National Rifle Association Calls For Armed Guards In U S Schools

[koheesti]

As for the second amendment. It was written at a time of muzzle loading smooth bore flintlocks. People can have as many of those as they want. They were so inaccurate that battles involved standing in lines shooting at each other and the winning army was usually the one that could reload fastest.

Even before the 2nd Amendment was written men were butchering young school children (before Hollywood, video games, single-parent homes, etc)

July 26, 1764:

Enoch Brown school massacre

. On July 26, 1764, four

Lenape

American Indian

warriors entered a log schoolhouse of

white

settlers

in what is now

Franklin County, Pennsylvania

, near present-day

Greencastle

. Inside were the schoolmaster, Enoch Brown, and twelve young students. Brown pleaded with the warriors to spare the children before being shot and

scalped

. The warriors then began to

tomahawk

and scalp the children, killing nine or ten of them (reports vary).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_attacks_related_to_primary_schools

[koheesti]

Brother this morning who is FBI agent admitted that even he by himself may not be able to take down a whack job with body armor an AR-15 storming a school with just a pistol unless had a 5.70. FBI are trained to deal with situation with teams of four and sone old retired cop, which NRA, recommended with a pistol not going to stop someone like Lanza.

They may not be a good enough aim to stop them but they can definitely distract and slow the gunman down while teachers take children to safety.

[koheesti]

Thoughtful commentators point out that yes, the gun laws in the US do need tightening but that will not solve the problem. Other contributing factors are a lack of adequate mental health care as well as movies and games that offer gratuitous violence. In reality, if you were to objectively rank the causes, mental health would be number one, movies, games and a general increased acceptance of the horrible would be number 2 and choice of weapons would be number three. However, simplifying the argument to only guns is politically easier and allows the left to continue to portray the right as inhuman, unfeeling baby killers (oh wait, it's the left that thinks it's okay to kill babies, but they call it empowering women so that makes it okay).

In the wake of tragedies like Sandy Hook, the appropriate response is deep sorrow, hugging your own children that much tighter and encouraging thoughtful dialog. Neither the NRA response nor the cries for banning guns from the left fall into the category of thoughtful or appropriate.

Doesn't matter how many mentally ill people are out there. If they can't obtain a tool, i.e. a semi-automatic weapon, that enables them to commit mass murder, they don't pose a threat like they do now. Momma Lanza's gun didn't protect her, now did they?

Newtwon didn't have half as many dead as the biggest school massacre in US history back in 1927 when some angry nut blew up a school killing 45 and injuring 58. Ironically, if he had used a gun he would have killed and injured far fewer people.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bath_School_disaster

[koheesti]

Your costs might be too low. Some of those schools have more than one building and certainly most Universities do. Now, figure in health insurance, and other related employment costs and it might be wise to get them a good life insurance policy.

Universities are already protected. So are a lot of schools in big cities.

[Scott]

Unless this just started in the last week, there are many, many schools in large cities that are not protected by armed guards. Universities usually have numerous buildings and each building is not guarded, unless you are referring to the campus police.

[DocN]

Thoughtful commentators point out that yes, the gun laws in the US do need tightening but that will not solve the problem. Other contributing factors are a lack of adequate mental health care as well as movies and games that offer gratuitous violence. In reality, if you were to objectively rank the causes, mental health would be number one, movies, games and a general increased acceptance of the horrible would be number 2 and choice of weapons would be number three. However, simplifying the argument to only guns is politically easier and allows the left to continue to portray the right as inhuman, unfeeling baby killers (oh wait, it's the left that thinks it's okay to kill babies, but they call it empowering women so that makes it okay).

In the wake of tragedies like Sandy Hook, the appropriate response is deep sorrow, hugging your own children that much tighter and encouraging thoughtful dialog. Neither the NRA response nor the cries for banning guns from the left fall into the category of thoughtful or appropriate.

Doesn't matter how many mentally ill people are out there. If they can't obtain a tool, i.e. a semi-automatic weapon, that enables them to commit mass murder, they don't pose a threat like they do now. Momma Lanza's gun didn't protect her, now did they?

Newtwon didn't have half as many dead as the biggest school massacre in US history back in 1927 when some angry nut blew up a school killing 45 and injuring 58. Ironically, if he had used a gun he would have killed and injured far fewer people.

http://en.wikipedia....School_disaster

Yeah and you have even more dead people if you nuke a school...

1927...hmmmmm...how many automatic or semi- automatic weapons have been publicly available in 1927...??

Again, one pro- gunner compares apples and oranges to make a weak point!

[NanLaew]

"Fox recently pointed out that Germany matches the US for school atrocities like Sandy Hook and almost gloat that Germany has much stricter gun control laws."

