National Rifle Association Calls For Armed Guards In U S Schools

[chuckd]

Armed Guards for Returning Sandy Hook Students

By Susan Jones

January 3, 2013

(CNSNews.com) - When children from Sandy Hook Elementary school return to class in neighboring Monroe, Conn. today, they'll be entering "the safest school in America," according to the Associated Press.

"Law enforcement officers have been guarding the new school, and by the reckoning of police, it is 'the safest school in America,'" the AP reported Thursday.

"I think right now it has to be the safest school in America," Monroe police Lt. Keith White was quoted as saying.

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/armed-guards-returning-sandy-hook-students

[maidu]

I would point out it's not following the constitution that gets America in trouble it's NOT following it ..... We know exactly what they were thinking , they were thinking that the people should have arms to keep the government in check .... right or wrong thats what they wanted .......

That may be how you read it, but those words were not written in the amendment, neither was the word 'government.'

I read it as enabling 'a well regulated militia' (a phrase in the Amendment) and 'the right of the people' to bear arms. Perhaps we agree on that, but I don't see that right to keep the government in check, as you assert. The amendment was voted in between the two wars with Britain (of course the signatories didn't know about the ensuing war at that time), but they did know there were real threats from Indians, among others. I see the 2nd Amendment as enabling militias and people to bear arms in order to be ready to protect their communities or fledgling nation at a moment's notice, should the case arise. Without their own guns, the 'minute men' (and others) would have to take added time to be issued a weapon and (perhaps) learn how to use it.

[MrRealDeal]

I would point out it's not following the constitution that gets America in trouble it's NOT following it ..... We know exactly what they were thinking , they were thinking that the people should have arms to keep the government in check .... right or wrong thats what they wanted .......

That may be how you read it, but those words were not written in the amendment, neither was the word 'government.'

I read it as enabling 'a well regulated militia' (a phrase in the Amendment) and 'the right of the people' to bear arms. Perhaps we agree on that, but I don't see that right to keep the government in check, as you assert. The amendment was voted in between the two wars with Britain (of course the signatories didn't know about the ensuing war at that time), but they did know there were real threats from Indians, among others. I see the 2nd Amendment as enabling militias and people to bear arms in order to be ready to protect their communities or fledgling nation at a moment's notice, should the case arise. Without their own guns, the 'minute men' (and others) would have to take added time to be issued a weapon and (perhaps) learn how to use it.

You don't see it that way because you haven't the slightest grasp of history or the numerous discussions about the amendment from the people who wrote it ........ obviously

[F430murci]

Doing the gun owners proud . . .

http://offthebench.nbcsports.com/2013/01/03/man-distraught-over-death-of-pet-snake-shoots-up-his-dale-earnhardt-memorabilia-collection/

http://network.yardb...g_head_12567640

Edited January 4, 2013 by F430murci

[nurofiend]

i find it hilarious that people think the relaxed gun laws in america is in any way a positive thing.

from an amendment written in the 1700's, i'm not saying that automatically nullifies any rule or right but <deleted>, times are different now.

[endure]

Armed Guards for Returning Sandy Hook Students

By Susan Jones

January 3, 2013

(CNSNews.com) - When children from Sandy Hook Elementary school return to class in neighboring Monroe, Conn. today, they'll be entering "the safest school in America," according to the Associated Press.

"Law enforcement officers have been guarding the new school, and by the reckoning of police, it is 'the safest school in America,'" the AP reported Thursday.

"I think right now it has to be the safest school in America," Monroe police Lt. Keith White was quoted as saying.

http://cnsnews.com/n...y-hook-students

I'm sorry but I simply cannot see how a school for primary school children that has armed guards on its premises is 'the safest school in America'. Surely the safest school in America would be a school that didn't required armed guards on its premises at all?

[maidu]

I would point out it's not following the constitution that gets America in trouble it's NOT following it ..... We know exactly what they were thinking , they were thinking that the people should have arms to keep the government in check .... right or wrong thats what they wanted .......

That may be how you read it, but those words were not written in the amendment, neither was the word 'government.'

