January 9th, 2013
02:48 PM ET

Guns, guards and posses: Schools try new security strategies

By Jamie Gumbrecht, CNN

(CNN) - It's not the first time this has happened: Students return to school after a few weeks off, and a few things have changed. Maybe the gym floor got a shine, the new physics teacher arrived - or there's an adult with a gun.

As students across the country returned to school this week, some schools implemented new security policies or brought in new personnel. Some are temporary or pilot programs. Others are refreshes of existing plans and training.

In Utah and Texas, some educators trained in shooting or self-defense. Arizona's Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio put a "posse" of armed volunteers around school perimeters. The National Rifle Association said all schools should immediately have armed officers, later adding that schools should decide for themselves how to protect children.

It's all in reaction to the December 14 shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, where 20 children and six staffers were killed.

“This is Columbine déjà vu,” said Kenneth Trump, a school security consultant who works with school districts across the country. For weeks he's been hearing from schools that want to review emergency plans, train staff or invest in technology they hope will increase security.

"I’m happy to see these conversations happening now," Trump said. "I’m frustrated you couldn’t pay someone to have those conversations the day before Sandy Hook."

A lot has changed for Sandy Hook students. They returned to school last week in a different building in a different town. The school was outfitted with familiar rugs and furniture - even the school's pet turtle made the move.

In his State of the State address on Wednesday, Connecticut Gov. Dannel Malloy emotionally rejected the idea of guns in schools, whether teachers carrying weapons or guards outside every classroom.

But Sandy Hook students did return to a school with more cameras, more locks and an obvious police presence nearby.

"I think, right now, it has to be the safest school in America," Monroe Police Lt. Keith White said on the students' first day back.

"Right now" is the timeline security pros struggle with. Trump expects schools to keep calling until budget decisions and new crises draw their attention.

"There’s a buzz at the local level," Trump said. "The question is always going to be sustainability, a dollar cost and time cost. Are you willing to do those things?"

Next week, Schools of Thought will consider five perspectives on how to make schools safer, but for now, here are some security shifts we've heard of across the country.

Starting this fall, all incoming freshman at San Diego State University will undergo "active shooter" training, where students learn how to respond, fight back or set up barricades between themselves and a shooter. Other universities have used the training, too.

In Marlboro Township, New Jersey, the mayor shifted police officers to each school for at least 90 days, until they've done a full security assessment. The officers will be paid from the Board of Education's budget.

In San Antonio, the owner of a self-defense and fitness studio began to offer free self-defense classes to anybody who works for a school, CNN affiliate KENS reported.

It's not yet in place, but Arizona's attorney general proposed a plan to arm principals or another designated person. Budgets are too tight for armed school resources officers on most campuses, Attorney General Tom Horne said.

The Utah Shooting Sports Council is stepping up courses that offer free firearms training to teachers.

What changes have you noticed in your school's security policies, training or staffing? Do you like the changes or not? Share your perspective in the comments.

Posted by
Filed under: Guns in school • School safety
soundoff (1,243 Responses)
  1. palintwit

    We arrive in rusty 1964 motorhomes.
    We bring our bibles and loaded assault weapons.
    We wear ridiculous clothing and have teabags dangling from our earlobes.
    We carry misspelled racist signs as we stomp all over the White House lawn.
    We are Sarah Palin's 'real Americans'.
    We love the baby jesus but we love to boink our cousins even more.
    We believe that the earth is only 6,000 years old and that early man walked with the dinosaurs.
    We believe that nascar is a real sport and that Dale Earnhardt was a great American athlete.
    We are the birthers. We are the tea party.
    We are republicans. We are morons and we are proud.

    January 10, 2013 at 11:36 am |
    • WFguy

      I'm a liberal that values my rights. I hate Sarah Palin, Nascar, don't like tea party or share their views. I do live in reality though and think scared emotional people shouldn't be making decisions. It's the same reason you shouldn't drunk dial. A lot of you, apparently, have been drunk for weeks. Good day sir. :D

      January 10, 2013 at 11:40 am |
      • biglio

        yeah, you are a liberal.......thanks for the laugh......if anything you are a troll and one of those gun owners that are part of the problem, unstable, in poor control of their emotions and angry at everyone with a different opinion, the fact you own a gun makes it also scary because people like you you never know when they are going to snap and kill someone......glad you are not my neighbor.....

        January 10, 2013 at 11:58 am |
      • WFguy

        Funny you say I am "angry" when all I've done in this topic today is throw out facts and be rational while you get upset. I know, you are right though. Look at me snapping and freaking out over here. Man I'm getting crazy! ;)

        January 10, 2013 at 12:13 pm |
      • Ryan_C_F

        WFGuy – obviously your calm demeanor and sensible arguments are a manufactured charade masking homicidal rage and irrational and violent urges.

        Please turn in your internet debate license at your nearest Obama-approved repository and report for re-education.

        January 10, 2013 at 1:55 pm |
    • Ryan_C_F

      You seem upset. And judgmental.

      January 10, 2013 at 1:57 pm |
  2. Truth Seeker

    Teachers with guns, armed security guards, principals with guns, students with guns,...it doesn't really matter one way or another. Put yourself, if you can,...in the shoes of the person that plans to shoot up a school. Don't you think the shooter would have done his homework before he puts his plan into motion? Who do you suppose would be the first victims of a shooting incident at a school? Having said that,...do you really think the shooter will approach the guard with gun in hand? No,...it will come as a complete surprise and then the school is his for the taking. Based on the photos of the posse in AZ,...that will end up as uniformed personnel as the first victims on the ground. Folks,...this country is in trouble. There are deranged, insane people out there with personal problems and nothing to lose. Why do you think most of them kill themselves after committing the crime? They have nothing to lose. If they don't care what happens to themselves,...what makes you think they care about you or anyone else? I am a cop. After careful consideration,...I believe that no matter what we think is happening in this country,...or want to happen in this country,...we have to come to grips with reality. It's a violent world we live in today. You can either try to live your life in peace and harmony and pray nothing happens to you; or you can try to be as prepared as reasonably possible. Possessing or carrying a gun comes with an immense amount of responsibility. But,...that's another conversation. All I can say is,...if you come after me, my family, my friends, or any other innocent person in my presence,...be prepared to be met with an equal or greater response.

    January 10, 2013 at 11:35 am |
    • WFguy

      Amen.

      January 10, 2013 at 11:41 am |
    • jimmymorris

      Thats why in schools here in Texas that teachers carry firearms, they don't disclose which teachers are armed. Only the principle knows. Its true that someone with nothing to lose may come in shooting but if there are armed people in the school then at least they have a chance to minimize the damage. Maybe they will get them before they take a life, maybe they get him after he took 5 lives but before he took 26. To the people who say take guns off the street is the answer I say this, drugs are illegal but they are everywhere. Guns will be too but only in the hands of those who wish to do you harm.

      January 10, 2013 at 11:52 am |
      • retphxfire

        Right, they'll will be shooting in panic..at anything that moves or get the innocent in a crossfire. Nothing makes sense about arming lay people, nothing.

        January 10, 2013 at 1:02 pm |
  3. Mr.Correct

    Putting more guns in schools means students will be more likely to get shot. That's just the way it is.

    January 10, 2013 at 11:35 am |
    • RLF

      Maybe its time to take the NRA up on one of its themes... personal responsibility. If we prosecuted gun owners for any crimes committed with weapons they own, I'm betting you would see far fewer crimes and accidental shootings in the U.S. A good example is Columbine where minors took guns owned by their parents and slaughtered their school mates. Not one parent or gun owner was prosecuted. Aggressive prosecutions would also see many more guns in homes locked up and used only with the owner’s permission and probably participation. Here is Minneapolis, a 4yr old recently killed his 2yr old brother with a gun found under his father's pillow. So, Vice President Biden... please consider adding this to the plans to reduce the mindless shootings in our country. Prosecute owners for the irresponsible use of their weapons.

      January 10, 2013 at 11:38 am |
      • Ryan_C_F

        I'm pretty sure they already are charged, in the case of the 4 year old and the 2 year old. Child endangerment at least.

        How would you justify punishment for crimes committed by a thief with stolen goods, though? Like, if I'm at work, and someone breaks into my house, takes my gun safe, torches it open and steals the contents, how is anything he does with those weapons my fault?

        That isn't personal responsibility. It's witch-hunting, the same as it was when they tried to put gun manufacturers out of business for crimes committed.

        January 10, 2013 at 2:01 pm |
    • WFguy

      Yeah of course. That's why the president has his kids in a school with 12 armed guards and a secret service team. That's just the way it is. lol.

      January 10, 2013 at 12:16 pm |
  4. guns in schools is a lovely idea if you like dead school kids.

    people like "Lil Wayne LaPierre" believe nuclear weapons should be placed around other Nuclear weapons to make them ALL safer. Circle the children and wagons folks and shoot anything that looks Indian!

    January 10, 2013 at 11:34 am |
    • IrishAle

      Wow. Completely false, melodramatic straw-man argument.

      January 10, 2013 at 12:15 pm |
    • WFguy

      Since you mention nuclear weapons.. You do realize the more nuclear weapons stopped the use of nuclear weapons right? Go read up on the Nuclear Arms Race. No one nuked anyone else because it would mean they would be hit by a nuke as well. Mutually Assured Destruction has kept those beasts at bay for a long time. Thanks for playing! Next!

      January 10, 2013 at 12:26 pm |
      • Captain Canada

        Well, not yet. So, when someone eventually pushes the button, what would be your proposal to solve the problem? Oh yeah, MORE NUKES! Doesn't that sound ridiculous? Now apply that logic to assault weapons....don't you seem silly now?

        January 10, 2013 at 8:37 pm |
  5. retphxfire

    Typical of egojoe, he puts armed posses in schools even if the majority don't want them, he gives the standard "I can do anything I want, I'm Joe" response. Nothing like sending the message to our children to be afraid, very afraid by loading their schools with armed guards. Whose to say these posse members are all trained, able and mentally fit to carry loaded guns? sheesh

    January 10, 2013 at 11:34 am |
  6. KipOliver

    There were armed guards at Columbine. Twice an armed guard engaged shooter Eric Harris and still FAILED to prevent the deaths of 12 people. An entire army base full of armed soldiers failed to prevent the deaths of 13 people at Fort Hood. It sickens me that this is what people think the best solution is when clearly it has failed in the past. What's even worse is the selfishness of the American Public: backing a solution of more violence to end violence just so they don't have to give up their right to own an AK-47. Nobody seems to want to do the adult thing and compromise: Keep your handguns and rifles, ban semiautomatics and assault weapons. Require background checks and mental health tests. Impose stern regulations on gun shops to prevent straw buyers and traffickers (this will only affect the illegal gun trade). How many more Columbines, Auroras, Virginia Tech, or Sandy Hooks do we need before we address this problem like adults and not a nation of spoilt, selfish children?

    January 10, 2013 at 11:32 am |
    • WFguy

      Ah yes, armed guard 20-30 yrds away, outside of the school, with a handgun. They tend to only be effective when they aren't out to lunch when things go down.

      January 10, 2013 at 11:43 am |
    • Atlahua

      Agreed. I enjoy taking guns out and shooting for the afternoon, however, I do not see need to carry it around as "protection"... and the assault weapons used in these shootings serve no purpose. Any trained individual could remove a threat with a round or two. We are only at war in our neighborhoods because these weapons are available. Sure, disasters happen, but the level of human deaths is greatly increased by these kind of guns. Arming the schools will only allow our acceptance of these kinds of weapons to grow... and we will see more senseless death.

      January 10, 2013 at 11:47 am |
      • WFguy

        At war in our neighborhoods because these weapons exist? Drinking the Kool-aid are we? These weapons are used in less than 1% of all gun crime.

        January 10, 2013 at 11:54 am |
      • Ryan_C_F

        Dude, this ain't the movies. The human body is very resilient.

        This notion that you people have that you can just shoot someone once and they go flying all over the place and die instantly is not how gunshots work. Can a single shot be lethal? Yeah, sure. But more often than not, it takes several shots to stop someone in the act of committing a crime. Especially people who are hopped up on adrenaline and/or illicit drugs like cocaine, meth or PCP.

        In fact, lots of concealed-carry owners practice what's called a "failure-to-stop" drill, where we fire two shots to the torso, and then a third, aimed shot to the head/bridge of the nose IF the first two don't work. It was designed by a combat specialist from South America because, often times, the first two shots... don't work. Especially with small-caliber rounds popular for concealed carry like 9mm and .380 ACP.

        Shoot, if you believe what he says, 50 Cent got shot NINE TIMES and that dude is on Twitter making fun of people every day.

        January 10, 2013 at 2:40 pm |
    • VengefulTick

      You show your ignorance. I'm a soldier of 15 years now. NONE of us are armed, we cannot have nor access our weapons unless going to a firing range to qualify, clean them (no ammo around), in training (blanks used) or in a war zone. In all cases, all ammo, even blanks are heavily regulated and not easily obtained. Educate yourself before making your own argument invalid in an attempt to sound more intelligent.

      January 10, 2013 at 12:26 pm |
    • anne112

      You sound so...sane.

      January 10, 2013 at 1:13 pm |
  7. JJ

    The NRA is once again showing the idiotic nature of its thought patterns. No, schools should NOT be free to decide for themselves how to deal with this. This is not a free-for-all nor the wild west. And putting more guns in schools is DEFINITELY NOT the solution, nor will it ever be. Only a terminal mörön would suggest something like that. You do not put out a fire by trying to kill it with gasoline. That is just incredibly stupid and typical of men who buy guns to compensate for other inadequacies.

    January 10, 2013 at 11:30 am |
    • WFguy

      I fail to see how this is trying to put out a fire by using gasoline. Water would be a more appropriate example as a gun can take down another gun. Your denial and ideology is the gasoline. As long as you think being disarmed is a solution there will be evil that preys upon that very thought. I know I know, you shouldn't have to deal with fire, but unfortunately sometimes fires start and if you don't have any water you're just going to have to watch everything burn.

      January 10, 2013 at 11:59 am |
    • Jaeger

      Apparently President Obama thinks guns in schools are a good idea. he chose Sidwell Friends school, in part, because of the armed security they had on site. Currently 11 guards, looking to hire a 12th and of course now there's also an armed Secret Service detail.

      By the way, David Gregory's kids also attend Sidwell. Apparently guns in schools are only acceptable for THEIR children.

      January 10, 2013 at 12:06 pm |
      • WFguy

        Yep. I doubt JJ will be back to respond to you. Celebrities, politicians etc have their kids in schools with armed security. Why? Because their families are safer. I guess they are all crazy, right JJ. :)

        January 10, 2013 at 12:11 pm |
  8. mokabean

    The problem with guns in schools is that it affects education. Education theory and research shows that children's basic needs need to be met before they can really learn. This includes feeling of being safe. Having armed teachers or guards tells students that their school is not a safe place. When posed with the scenario, almost every student replied that they would be "freaked out" by guns in schools whether by teachers or guards.

    January 10, 2013 at 11:20 am |
    • Bob

      And then they get used to it...

      January 10, 2013 at 11:25 am |
      • mokabean

        It's a sad society when our kids are expected to "get used to" having guns in our schools. I don't think arming everyone is only heightening our insanity. The idea of kids growing up with guns in our schools and being used to it should raise the hair on everyone's backs.

        January 10, 2013 at 11:28 am |
      • WFguy

        Well the alternative is they might get killed. Ideology has no room in this discussion right now. There are a lot of things "we shouldn't have to" do but we do because the world is the way the world is. Wishing doesn't stop lunatics. Armed guards can. You either assume the risk or put things in place to stop the threat if it happens.

        January 10, 2013 at 11:46 am |
      • whatamess

        yes our society is a mess, however the mess isn't the guns. The mess is the parenting that is going on. You can't raise your kids by being their friends. You can't punish them by giving them time outs all of the time. You can't keep telling them that everyone is a winner. Sooner or later they need to know that life is not a picnic or a game and you need to learn to respect yourselves and one another. Until children learn to respect, the body count will continue,,, guns or no guns. You can see how it has worked so far by watching the rude uncouth adults in our society. It is time to change a lot more than the availability of weapons.

        January 10, 2013 at 11:54 am |
    • josh

      are u serious? back in the 50's 60's70's all the way up to date there have been rifle ranges in most schools all across the country and gun violence was verry verry low now all these sensitive over protctive psrrents and idiots fear the worse when it comes to getting dirty for crist sakes i say more hands on gun training for every school teach children the basic rules of weapons

      January 10, 2013 at 11:37 am |
    • anne112

      I wonder how long it will take for one of those "armed guards" to snap and start shooting up the place themselves. People have mentioned putting veterans from Afghanistan and Iraq in schools for protection; you'd better hope they don't suffer from PTSD.

      January 10, 2013 at 1:18 pm |
  9. Atlahua

    Thank you, Nancy Lanza, for educating your child about responsible gun ownership, teaching them how to accurately fire the weapons, and keeping these forms of protection available and accessible for security. And rest in peace.

    January 10, 2013 at 11:17 am |
    • anne112

      I know it! How does anyone not see the irony here?

      January 10, 2013 at 3:10 pm |
  10. spent

    Obama and your clan. The banning of everything is not the solution, when we banned a morality that was centered around the spiritual part of our lives (as a nation) is when this all started and until we return to those basic principles that was established by our God we will keep getting what we are getting, count on it.

    January 10, 2013 at 11:15 am |
    • RainCityLady

      OH, so God was a member of the NRA?? "Praise the Lord, and Pass The Ammunition."

      January 10, 2013 at 11:42 am |
      • whatamess

        I don't normally comment on stupid,,,,, and I won't this time either I guess what I will say is I didn't read any of that in the post

        January 10, 2013 at 11:56 am |
  11. JPoet

    This is the modern world!

    January 10, 2013 at 11:13 am |
    • someone

      Pretty sad isn't it when everyone is so pent up with fear that we have to insist everyone carries a gun.

      January 10, 2013 at 11:21 am |
      • WFguy

        People are calling for a solution to random violence. Unfortunately that is the best immediate solution. Think of these people as rabid dogs. When that thing charges you what option do you have? Get attacked or fight back is it. I know I know, ban rabies. Good luck.

        January 10, 2013 at 11:50 am |
      • bard

        This is a myth. I am a gun owner as well as a CCW holder. If you meet me on the street I will have a pistol and 24 rounds between the pistol and the spare magazine (IT IS NOT A CLIP!!!) You will probably never know I have it, being concealed and all. I am not afraid, I am almost completely certain that I will never draw that weapon in public. I do not live in a dark world of paranoia where there are boogeymen out to get me. I also carry a multi-tool and a flashlight all the time. It is about a level of preparedness for the unexpected. There is this false dichotomy contantly presented that says you have to either be a far right, militia member with a tin foil hat or a free-love hippy who wants to melt all the guns down and make coasters out of them. Most gun owners, most people are somewhere in the middle.
        As for it being 2013 and us being all advanced, one thing I am certain of is that civilization is a veneer. Let something disrupt the apple card and the standard social environment suddenly deteriorate to the point that it is no longer predicable and people get crazy.

        January 10, 2013 at 11:55 am |
      • WFguy

        I agree bard.