Oh really, did FOX NEWS do that!

Hmmmm...let's see: Germany had 9 school- shootings, with a total of 47 casualties.

3 of them are dated 1913, 1964, 1983...

Yeah, that is really almost the same as in the USA!

Good to see you did more googling than Fox News did to rationalise this gun-love. It was a legit google search I hope and not some rehash from some right-wing, gun-toting, better dead than red, ultra-conservative website or the like.

The main point is Germany has gotten over it's three, nine (or pick a number) school shootings but in the US, it re-opens the old wounds and highlights the polarising effect on a nation. The whole Second Amendment is highjacked once again with the implicit accusation that if you don't agree with how it has been manipulated, then you must be somehow un- American.

[F430murci]

Your costs might be too low. Some of those schools have more than one building and certainly most Universities do. Now, figure in health insurance, and other related employment costs and it might be wise to get them a good life insurance policy.

Universities are already protected. So are a lot of schools in big cities.

Exactly, and did it help much in Va shootings. Seems like I recall cops being on scene in 3 minutes so I guess we need armed guards in every building just in case the barricade before shooting.

The NRA should pay for security as should gun manufacturers. Some lawyers should team up and file class action holding them responsible and maybe gun costs will exceedingly high and we can put these guys out of business.

Why doesn't the NRA take the common sense approach and offer to pay for security and back a ban of assault weapons. Perhaps also stop making certain ammo available and perhaps that will help. Too much money at stake. Corporate greed over population need.

Security, though is last resort to me because it really won't work and I don't want to see US seem like a millitary zone to my children. If guard in school, perp could just jump on a school bus, go into McDonalds after school where kids congregate or walk into a mall where we have mall cops making $ 8.00 an hour.

The only solution is to reduce availability of means by figuring out a long term plan to take guns away. Other measures are band aides over an abcess.

Edited December 23, 2012 by F430murci

[Exsexyman]

The enemy would be crazy people with guns killing people ........ Armed good people is not an unreasonable solution to armed bad people.

"The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun" says LaPierre. This was exactly the view of Adam Lanza's mother, what irony. Of course should the good guy with a gun have a bad hair day and become the bad guy, what then.........

I guess you'd have to have another good guy with a gun to shoot the good guy who's turned bad...and he'd have to have another good guy with a gun trained on him in case he goes bad, and he has to have another good guy with a gun and so on, ad infinitum, until all Americans have their guns trained on each other in case one of them goes bad...then they would all be safe and free.... wouldn't they?

[F430murci]

300,000 violent crimes a year committed with guns. Aporoxiamtely 75,000 people shot each year. The Aurora Colorado shooting left several people paralzed including one on a venerator. It is not just about deaths caused by firearms unless you NRA pushers believe injured, maimed, disfigured or paralyzed don't count or have say. Then we also have how many family members of those 75,000 shot that are affected each year.

[farangme]

Thoughtful commentators point out that yes, the gun laws in the US do need tightening but that will not solve the problem. Other contributing factors are a lack of adequate mental health care as well as movies and games that offer gratuitous violence. In reality, if you were to objectively rank the causes, mental health would be number one, movies, games and a general increased acceptance of the horrible would be number 2 and choice of weapons would be number three. However, simplifying the argument to only guns is politically easier and allows the left to continue to portray the right as inhuman, unfeeling baby killers (oh wait, it's the left that thinks it's okay to kill babies, but they call it empowering women so that makes it okay).

In the wake of tragedies like Sandy Hook, the appropriate response is deep sorrow, hugging your own children that much tighter and encouraging thoughtful dialog. Neither the NRA response nor the cries for banning guns from the left fall into the category of thoughtful or appropriate.

Doesn't matter how many mentally ill people are out there. If they can't obtain a tool, i.e. a semi-automatic weapon, that enables them to commit mass murder, they don't pose a threat like they do now. Momma Lanza's gun didn't protect her, now did they?

Newtwon didn't have half as many dead as the biggest school massacre in US history back in 1927 when some angry nut blew up a school killing 45 and injuring 58. Ironically, if he had used a gun he would have killed and injured far fewer people.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bath_School_disaster

Wow. Insightful line of thought. You got me. Better let everyone have their automatic weapons, lest they use a bomb.

FYI, after the Oklahoma Federal Building bombing, they started controlling and regulating the fertilizer used to produce the bomb. Guess the fertilizer industry didn't have an extremist lobby representing them.