I read it as enabling 'a well regulated militia' (a phrase in the Amendment) and 'the right of the people' to bear arms. Perhaps we agree on that, but I don't see that right to keep the government in check, as you assert. The amendment was voted in between the two wars with Britain (of course the signatories didn't know about the ensuing war at that time), but they did know there were real threats from Indians, among others. I see the 2nd Amendment as enabling militias and people to bear arms in order to be ready to protect their communities or fledgling nation at a moment's notice, should the case arise. Without their own guns, the 'minute men' (and others) would have to take added time to be issued a weapon and (perhaps) learn how to use it.

You don't see it that way because you haven't the slightest grasp of history or the numerous discussions about the amendment from the people who wrote it ........ obviously

I don't think you want to start a peeing contest, but I'll get my gear positioned, just in case. The 'numerous discusions' you refer to are all prompted by the people who (at later dates) want to possess all sorts of guns. Just because they've contributed reams of writings and millions of hours of talk to bolster their position, doesn't mean they're right. Occam's Razor: The simplest solution is often the correct one.

Where are the transcripts of texts showing 'the numerous discussions about the amendment from the people who wrote it' ?

I think you're referring to the numerous discussions - later on - by people who want to twist the amendment to enable nearly anyone to own as many auto- and semi-automatic guns as they can. At the time of the writing of the 2nd amendment, the state-of-the-art personal firearm was a flintlock.

Edited January 5, 2013 by maidu

[maidu]

And how safe are armed guards? How safe is an elected city counselor who is also an active policeman?

I refer to Harvey Milk who, in an emotional fit, shot an killed the mayor of San Francisco.

Guards are people. People are fallable, particularly when drugged and/or emotionally screwed up. Alcohol is the most harm-causing drug in existence. Are we going to insist that schools' armed guards don't have romantic relationships and also don't imbibe any sorts of drugs? Even pharma drugs can cause mood swings, and pharmaceuticals cause more deaths than all illegal drugs combined. Not sure whether pharma is more harmful/deadly than alcohol - perhaps someone has some stats on that.

If I had kids, I'd home-school them, and they'd learn a lot more than in an institution with aging teachers (unions keep the oldies and bar young teachers from teaching). I'd do that, not because of safety issues, but because a properly framed home-schooling regimen is head and shoulders better than regular schools. I meet dozens of young folks at my farmstay in Chiang Rai. Very few know any practical skills at all. Maybe one out of twenty know how to change the oil in a motor. Youngsters know a lot about unimportant things, and virtually nothing about practical or worldwide topics. sorry to get off topic.

[gl555]

And how safe are armed guards? How safe is an elected city counselor who is also an active policeman?

I refer to Harvey Milk who, in an emotional fit, shot an killed the mayor of San Francisco.

Guards are people. People are fallable, particularly when drugged and/or emotionally screwed up. Alcohol is the most harm-causing drug in existence. Are we going to insist that schools' armed guards don't have romantic relationships and also don't imbibe any sorts of drugs? Even pharma drugs can cause mood swings, and pharmaceuticals cause more deaths than all illegal drugs combined. Not sure whether pharma is more harmful/deadly than alcohol - perhaps someone has some stats on that.

If I had kids, I'd home-school them, and they'd learn a lot more than in an institution with aging teachers (unions keep the oldies and bar young teachers from teaching). I'd do that, not because of safety issues, but because a properly framed home-schooling regimen is head and shoulders better than regular schools. I meet dozens of young folks at my farmstay in Chiang Rai. Very few know any practical skills at all. Maybe one out of twenty know how to change the oil in a motor. Youngsters know a lot about unimportant things, and virtually nothing about practical or worldwide topics. sorry to get off topic.

Harvey Milk was killed along side the mayor. He was not the killer. The fella who did it was an ex policeman.

That's why they say guns don't kill people, people kill people. We can only hope the person we're standing next to isn't a psycho. The best we can do with our armed guards is to screen them and make sure they're not nutjobs. If we're going to have armed guards protect our children, they should be background checked as deep as we do our policemen.

Yes humans are fallible but what are we to do? If people are so afraid of the world and everything else, get a house in the middle of nowhere and become a hermit then. You have to have a certain amount of trust to live in this world. Everytime someone goes to the hairstylist, he could potentially have his throat cut. What do one do? Cut his own hair badly?

[maidu]

And how safe are armed guards? How safe is an elected city counselor who is also an active policeman?

I refer to Harvey Milk who, in an emotional fit, shot an killed the mayor of San Francisco.