        January 10, 2013 at 12:01 pm |
      • someone

        Bard- How do you not feel like you are living in old communist Russia having to carry weapons and a spare magazine on you at all times? I'm not pro gun and I'm not anti-gun, I'm simply trying to understand here.

        January 10, 2013 at 12:11 pm |
      • Ryan_C_F

        Not to be snarky, but the Soviets largely disarmed their own populace when Stalin's government became totalitarian, in 1929.

        So, him walking around with a gun is perhaps the ultimate expression of "not feeling like he was living in Soviet Russia."

        January 10, 2013 at 1:41 pm |
    • biglio

      this is modern America, not the modern world, all the other first world civilized countries don't have these problems and even those discussions on a constant basis....

      January 10, 2013 at 12:03 pm |
      • anne112

        We probably won't be a first-world country for much longer.

        January 10, 2013 at 1:30 pm |
  12. skytag

    I wish we were doing more to identify and address the real problem or problems. I'm not anti-gun, but when a society gets to the point no one feels safe until there's a gun or an armed guard nearby that society has a problem. I love my country, but we need take off our "We're the best!" cheerleading costumes, start taking a hard look at our problems and admit that maybe we haven't gotten everything right in this country.

    January 10, 2013 at 11:12 am |
    • Cpt. America

      Yeah...that's what losers say....

      January 10, 2013 at 11:27 am |
      • JQuigg

        Stupid comment is stupid. Stop being a forum troll. OP is right. We do need to step back and look at ourselves. It's ignorant to think we are perfect.

        January 10, 2013 at 11:38 am |
    • JQuigg

      Agreed!

      January 10, 2013 at 11:33 am |
  13. webbynetguy

    The only reason children are being killed is because the adults of these schools is provoking violence. I was the victim of repeated physical assaults in US grade schools and high schools. THE TEACHERS ASKED BIG KIDS IN CLASS TO ATTACK AND HARASS THE SMART KIDS. This is why you precious children are dying. One smart kid in class makes the teacher look bad. ARREST THE ADULTS IN CHARGE OF THE SCHOOL – NO MORE VIOLENCE.

    January 10, 2013 at 11:10 am |
    • mokabean

      I am deeply sorry for your experience. However, I would have to say that what happened to you is not the norm in this country and so is not really the root of the problem.

      January 10, 2013 at 11:23 am |
  14. TG

    When an illness begins, is it not better to "nip it in the bud" before it takes hold ? Placing either a gun "posse" or taking guns off the streets will not legitimately solve the problem of gun violence. Which is better, for a person to never be sick or after sickness, attempt to give them some medication that may or may not work ?

    Our Creator, Jehovah God, has set up arrangement in which individuals learn to be "peaceable" (Matt 5:9), applying the Bible principle of godly love within their heart.(John 13:34, 35) These remove the "old personality" and put into practice the "new personality" that imitates Jesus Christ in developing genuine love.(Col 3:9, 10)

    The nations work only with the symptoms but never the cause, a treacherous heart.(Jer 17:9) However, those who allow themselves to be taught by Jehovah (Isa 54:13), learn how to implement genuine peace rather than take the approach of just removing guns from people. As a result, these are called "meek" ones who will experience "an abundance of peace....forever" on the earth.(Ps 37:11, 29)

    January 10, 2013 at 11:10 am |
  15. Teddy

    WFguy: are you paid by NRA (with all your pro-gun comments)or are you the next good guy who snapped one day and became the next bad guy?

    January 10, 2013 at 11:09 am |
    • WFguy

      Sorry neither. Being pro-gun and defending my rights somehow makes me a good guy about to snap? We have isolated incidents where terrible things happen and it sucks. The idea that somehow taking guns from law abiding citizens will stop this is very reaching. Add to that the fact that overall crime skyrockets when the public isn't able to fight back and you have really just made things a lot worse.

      January 10, 2013 at 11:16 am |
      • Teddy

        nobody wants to take your (precious) guns from you
        only the military assault rifles and the large clips...
        or you are against too?

        January 10, 2013 at 11:21 am |
      • someone

        Would you feel different if your own kid was a victim at that school?

        January 10, 2013 at 11:23 am |
      • Mike

        Oddly enough, the FBI statistics show that the areas where crime is highest are the places w/strict gun laws. It ensures that only the criminals have guns. While that is true, having retired from the military a couple of years ago and having carried weapons for a good portion of that career, I see no reason for any variation of an M4 in the civilian world.
        I completely understand and adamantly agree w/owning weapons for hunting or home protection. Neither of these causes calls for that type of weapon. I go hunting and shooting occasionally and have no need for those type of weapons. To me, it seems those that need/want those types of weapons are wannabe military or can't let go of a time when they carried one and they felt powerful because of it. Just my opinion.

        January 10, 2013 at 11:51 am |
      • TIKI

        Teddy,

        Military assualt rifles have been banned to the normal gun owner for years. All because they weapon is black and has a pistol grip like a military assault weapon doesnt make it one nor does it mean it has the same capabilities. The sad fact of the matter is that if any of the sorry SOB's that have committed these terrible acts understood weapons they would have used 12 gauge shot guns with #3 shot. Sending 6 steel pellets the same size as a .22 cal round down the barrel with a single trigger pull would have caused more causualties in a shorter period of time and requires less training and experience. Not that I want to see that happen either. I am a gun owner, I have taught my entire family gun safety and used my expereince of over 20 yrs of military service to do it. Banning a weapon based on it looking like a weapon used in a movie is insane. Education and actually enforcing current laws is a good start. I have many friends in Law Enforcement (the military tends to feed that profession) and they will tell you that if they catch a felon with a gun and thats the only thing they have on him that they take the gun and kick him loose as the courts are too backed up to deal with it. I see that as a problem.

        January 10, 2013 at 11:56 am |
      • WFguy

        Teddy, you do realize that these weapons are not the same as the military variety, are relatively low powered for a rifle, and are used in less than 1% of gun crimes. Correct?

        Also to whoever asked about if it was my kid... I'd be devastated but I wouldn't for a second blame the guns. I am a gun owner and I don't do these things. Why? Because I'm not an evil nutbag. Guns have nothing to do with it. Just like if my kid was killed by a drunk driver I wouldn't think.."damn cars." I would hate the person that chose to drive drunk.

        January 10, 2013 at 12:08 pm |
  16. dsangiovanni

    When the next killer try to kill himself shooting in one of those schools where everyone have a gun we will see a tragic and great show, then they will have to go to the root of the problem.....

    January 10, 2013 at 11:08 am |
  17. Bman

    If any parents think this is a good idea, They are uneducated. Their children will likely grow up to be uneducated. So we can just close down the schools that think this is a good idea and save a lot of money.

    January 10, 2013 at 11:08 am |
    • WFguy

      Well the alternative is they get killed by some crazy and they don't grow up at all. Your plan sounds good.

      January 10, 2013 at 11:17 am |
    • anne112

      Another thought; who will pay for all these armed guards? Many public school are already under-funded.

      January 10, 2013 at 3:13 pm |
  18. Ramonesian

    In the specific case of Newtown, CT, the shooter is believed to have stolen legally purchased firearms from his mother (the gun owner) and used them to massacre a school. The firearms used are completely unnecessary for hunting and were manufactured for the efficient killing of human beings. Had gun laws been in place to prevent the legal purchase of these types of firearms, the gun owner does not posses these firearms in the first place which leaves nothing for the shooter to steal and subsequently kill 20 children. So, yes, gun control laws likely can make a difference. Nobody needs semi-automatic weapons. This argument is garbage. We all have to make sacrifices to live in a civilized society. Freedoms are not absolute.

    January 10, 2013 at 10:58 am |
    • Veritas

      The shooter still would have had access to these guns if a ban were in place, as long as his mother had purchased them before the ban went into effect. Gun bans DO NOT involve cops going door-to-door and collecting the banned guns. They only prevent the future sale of said guns. Do yourself a favor and LEARN ABOUT GUN BANS BEFORE YOU SPEAK.

      January 10, 2013 at 11:05 am |
      • Ramonesian

        Dude, learn some reading comprehension skills before speaking. I was saying that had gun control laws been in place to begin with, this might not have happened. I didn't say anything about those guns already out there. Who knows if this kids could have found a gun elsewhere, but I was providing a hypothetical argument nonetheless.

        January 10, 2013 at 11:10 am |
    • Chris

      Or we can take personal responsiably and lock our firearms up in a nice safe? Lets punish EVERYONE in the US for the actions of a few...yeah that's great. People like you don't deserve freedom.

      January 10, 2013 at 11:07 am |
      • Captain Canada

        Sometimes EVERYONE needs to take some responsibility to save the lives of a few.

        Events such as Newtown have unfortunately become part of the American culture. Lives are tragically lost, Anderson Cooper gets on a plane, followed by the President with an emotional speech. Don't forget the candlelight vigils, the sidewalk memorials and the four or five days of constant new coverage.

        All because Skeeter wants to feel like a big man carrying his gun on his hip as he walks around his local Wal-Mart.

        January 10, 2013 at 11:29 am |
    • DE43

      "Nobody needs semi-automatic weapons."
      Ok, You know nothing. Over 95% of new weapons purchased in the US today are semi automatic. Semiautomatics are safer and in fact recommended by most police departments for civilains to use in homes
      And the school shooter in the crime in Connecticut would have killed as many children with the average handgun bought in the US today. His sole advantage with the "assault weapon" would be range and ability to go through body armor, advantages he didn't use since he shot himself the second he saw the cops. assault weapons are less than 1% of gun deaths in the US

      January 10, 2013 at 11:12 am |
    • Nabob

      The Virginia Tech shooter used 2 pistols (a .22 and 9mm) to kill 32 people and wound 17. These were adults being killed, not small children. They were killed with pistols, not "scary looking" rifles. Nobody took him down during magazine changes. 90+% of firearm homicides are committed with pistols, not rifles. Why are you spending so much time focusing on rifles? The answer is simple – fear. Quit making decisions based on fear and consider all the facts.

      January 10, 2013 at 11:16 am |
      • WFguy

        Impossibru

        January 10, 2013 at 11:26 am |
      • biglio

        I have nothing against banning pistols too, like in every other first world country......

        January 10, 2013 at 11:49 am |
    • bard

      "Nobody needs XYZ" What a stupid statement. Look around you. If our decisions were filtered through the lense of need we would still live in caves and chase dinner with a stick. Nobody needs a computer, a car, four changes of clothes. You have no right to tell me if I need something any more than I have that right to say to you. And if it is the lethality that bothers you, if it is the availability of something that can quickly kill or incapacitate a large number of people you still have no leg to stand on.
      A five gallon bucket of common household bleach and a couple bottles of windex, total cost of ten bucks tops and NO controls on them at all and you could create a scene that made that shooting look like a lazy sunday afternoon. Don't try to restrict my rights and behavior because someone else acts badly. Go after the guy who acted badly.
      Despite the skewed stats on both sides, anyone who is honest and looks at the numebrs can see that gun control laws have historically had no impact on violent crime numbers. There are a zillion cultural and societal factors that feed it (and violent crime has been decreasing for years in spite of the increasing number of guns in circulation) The operative word in the phrase "Gun Violence" is violence. A gun does not do anything until someone shoots it.

      January 10, 2013 at 11:20 am |
    • WFguy

      Do we really want to play the if..then game? If someone had a gun there is a good chance that loser would've been dead before a single kid was shot. Or maybe if gun bans had been in place he would've went old school and just blew the place up. Lot of ifs and thens.

      January 10, 2013 at 11:21 am |
    • ech013

      CT, already had an assault weapons ban in place when the shooting occured...know your facts

      January 10, 2013 at 11:32 am |
    • hartdogg

      We shouldn't be allowed to have semi-automatic weapons? So we should be able to have fully-automatic weapons?

      January 10, 2013 at 11:34 am |
  19. biglio

    Gun owners keep barking about freedom but they are slaves, slaves of their guns.......

    January 10, 2013 at 10:55 am |
    • WFguy

      And you are like lambs led to slaughter when evil walks through the door.

      January 10, 2013 at 11:00 am |
      • frank Quintas

        I keep waiting for one of you gun nuts to stop a massacre... years of this... and it hasnt helped. Now you want to train teachers to be soldiers? while you cut their benefits and demonize them?

        January 10, 2013 at 11:07 am |
      • someone

        You keep saying lambs led to slaughter but yet every time I hear about an incident such as this nowhere to be found are CCW holders or gun rights advocates.

        Your ideal world may be one with guns and armed guards on every street corner, not mine.

        January 10, 2013 at 11:26 am |
      • edbuckby

        The mall shooting here recently, wasn't the event stopped by a young man (22, I believe) who confronted the shooter with his legally carried firearm?

        I noticed that once that fact got released, practically NOTHING has been mentioned about that shooting since. Why?

        January 10, 2013 at 12:16 pm |
    • Chris

      These people have to be trolling.....no intelligent human being that sees the big picture would think that way.

      January 10, 2013 at 11:13 am |
    • WFguy

      How would one of us gun nuts stop the massacre? We are law abiding. Almost everytime something like this happens it is in a place that explicitly says no guns. As we are law abiding we are either not there or won't be carrying even if we were. Why do you think these people keep going to "gun free zones?" It's precisely because they do not want to deal with us "gun nuts."

      January 10, 2013 at 11:24 am |
    • WFguy

      Getting shot in the face makes it a lot harder for them to shoot kids, ya know? ;)

      January 10, 2013 at 11:25 am |
      • biglio

        Getting shot int he face before the guy proceeds with the massacre will help a lot too, you would be just the first one to be shot.....

        January 10, 2013 at 11:51 am |
      • William

        To me this is the biggest myth and lie of all: an armed civilian would be able to shoot and kill an armed assailant in a stressful, sudden situation. Most likely, you'd be killed while fumbling for your gun unless you have specific military training in these situations, which the vast majority of gun owners simply do not. There are no real examples of mass murderers being stopped by armed civilians that I can find.

        In fact, there is a video on YouTube of the actual exposure of untrained people to situations where they have been given a concealed weapon and then confronted by a sudden assault. 12 out of 12 times, the shooter took out the concealed carry civilian, only once did a civilian even get a shot off, hitting the shooter in the leg, and taking a shot to the forehead in return. Look it up, its eye opening.

        January 10, 2013 at 12:04 pm |
    • ech013

      @Frank Quintas

      A CCW holder helped stop the Oregon Mall shooting..
      http://www.kgw.com/news/Clackamas-man-armed-confronts-mall-shooter-183593571.html

      January 10, 2013 at 11:44 am |
      • William

        Did you actually read what you posted? Your hero here appears to have not done anything except pull his gun and hide. The shooter's gun was jammed, and when he got it unjammed, he killed himself. What exactly did this Meli guy do?

        January 10, 2013 at 12:07 pm |
      • Ryan_C_F

        William – obviously, you didn't read through the link either.

        He paid attention to his training and, when he saw someone in the background that might have been hit by an errant shot or an overpenetration, he didn't fire. As soon as the shooter realized that he was facing an armed opponent, he killed himself.

        If you need more examples, see the following link: http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2012/12/can_armed_citizens_stop_mass_shootings_examples_of_armed_interventions.html

        January 10, 2013 at 2:49 pm |
  20. Captain Canada

    Did anyone take a close look at Arpairo's posse? If you think one of those old codgers will stop a determined nutcase with an assault rifle you're just as insane as Arpairo himself. I commend them for their volunteer service, but what a joke. Columbine had armed security guards, and there were armed citizens at the Gifford shooting (one of whom almost shot the wrong suspec). It's very simple folks – less guns equals less gun crime. Compare any area in the US with a smilar one in another developed nation (urban vs. urban or rural vs. rural) and you will see it very clearly.

    January 10, 2013 at 10:52 am |
    • Bob

      You are right. Less guns equals less "gun" crime. I am sure less knifes equal less "knife" crime, and since we are going there I think less terrorists equal less terrorism. Less sugar eqauls less sweetness. You can make a stat that shows anything.

      Here is something that I wish you would try: Less guns equal less "Crime", try saying that one without lying.

      January 10, 2013 at 10:59 am |
      • WFguy

        Bingo! I'm sure when someone blows a place up are stabs a bunch of people etc you'll find comfort in knowing at least it wasn't gun crime. Jesus these people are so oblivious.

        January 10, 2013 at 11:02 am |
    • Dave Shelter

      Less Food = Less Fat People.

      January 10, 2013 at 11:10 am |
    • frank Quintas

      not many people can build bombs, takes intelligence and skill to do tha.t and knife mass killing very unlikely. Maybe two or 3 fatalities tops. Guns? anybody can shoot a gun. That's why these dumbos cling to their guns. Obama was right when he said it. They have nothing but guns and religion. Opiate for the dumb masses. Well chances are one of these kids with their heads blown open had a parent who was a gun nut.... how they like them apples now?

      January 10, 2013 at 11:11 am |
      • Chris

        Ummmm Columbine? They had home made pipe bombs and propane bombs. You don't know what you're talking about sir.

        January 10, 2013 at 11:14 am |
      • Dave Shelter

        You think a gun can do damage, have you ever seen what a pipe bomb does?

        January 10, 2013 at 11:17 am |
      • Cmacan

        Ummmm... Chris...
        How effective were the bombs used at Columbine?
        Ohh that's right... they weren't particularly effective.

        January 10, 2013 at 1:02 pm |
    • Captain Canada

      Your country continues to happily sell products that are designed for one purpose – to hunt and kill humans. Assault rifles, High capacity magainzes and armour piercing bullets are simply tools to kill other human beings. The parallels you draw between these items and knives and sugar are ridiculous. The belief that your gun culture prevents "crime" is unbelievable.

      January 10, 2013 at 11:12 am |
    • Ryan_C_F

      That's actually incorrect. Chicago has a de-facto ban on firearms ownership within city limits and a skyrocketing firearm homicide level. Same with Washington DC (fun fact – after DC -vs- Heller, the homicide rate dropped dramatically).

      Compare that with Kennesaw, GA (an Atlanta suburb) where residents were required by law to own firearms. Almost no crime whatsoever.

      January 10, 2013 at 12:11 pm |
      • Captain Canada

        Read carefully Ryan. Compare SIMILAR geographies in the US with other developed nations and you will see a vast difference in gun crime. Sure, the NRA trots out their stats comparing "Gun Carrying Areas" in the middle of nowhere (no offense) with Incredibly dense Cities and trumpets the difference in crime rates. It's an invalid comparison that caters to the uneducated members of your society. If you took a comparable "middle of nowhere" geography in Canada and put it up against that suburb in Atlanta, you'll see far less gun crime, and far less crime in general. Same thing for the urban areas, even those with strict handgun laws.

        America, your not doing enough, and deep down you all know it.

        January 10, 2013 at 8:33 pm |
  21. Rocks Will

    Funny how the same people who are opposed to guards in schools were advocating for armed guards in black schools in large cities. Please ask young black people who attend an inner city school if their is a cop their and they will say yes. My wife has taught at three inner city gamer schools which had armed cops. Apparently black people need cops in their schools, but don't you bring that around my white kids. Smh liberal racism is the worst kind because it is hidden, but take the cloth off a liberal and you will find someone who believes in double standards and seeks to oppress those who disagree with him.