Sent from my PC36100 using Thaivisa Connect App

[Scotsman5]

What a stupid response from the NRA. They try to lay the blame on the authorities for leaving children undefended in schools !!!! Come on guys what is your response to the 1999 Columbine High School massacre, 15 dead. They had armed guards. So taking it to the NRA logical conclusion if a school is threatened with a nuk these guys will say the schools should have nuks in plac eto protect them.

No wonder the USA is not loved, but they cannot see it.

[Johpa]

There have been so many instances where a potential gun massacre was prevented by someone who had a legal concealed carry handgun in those places you mentioned. Google it and you'll see. You don't know about them because the press always reports about a gun massacre but seldom about a prevented gun massacre by someone carrying a gun. And these people aren't law enforcement types, they're just normal people who carry their guns legally. The very same people the anti gun lobby are demonising.

Many?!? Sure you can find a few instances where guns were used to prevent a crime, and even fewer to prevent any type of "massacre". But most of us Americans do not need to use Google to recount deliberate or accidental instances of tragic fatalities involving guns. I can name two fatalties that I knew personally that died from just accidental gunfire, one a child.

[Scott]

Off topic posts and replies deleted. At this point, I think we can leave Mexico out of the discussion.

[gl555]

I have already provided more then few instances where a potential tragedy was prevented by a legally armed individual. As for gun accidents happening, they are prevantable accidents. I also personally know people who died in car accidents. Should we ban cars too?

There are more then a few instances of guns preventing a violent crime. An FBI study shows that violent crime has dropped as gun ownership rises. And read this study also, it shows that it is definitely more then just 'a few'instances'.

http://www.pulpless.com/gunclock/kleck1.html

http://www.pulpless.com/gunclock/kleck1.html

There have been so many instances where a potential gun massacre was prevented by someone who had a legal concealed carry handgun in those places you mentioned. Google it and you'll see. You don't know about them because the press always reports about a gun massacre but seldom about a prevented gun massacre by someone carrying a gun. And these people aren't law enforcement types, they're just normal people who carry their guns legally. The very same people the anti gun lobby are demonising.

Many?!? Sure you can find a few instances where guns were used to prevent a crime, and even fewer to prevent any type of "massacre". But most of us Americans do not need to use Google to recount deliberate or accidental instances of tragic fatalities involving guns. I can name two fatalties that I knew personally that died from just accidental gunfire, one a child.

[F430murci]

I have already provided more then few instances where a potential tragedy was prevented by a legally armed individual. As for gun accidents happening, they are prevantable accidents. I also personally know people who died in car accidents. Should we ban cars too?

There are more then a few instances of guns preventing a violent crime. An FBI study shows that violent crime has dropped as gun ownership rises. And read this study also, it shows that it is definitely more then just 'a few'instances'.

http://www.pulpless.com/gunclock/kleck1.html

http://www.pulpless.com/gunclock/kleck1.html

There have been so many instances where a potential gun massacre was prevented by someone who had a legal concealed carry handgun in those places you mentioned. Google it and you'll see. You don't know about them because the press always reports about a gun massacre but seldom about a prevented gun massacre by someone carrying a gun. And these people aren't law enforcement types, they're just normal people who carry their guns legally. The very same people the anti gun lobby are demonising.

Many?!? Sure you can find a few instances where guns were used to prevent a crime, and even fewer to prevent any type of "massacre". But most of us Americans do not need to use Google to recount deliberate or accidental instances of tragic fatalities involving guns. I can name two fatalties that I knew personally that died from just accidental gunfire, one a child.

What are you reading and citing? Haha, too funny.

[seajae]

why does a civillian need an automatic/semi-automatic weapon with a bloody great magazine if they are simply hunters etc. One shot kills a deer or anything else you want to shoot, you do not need 11 bullets(like some of the children killed) to be in your"prize". I lived on a farm and also went shooting quite a bit(also a marksman in the army) and I only ever needed one bullet at a time to kill what I was hunting. Anyone that says they need a civillian model of a armed services weapon is an adiot with serious power problems. There is nothing wrong with single shot weapons, just these multiple round ones that are used in all the mass shootings, all that is needed is a ban on multiple round weapons and a limit on magazine size, 5 rounds is plenty or do all these macho nra men use the size of the gun to measure their manhood, pathetic bloody wanke_rs comes to mind. They did this in Australia, we only have single shot and it has not caused people to stop their sport, get a grip or maybe not grip it so much.

Edited December 26, 2012 by metisdead
: Bold font removed.

[koheesti]

SCHOOL OBAMA'S DAUGHTERS ATTEND HAS 11 ARMED GUARDS

The larger point is that this is standard operating procedure for the school, period. And this is the reason people like NBC's David Gregory send their kids to Sidwell, they know their kids will be protected from the carnage that befell kids at a school where armed guards weren't used (

and weren't even allowed

).