Guards are people. People are fallable, particularly when drugged and/or emotionally screwed up. Alcohol is the most harm-causing drug in existence. Are we going to insist that schools' armed guards don't have romantic relationships and also don't imbibe any sorts of drugs? Even pharma drugs can cause mood swings, and pharmaceuticals cause more deaths than all illegal drugs combined. Not sure whether pharma is more harmful/deadly than alcohol - perhaps someone has some stats on that.

If I had kids, I'd home-school them, and they'd learn a lot more than in an institution with aging teachers (unions keep the oldies and bar young teachers from teaching). I'd do that, not because of safety issues, but because a properly framed home-schooling regimen is head and shoulders better than regular schools. I meet dozens of young folks at my farmstay in Chiang Rai. Very few know any practical skills at all. Maybe one out of twenty know how to change the oil in a motor. Youngsters know a lot about unimportant things, and virtually nothing about practical or worldwide topics. sorry to get off topic.

Harvey Milk was killed along side the mayor. He was not the killer. The fella who did it was an ex policeman.

That's why they say guns don't kill people, people kill people. We can only hope the person we're standing next to isn't a psycho. The best we can do with our armed guards is to screen them and make sure they're not nutjobs. If we're going to have armed guards protect our children, they should be background checked as deep as we do our policemen.

Yes humans are fallible but what are we to do? If people are so afraid of the world and everything else, get a house in the middle of nowhere and become a hermit then. You have to have a certain amount of trust to live in this world. Everytime someone goes to the hairstylist, he could potentially have his throat cut. What do one do? Cut his own hair badly?

You're right, Dan White was the killer. Milk was the victim. ....and from that came the term 'twinkie defense'.

[Chicog]

FYI there's been another multiple shooting in Aurora, where "The Joker" shot up the cinema last year.

4 Dead according to reports.

Sounds like another happy ending to a family argument.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/aurora-townhouse-shooting-dead-including-gunman/story?id=18139099

[Scott]

There was also one in Switzerland. But that's in Europe, so it probably doesn't count.

[DocN]

There was also one in Switzerland. But that's in Europe, so it probably doesn't count.

The important part of your statement: there was ONE in Switzerland...

There have been 4 I know of, in the last 4-5 weeks in the USA.

Now....spot the difference!

[Scott]

The size and population of the countries?

[DocN]

The size and population of the countries?

...ahm...no, not really!

But nice try!

[puck2]

Scott, you missed one dimension, the time factor.

To point with your finger to other countries doesn't solve the problem of violence. Isn't it an absurdity that schools/children should be protected by guns? For me an awful and horrible idea.

It seems to me that the US doesn't won't to recognise or confess that there is a special violence in it's culture and history using the guns. Guns in a school, horrible. To use a gun to solve a problem, worse. Many, many children grow up with the violence seeing the guns in TV and daily life, and now they should watch them in their schools? I compare the gun lobbyists and gun lovers with the Islamists.

The first area of the Islam was not so violent although there are sentences in the Koran supporting hatred and violence. Later on, different Islamic doctrines led to a violent wing not refused by the Imams and the Islamic theologians. The hatred and violence in their belief became one part of their education.

It's exactly the same educational and cultural problem in the US, manipulation by one part of the religious or social education system. The Islamists have their Koran and the Imams, the US have their dubious article in their constitution with the right to have a gun and they have the weapon lobby. As the US cannot change their mind-set concerning guns, why should the Islamistic groups change their religious belief? The "mind-set" pro guns is like a belief not rationality or logic. To change a belief is nearly impossible as taught by history.

You can fight a symptom of violence (guns) with a short time success. But to solve a problem you should look at the origin of the problem (violent behavior) and try to change it with a chance to solve it for a long time.

Edited January 6, 2013 by puck2

[MrRealDeal]

I would point out it's not following the constitution that gets America in trouble it's NOT following it ..... We know exactly what they were thinking , they were thinking that the people should have arms to keep the government in check .... right or wrong thats what they wanted .......

That may be how you read it, but those words were not written in the amendment, neither was the word 'government.'

I read it as enabling 'a well regulated militia' (a phrase in the Amendment) and 'the right of the people' to bear arms. Perhaps we agree on that, but I don't see that right to keep the government in check, as you assert. The amendment was voted in between the two wars with Britain (of course the signatories didn't know about the ensuing war at that time), but they did know there were real threats from Indians, among others. I see the 2nd Amendment as enabling militias and people to bear arms in order to be ready to protect their communities or fledgling nation at a moment's notice, should the case arise. Without their own guns, the 'minute men' (and others) would have to take added time to be issued a weapon and (perhaps) learn how to use it.