    January 10, 2013 at 10:49 am |
    • Dave Shelter

      Yep hit the nail right on the head. Down here in Florida in the worst school districts, no names (Tampa) their have always been armed cops and security at the schools. Just two years ago near the Apollo Beach Area, a armed security guard disarmed a thug student carrying and unlicensed stolen handgun.

      January 10, 2013 at 11:14 am |
    • Chris

      There's no such thing as hidden racism. People these days have no idea what the word racist means. Stop misusing it.

      January 10, 2013 at 11:15 am |
  22. winkum

    I cannot think of a more depressing learning environment than to have a young child spend 5-6 hours every weekday with armed adults patrolling his or her classrooms, hallways and, presumably, the restrooms.

    I spent several months in Cagayan De Oro in northern Mindanao, Philippines. It seemed as if every business, every street corner, in fact everywhere there were quasi-official gun toting 'guards.' Openly armed with everything from short-barreled submachine guns to bolt action rifles to old open-hammer side-by-side double-barreled shotguns, I was told that these were private security forces run by former army generals, a perk that Marcos had given them. These guys were scary as all get out and I have never felt so ill at ease in public. They were usually ill kempt, sullen-looking and I was ever so grateful to get out of the place.

    If my school were to employ full-time openly armed guards or worse, to arm the teachers, I would remove my children and begin home-schooling.

    Ninety-nine percent of us have never killed another human being with a firearm. It is not an easy thing to do, in fact, even trained military and law officers have been known to refuse to fire their weapons even in the face of imminent injury or death. Recently here in Minnesota, a police officer who just witnessed a fellow office being gunned down not only did not confront or pursue the gunman, but put his squad car in reverse and ran away, leaving the wounded officer to die.

    The moral imperative to not kill another human being is deeply entrenched in most people and to expect a teacher, one who is by profession a helper, a mentor, and enabler to instantly switch off years of training and service in order to draw, aim and fire accurately at an armed intruder who is already spraying the place with bullets is a pipe dream, not reality.

    January 10, 2013 at 10:48 am |
    • WFguy

      "I cannot think of a more depressing learning environment than to have a young child spend 5-6 hours every weekday with armed adults patrolling his or her classrooms, hallways and, presumably, the restrooms."

      I can. One where they know a monster can come in and hurt them.

      January 10, 2013 at 10:51 am |
    • WFguy

      Until you or someone can think of a way to make people not want to do these things, they will try. The only possible salvation in that moment is someone else wielding equal power back at that them.

      January 10, 2013 at 10:53 am |
    • Bregginkrak

      Sadly there always seems to be a human or group of humans that will use deadly violence against other humans. This has been the case and will be the case for the foreseeable future. We can't rely on all other humans being nice and not resulting to violence. Most don't, but enough do, that protection of some sort becomes necessary. We as a society need to invest in keeping guns out of the hands of those who are not responsible, those that are not mentally capable and those that have become criminals. We also need to elevate those citizens that are willing to take on the responsibility to carry a weapon and protect those around them when bad things start to happen.

      January 10, 2013 at 11:23 am |
  23. Kevin

    Let me predicate what I am about to write by stating that I grew up in London, U.K., and currently live in Canada. Therefore, the concept of a "gun culture" is as alien to me as are Mars and Jupiter.

    Having said that, lost in all of the sound and fury of gun control vs gun ownership rights is any attempt to understand why these shooting rampages continue to happen (and not just in the U.S.). I would like to think that the vast majority of American citizens do not want to spend their every waking minute being worried about a person walking down the street or one coming through the door. And I am pretty certain that the majority of people do not want think about the consequences of having to carry a weapon on the chance that they have to use it to take a life, even if it is to prevent a massacre. I believe that the citizens of the U.S.A. (or of any other country) do not want to spend their lives in a state of fear.

    Until people on both sides of the argument come together and agree to work to understand the underlying problem, the U.S. will remain in a perpetual cycle of angry discussions pitting gun control against gun rights.

    January 10, 2013 at 10:46 am |
    • Bob

      It is not about living in fear. It is about being prepared, I dont live my life thinking that guy might have a gun and shoot my family. I think if the bad people are going to have a gun, so will I. And IF they decide one day to pull a gun on my family, I will be ready to send him to the afterlife, even if it means risking my own. That is what it means to be American, putting your life in front of others. I refuse to be unprepared there are too many people like yourselves that are not.

      January 10, 2013 at 10:54 am |
  24. WFguy

    It's amazing to me how many of you are stuck in some sort of ideological bubble refusing to look at reality. There are bad people out there. They do bad things. Since the beginning of time this has been the case and it will be going on the last day we walk this Earth.

    WAKE UP. You can choose to be terrified and waste your time making decisions with your emotions based on your ideology or you can look for solutions that will have the greatest chance of succeeding. You say you don't want guards in school but don't want someone to be able to shoot kids. Well there are people out there as you have seen that WILL do these things. The only way to stop them is to somehow cure them of wanting to do these things (good luck) or putting them down with they try. The alternative is what we just had where it goes on until the killer decides he's done.

    Lastly, if "get rid of the guns" is your gameplan, then get ready for disappointment.

    January 10, 2013 at 10:44 am |
    • biglio

      Wonder why law enforcement (forget about Arpaio, he is just an headline grabbing hack) is overwhelmingly against gun proliferation........

      January 10, 2013 at 10:47 am |
      • WFguy

        It's like everything else. There are people on both sides of it. Most LEOs I know are against disarming.

        January 10, 2013 at 10:49 am |
      • Nabob

        Ask how many of them are willing to check their weapon at the station when they leave and go home unarmed every day. I'm guessing about 0 have enough confidence in on-duty law enforcement response to surrender the security of having their own weapon with them after hours.

        January 10, 2013 at 11:22 am |
      • texas555

        I know a lot of law enforcement and the majority of them (and others I have spoken to) are not against private ownership of firearms. They are, however, very much opposed to the criminal ownership of firearms.

        January 10, 2013 at 1:00 pm |
  25. Teddy

    put armed personnel inside the schools and Columbia or Venezuela will look like safe havens!
    ...and you'll have military training camps in US, not schools anymore!
    ..and children will do later what they see now....caring a gun it's a good thing!

    guess what? what NRA is preaching about good guys and guns: a bed guy it's a (former) good guy who snapped one day! (for a million of reasons)

    January 10, 2013 at 10:43 am |
    • WFguy

      Well you'll never get rid of the guns and if you did they'd move onto something else. Worst school massacre in this country to date was a bomb in the 1920's no less. You're living in a dreamworld. There are bad people that are going to try to do bad things. Intervening is the only way to stop them once they've decided they are going to do something. So carry on with your ideology instead of being realistic.

      January 10, 2013 at 10:46 am |
    • Don

      Your ignorance is brilliant in its simple mindedness. Please return to the shallow end of the (gene) pool while the adults talk.

      January 10, 2013 at 10:51 am |
      • Teddy

        I feel sorry for you guys...you are born and live in a training camp...
        it's the year 2013....not 1700 or 1800...or are you afraid that US gov. will enslave you? to have an armed militia?
        look at the other civilized countries...they are laughing at you guys with your paranoia....anf your love for guns...

        January 10, 2013 at 10:59 am |
  26. Tony

    Hmmm....

    We protect things that are valuable to us with guns and do not rely on an honor system.

    Brinks trucks

    The President

    Court Houses (judges)

    Embassies...etc.

    But...our children...no...that is crazy.

    January 10, 2013 at 10:42 am |
    • Tony

      that last line by the way is sarcasm

      January 10, 2013 at 10:45 am |
    • WFguy

      Funny how that works right? It's amazing to me how many people on here seem to be so clueless.

      January 10, 2013 at 10:47 am |
    • Pendelton1st

      We protect the President with armed NRA volunteers?

      January 10, 2013 at 1:06 pm |
  27. Dale Weiss

    When they limit gun clips and assault rifles that will force police to live closer to the real world, oh wait, they are being exempted from following the law again.

    January 10, 2013 at 10:41 am |
  28. Hogan's Goat

    Part of the problem is that "gun nuts" do way too many of the shootings. They need to be right in the middle of the conversation being reasonable and sane, or else we are going to decide that 'gun nuts' are the problem and restrict ownership of guns. So gun nuts, this is your chance; tell us how to fix this! You are the experts AND the problem so you ought to have an answer.

    January 10, 2013 at 10:41 am |
    • rob

      so said the Jewish in Germany

      January 10, 2013 at 10:45 am |
    • tony

      So how are the Palestinians doing with their assault rifles???

      January 10, 2013 at 10:58 am |
    • texas555

      You claim to want a reasonable discussion but then go on to call us gun owners 'gun nuts'. How can you expect a reasonable discussion if the first thing you do is insult us?

      January 10, 2013 at 10:59 am |
  29. Ryan Dabest

    This may come off as insensitive....but really in the grand scheme of things..mass shootings and even violence on a whole account for less than 3 percent of all Deaths in the US each year. Disease accounts for a much more significant portion of deaths (especially in children) and the preventablilty of these deaths is much more reliable than hoping that an armed gaurd outshoots a mass murderer who may kill 30 people one day. More time and money to biological research and development and less time and money wasted on the implications of the (150/314,686,189)% who have died in mass murders in the US.

    January 10, 2013 at 10:41 am |
    • Neil

      I agree. I mourn the loss of these children. I have 4 kids of my own; two in elementary school. But they are much more likely to be killed in a car accident while I am driving than to be shot down at school. I think America is going overboard on the gun control. Put more effort and money where it's needed more.

      January 10, 2013 at 10:54 am |
  30. blh77

    Just yesterday a man came from another state (sorry, can't remember which one), who was a convicted felon for muderd. He came to Florida with his handgun with the intent to kill 3 people. Thankfully police here, along with the FBI, were able to apprehend him before he could harm anyon. The disturbing part...he purchased the gun himself. There needs to be bette screening and tracking. It's ridiculous that at gun shows here in Florida, anyone can purchase a gun without going through a background check. Insanity.

    January 10, 2013 at 10:40 am |
  31. Tptlead

    That Arizona school posse is more likely to have a heart attack patrolling school grounds than thwart any armed intruder. Why not robots that could be far more mobile and lethal(if necessary) in confronting an intruder. Or, a good guard dog.

    January 10, 2013 at 10:39 am |
    • Hogan's Goat

      "Why not robots " *facepalm* "Danger, Will Robinson, Danger."

      January 10, 2013 at 1:16 pm |
  32. Donald H

    Having better protection for our kids is long overdue. Armed security in the schools is nothing new on the world scene. The Israelis have had armed security in their schools for years. Maybe we could learn a few things from a country experienced in these matters.

    January 10, 2013 at 10:39 am |
    • Tptlead

      Is there you need to tell a physician about as to why I must protect my kids from you? Proactive is more effective than reactive. "Protecting" schools is reactionary. Let's get to root causes.

      January 10, 2013 at 10:42 am |
    • Ian Grunewald

      Has America fallen that much that it needs to arm its schools now?

      January 10, 2013 at 10:46 am |
      • Hogan's Goat

        "Has America fallen that much that it needs to arm its schools now?" Actually, no. Crimes like this are extremely rare. This is called "getting re-elected by wrapping yourself in flags and Bibles." No one wants to be accused of not doing enough to protect our children from imaginary attackers. In one case, a uniformed soldier showed up at the local school and proudly stood guard at the door for three days before they realized he'd been dishonorably discharged years ago and wasn't the best person to have around small children . . .

        January 10, 2013 at 1:33 pm |
  33. Hogan's Goat

    I'm not going to try posting a link but you can find what George H. W. Bush said to Wayne LaPierre when he quit the NRA online.

    January 10, 2013 at 10:38 am |
  34. Don Nanneman`

    I would like to know how many school districts already have armed guards. Ours has had in school police officers as long as I have lived her.

    January 10, 2013 at 10:38 am |
    • Tptlead

      We had armed guards almost 20 years ago. But, there potential effectiveness should be brought into question. In a high school with two levels (3 in one area) and 7 main stairways, the primary officer had to take the elevator due to arthritic knees. He was not going to stop anyone.

      January 10, 2013 at 10:45 am |
      • Hogan's Goat

        "the primary officer had to take the elevator due to arthritic knees. He was not going to stop anyone." A veteran is probably going to be more use in a crunch than a kid, generally speaking. And he'd strip those knees out if there was a shooting and worry about replacements later. I have a hip like that; I'd ache for a week if I chased you down and caught you, but I could do it.

        January 10, 2013 at 1:58 pm |
  35. mike hunt

    Maybe if you all anti-gun folks would use logic and reason rather than emotion we could come to a solution to this violence. Mass school shootings are rare, but historically have happened across the world regardless of gun laws. How about rather than going in to a panic about the availaiblity of guns we look at our society and ask ourselfs, what is it that causes people to take whatever tools are available to them to harm as many people as possible rather than look at what we can do about the tools. More people die from being assualted by a hammer than an "assault rifle" but no one is recommending restrictions on hammer ownership. Sure, maybe dozenzs of people havent died at once at the hands of someone with a hammer, but the number of "mass shootings" is rare in compairison to overal violent crime. 3000 people died on 9/11 because some nuts decided to use some planes to kill people. No one suggested banning planes. And most of you all complain about the new restrictions and the TSA put in place as a result of that event, but are asking for the same thing now with guns. What sense does that make?

    January 10, 2013 at 10:38 am |
    • Tptlead

      Comparing the benefits and risks of hammers to firearms is illogical.

      January 10, 2013 at 10:47 am |
      • mike hunt

        Is it Spock? How many hammers have been used to save lives from attackers? Close to none. Go look up the FBI stats. Hammers kill more people than guns. Its a fact.

        January 10, 2013 at 10:53 am |
      • Ryan_C_F

        @Mike – rapid pro-gun bro speaking... you're incorrect.

        Firearm homicides far outweigh deaths from blunt objects. The statistic you're thinking of details that bludgeoning deaths outweigh homicides committed with rifles.

        It was used to argue against a ban of semi-automatic rifles.

        January 10, 2013 at 12:07 pm |
    • Hogan's Goat

      Someone said it well last night: the group called "gun nuts" or 'enthusiasts' contains most of the sub-group "crazed gunmen." Unless the "gun nuts" are part of the conversation about gun control laws, they will be be identified with their sub-group in the public mind and eliminated. We don't want that; my friend has a pistol and a rifle, and another little pistol for snakes never mind where. He's not a crazed gunman and doesn't need controlling. "Gun nuts," stand up and help us control your sub-group! You will look good if you do.

      January 10, 2013 at 2:33 pm |
  36. Bob

    I find it interesting how these people in the UK and other countries can get on forums like these and complain about the finatical Americans with their scary guns, when it seems to me that they have forgotten a bit of their own history. Was it not because of Americans that you still speak English and not German, was it not because of our scary guns that France still has a place to call home. Was your country taken over, not by your police and military being armed, but your citizens not?
    I am not one to think that our government or any other country will take over my suburb, but do you think the Jews did 75 years ago? I have never thought that sending our children to school would be deadly, I mean who would? But these things happen and will continue to happen regardless of our actions. I am not going to throw facts down your throat but look at the countries who have banned all guns, people are still dying, kids are still dying. This is not about being a crazy person expecting the worse, It is about people defending themselves in the time of need.

    It is our right as citizens to protect our families from what we can. No matter what you do you cannot prevent mass killings, but you can deter them. Disarming America will not deter them. I am not about giving every Joe and Sally an assault weapon (that I know close hand the damage that it can do having served our country) but a hand gun or shotgun or low capacity rifle should not be denied to those whom deserve it.

    I would rather have a gun and not need it, than need it and not have it.

    January 10, 2013 at 10:38 am |
    • mike hunt

      They also need to look at their violent crime stats and how they are the worse in the world, and how they went up after banning guns.

      January 10, 2013 at 10:41 am |
    • rob

      first step ban assault weapons ,next we get them all

      January 10, 2013 at 10:51 am |
    • tony

      Let me see. All the Americans had great "defensive" guns, so all survived?

      January 10, 2013 at 11:01 am |
      • Bob

        No, What I said was that Europe was taken over because their citizens did not have "defensive" weapons and therefore had to rely on the Americans to save and protect them.

        January 10, 2013 at 11:23 am |
    • Hogan's Goat

      "complain about the finatical Americans with their scary guns" They have seen tv show after tv show all their lives demonstrating how someone finds a gun and is immediately possessed by it and shoots everyone. Guns grab people, corrupt them, and make them into murderers. They have seen it hundreds of times and know it's true.

      January 10, 2013 at 2:42 pm |
  37. WFguy

    fghfr

    January 10, 2013 at 10:37 am |
  38. Spot

    After reading all of these comments, it still comes down to regulating these super automatic guns that no one person
    can ever justify having let alone using. I have repeatedly ask the question" why does any person need a gun that is as
    deadly as these guns are"? So far I have had no answer to that one question. Can anyone answer it?

    January 10, 2013 at 10:37 am |
    • PJ

      Let me see if I can explain this to you in simple terms. The second amendment was not written in order to give me hunting rights or fun at the shooting range. It is a way to prevent tyranny from a government. It does happen from time to time. History is chucked full of examples. If it happens here, God forbid, I would like to have appropriate fire power. It would also be extremely useful in a world with out rule of law. Natural disasters, economic chaos etc ... . My AR 15 is designed to kill people and I hope it never comes to that but if it does then I want to be ready.

      January 10, 2013 at 10:48 am |
    • Vet11bravo

      Anyone that has a "super automatic" rifle has a license to own one. The topic at hand concerns semi-automatic.

      January 10, 2013 at 10:51 am |
    • rob

      since when are we everyday people allowed to have automatic weapons???

      January 10, 2013 at 10:53 am |
    • James W. Ball

      Because they are fun to shoot, spot.

      January 10, 2013 at 10:55 am |
    • bard

      "After reading all of these comments, it still comes down to regulating these large SUV's that no one person
      can ever justify having let alone using. I have repeatedly ask the question" why does any person need a car that is as
      dangerous and gas hungry as these SUV's are"? So far I have had no answer to that one question. Can anyone answer it?"

      I don't have to justify having a rifle any more than I would have to justify having an Expedition with six inches of lift an 39.5 super swampers. THat is the point of a free country. Your preferences dictate what you want, mine dictate what I want and we are both free to pursue them so long as OUR INDIVIDUAL ACTIONS do not harm someone else. The weapon used at Sandy Hook would have been just as deadly if it had a polished wooden stock and a fine leather sling. Assault weapons bans are the equivalant of trying to control speeding by banning large fuel tanks and chrome exhaust tips.

      January 10, 2013 at 12:11 pm |
  39. Mike

    I have no problem with armed law enforcement at schools, but armed teachers has to be on of the most absurd ideas I have ever heard.

    Once a teacher is armed, his or her primary responsibility stops being teaching and becomes securing their weapon. Nothing else matters. Leaving it unattended in their desk drawer, the bath room, a purse, or the teacher's lounge can never happen–not even once by any teacher anywhere in this country. Their entire focus must be on keeping that weapon out of the hands of the students. I just don't see that working well at all.

    January 10, 2013 at 10:37 am |
    • rob

      we are behind third world counties in education ,do we really want to arm these teachers?