Shame on President Obama for seeking more gun control and for trying to prevent the parents of other school children from doing what he has clearly done for his own. His children sit under the protection guns afford, while the children of regular Americans are sacrificed.

http://www.breitbart...-Secret-Service

Typical, politicians fighting against something for the general public that they themselves require. Whether it is their health care coverage, ability to invest a portion of social security, unparalleled pension plan and now...armed guards at their private schools. This Stidwell school doesn't have armed guards just because the President sends his daughters there, they are always there. The parents believe they themselves are so special & privileged that their children need extra protection. Maybe there is some truth to that. But the recent school massacre shows ALL school children are at risk. Only now that some have called for armed guards at these schools NOT for the children of the privileged, do these hypocritical politicians scoff at armed guards in schools.

Edited December 25, 2012 by koheesti

[rsokolowski]

http://www.breitbart...-Secret-Service

Armed security guards in schools for me, but not for thee.

Why is it OK for the rich and privileged in the USA to send their children to a secure school (with armed guards), but there is outrage when this solution is suggested for ordinary children in a public school. I guess I should not be surprised.

[F430murci]

http://www.breitbart...-Secret-Service

Armed security guards in schools for me, but not for thee.

Why is it OK for the rich and privileged in the USA to send their children to a secure school (with armed guards), but there is outrage when this solution is suggested for ordinary children in a public school. I guess I should not be surprised.

I pay $34,000 a year for both ($ 17k+ each) my 16 and 17 year old daughters' high school and there is no armed guard and I don't want there to be. In fact, I don't know any private high schools around here that have armed guards.

This is not a rich versus poor. This is a security issue for politician kids and kids of individuals that would make good marks for kidnapping and focused on one private school where the president's kids go. Seriously? Grabbing at straws aren't we.

Edited December 25, 2012 by F430murci

[scapegoat]

You have to look at the source of this "news". Not known for balanced reporting, just for whipping their main demographic into a frenzy. Trust me, it's not difficult either.

[F430murci]

You have to look at the source of this "news". Not known for balanced reporting, just for whipping their main demographic into a frenzy. Trust me, it's not difficult either.

So true. Axis of evil. Thug terrorist. Bad guys wanting to hurt Americans. They want to take our guns away. Evil liberals. Democrats want bigger government and take away your guns and ability to defend yourself. Haha, amazing what people believe.

[Mosha]

why does a civillian need an automatic/semi-automatic weapon with a bloody great magazine if they are simply hunters etc. One shot kills a deer or anything else you want to shoot, you do not need 11 bullets(like some of the children killed) to be in your"prize".

Cos they are crap shots, and need a different hobby.

[maidu]

Excuse # 37 for men who want to feel more manly by owning a big gun:

There is an innate urge in many of our species to kill large animals. Most of us have moved up the evolutionary ladder, but still many get a kick out of shooting a large vegetarian beast with a rifle. It's a similar to those who carve fins off sharks, and let them bob in the sea until they die of blood loss. Big game hunters, when they get old, often realize the stupidity of their earlier daze of killing beasts "for sport." My question to them is: Why didn't you fathom their stupidity when they were younger? Some of us gain wisdom in our 20' 30's 40's. Animal shooters may get a modicum of wisdom in their 60s or beyond.

[Neurath]

Would the NRA be OK with a tax on gun owners so as to pay for the armed guards in schools?

[DocN]

...I guess after yesterdays shooting of 2 firemen, the NRA now wants an armed escort for firetrucks!

[chuckd]

You have to look at the source of this "news". Not known for balanced reporting, just for whipping their main demographic into a frenzy. Trust me, it's not difficult either.

If the school does NOT have armed guards, please post a link to support your attack on the source.

[DocN]

You have to look at the source of this "news". Not known for balanced reporting, just for whipping their main demographic into a frenzy. Trust me, it's not difficult either.

If the school does NOT have armed guards, please post a link to support your attack on the source.

Although you may not be in favor of it...but you see the difference between the President or his daughter and "normal" people, don't you?

[chuckd]

You have to look at the source of this "news". Not known for balanced reporting, just for whipping their main demographic into a frenzy. Trust me, it's not difficult either.

If the school does NOT have armed guards, please post a link to support your attack on the source.

Although you may not be in favor of it...but you see the difference between the President or his daughter and "normal" people, don't you?

I'm in favor of armed guards for EVERY child, not just the privileged few.

[NanLaew]

Would the NRA be OK with a tax on gun owners so as to pay for the armed guards in schools?

Note the ongoing stunned silence from the gun-lovers on that call.