You don't see it that way because you haven't the slightest grasp of history or the numerous discussions about the amendment from the people who wrote it ........ obviously

I don't think you want to start a peeing contest, but I'll get my gear positioned, just in case. The 'numerous discusions' you refer to are all prompted by the people who (at later dates) want to possess all sorts of guns. Just because they've contributed reams of writings and millions of hours of talk to bolster their position, doesn't mean they're right. Occam's Razor: The simplest solution is often the correct one.

Where are the transcripts of texts showing 'the numerous discussions about the amendment from the people who wrote it' ?

I think you're referring to the numerous discussions - later on - by people who want to twist the amendment to enable nearly anyone to own as many auto- and semi-automatic guns as they can. At the time of the writing of the 2nd amendment, the state-of-the-art personal firearm was a flintlock.

No pissing contest here either ..... The transcripts can be found in the Library of congress and exccerpts in many texbooks I was not reffering to later discussions but to the ones at the time ..... mostly in reference to my assertion that they were indeede talking about the need being for protection against the government. The Founders rightly or wrongly had a serious distrust for government and felt having guns was a necessary protection to ensure a free state .... maybe they were wrong or are wrong now but thats what they thought.

Guns were evolving at the time it was written , the first rifled barell came along about then, that was a huge advantage. It was only obvious that guns would evolve to shoot longer , faster and more accurately. To me it's like in 200 years someone saying todays people couldn't have imagined the computers of that day because we were using what we have now. Any sensible person knows that ALL things wil evolove and improve over time.

However I guess the main discussion is over what even I could agree we could call wepons of war , and do they belong in the hands of average citizens and are they a "right" ...... Even if you don't want to agree on their intention , I think the word "milita" makes it lean more towards my side , as a milita is different than a hunting party or a person defending their home ..... as you pointed out the law now says it's the same ..... but my point would be that their intention was to preserve the "milita" and you can't preserve a milita in todays world if you only allow them to have inferior wepons to fight againt the other pople who have semi auto wepons. My point is the "milita" properly preserved needs to have wepons of war otherwise it's just a bunch of under weponised targets.

The only real argument I would take seriously is that they were just plain wrong and therfore we need to change or get rid of the emendment entirely , while I disagree with that I can respect the opinions of those that don't and they should feel free to try and change things to the way they think they should be or the way that would imporve the USA

My stance is that the problem is the Amendment is not being followed properly in the first place not that it's a bad Amendment ....... the part out "well regulated" needs some serious updating , not the part about the right to own them , that of course wont make the gun lobby very happy but it's what the Amendment says and it's whats lacking and contributing to our problems.

I can't quote any factual studies or numbers but I am sure we can agree that a large number of accidental killings done by children would have been adoided by having better or proper strorage rather than leaving them on the bedstand or dresser drawer , the gun lobby would freak out but perhaps storage of large abounts of ammunition needs to be in safes in people homes and reported and regestered , not made illegal but regulated in a way the increases saftey and lowers the likelyhood of the wrong person getting access to it.

Those are they types of first steps I would take and while it won't stop criminals it would stop a certian number of people who have easy access to things that don't belong to them nor should they have or would be legally allowed to have.

I don't have a problem with changing the Constitution , my only complaint or problem is ignoreing the constitution and passing laws that are against it , it's simply not how our set of Laws is supposed to work and not how things should be done. It's longer more painfull and more difficult ...... but shouldn't changing a countrys Constitution be a lenghtly well thought out long process to insure the best result anyhow ?

Edited January 6, 2013 by MrRealDeal

[Athawut]

Im feeling sad about this news ,if this world dont have criminal it will be good for everyone.

[koheesti]

Armed Guards for Returning Sandy Hook Students

By Susan Jones

January 3, 2013

(CNSNews.com) - When children from Sandy Hook Elementary school return to class in neighboring Monroe, Conn. today, they'll be entering "the safest school in America," according to the Associated Press.

"Law enforcement officers have been guarding the new school, and by the reckoning of police, it is 'the safest school in America,'" the AP reported Thursday.