      January 10, 2013 at 10:56 am |
    • James W. Ball

      Is the only responsibility of a LEO (law enforcement officer), soldier, security guard, or any other armed professional, to secure their weapon? Really? Is that all their jobs entail?...

      January 10, 2013 at 11:19 am |
      • James W. Ball

        My bad, you did say "primary", so yes it should be utmost important their weapons are secure.

        January 10, 2013 at 11:21 am |
  40. JClark

    Our society is awash with fear. Modernism has been allowed to envelop our lives and long held moral beliefs have been cast aside. Guns are a frantic search for some control over all that scares us. Since we have decided to eliminate God and his instructions, he leaves us to our consequences. Liberal lifestyles in which anything is allowed with no concern about outcomes has led us to where we are. America will implode not from isolated actions from mentally ill people, but from our forsaking of morality. Guns will not be the cause.

    January 10, 2013 at 10:32 am |
    • biglio

      mhhh, how you reconcile being the conservatives the ones owning most guns and the most averse to gun control......

      January 10, 2013 at 10:34 am |
      • James W. Ball

        "Averse"?? or did you mean "Adverse"?...

        January 10, 2013 at 11:23 am |
      • biglio

        James I meant averse as in:

        a·verse
        /əˈvərs/
        Adjective
        Having a strong dislike of or opposition to something.
        Synonyms
        loath – loth – opposed – reluctant – unwilling

        January 10, 2013 at 12:19 pm |
    • someone

      Our society is crumbling fast.

      January 10, 2013 at 10:35 am |
    • Hogan's Goat

      " Liberal lifestyles in which anything is allowed with no concern about outcomes has led us to where we are." What a crock, sir. Where we are right now is that we are so terrifyingly powerful that we are fighting two wars and several police actions without raising taxes or drafting soldiers or undergoing any kind of shortage or inconvenience. Let a woman scream and every man in sight will run to help her. Most cops retire without ever drawing their weapons. This is a quiet and peaceful country unless you live in some huge city, and even there you are surrounded by fellow Americans who would come to your aid.

      January 10, 2013 at 3:17 pm |
  41. vlantukh

    Finally, someone is doing something that makes sense about school security.

    January 10, 2013 at 10:30 am |
    • Pendelton1st

      People are glad that most mall cops are not armed, and these idiots are worse. These barely trained,"volunteers" have no business bringing firearms to a school filled with children. That Sheriff is beyond irresponsible. Imagine one of these NRA hicks shoots a parent for twitching the wrong way or walking on campus without a pass. Or they have to "stand their ground" because he feels threatened by a student. What a disaster waiting to happen. There was a trained guard at Columbine and it did no good, letting NRA armed volunteers into your school is crazy.

      January 10, 2013 at 10:42 am |
      • rob

        mall cops get confused as to what their job is,some think they are police,but they have two jobs ,call the police and run like hell

        January 10, 2013 at 11:03 am |
  42. Hogan's Goat

    The purpose of terrorism is to force the one terrorized into adopting the tactics and stance of the terrorists. Al-Qaeda, for example, hopes to force our country to become a theocracy so their Ayatollah and our Ayatollah could join forces. Gun nuts want us to all become gun nuts, but will they feel safe then? If I had a bunch of guns, I might just use them to disarm my crazy gun nut neighbors, so they need to have more guns than I do. And so on . . .

    January 10, 2013 at 10:30 am |
  43. no.

    dear whitehouse....no flippin way...

    January 10, 2013 at 10:28 am |
  44. NRA

    If all of those kindergartners were armed, no one would have dared try to hurt them. Cuts down on bullying too!

    January 10, 2013 at 10:28 am |
    • ElDestroyer

      Like

      January 10, 2013 at 11:48 am |
  45. guns in schools is a lovely idea if you like dead school kids.

    really? the answer to guns in schools ...is to put more guns in schools?
    OK who's leading this parade? ...must be Wayne LaPierre...
    ...put down the gun lil' wayne and evolve!

    January 10, 2013 at 10:28 am |
    • no.

      idiot.

      January 10, 2013 at 10:29 am |
    • guns in schools is a lovely idea if you like dead school kids.

      we can conclude that it is safer to put nuclear weapons around a nuclear weapon to make it safer.

      January 10, 2013 at 10:29 am |
      • guns in schools is a lovely idea if you like dead school kids.

        I'm just overjoyed Wayne LaPierre is not the head of the Nuclear safety commission!

        January 10, 2013 at 10:32 am |
    • Oakspar77777

      Thousands of schools across the country have had an armed SRO on duty for years (more often in high schools).

      Thousands of schools in Utah have allowed teachers with CCWs to carry for over a decade. Zero incidents of mass shootings. Zero incidents of teachers shooting students. Zero incidents of students getting ahold of a teacher's gun and shooting up a class.

      You are afraid that the person you trust to watch and care for your child, who can legally carry a firearm concealed around you and your child everywhere outside of school, will suddenly become a one in ten million shooter the second they go to work educating and caring for children?

      Logic, experience, and history are not on your side.

      January 10, 2013 at 10:52 am |
      • guns in schools is a lovely idea if you like dead school kids.

        Really, you must not have any TRUE life experience because my life experience says "nothing is a fact" and people who believe in fixed outcomes based on "facts" are asleep to reality. Go back to "life" school Oakspar

        January 10, 2013 at 11:24 am |
      • guns in schools is a lovely idea if you like dead school kids.

        t a time when the US is trying to reduce government spending, the move would present a further bill to taxpayers, potentially running into billions of dollars. There are some 98,817 public and 33,366 private schools in the US, according to the department of education.

        According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the average pay for a police officer is $55,010 per annum.

        In that case, a crude estimate for the overall bill for the placing of an armed guard in every US school could be as much as $7.2bn. If the government only had to cover public schools, the total could be a minimum of $5.4bn.

        Even if the NRA was to claim that such officers could be redeployed during the summer break, it would still mean that the equivalent of around 74,000 positions would need to be filled – at a cost of $4.1bn.

        January 10, 2013 at 11:27 am |
      • guns in schools is a lovely idea if you like dead school kids.

        YOU are Wrong Oadspar
        The Violence Policy Centre said that Columbine High School in Colorado had armed law enforcement agents on call when two teenagers, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, embarked on a shooting spree in 1999. The agents were unable to prevent the deaths of 12 students and one teacher. They were "outgunned by the assault weapons wielded by the two teens", the VPC said.

        Similarly, Virginia Tech had armed police on campus who were unable to prevent the deaths of 32 people in a mass shooting in 2007.

        The NRA plan "has already been tried and it didn't work", said the VPC's executive director, Josh Sugarmann.

        Even John Lott Jr, the author of More Guns Less Crime and a Fox News columnist, was dismissive:

        January 10, 2013 at 11:29 am |
      • James W. Ball

        Here!, Here! Sounds like a great system Oakspar.

        January 10, 2013 at 11:48 am |
    • James W. Ball

      Evolution just might take a bit longer than a bullet to hit your skull, just sayin.

      January 10, 2013 at 11:45 am |
  46. boyamidumb

    Hi. Welcome to the new America. We all carry guns here, so don't tread on me or forget to hold a door for me or pi s s me off in any way or I just might pull my six gun and shoot you. Right Sheriff?

    20 steps backward 0 steps to solving the real problems.

    As Churchill said, American will try every other way they can think of before they come up with the right solution. Not sure that's true any more Mr. Churchill.

    WRONG TRACK AND FULL SPEED AHEAD.

    January 10, 2013 at 10:26 am |
    • Oakspar77777

      Welcome to America. We all have guns here. Law abiding CCW carriers commit less than one tenth of the crimes of the general population.

      Most shootings (that are not suicides) occur between drug thugs in the inner cities. Apart from the upswing in violence in areas of urban decay, violence and murders have been steadily DECREASING since the 1950s (and overall murders (and gun murders) have decreased annually ever since the Assault Weapon Ban ended).

      Your statements do not reflect the reality of the gun owning and carrying population.

      January 10, 2013 at 10:56 am |
      • guns in schools is a lovely idea if you like dead school kids.

        The Violence Policy Centre said that Columbine High School in Colorado had armed law enforcement agents on call when two teenagers, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, embarked on a shooting spree in 1999. The agents were unable to prevent the deaths of 12 students and one teacher. They were "outgunned by the assault weapons wielded by the two teens", the VPC said.

        Similarly, Virginia Tech had armed police on campus who were unable to prevent the deaths of 32 people in a mass shooting in 2007.

        The NRA plan "has already been tried and it didn't work", said the VPC's executive director, Josh Sugarmann.

        Even John Lott Jr, the author of More Guns Less Crime and a Fox News columnist, was dismissive:

        January 10, 2013 at 11:29 am |
      • Ryan_C_F

        The VPC is a biased, flawed joke of an organization dedicated to gun confiscation. You can tell from the way they lied in that quotation.

        Neither Eric Harris nor Dylan Klebold had any "assault weapons." The shooting was carried out during the Assault Weapons ban and obtaining anything resembling a modern rifle with a large-capacity magazine would have been almost impossible.

        Quoting the VPC for gun statistics is like quoting Phillip Morris for health food.

        January 10, 2013 at 12:02 pm |
    • James W. Ball

      boyamidumb...it fits. What kind of people do you really think use guns to unlawfully harm others?...I'd really like to know your answer.....

      January 10, 2013 at 11:51 am |
      • Hogan's Goat

        "What kind of people do you really think use guns to unlawfully harm others?" Obviously, gun owners. Also people with stolen guns, but people who shoot people with guns start by having guns. Where I live, firearms sales are way up, and so are stolen guns reports. You buy them and crooks steal them, so you buy more guns in case of more crooks. Maybe you are hiding the guns and claiming they were stolen?

        January 10, 2013 at 4:17 pm |
  47. NRA is nuts

    God forbid we actually enacted sensible gun laws in this country.

    Bottled water is more regulated than guns.

    January 10, 2013 at 10:25 am |
    • no.

      never happen

      January 10, 2013 at 10:46 am |
    • texas555

      Define what you consider "sensible". Based on the name you have chosen it would most likely be to ban them all.

      January 10, 2013 at 12:07 pm |
  48. Charles

    Citizen posses patrolling schools. Great. A bunch of gun nuts playing a cowboy fantasy itching to shoot something.

    January 10, 2013 at 10:24 am |
    • Tptlead

      We'll be stuck with their medical and disability bills when they trip over themselves or have a heart attack on school grounds.

      January 10, 2013 at 10:50 am |
  49. Rick

    Armed guards are not the answer. Remember Columbine? They had 2 armed security guards and the gunmen still got through.

    January 10, 2013 at 10:23 am |
    • Kenny

      One of the armed guards exhanged fire at the cafeteria at Columbine. No students were killed in the cafeteria. However, they were able to kill several where they were trapped in the library. It seems to be the case when the crazies are confronted with an armed law enforcement officer, they commit suicide. The quicker they are confronted, the more lives could be saved.
      That is why there needs to be an armed SRO on campus.

      January 10, 2013 at 10:44 am |
  50. Jeb

    Rather than turning our schools into prisons, it would be much cheaper and more effective to simply enact sensible gun legislation that prioritizes public safety over gun industry profits.

    Unfortunately, the NRA (gun lobby) has a stranglehold on our government.

    January 10, 2013 at 10:21 am |
    • Kimo

      So why do we have armed guards in prisons? To keep the bad guys from society right. So is it worth it to have armed guards or cops in schools to keep bad guys to protect the future of our society?

      January 10, 2013 at 10:31 am |
      • Rick

        There were armed guards at Columbine high school and it didn't help. Gunmen still got through.

        January 10, 2013 at 10:33 am |
    • Rick

      Especially the judicial side. CNN just ran a story yesterday about some judges being forced by the NRA to side with them.

      January 10, 2013 at 10:32 am |
    • ccw holder

      well we should just forbid guns in school! that will stop the shooting!...oh thats illegal already?
      well then lets make it so stealing a gun is a felony!....what? that's already a law too?
      well then lets ban murder!!....oh wait....

      January 10, 2013 at 1:34 pm |
  51. Kenny

    I'm an elementary school principal and I feel we need an armed school resource officer in every school.
    We have too many innocent and vulnerable people in one location that could be an easy target for deranged individuals.
    An armed guard at Newtown could have possibly protected the lives of those students and faculty members.
    If an armed SRO is not finacially feasible, then an administrator should be trained and armed to protect the school.

    January 10, 2013 at 10:20 am |
    • boyamidumb

      Kenny, you are lying.

      You are not even a teacher.

      January 10, 2013 at 10:28 am |
    • NRA

      Republicans don't even want to fund our schools for basic things like teacher salaries and books.

      How are we going to afford to hire thousands of armed guards?

      January 10, 2013 at 10:30 am |
  52. Jeff

    We can't pony up the money to get teachers the supplies they need, have safe clean campuses, or retrofit aging campuses that have become crowded, but we have the money to train teachers self defense and put armed guards.police everywhere? Makes total sense.

    January 10, 2013 at 10:20 am |
  53. Matt

    Besides the terrible incidents of violence we are experiencing, I often wonder what it costs us (the taxpayers) for all of the school buses in this country as well as the fuel for the buses, the maintenance of the buses, the insurance for the buses, the wages for the bus drivers, the electricity for the schools, the heat for the schools, the air conditioning for the schools, the wages for all of the teachers and the list goes on and on. Now I am also wondering, who is going to get the bill for all of the guns they intend to provide to the school personnel? Most likely the taxpayers. It seems to me that homeschooling would be a much wiser choice for our country.

    January 10, 2013 at 10:15 am |
    • Jeff

      Absolutely not. Homeschooling is inefficient and doesn't provide children with the proper socialization that is required. Bad things happen in school, given, but bad things happen in the workplace too.

      January 10, 2013 at 10:24 am |
      • Matt

        Inefficient how?

        January 10, 2013 at 10:37 am |
      • Matt

        Please enlighten us as to the "proper" socialization which occurs in the public school system and not found in homeschooling. Thanks.

        January 10, 2013 at 10:46 am |
      • TalktheTalk

        The shooter was home-schooled.
        Proof enough for you? LOL

        January 10, 2013 at 11:39 am |
      • Matt

        TalktheTalk, sorry for your dyslexia.

        January 10, 2013 at 2:07 pm |
    • PJ

      Unfortunately one of the reasons schools are such an easy target is that gun owning educators like myself are not allowed to bring my own personal firearm to work. In other words I am disarmed while I am at school. Crazy idiots don't abide by those rules and can come in and create a bloodbath. Laws don't matter to crazy idiots. If I were allowed to bring my "own personal" firearm to work and some crazed idiot decided to come in and kill someone he wouldn't find it so easy.

      January 10, 2013 at 10:35 am |
      • ElDestroyer

        Would you be carrying it with you all the time, or would you leave it at your desk or closet?

        January 10, 2013 at 12:00 pm |
  54. Scott B

    Thanks for giving me another reason to worry about having kids. I don't want to bring them into a world where our public schools are prisons.

    January 10, 2013 at 10:13 am |
    • Jeb

      And all because the NRA (gun lobby) puts gun manufacturer's profits over public safety.

      January 10, 2013 at 10:19 am |
      • Scott B

        No, it's because people are irrationally scared and don't care about spending other peoples' money to get their false sense of security back.

        January 10, 2013 at 12:20 pm |
  55. Jason

    Wow, just what we need more armed guards paroling the country. I think there is a word for that, it is called occupation. Why not just put a guard on every street corner while we are at it! Is this these self proclaimed conservatives' idea of small government?

    January 10, 2013 at 10:04 am |
    • Rick

      Armed guards are not the answer. Remember Columbine? They had 2 armed security guards and the gunmen still got through.

      January 10, 2013 at 10:10 am |
    • Brad

      that is the dumbest argument I've heard yet??? just be quiet and let the big boys handle the situation, eh!!

      January 10, 2013 at 10:15 am |
    • Ryan_C_F

      No – the conservative plan was originally to arm teachers, or at least to let them exercise their rights to carry concealed in schools whereas concealed carry was banned originally.

      And then all the liberals went OMG BLOOD IN THE CLASSROOM THEY'LL SHOOT STUDENTS FOR TYPOS and the conversation devolved.

      January 10, 2013 at 10:18 am |
    • MrRickinNH

      If I was a parent of a child in a school and discovered volunteer armed guards roaming around the grounds there would quickly be a law suit.

      January 10, 2013 at 10:28 am |
      • Jake

        You sir are the reason why our country sucks. Begging for lawsuits on every possible thing that you could do. You probably would also be the mother --- that filed a lawsuit because their child was not granted "a safe enviornment" in school. Pathetic people these days. This is what sickens me.

        January 10, 2013 at 10:43 am |
    • rob

      Don't worry Jason as soon as we take up all of the guns ,you will see an armed guard on very corner of your prison camp

      January 10, 2013 at 10:29 am |
  56. L

    Most people I know are OK with armed guards at schools and so am I. Untill this problem of weirdos doing these things is figured out and solved.

    There is also a correlation in the rise of the number of massacres and the massive increase in mental health drug prescriptions to teens, for some odd reason I see allmost no mention of this in the media.

    January 10, 2013 at 9:59 am |
    • liberalgunowner

      exactly!

      January 10, 2013 at 10:03 am |
      • Jake

        Ahh...the classic it's-everything's-fault-EXCEPT-for-guns-argument.

        It must be nice, never having any responsibility for anything.

        January 10, 2013 at 10:08 am |
    • Rick

      Extra security won't help. It didn't help with the Columbine shooting in Colorado and they had 2 armed security guards on duty.

      January 10, 2013 at 10:13 am |
      • returnreason

        In a word: INADEQUATE
        Use the TSA model if you want security in the workplace, theaters and malls, and schools.
        Wait that sounds like the government turning the country into a bunch of armed camps.
        Yes, gun rights are so sacred and protected, that there is no alternative.

        January 10, 2013 at 11:21 am |
    • Scott B

      So basically forever right? Because you can't stop a one off psycho. At least in anything approaching a free society.

      January 10, 2013 at 10:15 am |
    • Cmacan

      Armed guards in all schools is a waste of money.
      Sure look at security procedures and improve them where possible.
      But school attacks like Columbine or Sandy Hook are so rare that spending truckloads of money to put guards everywhere is foolish.
      That money would be far better spent on actually educating the children.

      January 10, 2013 at 10:20 am |
      • rob

        sure Cmacan we should save that money, never know when we will need to finance another war

        January 10, 2013 at 10:33 am |
    • biglio

      Never a correlation between the amount of those massacres and the amount of guns around, eh? Talking about seeing the tree and not the forest......

      January 10, 2013 at 10:26 am |
      • ccw holder

        what about the fact that gun ownership has been increasing and violent crime has been decreasing since the 1994 awb expired?

        January 10, 2013 at 1:50 pm |
    • Bryan

      "Ahh...the classic it's-everything's-fault-EXCEPT-for-guns-argument.

      It must be nice, never having any responsibility for anything."

      Hold on, let me go ask my gun if it feels responsible...............well...uh, it didn't respond......How wierd it that?!?!

      January 10, 2013 at 10:34 am |
      • TalktheTalk

        Most rational people believe you gun fatics talk to your guns anyway. You're probably doing a lot more intimate things with them also, but i digress.
        So no, it's not that weird that it didn't respond to you after what you probably did to it last night.
        Moron.

