/

 

[meltzerboy]

Then we have to have all people armed so they can defend themselves?

As a law abiding citizen, I don’t see the infringement on my rights.

So, people with known mental illnesses should be allowed to own guns?

If you leave your keys accessible to a teenager, you are liable for what happens when that teenager takes your vehicle and does damage.

How many guns can a person carry at one time for protection? When the gun is not being utilized for protection, it shouldn’t be safeguarded?

The first responders that were just killed, one was a police Lt. Even armed people lose in a gun fight. In these instances, that are the center of debate, the gunmen have enough ammo at their disposal.

You have a gun insurance for your guns, on and off your property?

So, we don’t inconvenience gun owners, even at the cost of requiring everyone to own a gun, even against their will? People should not have a right not to have a gun?

Teachers should have no such rights. They must carry their concealed gun, or guns, 24/7/365, even while asleep.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

Teachers should have no such rights. They must carry their concealed gun, or guns, 24/7/365, even while asleep.

Everyone has the right to be a victim.