"I think right now it has to be the safest school in America," Monroe police Lt. Keith White was quoted as saying.

http://cnsnews.com/n...y-hook-students

I'm sorry but I simply cannot see how a school for primary school children that has armed guards on its premises is 'the safest school in America'. Surely the safest school in America would be a school that didn't required armed guards on its premises at all?

Like the ones the rich, famous, politicians and celebrities send their kids to?

[endure]

Armed Guards for Returning Sandy Hook Students

By Susan Jones

January 3, 2013

(CNSNews.com) - When children from Sandy Hook Elementary school return to class in neighboring Monroe, Conn. today, they'll be entering "the safest school in America," according to the Associated Press.

"Law enforcement officers have been guarding the new school, and by the reckoning of police, it is 'the safest school in America,'" the AP reported Thursday.

"I think right now it has to be the safest school in America," Monroe police Lt. Keith White was quoted as saying.

http://cnsnews.com/n...y-hook-students

I'm sorry but I simply cannot see how a school for primary school children that has armed guards on its premises is 'the safest school in America'. Surely the safest school in America would be a school that didn't required armed guards on its premises at all?

Like the ones the rich, famous, politicians and celebrities send their kids to?

"Surely the safest school in America would be a school that didn't required armed guards on its premises at all?"

Do you not agree with that?

[bkk_mike]

To the people saying armed guards are the solution, it might be worth highlighting that security guards have been known to shoot people also.

Example: John Lennon.

The killer was a schizophrenic, with a history of depression, who had had stints in a mental hospital. Yet he still got a job as a security guard, and a gun licence. He bought the gun legally and everything...

And to the idiots saying they want every school to have armed guards. Do they honestly think the possibility of abduction for their kids is the same as the children of diplomats, or billionaires, or the president's. That's comparing apples and oranges.

But if you get your way, please say the guards will be required to pass some form of mental health examination. As if you put the apparatus in place for that, it can then be used as part of the requirements for issuing gun licences to the rest of the public as well. (and for guns stored at home, everyone in the household has to pass the mental health test every year. Put that in place, and if it works, most people can still have their guns, but suddenly Columbine and Sandy Hook wouldn't have happened.)

Look - proper gun control is possible, and armed guards in schools can be the first step...

As for paying for it... I wonder what the cost of a gun licence will become?

[chuckd]

To the people saying armed guards are the solution, it might be worth highlighting that security guards have been known to shoot people also.

Example: John Lennon.

The killer was a schizophrenic, with a history of depression, who had had stints in a mental hospital. Yet he still got a job as a security guard, and a gun licence. He bought the gun legally and everything...

And to the idiots saying they want every school to have armed guards. Do they honestly think the possibility of abduction for their kids is the same as the children of diplomats, or billionaires, or the president's. That's comparing apples and oranges.

But if you get your way, please say the guards will be required to pass some form of mental health examination. As if you put the apparatus in place for that, it can then be used as part of the requirements for issuing gun licences to the rest of the public as well. (and for guns stored at home, everyone in the household has to pass the mental health test every year. Put that in place, and if it works, most people can still have their guns, but suddenly Columbine and Sandy Hook wouldn't have happened.)

Look - proper gun control is possible, and armed guards in schools can be the first step...

As for paying for it... I wonder what the cost of a gun licence will become?

Then let's put the same mental examinations in for everybody that applies for a motor vehicle driver's license.

The gun license would likely rival a driver's license in cost.

[Sing_Sling]

Instead of having armed guards in every school, perhaps it would be more beneficial to have a teacher in every gun shop . . . preferably not a Creationist teacher, though

[DocN]

To the people saying armed guards are the solution, it might be worth highlighting that security guards have been known to shoot people also.

Example: John Lennon.

The killer was a schizophrenic, with a history of depression, who had had stints in a mental hospital. Yet he still got a job as a security guard, and a gun licence. He bought the gun legally and everything...

And to the idiots saying they want every school to have armed guards. Do they honestly think the possibility of abduction for their kids is the same as the children of diplomats, or billionaires, or the president's. That's comparing apples and oranges.

But if you get your way, please say the guards will be required to pass some form of mental health examination. As if you put the apparatus in place for that, it can then be used as part of the requirements for issuing gun licences to the rest of the public as well. (and for guns stored at home, everyone in the household has to pass the mental health test every year. Put that in place, and if it works, most people can still have their guns, but suddenly Columbine and Sandy Hook wouldn't have happened.)