        January 10, 2013 at 11:45 am |
      • Bryan

        "Most rational people believe you gun fatics talk to your guns anyway. You're probably doing a lot more intimate things with them also, but i digress. So no, it's not that weird that it didn't respond to you after what you probably did to it last night.
        Moron."

        "Most rational people think gun owners have conversations with their guns" eh? Really?

        THIS is the best you can come back with? WOW! What a brilliant contribution you have made! You are so very funny. Funny as you are, I refuse to have an intellectual battle with an unarmed person; no pun intended. It just wouldn't be fair.

        January 10, 2013 at 2:59 pm |
  57. George Kourakos

    Hey guys, I am a high school student in North Carolina and all of this talk about having an armed force/militia marching around our schools campus is not the way to handle things. My school has a resource officer tasked to it, just like every school in Mecklenburg County. Right now I'm sitting in class typing this and if anything were to go wrong I know for a fact that our Resource Officer would be quick to respond. All he would have to do is press a button on his radio and that would have all of CMPD and their resources on the way to my school in a moments notice, not to mention the surrounding counties that would respond as well. These are the facts, and what we have in our school system here in Charlotte North Carolina is simple and it works. Maybe school districts that are striving to tackle the issue should look at Charlotte and CMPD for guidance because I can tell you one thing, I feel safe at school.

    January 10, 2013 at 9:59 am |
    • Frank Wright

      George, I am also from NC, and my wife is a teacher. At her school, there are two armed Sheriffs on-post daily. I think you are a fool to think a "resource officer" pushing a button could stop a massacre. In a matter of just twenty seconds, an armed assailant could discharge over 60 rounds of ammunition into a classroom. DO you REALLY want to wait until the police show up to stop them? You are foolish and naive, in my opinion... - F.W.

      January 10, 2013 at 10:08 am |
      • George Kourakos

        Thanks for your reply Frank. I can see where you are coming from. Do I want to wait for the police? No I don't but I know for a fact that they will be there within a matter of minutes. I do not agree with placing an armed force at my school. I also think you are mistaken in what you think a "resource officer" is. A resource officer is just like any other uniformed police officer in CMPD, the only difference is that he/she is tasked to a school. I think you are "foolish and naive" to jump to conclusions. Thanks,
        George

        January 10, 2013 at 10:26 am |
      • Ray Dauphinais

        When seconds count, the police are only minutes away.

        January 10, 2013 at 10:38 am |
      • guest

        I agree with you Frank and Ray that when seconds count the police are only minutes away. Usually, the police arrive at the crime scene AFTER the crime happens. People need to take responsibility for their own safety instead of relying on police. I believe teachers should be allowed to carry guns on school property; we trust teachers to educate our kids into becoming responsible adults, but we don't trust teachers to defend them. And George, I think you should pay attention in class instead of reading the news; perhaps you can save that for lunch time or after school.

        January 10, 2013 at 10:52 am |
      • TalktheTalk

        I doubt that shooter would have the opportunuity to discharge 60 rounds in 20 seconds, if that kind of tool wasn't readily available to every nutjob in existence.
        And that is where the conversation is being started.
        The conversation that gun advocates refuse to entertain.

        January 10, 2013 at 11:50 am |
    • J.D.

      What you dont understand is that it takes polilce many minutes to show up. It takes a gunman a few minutes to kill many.

      January 10, 2013 at 10:13 am |
    • thesaj

      The response time of PDs in these situations is usually around 15-20 minutes. These events are usually over in 5-10.

      CMPD will not be there in time to help. FYI

      January 10, 2013 at 10:23 am |
      • George Kourakos

        That maybe the case if your city! But here in Charlotte there are police crawling everywhere, a school shootings response time will easily be under 5 minutes. This brings into question the fact that if our Nation's Police Departments are properly staffed and equipped! But thats a different discussion.

        January 10, 2013 at 10:31 am |
    • biglio

      George,
      police arrived in a matter of minutes at Sandy hook, but the guy had a semi automatic weapon and was done by that time, it took him 2 minutes. In aurora the shooter shot more than 60 rounds in a minute. In Columbine there were two armed guards in the school......Ask yourself why in other civilized countries we don't have armed guards in schools, we don't have mass school shootings and we have much more restrictive gun laws.....and should i add that we live longer, happier and are more free than you are.......(just look at the article on CNN about the life expectancy around the wolrd from yesterday)

      January 10, 2013 at 10:40 am |
    • Johnny

      Thank You George for providing a reasoned, sensible, and civil comment. No matter what anybody's stance on this issue is, there is a major lack of civility on the part of adults. It seems you have more maturity than other people who have replied to your post.

      January 10, 2013 at 11:41 am |
    • Joseph Blowski

      Your officer with a walkie talkie could not stop an armed assailant. It is naive to think that the police would arrive in time to prevent deaths.

      January 10, 2013 at 12:51 pm |
  58. Jeff

    Really this is all about getting everyone to talk about something other than JOBS. Remember healthcare over jobs now its gun control over jobs. BO wants us to focus on a tragic event and not the fact that is doing nothing for us. Anyway, how about do something with the prisioners and use the guards to protect something worth protecting; our children.

    January 10, 2013 at 9:59 am |
    • blh77

      Go work for Smith & Wesson, or Remington. I hear they're hiring. Score another one for the gun manufacturers! This is why they have so much money to lobby with...it all plays right into their business plan. Fear = Money.

      January 10, 2013 at 10:52 am |
    • returnreason

      It doesn't take long for someone to turn a tragic news event into a opportunity to bash Obama.

      January 10, 2013 at 11:24 am |
  59. Lisa

    NAZIS ALL OF THEM

    January 10, 2013 at 9:58 am |
    • Smoke and mirrors

      I would love to debate your IQ but it's awards season in Hollywood and I'm off to work with my Glock to protect them from the crazies.

      January 10, 2013 at 10:03 am |
  60. Mr. Moderate

    So if everyone is carrying guns like cell phones and there are uniformed, armed guards everywhere, as the NRA seems to want, at what point do we cease to be a free society?

    Fact is, if more guns made us safer as so many like to think, shouldn't we already be the safest country in the world?

    January 10, 2013 at 9:54 am |
    • liberalgunowner

      Look what happened in Australia. In some areas(not all) homicides up 300%. All other areas of Australia homicides still up! Only the criminals there have guns now. Mexico has strict gun laws. Thats working real good for them huh?

      January 10, 2013 at 9:59 am |
      • Jake

        I'm glad you pointed out Mexico because it's America's fault they have so many thanks to the gunshow loopholes that make it so easy to buy in bulk and bring south of the border.

        All that Mexican blood is on American hands, not that you'd give a damn. Please change your username. It's embarrassing to liberals, although I have a feeling that's exactly what you had in mind when you chose it, pretending to be one.

        January 10, 2013 at 10:03 am |
      • Jake

        I'm glad you pointed out Mexico because it's America's fault they have so many thanks to the gunshow loopholes that make it so easy to buy in bulk and bring south of the border.

        All that Mexican blood is on American hands, not that you'd give a damn. Please change your username. It's embarrassing to liberals, although I have a feeling that's exactly what you had in mind when you chose it, by pretending to be one.

        January 10, 2013 at 10:05 am |
      • heh

        And thos counties are still safer than the USA, matter of fact Yemen is safer than the US..

        January 10, 2013 at 10:08 am |
      • DrJCO

        Time for a fact check regarding gun control and Australia:

        1996 – mass killing by single gunman (35 dead, 21 injured)
        1996 – new gun laws

        By 2011 – all homicides down 27%; gun related homicides down 58%

        It is still legal to own certain guns in Australia, but assault weapons (fully auto or semi auto that can hold large numbers of rounds in easy to replace cartridges) can only be owned if they have been rendered permanently inoperable.

        Bottom line, gun control CAN and DOES WORK.

        January 10, 2013 at 10:26 am |
      • No Disintegrations

        Time to learn to read DrJCO, lgo didn't say it was gun related homicides that were up, it was ALL homicides. Which is telling. When the citizenry is disarmed, they become victims.

        January 10, 2013 at 11:47 am |
      • TalktheTalk

        Actually @No Disintegrations, LG wrote "...in SOME areas"
        That could mean in an AREA that had 1 killing, there are now 3.

        Maybe you should practice what you preach, and READ.

        January 10, 2013 at 11:57 am |
  61. The Real Tom Paine

    Did anyone see the hearing aid on one of the "posse" members Arpaio swore in? That makes me feel safe.

    January 10, 2013 at 9:53 am |
  62. liberalgunowner

    I love CNN! The whole bunch except one! please CNN get rid of Peirs Morgan! He is making you look bad! Cant you tell by the ratings drop? His job is to interview. He has no business giving his opinion on American issues! It scares the hell out of me that this guy possibly has the power to take away my right to defend my family! Send him back!!! Do the right thing here CNN please!!!

    January 10, 2013 at 9:49 am |
    • Ash Cloud

      Glad to hear this. I have two autistic boys and worry for their safety in what I consider a very lax school district. I have asked the superintendent what measures they are taking in beefing up security and she basically gave me the runaround and spoke cryptically. So typical.

      January 10, 2013 at 9:57 am |
  63. biglio

    It must be a great experience to go to school in the US.....NOT
    Looking from outside your country looks like a country of crazies, you are becoming more and more like Irak, Somalia, Afghanistan and less and less like the rest of the first world countries where guns are nowhere to be seen around schools and teachers and kids can concentrate on what schools are for....learning.
    I feel pity for your society, real pity. you are sacrificing your freedoms (yes your freedoms), safety and now your children childhood for your guns.......
    you are the laughingstock of the civilized world and you are so paranoid you don't even realize it......so sad.

    January 10, 2013 at 9:47 am |
    • Joe Dirt

      Biglio, you are a complete idiot!

      Liberalgunowner: I am too, but Piers did right by destroying that idiot on his show. I don't agree our rights to gun ownership should be taken away either. I love my AR-15. Quit believing everything you hear and get your facts straight.

      January 10, 2013 at 9:55 am |
    • alex

      And where are you from?? The UK? Where the violent crime rate is 3.5 times higher than that of the US?? So you have less gun crime...good...you have less guns. Yet you are 3.5 times more likely to get mugged, raped or robbed. Statistics from your Home Office website.

      January 10, 2013 at 9:56 am |
      • Cmacan

        Alex
        How do you explain the fact the the homicide rate is 3-4 time higher in the U.S. than in the U.K.?

        The U.K. from year to year tends to be around 1 per 100,000
        the U.S. from year to year tends to be about 5 per100,000

        The crime stats that you quote are affected by how they are reported and are easy to manipulate.
        Murder is a little harder to mask... dead is dead.

        January 10, 2013 at 10:36 am |
    • PJ

      If you think we are a laughing stock then stay out. Most people in the world wish they could live here. I thank God I do. This is and will always be the best place on earth to live. There is no need to explain to you or anyone else why we need the second amendment. All I can say to you is stay in your own country and mind your own business.

      January 10, 2013 at 9:57 am |
    • biglio

      Alex, Joe Dirt, PJ, thanks for proving my point......

      January 10, 2013 at 10:14 am |
      • PJ

        Oh you mean the point that you are an idiot. Okay, you are welcome.

        January 10, 2013 at 10:20 am |
    • kendog

      Biglio proves once again the power of media propaganda. Britain and much of Europe have violent crime rates 3-4 times higher than the U.S. A Northwestern U. study a decade ago found that on average, women fend off 250,000 attempted rapes every year with their guns and homeowners foil 2.5 million attempted home invasions likewise. Without guns, those attempted crimes would become commited crimes and our violent crime rate would compare to those European socialist paradises.

      Additionally, if we were to somehow reduce the murder rates in a handful of cities like Chicago, Wash. DC, Oakland, Detroit, Houston etc. (all good liberal run cities btw) we would see our murder rate nationwide near the same level as Britain, but we would still have guns.

      We don't have a gun problem in this country, we have a behavior problem. Illinois is a perfect example: 700 murders per year, 500 in Chicago. The rest of the state has 200 murders over 11.5 million, or 1.7 per 100,000, about the same as Britain's overall murde rate.

      January 10, 2013 at 10:21 am |
  64. Hogan's Goat

    We had a school principal who got fired for chasing a student with a baseball bat. He got in trouble the next place he worked, too, over a HS girl. Arming the principal is probably not the best thing to do . . .

    January 10, 2013 at 9:47 am |
  65. palintwit

    Round up all the gun owners in the country and deport them to camps in the deep south. They will then be free to blow each other's brains out (if they have any).

    January 10, 2013 at 9:46 am |
    • CMJ

      Guns are the only reason you can say such ignorant remarks. You’re welcome.

      January 10, 2013 at 9:52 am |
      • The Real Tom Paine

        Please explain how that makes me free? Beofre you do, look up the root of the word freedom and ask yourself if you are meeting that definition. Look it up in David Hackett Fischer's book on Liberty and Freedom: he's no liberal, and you might actually learn just how far off base you are.

        January 10, 2013 at 9:55 am |
      • Jake

        Oh I gotta hear this backwater hillbilly's explanation...

        January 10, 2013 at 10:00 am |
      • CMJ

        We have fought for our freedom with guns and various tools that kill. Whether it be the Revolutionary war or the war in Iraq we use guns to protect and fight with. Misuse of these tools to kill the innocent is just the price that is payed for the many freedoms that we enjoy. I do feel for the family's of these tragic events and agree that our system of buying guns is broken. Many people that have guns should not and I agree that this should be fixed. But saying guns are evil is ignorant. I have never seen a gun pick it's self up and shoot someone by-itself.

        January 10, 2013 at 10:05 am |
      • Jake

        You're using a war over 200 years old and another over 5000 miles away as justifications for more guns here, now?

        And yes, you idiot, guns ARE evil. They don't have to fire themselves to qualify. The "guns don't kill people, people kill people" argument is inane and pathetic. Guns sure make it a hell of a lot easier for people to kill people, don't they? Would've been nice if all that puny little vermin Adam Lanza had was his bare hands.

        They are tools DESIGNED SOLELY TO END LIVES. If that's not evil, then what the hell is?

        January 10, 2013 at 10:16 am |
      • CMJ

        lol you would argue with your own shadow.

        January 10, 2013 at 10:20 am |
      • Ryan_C_F

        @Jake – "guns ARE evil."

        talk to the 100,000+ gun owners that defend themselves and their families every year from muggers, rapists, murderers and thieves using these "EVIL" tools, and let me know if you're open-minded enough to revise your opinion.

        Or the millions of hunters that use firearms to put food on the table when times are tough. You know, for those of us that aren't fortunate enough to saunter down to the corner store and have our meat ready-wrapped.

        You don't really know anything about guns, my friend. You probably shouldn't comment further.

        January 10, 2013 at 10:25 am |
      • Jake

        You assume, and wrongly so, that because I don't own a gun, I must know nothing about them. As I'm sure you're accustomed to hearing by now; you are wrong.

        I fired plenty when I was younger before I had a conscience or common sense. I'm glad you brought up self-defense because of the millions of gun-owners in this country almost none will ever need theirs. Do you know how many times guns are used in crimes versus how many times they are used to stop crimes? No. You don't because if you did, you'd be ashamed, you'd shut up and cross your fingers hoping nobody like me brought it up.

        Guns. Are. For. Cowards.

        YOU are a coward.

        Repeal the 2nd Amendment. It was a good idea in the frontier days but a disaster in a modern country that laughably calls itself civilized. Besides, people like you prove about 12,000 times per year that we don't deserve the right to bear arms.

        January 10, 2013 at 10:38 am |
      • Ryan_C_F

        Jake – I can tell you didn't actually read what I wrote, so I'll outline it again. I'll try to use small words.

        Actually, from all the sources I've ever seen, firearms are used for self defense over a hundred thousand times annually. And I said so in my previous post. That number comes directly from the government's NSCV. That number is also higher than the annual firearms homicide rate, especially when you consider uses that never get reported to the police or government. Approximately 5x higher, considering ~20,000 firearms homicides annually in the US (cited from the FBI). Although, if you care to let me use your numbers, I'd gladly do so because then it's almost an order of magnitude more likely to be used defensively than for murder.

        Feel free to call me a coward as often as you like; I stopped reacting to verbal barbs back around middle school. At the end of the day, crime and criminals are scary. Being stabbed to death in my own home, or bludgeoned with a hammer, or shot with an illegal firearm, is a scary thing.

        One of my church's parishioners was beaten nearly to death by a disturbed neighbor. With a crowbar. She suffered traumatic brain injuries, is permanently disfigured, and has lost a lot of her memory and personality. She was defenseless, because her attacker was bigger, stronger and overcame her.

        I don't know why you don't fear death, but I certainly do. I'd like to go on living, regardless of who shows up at my door late at night. I don't want to have to wait for the cops to show up while someone breaks out a window. I don't want to be defenseless when a shifty homeless dude starts following me down a dark road, which happened last week.

        Call me a coward all you care to – the fact that you're too weak-minded to come up with a valid argument or accurate numbers doesn't amount to any significance compared to my right to self-defense and my will to do whatever it takes to live.

        And best of luck repealing that second amendment, kiddo. I'm sure you'll find a lot of traction with that argument.

        January 10, 2013 at 11:19 am |
      • Steve

        @Jake – guns ARE evil comment.

        If a gun, an inanimate object, is indeed evil, then the 300 million guns in this country would have corrupted the 100 million owners by now don't you think? And, we'd have, instead of 12,000 homicides, millions every year. And let's not forget that about 75% of those 12,000 homicides are gang related (criminals killing criminals). Also, rifles, assault or otherwise, are used in less homicides than hammers and clubs, even BARE hands. It seems, people will kill no matter what. The 2nd amendent is a protection of the citizens from a powerful and tyrannical government. Look around the world now and look at history, dictators ruled over UNARMED citizens. Don't be naive in thinking that it can't happen here. The families of those massacred thought it wouldn't happen either. The government is taking our freedoms little by little in the name of our own well-being to the point where we won't have freedoms or defense and the government can do whatever it wants.

        January 10, 2013 at 11:43 am |
    • Bill Richardson

      Ha, ha , ha, you should change your name to paleandwitless.

      January 10, 2013 at 9:53 am |
    • militarymike

      You need to look up the word "deport" because you clearly have no idea what it means.

      January 10, 2013 at 10:02 am |
    • BoThome

      10,000 people a year die from gun violence (mostly from inner city gangs killing each other). 83,000+ a year of law-abiding citizens are SAVED by carrying a gun (preventing things like rape, murder, robbery, home invasion, animal attack).

      If you want only the criminals to have guns (as they don't care about bans or laws) then by all means, I'll move south with my law-abiding firearm owning companions. Guess what, the criminal dinner bell will then be rung, and all those criminals that were afraid of the average citizen will now know that nothing can hurt or stop them from doing their evil deeds and even more crime and death will follow. Congratulations on not solving the problem and actually making things much, much worse.

      January 10, 2013 at 10:04 am |
      • Wajih

        Because these criminals have been oh so scared up until now. Where I live the occasional hunter owns a gun and we have a much lower crime rate and there are far less deaths by guns than America.