Look - proper gun control is possible, and armed guards in schools can be the first step...

As for paying for it... I wonder what the cost of a gun licence will become?

Then let's put the same mental examinations in for everybody that applies for a motor vehicle driver's license.

The gun license would likely rival a driver's license in cost.

What is this stupid "gun equals car"- comparrisson again?

By the way: where I come from, you have to make a driving test (license) and you have to bring a medical certificate!

And again: a car is not a gun, a tiger is not a duck and day is not night!

[Sing_Sling]

To the people saying armed guards are the solution, it might be worth highlighting that security guards have been known to shoot people also.

Example: John Lennon.

The killer was a schizophrenic, with a history of depression, who had had stints in a mental hospital. Yet he still got a job as a security guard, and a gun licence. He bought the gun legally and everything...

And to the idiots saying they want every school to have armed guards. Do they honestly think the possibility of abduction for their kids is the same as the children of diplomats, or billionaires, or the president's. That's comparing apples and oranges.

But if you get your way, please say the guards will be required to pass some form of mental health examination. As if you put the apparatus in place for that, it can then be used as part of the requirements for issuing gun licences to the rest of the public as well. (and for guns stored at home, everyone in the household has to pass the mental health test every year. Put that in place, and if it works, most people can still have their guns, but suddenly Columbine and Sandy Hook wouldn't have happened.)

Look - proper gun control is possible, and armed guards in schools can be the first step...

As for paying for it... I wonder what the cost of a gun licence will become?

Then let's put the same mental examinations in for everybody that applies for a motor vehicle driver's license.

The gun license would likely rival a driver's license in cost.

What is this stupid "gun equals car"- comparrisson again?

By the way: where I come from, you have to make a driving test (license) and you have to bring a medical certificate!

And again: a car is not a gun, a tiger is not a duck and day is not night!

I think to best illustrate that is the original and current reason for a car is to provide transport . . . the initial and current reason for a gun is to kill

[chuckd]

To the people saying armed guards are the solution, it might be worth highlighting that security guards have been known to shoot people also.

Example: John Lennon.

The killer was a schizophrenic, with a history of depression, who had had stints in a mental hospital. Yet he still got a job as a security guard, and a gun licence. He bought the gun legally and everything...

And to the idiots saying they want every school to have armed guards. Do they honestly think the possibility of abduction for their kids is the same as the children of diplomats, or billionaires, or the president's. That's comparing apples and oranges.

But if you get your way, please say the guards will be required to pass some form of mental health examination. As if you put the apparatus in place for that, it can then be used as part of the requirements for issuing gun licences to the rest of the public as well. (and for guns stored at home, everyone in the household has to pass the mental health test every year. Put that in place, and if it works, most people can still have their guns, but suddenly Columbine and Sandy Hook wouldn't have happened.)

Look - proper gun control is possible, and armed guards in schools can be the first step...

As for paying for it... I wonder what the cost of a gun licence will become?

Then let's put the same mental examinations in for everybody that applies for a motor vehicle driver's license.

The gun license would likely rival a driver's license in cost.

What is this stupid "gun equals car"- comparrisson again?

By the way: where I come from, you have to make a driving test (license) and you have to bring a medical certificate!

And again: a car is not a gun, a tiger is not a duck and day is not night!

My stupid "gun equals car" wasn't that at all. It was a statement of comparison of the two major licensing requirements that US states provide.

Please read and digest my posts more carefully in the future.

"And again: a car is not a gun, a tiger is not a duck and day is not night!"...and yet again, a hammer is not a rifle.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

FBI: MORE PEOPLE KILLED WITH HAMMERS, CLUBS EACH YEAR THAN RIFLES

by AWR HAWKINS 3 Jan 2013

According to the FBI annual crime statistics, the number of murders committed annually with hammers and clubs far outnumbers the number of murders committed with a rifle.

This is an interesting fact, particularly amid the Democrats' feverish push to ban many different rifles, ostensibly to keep us safe of course.

However, it appears the zeal of Sens. like Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) and Joe Manchin (D-WV) is misdirected. For in looking at the FBI numbers from 2005 to 2011, the number of murders by hammers and clubs consistently exceeds the number of murders committed with a rifle.

Think about it: In 2005, the number of murders committed with a rifle was 445, while the number of murders committed with hammers and clubs was 605. In 2006, the number of murders committed with a rifle was 438, while the number of murders committed with hammers and clubs was 618.