        January 10, 2013 at 11:09 am |
    • Shiftkit

      Well if that is the case, most of these mass murderers are men, should we round up all the men and send them to the south??? Instead of taking away people's rights that have been around for 200 hundred years. How about we focus on making sure we get guns away from people who are not mentally capable of using them responsibly? The gun control issue is a knee jerk reaction to a tragedy, that should never have happened.

      Instead of our country using our money to go to war with other countries etc, we should pull out troops home, secure our borders, stop letting people in illegally that we are paying for. You want to come to the US. Do it like all the immigrants prior, come in register, get a job pay, pay taxes etc. Then maybe we will have enough money to help mentally ill people get treatment/help and a gun control that actually works. I own guns. I have my grandfather gun from WWII, I have my fathers guns. I have my own guns. They are locked up where they are supposed to be.

      If we take away every citizens gun becuase a select few are morons, where dos it stop SHould we take away your car becuase your neighbor got a DWI? You can't fault people becuase of what other people do. Most of these mass murderers were white. Should we ban white people??

      Your argument of getting rid of all guns is baseless and a knee jrk reaction.

      January 10, 2013 at 11:56 am |
    • ccw holder

      how are you going to "round us all up" and forcefully deport us. WHEN WE HAVE THE GUNS. see how that works? i get to stay where i live because if anyone tried to remove me by force, they would be met by force. your post is exactly what the second amendment was made to prevent.

      January 10, 2013 at 2:00 pm |
      • Shiftkit

        CCW it was sarcasm... In response to palintwit for saying all gun owners should be rounded up.. I own guns and I think it is horrible to classify certain people in a group becuase of the things we own....

        January 10, 2013 at 2:35 pm |
  66. OldSchool

    lol Joe Arpaio is such a wingnut it's ridiculous...

    January 10, 2013 at 9:44 am |
  67. BobFromPA

    We are REALLY failing as a civilized society. We deserve what we get because we are asking for it. I am sitting in my home office with three firearms behind me. A12 G pump shotgun, a lever action 7 shot 22 and an over and under 20 G shotgun and these are just a few of my firearms. I own no handguns, no semi-automatic rifles and the only semi-automatic firearms I have are 12 G shotguns used for Sporting Clay and are chambered to hold only 3 rounds by law. I obviously am against taking all firearms away but I am for regulating rate of fire. I feel ALL semi-automatic firearms be limited to three rounds, there is just no good reason to have more. I believe there should be hugh financial and legal ramifications for possessing high capacity clips like $1,000.00 fine per clip and 1 year probation per clip. Second offense and you go to jail for a long time. I have talked to all the other sporting guns owners I know and we all agree the madness of these large capacity clips needs to end and end now. We don't believe our government is going to oppress us and don't believe that regular civilians need to have this type of fire rate. Aurora 31 shots in 27 seconds, 12 dead and 57 wounded. Sandy Hook over 90 shots in 3 minutes, 20 children dead and 6 adults. People kill people, people with high capacity clips kill LOTS of people quickly. Let's end the madness!

    January 10, 2013 at 9:43 am |
    • OldSchool

      It is refreshing to hear that there are rational gun owners and sportsmen out there.

      January 10, 2013 at 9:46 am |
      • BobFromPA

        I just wish more of us would speak up and not let the NRA be our spokesperson.

        January 10, 2013 at 9:49 am |
    • texas555

      So, in short, ban all guns but the ones the YOU want to have.

      January 10, 2013 at 9:47 am |
      • BobFromPA

        No I said to limit the fire rate. I stated I am not a believer in gum bans, just limited fire rate.

        January 10, 2013 at 9:50 am |
      • texas555

        But you advocate limiting the fire rate or magazine capacity to match the guns YOU own. Apparently, you believe that only the guns you approve should be the only ones available. I currently only own a flintlock and a couple of cap and ball revolvers. How about I advocate that these be the only types of weapons that should be allowed thereby making your shotgun and lever action illegal because they have a higher rate of fire?

        January 10, 2013 at 9:56 am |
      • The Real Tom Paine

        Ask yourself why you would want or need anything more than that?

        January 10, 2013 at 9:58 am |
      • geostorm

        From Texas, eh? The old arguments are just that – old. Gun regulation needs to change because the current way we deal with firearms doesn't work. If we cannot make real changes to the process, there will be no changes in the results. Is what we have now good? More guns does not seem to be the solution, but thanks for the predictable comments, NRA. At any rate, many people, and even some law makers, even some NRA members, feel a change is needed. Texas, get with it, move forward, try not to stagnate. It's time for changes.

        January 10, 2013 at 10:10 am |
      • texas555

        geostorm

        So exactly what regulations do you propose? Taking away all guns? I'll tell you what when you can guarantee that I will ever need one to protect myself (I have had to more than once and another time I needed one but because I am a responsible law abiding citizen like the vast majority of us did not have it) then and only then will I be willing to give them up. I realize you feel that anyone not from where you are from (let me guess Mass., NY, Ca. ?) is stupid but we are not.

        January 10, 2013 at 1:50 pm |
    • blh77

      Here, here! Thank you for speaking out responsibly and respectfully.

      January 10, 2013 at 9:51 am |
    • biglio

      Bob, finally a sane gun owner. I have nothing against your hobby or sport (we even have it at the Olympics) but everything against the pervasive presence of guns in your society, and guns made just to kill. You finally put the emphasis on the problem from a gun owner perspective (i own no guns but I have nothing against guns, per-se), in aurora the gun jammed, that is the only reason why we are not looking at a hundred deaths, if the guy had a three rounds magazine, like in Sandy hook or other places we wouldn't even have the discussion (I won't remind everyone that simultaneous attack on the chinese schoolchildren with a knife that left no victims).....Kudos to you and I hope your point of view becomes mainstream between gun owners, but I doubt by what I read and hear, it's like some gun owners are completely insane and on top of that the more radical and unbalanced they are the more guns they have, which is exactly the kind of mixture you want to avoid......

      January 10, 2013 at 9:56 am |
      • ibacajun1980

        This thought process is so naive. So if there was a law passed that you can only have a clip with 3 rounds in it, then the shooter at Sandy Hook would have walked in there with only a 3 round clip???? Really?? So i have an idea, let's make crack and heroin illegal and then we will have no crack heads because it wont be availlable to those who want to use it. Oh wait...how's that working out so far?? Isn't it amazing that people with no regard to the law aren't concerned about new laws that are passed?? Funny how that works huh?

        January 10, 2013 at 11:07 am |
    • AM

      Well said, Bob! Well said!! There are many, many of us sporting gun owners and fathers...out here that shoot for sport and hunting. My son and I love to shoot his little BB gun at targets and he is darn good. It's father son fun shared. If you have half a brain, you don't need 30 rounds to take down a deer and there sure wouldn't be anything left of a rabbit. These guns are killing machines and you couldn't hit a clay with one if you tried... Please shut the NRA up and let us American Sportsmen take back our country!

      January 10, 2013 at 10:04 am |
      • Steve

        The 2nd amendment is NOT for hunting or clay shooting. It gives citizens the right of defense against government. As if we needed a paper telling us we have the right to defend ourselves.

        January 10, 2013 at 12:12 pm |
    • militarymike

      You claim to be a gun owner yet you refer to magazines as clips. I call BS.

      January 10, 2013 at 10:08 am |
      • BobFromPA

        I am a gun owner period and the rifle I like to shoot the most is a my Remington Model 700 BDL 7 MM Magnum with a 3×9 Leupold Scope and shotgun is a BT 99.

        January 10, 2013 at 10:17 am |
      • AM

        If semantics is all you have to care about this subject, I suggest you turn your weapons in, please. Antagonistic gun owners such as you do not need weapons...

        January 10, 2013 at 10:26 am |
    • Tim

      Bob....just because you do not have a handgun or a semi auto rifle does not make me a criminal. Your shotgun functions basically the same way as a semi auto pistol or rifle. I doubt seriously that your shotgun only holds 3 rounds as most hold at least 5 but must be plugged to 3 in Pa. to use them for hunting AND I thought that I read last night that a semi must only hold two but that could go to three if one is OK in the chamber. Oddly enough you defend YOUR choices while failing to realize that a shotgun is used more often in shootings than rifles are and so even though you think that you are a law abiding citizen you are crazy as a loon carrying your "fully automatic" shotgun. Trying to throw us under the bus to save your guns WILL NOT WORK. The goal is to have extreme gun control. Feinstein declared years ago that she was "waiting for the right moment" to spring harsh gun control on us. The ogre stated that she would wait for the 20 kids to be murdered before taking any action (without knowing specifically what crime would occur). Obama is now OK with expending his "political capital" to do the same. He was OK with what was going on as long as it did not interfere with his political goals. Meaningful dialogue without the lies and the rhetoric would go far in stemming the violence caused by a very small number of people with mental health issues.

      Make it a felony to refuse to enter mental health issues. Require gun safes and not "cabinets". Yes, I would even be OK with requiring that I transfer ownership of a gun to my grandchildren.

      BTW the BATFE refuses to go after people selling hundreds of the same model of gun at gun shows without a license. WHY? Those guns are not from private ownership. They are in business without proper licensing. WHY DO THEY REFUSE TO GO AFTER THEM?

      January 10, 2013 at 10:25 am |
      • OldSchool

        What he is saying is that he shouldn't be able to buy a drum magazine for his shotgun...

        January 10, 2013 at 10:39 am |
    • DrJCO

      Amen.

      Limiting the rapidity with which guns can kill does not mean restricting all gun ownership.

      People seem to forget that at Columbine there was a trained armed officer on campus when the shooting started. He got off several rounds but did not hit either shooter. The solution is not more guns at schools.

      January 10, 2013 at 10:42 am |
    • Ryan_C_F

      Dear Elmer Fudd –

      I don't begrudge you your sporting firearms – I've got a 12-GA myself, blocked off to three-round capacity, for hunting deer, in accordance with state law. Even though Mr. Mossberg designed it with more in mind...

      I do, however, begrudge you your insistence that "no one needs more than three rounds." That's a ridiculously arbitrary standard to apply. Frankly, this kind of "so long as they don't take MY guns, I'm OK with them taking YOUR guns" thinking is going to leave us all disarmed. They're already talking about banning pump-action shotguns in New York.

      The 2nd Amendment is not so we "kin tramp through 'em woods and go shewtin' mulie durrs," or so we can have pretty H&H wallhanger shotguns for trap shooting on weekends. The 2nd exists to deny the cancer of governmental tyranny a foothold in the nation, to ensure "the security of a free nation."

      The sporters' insistence on not protecting tactical firearms with detachable magazines - you know: the kind of guns that cops, soldiers and smart civilians use for EFFECTIVE self-defense - is exactly why Great Britain and Australia don't have these guns any more. You, Benedict Arnold - and people like you - are worse than the gun grabbers, because you're sabotaging your own freedoms from the inside.

      January 10, 2013 at 10:59 am |
    • Steve

      Why does anyone need more than 3 rounds? I'll take a stab at that one. The lady in Georgia shot a lone intruder FIVE times with a 38 revolver and the intruder is still alive. After she unloaded 5 rounds, she told him to not move or she'll shoot again; luckily the intruder thought she had more bullets left and ran. What if the intruder knew she was out? What would the lady do then? And let's say I have a semi-auto handgun with my 3 rounds and 2, 3, 4 or more intruders enter my home? What if you miss? Which is likely to happen. Police and military personnel miss ALL the time, so to think that you wouldn't miss once is absurd. And don't say you can't miss with a shotgun, because you can, it's not like the movies, you're a shooting enthusiast so you should know that shot has little spread up close. Lastly, if 3 bullets, shells, slugs, or whatever is all it takes, why do you have more than one gun?

      January 10, 2013 at 12:03 pm |
    • anne112

      Another sane gun-owner. Glad to see there are some out there.

      January 10, 2013 at 1:20 pm |
  68. Smoke and mirrors

    Ask the kids from Sandy Hook what they want in order to go back to school... Armed police is number 1! Guess why?

    January 10, 2013 at 9:43 am |
    • Rick

      Remember the Columbine school shooting in Colorado? They had 2 armed security guards on duty and the gunmen still got through.

      January 10, 2013 at 9:48 am |
      • Smoke and mirrors

        True but, that was a screening issue. No one system is ever going to work 100% of the time. That's why every security system has layers. Armed guards are just one layer. That could be why one of the kids from Sandy Hook asked for an armed officer at every classroom. Why? Because someone was shooting at them!

        January 10, 2013 at 9:55 am |
      • blh77

        Really? I didn't know that. That's interesting.

        January 10, 2013 at 10:18 am |
    • Eric

      My daughter did not want an armed guard. She wanted her teachers and her friends.

      January 10, 2013 at 9:49 am |
      • Smoke and mirrors

        How are they going to stop a shooter? Comforting the kids is a requirement but so is protecting them.

        January 10, 2013 at 9:58 am |
  69. cmhreader

    Remember the iHop shootings – where 4 National Guardsmens were killed? Here's a statement by an armed man who was there.
    Ralph Swagler said he grabbed his own weapon, but said it was too late to stop the shooter, who charged into the IHOP through the front doors.

    “I wish I had shot at him but he was going in the IHOP,” said Swagler, who owns Locals BBQ & Grill. “But when he came at me, when somebody is pointing an automatic weapon at you – you can’t believe the firepower, the kind of rounds coming out of that weapon.”

    January 10, 2013 at 9:39 am |
    • biglio

      Please don't pop the gun nuts bubble, don't tell them also that police is overwhelmingly against more guns, I wonder why.....should make their work much easier......and don't mention fort hood, please, are you so unpatriotic?

      January 10, 2013 at 10:44 am |
    • anne112

      There will always be that element of surprise in these random shootings. You can be armed to the teeth but if someone shoots you before you can access your weapon it won't do you much good.

      January 10, 2013 at 1:41 pm |
  70. AM

    Welcome to hell... our beautiful children get kidnapped, murdered, molested... Societies degenerate and guess what... There are no more Romans... This country is headed to hell in a hand basket when we have to put armed guards in our schools and all carry around weapons. What is wrong with this place?

    January 10, 2013 at 9:38 am |
    • Hogan's Goat

      " What is wrong with this place?" It's so quiet that when something like this happens, it makes the news. America is a safe place; you will likely live out your life and never see a violent act. Don't let politicians who want to control your vote stampede you into voting for crazy stuff. My friend from Peru said that they routinely took off their rings and jewelry before taking a taxi because if they looked rich, they might be driven out into the hills and robbed by the taxi driver. She put on a shabby coat over nice clothes to avoid trouble. America is a safe place.

      January 10, 2013 at 9:53 am |
  71. Religious Guy

    This is foolishness. In the Aurora theater and in Giffords incidents, there were citizens with guns (they had legal guns with CHL). But yet they were unable to stop the madmen. Now they want teachers and militias to walk around shooting anyone they feel is a threat.

    January 10, 2013 at 9:38 am |
    • Bick

      No one in the Aurora theater, it was a gun free zone, that's why shooter choose that theater. He had four other theater that were closer to his house but avoided them because the were not gun-free

      January 10, 2013 at 9:50 am |
    • texas555

      Cannot speak to the Giffords incident but at the Aurora theater it was a designated gun free zone. To criminals this translates to a free fire zone. I would assume that in the Giffords incident, seeing as she was a congress person, would have also been a firearms restricted area.

      January 10, 2013 at 9:51 am |
  72. Mike

    As incredibly insensitive as it sounds, things like Sandy Hook and Aurora are freak occurrences and any laws or regulations you pass trying to target these specific tragedies will be statistically ineffectual.

    Where we can make a difference is reducing the number of gun deaths in our major cities. Chicago had 500 homicides last year. New York had over 400 and they thought that was something to brag about. The problem is that our current gun regulations read like they were written by the Straw Buyers Lobbyist Group of America. They need to be re-written so they actually do what the average American already assumes that they do.

    One of the problems that we run into is that the NRA, as a lobbyist for the gun manufacturers, has used the strategy of convincing the public that the government is one step away from morphing into the Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union and will soon be on our door steps looking to confiscate our guns. There is literally almost no chance of that happening. The reason they use this tactic is because gun manufactures make no money off of the law abiding gun owner.

    A quality firearm will last two life times if not longer. A large percentage of sane, law abiding gun owners either inherit their guns or purchase them in the huge secondary market–neither of which contributes to profits for the gun makers. For them to make money, they need the high turn over of guns which exists in the criminal world. That is why they resist universal background checks, waiting periods and the regulation of bulk purchases–not because they truly believe that the American public is going to have to take arms against the federal government to prevent the tyrannical mandate of having to buy health insurance.

    Common sense legislation and regulation will not prevent things like Sandy Hook. Nothing will. But it can dramatically reduce everyday gun violence that is plaguing our streets.

    January 10, 2013 at 9:35 am |
    • Steve

      There is no chance of confiscation? State Representative Dan Muhlbauer from Iowa just yesterday said "governments should start CONFISCATING semi-automatic rifles and other firearms". That doesn't do it for you? How about Senator Feinstein's ban with no grandfathering for those who already have them or of those manufactured before ban the took effect. How do you propose the government would retrieve those weapons that aren't grandfathered?

      January 10, 2013 at 12:20 pm |
  73. Anon

    I don't know what is so unusual about this. 35 years ago when I was in jr. high school we had armed police in the halls to prevent gang riots. This is nothing new.

    January 10, 2013 at 9:34 am |
    • buttdog

      there are no gang riots at elementary schools

      January 10, 2013 at 9:47 am |
  74. Joe

    You said : I'm also a firm believer in the notion that if you abuse your priveledges, then those privileges should be taken away from you." ok I guess next they will be taking away all the cars that exceed 65 miles per hour, or just all the cars period since just about everybody has exceeded the speed limit at some point. Some people have even been killed in car crashes believe it or not. Let just put up more stop lights that will fix the problem, oh they will create more polution however. Well, looks like we will all have to ride public trasportation. I hope there are no thugs on the bus with illigal weapons.

    January 10, 2013 at 9:31 am |
    • Jesus

      Oh good, so, like cars, you think we should have full gun registration & licenses so people are held responsible. Finally a responsible gun owner!

      January 10, 2013 at 10:39 am |
      • WFguy

        So if someone's gun is registered how does this stop people from dying? FYI.. the gun that killed those 20 kids was registered. Maybe your next suggestion can be something that actually matters. Thanks!

        January 10, 2013 at 11:33 am |
  75. Smitty44

    Plenty of schools already have armed security. Including most of the schools our politicians send their children to. Those schools have been very successful at implementing control measures and should serve as a model to any school that wishes to consider armed personnel.

    January 10, 2013 at 9:31 am |
    • biglio

      If i was a shooter I would just take the armed guard out first (or you think the guy will go around with his weapon drawn all the time?) and then proceed with the killing spree.......lots of cops get killed and lots of soldiers too.......all armed to the teeth and trained to use guns.....

      January 10, 2013 at 10:21 am |
      • WFguy

        Armed guard – Maybe he saves the day, maybe not.
        No armed guard – they die for sure.

        I don't know about you but I'll take 50/50 over no chance.