And so the list goes, with the actual numbers changing somewhat from year to year, yet the fact that more people are killed with blunt objects each year remains constant.

The article closes thusly...

And it seems fairly obvious that if more people had a gun, less people would be inclined to try to hit them in the head with a hammer.

http://www.breitbart...Big Government)

[chuckd]

Then let's put the same mental examinations in for everybody that applies for a motor vehicle driver's license.

The gun license would likely rival a driver's license in cost.

What is this stupid "gun equals car"- comparrisson again?

By the way: where I come from, you have to make a driving test (license) and you have to bring a medical certificate!

And again: a car is not a gun, a tiger is not a duck and day is not night!

I think to best illustrate that is the original and current reason for a car is to provide transport . . . the initial and current reason for a gun is to kill

Or to provide protection from somebody that wants to kill you.

[DocN]

To the people saying armed guards are the solution, it might be worth highlighting that security guards have been known to shoot people also.

Example: John Lennon.

The killer was a schizophrenic, with a history of depression, who had had stints in a mental hospital. Yet he still got a job as a security guard, and a gun licence. He bought the gun legally and everything...

And to the idiots saying they want every school to have armed guards. Do they honestly think the possibility of abduction for their kids is the same as the children of diplomats, or billionaires, or the president's. That's comparing apples and oranges.

But if you get your way, please say the guards will be required to pass some form of mental health examination. As if you put the apparatus in place for that, it can then be used as part of the requirements for issuing gun licences to the rest of the public as well. (and for guns stored at home, everyone in the household has to pass the mental health test every year. Put that in place, and if it works, most people can still have their guns, but suddenly Columbine and Sandy Hook wouldn't have happened.)

Look - proper gun control is possible, and armed guards in schools can be the first step...

As for paying for it... I wonder what the cost of a gun licence will become?

Then let's put the same mental examinations in for everybody that applies for a motor vehicle driver's license.

The gun license would likely rival a driver's license in cost.

What is this stupid "gun equals car"- comparrisson again?

By the way: where I come from, you have to make a driving test (license) and you have to bring a medical certificate!

And again: a car is not a gun, a tiger is not a duck and day is not night!

My stupid "gun equals car" wasn't that at all. It was a statement of comparison of the two major licensing requirements that US states provide.

Please read and digest my posts more carefully in the future.

"And again: a car is not a gun, a tiger is not a duck and day is not night!"...and yet again, a hammer is not a rifle.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

FBI: MORE PEOPLE KILLED WITH HAMMERS, CLUBS EACH YEAR THAN RIFLES

by AWR HAWKINS 3 Jan 2013

According to the FBI annual crime statistics, the number of murders committed annually with hammers and clubs far outnumbers the number of murders committed with a rifle.

This is an interesting fact, particularly amid the Democrats' feverish push to ban many different rifles, ostensibly to keep us safe of course.

However, it appears the zeal of Sens. like Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) and Joe Manchin (D-WV) is misdirected. For in looking at the FBI numbers from 2005 to 2011, the number of murders by hammers and clubs consistently exceeds the number of murders committed with a rifle.

Think about it: In 2005, the number of murders committed with a rifle was 445, while the number of murders committed with hammers and clubs was 605. In 2006, the number of murders committed with a rifle was 438, while the number of murders committed with hammers and clubs was 618.

And so the list goes, with the actual numbers changing somewhat from year to year, yet the fact that more people are killed with blunt objects each year remains constant.

The article closes thusly...

And it seems fairly obvious that if more people had a gun, less people would be inclined to try to hit them in the head with a hammer.

http://www.breitbart...Big Government)

Yeah and all the mass- hammerings that take place in schools every 4 months!

It is really horrible!

[Credo]

....committed with a rifle.

The comparison is not logical and is basically off-topic. A rifle is a very specific type of gun. So if you are going to compare then compare rifle deaths with those from a ball-peen hammer, for example.

[beechguy]

....committed with a rifle.

The comparison is not logical and is basically off-topic. A rifle is a very specific type of gun. So if you are going to compare then compare rifle deaths with those from a ball-peen hammer, for example.

Makes as much sense as people pushing for an assault rifle ban, when rifles killed less than 400 people the past 3 years and ignoring the fact that almost 8k were killed with handguns.