        January 10, 2013 at 11:29 am |
      • GOVTjoe

        Yes, we are highly trained and armed to the teeth and sometimes, some of us still die. That's part of the job. Nothing will ever stop people from getting killed. Firearms were not involved in any of the largest mass murders this country has ever seen. It was explosives used in the Bath massacre (highest number killed in school), McVeigh, Sept. 11 was done with box cutters and planes. Someone should outlaw using explosives to kill people, planes, and box cutters. Also, you just proved the point of the reason we need guns to stop guns. "Soldiers are armed to the teeth"... So true. This is because we know guns are the best way to stop a nut with a gun. Otherwise, we would take knives and ax handles to war with us...

        January 10, 2013 at 11:36 am |
  76. Jamesj

    Truth be told, a man with a knife or a couple of revolvers could have done as much damage as the guy in CT.

    January 10, 2013 at 9:29 am |
    • Sean

      Hey, did you see that headline about that guy who went into a school with a knife and killed all those people? No? Oh, that's probably because that never happens. Killing with a knife is harder because it takes more time, requires closer proximity, and is a much more personal act that is just mentally and emotionally harder to do.

      January 10, 2013 at 9:40 am |
      • buttdog

        read the headline about the Chinese school knife attack literally the same week as sandy hook. I beg to differ

        January 10, 2013 at 9:49 am |
      • Sean

        It won't let me reply to...buttdog, was it? No one died in that attack. It was still tragic, but no one died. If he had had a gun, I am sure things would have turned out differently.

        January 10, 2013 at 9:58 am |
      • Jake

        Check the one in 2010.

        January 10, 2013 at 1:49 pm |
    • UncleM

      Totally wrong. Another lie from the NRA.

      January 10, 2013 at 9:45 am |
    • Dave110

      Wrong...anyone bent on destruction can dole it out, but the limiting capacity of a knife and the up close requirement for it's use would not yield the body count of Sandy Hook and an AR-15 with 30 round clips. Handguns may have seen a few additional survivors with lower calibers leaving wounded versus killed, but the capacity for high-volume killing would still be there. I am all for gun ownership, I used to own both a rifle and a handgun. To me, it is the black and white, yes or no, some or all debate that needs to stop. Some cars are illegal, some motorcycles are not street legal... society can still have it's freedoms with additional controls to help reduce to availability of dangerous weapons. Those that want them have to go through additional testing, similar to any driver who wants to drive a tractor-trailer....he can still do it, but has to demonstrate competency to a authorizing party. Not as simple as that, but the underpinning is there.
      I am a Conservative Canadian with liberal views and have lived both urban and rural. There is no absolute here, other than the fact that society cannot just standby.

      January 10, 2013 at 10:02 am |
      • Jake

        You know the 5.56 rounds is actually smaller in diameter than a .38 special revolver round, right? At close range the pistol may have actually been worse, not to mention if they were using hollow points.

        January 10, 2013 at 1:51 pm |
    • WFguy

      Many children HAVE died in those knife attacks. Just because it didn't happen that time doesn't mean it doesn't happen. Do a little research.

      January 10, 2013 at 11:30 am |
  77. Chuck

    This is crazy! We are not living in Beirut. What the heck are you thinking? Is this what you call freedom?

    January 10, 2013 at 9:28 am |
    • Victoria

      No, this is what's called 'We will protect our children at all costs' and I'm all for it!!!! When we are in the armed forces we carry weapons and public schools are another form of government and I think the children have a right to grow up and educate themselves in a safe environment.

      January 10, 2013 at 9:39 am |
      • bert

        Why not train all the kids to carry weapons? We can even have a national youth movement that is armed and patrolling the streets after school. We can offer them cute little uniforms with nice brown shirts. Then we'll be even more "free".

        January 10, 2013 at 9:53 am |
      • Hogan's Goat

        "No, this is what's called 'We will protect our children at all costs' and I'm all for it!!!! " Until one of the low-paid mall cop security guards gets spit on by one of the kids and pulls that gun himself. It's over-protection. People my age still chuckle over the 'atomic bomb drills' where we were taught to 'duck and cover' during a nuke attack.

        January 10, 2013 at 10:15 am |
      • anne112

        Great idea Bert; we can call them Brownshirts.

        January 10, 2013 at 1:46 pm |
    • WFguy

      No we're living in a country where something terrible happens and a lot of people lose their minds like the sky is falling. Either accept that bad things sometimes happens or prepare for when things do happen so you can stop them. Those are your options. Reality. Tastes good.

      January 10, 2013 at 11:35 am |
  78. palintwit

    Season's Greetings from the NRA, the Tea Party, and every gun and knife dept. at Walmart.

    January 10, 2013 at 9:26 am |
  79. Wajih

    Owning a gun shouldn't be a right in the first place and if it is then there should be a background check when someone is purchasing it. Otherwise I believe it should require a license that is consistently renewed. Cars require licenses and are apparently a "privilege" yet there are less people driving cars with the intent to kill as opposed to fanatics walking around with guns with the intent to kill. Why is driving a car a privilege when owning a firearm is a right? If you misuse something you lose the privilege. Owning a firearm should be a privilege not a right. Either way I'm not to familiar with America's laws and what-not but as a Canadian I can say that having a "right" like that definetely spells trouble.

    January 10, 2013 at 9:22 am |
    • SHOVE OFF

      PERFECT.. Go back to Maple Syrup land where you have to wait 10 days for CAT scan and where you pay over 15% taxes on practically everything.

      January 10, 2013 at 9:29 am |
      • Wajih

        Exactly the "intelligent" response I'd expect from a person of your caliber.

        January 10, 2013 at 9:31 am |
      • blh77

        Canada also doesn't have the gun violence we have....I'm just saying. I'm not sure what the fix is, but things have gotten out of control. Our society is in a serious decline and I've always wondered why we tend dislike and downright hate each other so much. I do have to hand it to the NRA though. Brilliant marketing strategists they are. Making everyone feel as though they MUST have guns and MUST have more than one in order to be safe. It's really remarkable how they've caused this frenzy and everyone buys into it...and they make millions on it. It's brilliant. Kinda like Apple....great marketing.

        January 10, 2013 at 9:36 am |
      • Common Sense

        SHOVE OFF, the land of Maple Syrup can count on one hand how many mass shooting have occurred in the last 20 years. Your land of "Freedom" has had 30 mass shootings since Columbine. I wouldn't be so proud.

        January 10, 2013 at 9:37 am |
      • buttdog

        better than getting shot trying to watch a movie or educate myself

        January 10, 2013 at 9:53 am |
      • Jake

        If one country has a lot of guns and so does another, but one has more shootings, is it the guns?

        January 10, 2013 at 1:54 pm |
    • Nick

      It is a right as per the 2nd Amendment, driving is a provelege beause they were not around in 1775

      January 10, 2013 at 9:31 am |
      • Wajih

        I understand it's a right that has been around for a long time but I feel uncomfortable about it. When a person loses their temper and gets angry they will act recklessly without thinking about the consequences and without control. People like these lose control and grab the closest thing to them and use it. Now think. If a fanatic or someone mentally unstable has ownership of firearms do you think they will be able to restrain themselves? They have even less control than someone who has lost their temper and they are unaware of consequences in their state. If you're going to own a gun you should be someone who can control themselves.

        January 10, 2013 at 9:34 am |
      • Jesus

        Technically, the only thing the 2nd Amendment states is that you are allowed to present your arms as part of the well armed militia. The well armed militia would only be called up if we were invaded & thus thrown into a war. Therefore, the 2nd Amendment only supports the rights of citizens to protect ourselves against foreign invasion with guns... So it's not really about carrying a gun, but about when & only when it is legally necessary.

        January 10, 2013 at 10:42 am |
    • BoThome

      8,500 to 12,000 people a year are murdered by guns in the US. Cars killed 33,000 people each year in the US. Those evil assault rifles with high capacity magazines? They only kill about 300 people a year in the US.

      On the other side of the coin, 83,000+ innocent law abiding-citizens on average are SAVED by owning and carrying a gun (by preventing a rape, mugging, assault, murder, break-in, store robbery, animal attack, etc).

      So you'd rather take guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens and risk the criminals getting their way and potentially changing it from 8500 a year being killed to 92500+? No thank you.

      January 10, 2013 at 9:46 am |
      • Wajih

        I don't see where you're getting your numbers from. I'm not talking about accidental deaths by cars either. How many people do you see driving a car for the purpose of killing? Truth is very few if they even exist. Criminals don't use cars to kill, they use guns.

        January 10, 2013 at 10:00 am |
      • InFormed

        Actually, real analysis has shown this number is between 100-250 a year. The numbers you are throwing out are nonsense.

        January 10, 2013 at 10:03 am |
      • Wajih

        Also judging by your response you didn't even carefully read what I said. I'm saying a gun should require a "license" that is constantly renewed. It should become a privilege not a right. If you're a criminal you shouldn't have that right. As a law-abiding citizen you shouldn't be disturbed or worried that owning a gun would become a privilege.

        January 10, 2013 at 10:05 am |
    • wisconsin101

      Your car theory is messed up. You renew the plates for only tax reasons, not to see if you are on drugs or alcohol, texting or any other reason that you might kill others with your 4000 lb weapon.

      January 10, 2013 at 10:01 am |
      • Wajih

        Oh yeah totally. Because there are so many criminals driving cars to try and run over people.. This isn't Grand Theft Auto.

        January 10, 2013 at 10:06 am |
  80. aar0nsite

    WHY did CNN cut the video when he was beginning to talk about knives deaths!? huh?? right right... because it doesn't fit in their anti gun agenda... great job CNN! i see where you stand now!

    January 10, 2013 at 9:14 am |
    • Jamesj

      Is this news to you? CNN was always siding with a higher bidder. If you want real and honorable journalism, you won't find it here. It is especially true when they begin to employ foreigners as anchors for the US.

      January 10, 2013 at 9:25 am |
      • InFormed

        Ah yes, the bigot arrives to air their filth. Technically almost everyone in the US is a foreigner.

        January 10, 2013 at 10:06 am |
      • Running Deer

        "when they begin to employ foreigners as anchors for the US" Go away, hatebag. I bet your last name is Coznofski or O' Callahan. You are all foreign here.

        January 10, 2013 at 10:19 am |
      • anne112

        Yeah you gotta watch those foreigners. Nothing but trouble!! LOL.

        January 10, 2013 at 1:31 pm |
    • Herman the Kid

      Don't be so obtuse. CNN isn't anti-gun. It's pro-knife. Read the front story about the machete lady.

      January 10, 2013 at 9:32 am |
    • Religious Guy

      Knives only wounded children in china. In Newton, guns killed 20 children. What do you prefer, children dead or children wounded but not dead?

      January 10, 2013 at 9:35 am |
      • Oscar

        I'd prefer neither. So the question isn't how do we reduce the casualties at our schools, but how do we keep mad-man off our streets?

        January 10, 2013 at 10:35 am |
    • blh77

      Not sure, but could be because during the last year they have statistics on (2008) the number of murders by stabbing or cutting was 1,867. The number of murders by gun 9,484, which is 66% of the total number of murders for that year. Just a thought. The data can be found on Crime Statistics sites for the Bureau of Justice for anyone who is interested. I'd be interested in seeing the more recent numbers though.

      January 10, 2013 at 9:42 am |
  81. sid

    EXCELLENT IDEA . Stop mulling over it and so on and so on.....JUST DO IT ALREADY !!!!!!

    January 10, 2013 at 9:14 am |
  82. ER

    This country is screwed. The fear mongerers have won on every front, whether it be in the news, in the economy and now even in our schools.

    January 10, 2013 at 9:13 am |
    • Jamesj

      That's how you win, you make people afraid and offer to protect them. What people should really do is go to homes off all those responsible for instilling fear, drag them out of their houses and put the fire to their feet. That is exactly why they want to take away people's guns, so they can dominate and people cant fight back.

      January 10, 2013 at 9:27 am |
    • blh77

      Isn't it interesting though how we so quckly buy into it. The fear. I've always wondered why that is....other than it is making other people a lot of money. My friend from Australia said it's totally different there and it was a serious adjustment when she moved here since everyone seems more paranoid.

      January 10, 2013 at 9:47 am |
  83. Joe from CT, not Lieberman

    Police officers – OK, I can deal with that.
    Sheriff's Deputies – OK, I can deal with that.
    Private Security guards – Now, you are getting real close to potential problems.
    Posses – No flippin' way! These are the same yahoos running around in the woods on weekends claiming to be militias. Keep them away from my kids!

    January 10, 2013 at 8:34 am |
    • AMR

      It's all semantics. Calm down. We can call them security teams if it will let you sleep at night.

      January 10, 2013 at 8:42 am |
      • Stephan

        Or we can call them goon squads and be honest with ourselves.

        January 10, 2013 at 9:14 am |
    • Voice of Reason

      Did you see the pictures of the "posse" people? They're all retired people that would get outdrawn in a heartbeat or have a heart attack when they hear a gun fired. Our high school paid for two police officers to be on duty on campus. I'd trust that much more than a bunch of old people giving the killer more ammo to work with.

      January 10, 2013 at 9:12 am |
    • WhatHandbag

      Our Government killed far more people (including children) in Waco, Texas than were killed by a deranged individual in Newtown, Connecticut, yet you trust the Government wholeheartedly over law-abiding, gun-carrying citizens? Go figure!

      January 10, 2013 at 9:51 am |
      • Jesus

        YES! Which just goes to show how little we trust you crazy people with guns who try to shoot or threaten anyone who doesn't agree that you should be legally allowed to murder anyone you want.

        January 10, 2013 at 10:44 am |
  84. American society needs to wake up!

    I have watched the Piers Morgan program on CNN on 'Guns in America' for the last 2 nights, great presenter, however I am puzzled as to why CNN would waste 2 days on such a topic were clearly the american society has no idea. If they want to have guns and more guns and more guns let them. They will soon kill out their own society by their stupidity. Instead please give more time to real global issues where people are actually wanting to make real change.

    January 10, 2013 at 8:19 am |
    • Common Sense

      I agree. The United States used to be one of the most sought after countries to live in, come live the American Dream...it is no longer a dream, but a nightmare. Closing in on becoming third world.

      January 10, 2013 at 9:40 am |
  85. Silence Dogood

    The biggest arguement against Second Amendment rights today is that the founders of this nation had never been exposed to fully automatic weapons. In 1139 A.D. Pope Innocent II banned crossbows in europe, because he believed them to be too lethal. CROSSBOWS! Today we laugh, but back then crossbows were today's fully automatic weapons. I'm sorry but it seems to me that people are using the horrendous losses of others to push their own personal agendas. HOWEVER, I'm also a firm believer in the notion that if you abuse your priveledges, then those privileges should be taken away from you. I'm sorry America, but we have proven that we as a whole no longer possess the responsibility that firearms demand, and giving untrained American's guns to guard children is lamentable.

    January 10, 2013 at 1:32 am |
    • AMR

      ' I'm also a firm believer in the notion that if you abuse your priveledges, then those privileges should be taken away from you."

      The 2nd Amendment is not a privilege, it is a right. There is a huge difference. You have the privilege to drive a car (legally), you have the right to own a gun.

      "I'm sorry America, but we have proven that we as a whole no longer possess the responsibility that firearms demand"

      I'm not giving up my rights because other people can't be responsible. Just as I will not consent to a search without a warrant, and I will not answer questions of law enforcement without a lawyer, I will not compromise my right to own firearms. Voluntarily surrendering any of these rights would be truly lamentable.

      January 10, 2013 at 8:41 am |
      • Quori

        NO! There are only THREE rights. You have the right to LIFE, LIBERTY, and the PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS. EVERYTHING else is a privilege that comes with responsible citizenship. More over we TAKE AWAY those privileges or even expand them when it is right/just. Example 1...Voting. At one point only WHITE MEN were given the "right" to vote. We realized how stupid that was and expanded that "right" to all citizens. Example 2...Guns. While an upstanding citizen is allowed to legally purchase firearms, if you run afoul of the law, as in spend time in prison, we take away that "right" and do not allow you to possess firearms legally.

        But EVERYONE, no matter of age, social standing, economic class, citizen or not...EVERYONE has the right to LIFE, LIBERTY, and the PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS. Please for the love of God look at the VERY FIRST THING....LIFE LIFE LIFE! If taking away your damn weekend toys will prevent just one more child or innocent adult from being gunned down by an assault rifle...Yeah. We should all be fine with that. LIFE trumps the Second Amendment.

        January 10, 2013 at 9:22 am |
      • tacc2

        @Quori

        The problem is, banning certain types of guns/magazines will make no difference. Children will be killed regardless. There are already MILLIONS of semi-automatic rifles in this country. You can't confiscate them. And if you ban them, they will simply be smuggled into the country from Mexico along with the drugs and migrants. As for the magazines; I CAN, AND HAVE MADE THEM IN MY WORKSHOP AT HOME! They are simple pieces of metal/plastic. Now, I'm not going to shoot anyone (I'm a vegetarian, I don't even hunt!). But how is a law against the big bad scary magazines going to stop someone like me who wants to do so? It simply is not. So, let's stop with this, "Ban the big bad scary weapons!" BS and actually come up some solutions that will help.

        January 10, 2013 at 10:15 am |
      • Ryan_C_F

        @Quori -

        All your RIDICULOUS CAPITALIZATIONS and DRAMATIC TEXT FORMATTING aside, you're completely wrong, on all fronts. You should try some reading comprehension classes.

        First – "that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." To say that there are "ONLY THREE" while disregarding "among these" is intellectually dishonest and factually inaccurate.

        Second – the language of the Second Amendment clearly states that "The Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms shall not be infringed." Not the privelege – the Right.

        You're welcome. Break your caps-lock key off your keyboard and enroll in remedial English please.

        January 10, 2013 at 10:36 am |
    • Scott

      Crossbows lol... they are actually very slow to fire, even slower than bow archers. The reason they didn't like crossbows is because the bolt was fired with such force that it could easily penetrate the armor of the "knights" that were ra ping and pillaging Europe at the time and those great "noble" men didn't like being the idea of people being able to penetrate their armor.

      January 10, 2013 at 9:17 am |
      • Thinker...

        It was my understanding that the reason that crossbows were banned wasn't their power: most crossbows are no stronger than bows, are more expensive, and have less range (at the time of course). There were things like arbalests that were much stronger than bows, but these were EXTREMELY expensive and only other nobles would be able to aquire them.

        The REAL danger was that they were so easy to use. ANYONE could pick up a crossbow and learn to use it well enough to hit a man sized target from 30 or 40 yards while concealed in a few days or weeks at the most. Every other ranged weapon at the time required the user to be at least crouching (and that made shooting hard) or standing and took months to years of training to be reliably good with. The Church and the nobles did not like the way crossbows would enable random peasants to kill nobles (or bishops; at the time they were effectivly nobles and owned land and had peasants to work it) easily and with no training. That sort of thing could lead to revolution...

        Of course they were used anyway since it allowed the nobles and kings to field ranged troops quickly and with minimal training.

        January 10, 2013 at 9:37 am |
    • edwardo

      Typical idiotic left wing statement. YOU CAN NOT BUY AN AUTOMATIC GUN!! Seems like Obama,s tactics have sank into the nut cases. If you say it enough time it will be true.

      January 10, 2013 at 9:41 am |
  86. Lolo

    There were armed officers at Columbine, Virginia Tech, and Fort Hood. None of them were able to stop the shooter.

    January 9, 2013 at 11:53 pm |
    • Juan

      At Columbine there was a CHP passing by who happened to hear the shots. Besides, law enforcement is trained to take caution when clearing an area. If you, a civilian, are faced with a gunman, you're most likely not going to clear a room like they do, because the gunman will already be there. You'll go for life or death tactics at that point. Much different.

      January 10, 2013 at 12:16 am |
    • Jake

      I thought the fort hood guy was shot down.

      January 10, 2013 at 1:59 pm |
  87. Black Thought

    Really America armed guards at schools? I swear we do the dumbest things as a nation.

    January 9, 2013 at 10:35 pm |
    • south carolina worker

      Yeah like paying 50% of the population on welfare to sit on their asses and use of health care dollars for no reason

      January 9, 2013 at 11:25 pm |
      • Stephan

        Yeah, like believing 50% sit on their bottoms waiting for handouts, and then voting for Mitty.

        January 10, 2013 at 9:17 am |
      • Billie King

        Take the ones on welfare, train them, then hire them as guards; all to be paid for by what you save in getting them off welfare All of this at no cost to anyone.

        January 10, 2013 at 9:32 am |
      • Thinker...

        You do realise that the 47% number includes the retirees, millitary personnel serving abroad, college students, and children yes? You may consider Social Security 'welfare' and servicemen and women 'waiting for handouts' but I don't. And if children are paying income taxes perhaps we need to look into how they have an income: last I checked we have some pretty strict child labor laws in the US.

        Yes there are people who play the system. They come from ALL walks of life: rich, middle class, and poor. There are also people that really NEED the money because for example they got laid off and they still have to pay the bills while looking for a new job. I think it would be great to figure out a way to prevent more cheating while at the same time still helping those that need it. For that we need both parties to work together.

        Please stop grabbing at politicians' sound bites (from either side of the aisle) and try to convince your representatives to work together. We NEED both parties. If the Democrats or Republicans ever completely dominate the other we as a country are hosed. By making compromise a REQUIREMENT we try to prevent extremisim in government. That is part of the point of our republican system.

        January 10, 2013 at 9:57 am |
  88. John Klein

    Hello,
    I would like to offer my services as a guest on Pier's show to try and faithfully represent the millions of, so far, silent Americans on the issue of Sandy Hook, gun control, and the economy. It might make for an interesting, and refreshingly truthful, half hour. If not, please continue booking spectacular extremists of all sorts. I guess you have a business to run,eh? Shame on you guys for missing the overall. I Hope no children see ant of it.

    January 9, 2013 at 10:16 pm |
  89. Tim Schleis

    You know we never use to have to have armed guards in malls, bank, schools or public buildings. Since the 1970's the NRA has been running their scare tatics and paying to have our goverement officals bought and paid for. This is the results of no action being taken on the part of the elected officals. Now a mere mention of gun control and out with more scare tatics. "Their going to take our guns away" OMG!!! Tell me what does anyone need an AK-47 for? Or an AR-15, Mac-10 etc?? You can't hunt with them, they were designed for one purpose to KILL! Since the NRA has fought that we should be able to posse these weapons the bought and paid for idiots in Washington gave them their wish. Thank You NRA Idiots

    January 9, 2013 at 10:00 pm |
    • Michael

      Tim,

      As a lifetime meber of the NRA, I would just like to say they are not idiots, nor am I. Nut for the same reason you can call us idiots, is for the same reason the NRA has been the leading advocate for protecting our rights to bear arms, as your right of free speech. And I hate to break it to you, but you can effectively hunt with an AR-15. As with an AK. Just sayin', but most people only see and hear that this weapon killed someone. Not true, it is only a tool which is manipulated by a person who has an agenda. So blaming the NRA or the guns, or weapons that kill. Well that is idiotic. Because as i mentioned before, guns cannot kill without the manipulation of a human, or anything that can operate the weapon. I hope I didn't affend you, as this was not my intention.

      January 9, 2013 at 11:24 pm |
      • Lolo

        The NRA has lobbied heavily and effectively to prevent any federal funding of research into gun safety. Why?
        While not all NRA members are bad, I do believe that the organization as a whole has become very misguided and fanatical. If guns aren't a problem, why prevent the CDC and NIH from collecting data and doing research to help shape policy? The only reasonable conclusion is that they know they won't like the results.
        I am a gun owner, and firmly believe that there are ways to make our society safer without infringing on the right to own a gun (mandatory safety training, background checks on ALL sales, penalties for states/etc. that do not submit criminal and mental health data to the national database).
        I also support a ban on high capacity clips. If you can't protect yourself in ten shots, either your in a war type situation, or you have no business firing a gun.

        January 9, 2013 at 11:46 pm |
      • Common Sense

        If humans didn't have access to these weapons, then there would be no killing (the old adage, which came first the chicken or the egg). I am just so incredibly shocked that the killing of innocent babies, and remember, these were babies, has not woken your nation up. And if this didn't do it, nothing will. You can say all you want that it's not the guns that kill people, it's the people, but that's just an excuse for you to feel better about supporting a cause that has allowed more innocent lives to be taken. I hope the NRA sleeps well at night.

        January 10, 2013 at 9:45 am |
      • Dan

        @LoLo- First, you are obviously not a knowledgeable gun owner as it is not called a "clip". Secondly, high capacity is a political buzzword, nothing more. Where do you draw the line? It's completely subjective. Third, as far as not needing more than 10 rounds, I'm going to make the logical assumption that you don't follow a lot of gun news outside of the MSM as there are examples of people using AR-15's (the most popular gun in the country, that also causes less deaths than the murders in Chicago alone), to defend themselves against multiple attackers. And last but not least, if you recall the woman that shot ONE man in the FACE and NECK 5 out of 6 shots (which is good under pressure), and he was still able to walk to his car, get in, and drive a few blocks before finally passing out. And even then, HE STILL LIVED. So your notion of not needing more than 10 shots is moot. Oh and lets not forget, that duct tape makes an excellent magazine coupler, so you can literally tape several magazines together effectively making another "high capacity magazine". (not clip). Next argument- Signed a responsible, knowledgeable gun owner.

        January 10, 2013 at 9:52 am |
      • tacc2

        @Lolo

        So, you want to ban the evil scary "clips"? You do know that anyone with half a functioning cerebrum can easily make as many MAGAZINES and in whatever capacity they like in their basement with a few simple tools, right? So, what good will banning them do?

        January 10, 2013 at 10:44 am |
    • humberto

      What did you expect when government started patronizing ignorance for trying instead of chastising them for not learning what's correct.

      January 10, 2013 at 1:10 am |
      • humberto

        That's exactly what going on in NJ right now. The Federal Gov. Is sitting on a criminal complaint against Gov. Christie for aiding and albeiting a kidnapping of a minor when he was the A.G. in N.J. and the FBI STILL POLITICALLY ATTEMPT argue and cover up thru commission of duty, lies and other frauds.

        January 10, 2013 at 1:30 am |
      • humberto

        That's commission of duty to Deceive.

        January 10, 2013 at 1:32 am |
    • tacc2

      Here's what I need those weapons for. In the event of massive civil unrest, the kind you see because of war, natural disasters, etc., I want to have the best chance at survival I can. Currently, we live in a pretty comfortable bubble in time. THIS WILL NOT ALWAYS BE THE CASE. You are a VERY short sighted fool if you honestly believe our current comfortable bubble will never pop. So, take your feel good, emotionally driven, and shortsighted demands to disarm the public and GO F*** YOURSELF!

      January 10, 2013 at 10:26 am |
      • anne112

        It must suck to be you.

        January 10, 2013 at 1:33 pm |
  90. Bob J.

    Every child killed in an accidental shooting in a classroom with be blood on Wayne LaPierre's hands. You can be guaranteed that promoting school personel to carry weapons will cause a lot more deaths than lives saved. A lot of teachers, unfortunately live in fear of older students. How many of those teachers are going to use a gun to kill a student instead of entertaining a less than lethal encounter with a problematic student? How many gun owners even understand the law when it comes to use-of-force?

    January 9, 2013 at 10:00 pm |
    • Nabob

      1. Every proposal I've heard includes training.
      2. Some teachers with lethal, some with less lethal would be acceptable – escalation of force as necessary.
      3. Does the law really matter when someone is standing in a classroom shooting kids?

      January 10, 2013 at 11:42 am |
  91. mike

    We have had armed police in schools in the Chicago area for years.

    January 9, 2013 at 9:58 pm |
    • Joe from CT, not Lieberman

      Has it actually helped in cutting down school violence? Not doubting, just asking for analysis of the levels of school violence before and after the officers were assigned. Why, because the rest of the country hears too many "Zero Tolerance" abuse stories about cops handcuffing 9 year old kids who have emotional outbursts that the teachers do not even try to control before the administration calls for law-enforcement.

      January 10, 2013 at 8:19 am |
  92. GLK20c

    I haven't heard anything about Connecticut school systems protecting their children with guns since the Sandy Hook shootings. The political pressure from the anti gunners to leave those children unprotected must be massive.

    January 9, 2013 at 9:57 pm |
    • I Am God

      Either that they are just scared of letting you gunnutters any where near a school. Stop being clueless and actually debate instead of trying to score political points.

      January 9, 2013 at 9:58 pm |
      • humberto

        @I am god – enforcement of existing laws is not a debate. People like you making excuses to obstruct justice for your politically correct criminal cabal is the problem.

        January 9, 2013 at 10:18 pm |
      • I Am God

        Humberto I am trying to defend the second amendment but when we have people like you shouting "Tyranny! Tyranny!" to every government body in office, that just puts fear into every single American living in this country on who you people actually are. Reason why there needs to be restrictions.

        January 9, 2013 at 10:22 pm |
      • humberto

        People like defend nothing, you don't even address the problem.

        January 9, 2013 at 10:29 pm |
      • Chaz

        Anti-Gun Nutter agenda

        January 9, 2013 at 10:30 pm |
      • I Am God

        Humberto I can see you don't care to debate anything. You are just like the individual above. Someone that just shouts and shouts but only want what you want to happen. That isn't debating; that is just plain rhetoric.

        January 9, 2013 at 10:33 pm |
      • humberto

        You were informed enforcement of existing laws were not a debate. Both you and the delusional politicians that continue to cloud the existing laws to pervert them into a subjective argument they control to force people to live under their criminal will is the problem. As your post, prove your attempts to deceive.

        January 9, 2013 at 11:09 pm |
  93. I Am God

    I am glad to see that they are implementing security measures in or around schools, but I am still wary of putting armed civilians around schools.

    January 9, 2013 at 9:51 pm |
    • humberto

      What Security measures !!! He walked right into a building thru what they called locked doors ?

      January 9, 2013 at 10:23 pm |
      • I Am God

        After they opened it for him. He didn't break through the door, the school opened it for him. Security personnel would have helped stop him from entering the school if he was checked for weapons.

        January 9, 2013 at 10:26 pm |
      • humberto

        So now they opened the doors for him that wasn't in a secure and contained area like a Principals office? I think your making crap up.

        January 9, 2013 at 10:33 pm |
      • I Am God

        Humberto their school security was just like my school security when I was in school. A locked door that would not be allowed to open unless office personnel buzzed them in. There was also video cameras watching the entrances.

        January 9, 2013 at 10:35 pm |
      • humberto

        Camera's, buzzers and all that crap and he still wasn"t separated from the children by some mythical creature that didn't greet him.

        January 9, 2013 at 11:33 pm |
      • humberto

        Or another locked door at least. He had free access to the whole building once getting past the front door and a guard if there was one. No the problem is not the guard its the frivolous thought that was put into the design that didn't even protect windows from a ball because the children play there anymore.

        January 9, 2013 at 11:43 pm |
      • humberto

        The older elementary schools I attended had locked doors at the main entrance with a side door to the administrative office that was also secured from the main hall. The side door were forest green steel with wire protecting windows that were wire mesh to make them shatter proof. The building was redbrick with marble in the halls that would rival any government building or college. A teacher would grade her students papers after school in the gym and allow the all the students in the school grades 1-6 play scatter or dodge ball till 3:30 and acting like a Caesar in disputes with a thumb up or down if a hit valid.

        January 10, 2013 at 12:01 am |
      • humberto

        Everybody in grades 1 to 6 walked to school and went home for lunch too if they wanted too.

        January 10, 2013 at 12:14 am |
  94. GLK20c

    Good for those states, and shame on those wringing their hands waiting on the Obama Admin to criminalize millions of American gun owners.

    January 9, 2013 at 9:40 pm |
    • Joe from CT, not Lieberman

      Given your tag handle is the model of a pistol, I am not surprised at your reaction.

      January 10, 2013 at 8:24 am |
    • thoughtful

      I don't think Obamage has a clue to the real problem

      January 10, 2013 at 9:46 am |
  95. Eric

    Go Arizona!! Go Utah!! Great job New Jersey! Way to Go San Antonio! ACTION – thats fantastic.

    January 9, 2013 at 9:35 pm |
  96. loops808

    We see armed guards at banks, malls, shopping centers, grocery stores, Social Security offices, college campuses, etc. , etc., etc. So why not afford the same peace of mind to our children? I know many men and women feel safer when they leave the mall and there is a security guard paroling the parking lot, or when we walk into a place of business and there is a security guard. We don't hear cries to remove those guards. And who has complained about the guards at State or Government offices? Certainly not politicians. Connecticut has an assault weapons ban and its other gun laws would not have prevented the shooting at Sandy Hook. The fact is that criminals and people with psychological disorders are unpredictable and will find ways to harm others if they wish. So lets stop dragging our feet and afford the same protection and peace of mind we adults appreciate and put guards in our children's schools.

    January 9, 2013 at 9:30 pm |
  97. volsocal

    This is not new in California. There are police officers assigned to every school. They are not there full time and they have other duties. These articles would have you believe that nothing illegal happens in schools except the extremely rare mass shooting. But with Columbine and Sany Hill, having these officers team with embedded teachers that are trained and armed is a natural and appropriate evolution.

    January 9, 2013 at 9:11 pm |
    • volsocal

      Sandy Hook

      January 9, 2013 at 9:13 pm |
    • cmhreader

      Remember, you have schools who are struggling to pay teachers. And honestly when someone is crazy enough one officer isn't going to stop them. Look at Ft Hood TX and teh Utah iHop murders of national Guardsmen.

      January 10, 2013 at 11:11 am |
  98. tony

    No guns were ever manufactured illegally. So all the oh sooo scary guns "in the hands of criminals " that the NRA says we must defend against" , got there somehow from all those "responsible" legitimate gun owners and dealers.

    And so now the gun makers collect a fortune, every time children are massacred.Now Isn't that Special !

    January 9, 2013 at 9:00 pm |
    • fal300

      Tony you are misguided. The guns are stolen. Do some research. "got there somehow from all those "responsible" legitimate gun owners and dealers" Really? Really? The bad breaks in a home and steals one or more guns and you are going to blame that of manufacturers and legal purchasers of firearms? Why don't you say what you really mean? You are proposing a total ban on the manufacture /sale of firearms and confiscation. Not going to happen.

      January 9, 2013 at 9:32 pm |
      • Kathy

        I'm with Tony! I am a teacher, and the day someone brings a gun into my school "to protect the kids" I will seriously consider working for Taco Bell. Just remember who is making major profits every time there is another shooting.

        January 9, 2013 at 10:07 pm |
      • Portland tony

        If the firearm owner would secure his or her collection of long guns in the same manner as they protect their valuables, we could slow the transfer of these weapons from good to bad guys. Personally I feel, a hand gun at the ready is all a citizen needs for self protection at home.

        January 10, 2013 at 7:48 am |
    • tony

      Dead Right. Sloppy security on the legitimate gun owners part. The military have to keep ammunition in concrete bunkers, for the safety of the people around. So no concrete floor safe, no right to store a gun or ammunition.

      January 9, 2013 at 9:58 pm |
      • Bob J.

        One way to fix that problem would be to hold the gun owners responsible for the crimes commited with their stolen weapons. I guarantee owners would be much better about how they secure their weapons.

        January 9, 2013 at 10:04 pm |
      • Lolo

        Bob, I agree that gun owners should be responsible for crimes commited with their stolen weapons UNLESS they can PROVE it was reasonably secured. Guns stored in a nightstand, glovebox, or $20 walmart lockbox are not reasonably secured. Furthermore, if a gun you own is involved in an accident, the owner should be charged. This would encourage people to be safer.
        I also believe you should be required by law to report a stolen gun.
        Closing background check loopholes and requiring some basic form of training (i.e. proper gun storage, safety, and use) would go a long way without stopping law abiding citizens from owning guns.
        There is middle ground to be had.

        January 9, 2013 at 11:35 pm |
      • texas555

        Fine, hold gun owners responsible for crimes committed with their stolen guns. While we are at it why not hold a car owner responsible if someone steals it and uses it in the commission of a crime. Also, lets hold some responsible if they are robbed and that money is used to buy an illegal gun and a crime is committed or the thief uses the money to buy illegal drugs. Where do we stop?

        January 10, 2013 at 9:41 am |
    • Diraphe

      That is because it is not illegal to manufacture your own gun...

      January 9, 2013 at 11:31 pm |
    • Arsh

      Liberals like to quicklyforget facts. yes a lot of kids died from guns but heres a few simple facts. The guns were STOLEN after the owner was MURDERED in the CT incident. There was nothing LEGAL about the events LEADING UP TO THE MASSACRE. therefore restrictions on guns WILL NOT SOLVE ILLEGAL ACTIVITY. banning guns would be as effective as me yelling at a random person drinking a beer in Idaho for someone dying from a drunken driver in Alaska.

      January 10, 2013 at 11:30 am |
  99. Alfred

    Outlaw big ammo clips and guns used in latest mass murders.

    January 9, 2013 at 8:34 pm |
    • volsocal

      So, ifonly 5 or 6 get murdered, that's OK?

      January 9, 2013 at 9:12 pm |
      • Lolo

        volsocal
        5 or 6 is a lot better than 26! Maybe you can't prevent it 100%, but you can mitigate the damage.

        January 10, 2013 at 12:01 am |
    • tokencode

      Outlawing big ammo clips is useless. With 3D printing technology you can print any size magazine you want. Murder is already against the law but these idiots do not follow that law either...

      January 9, 2013 at 9:16 pm |
      • Cmacan

        You "could" make your own "big Ammo Clip"... but few would.
        The first step to minimizing these horrible attacks is to make them harder for the attacker.

        Making large capacity clips harder to get will make them less likely to be used in future attacks.
        Increasing the chance that future attackers will need to stop and change clips give victems a slightly better chance.
        Forcing attackers to carry 10 little clips instead of 1 or two large clips makes their task harder to exacute.

        Little things can reduce the body count.

        January 10, 2013 at 9:36 am |
    • tony

      You can't 3D print a gun barrel. Nor can you easily make ammunition. So ending the supply chains for those items could make a big difference.

      January 9, 2013 at 9:54 pm |
    • tacc2

      Right, because you know, those evil "assault rifles" are responsible for most of our gun crimes. Oh wait. THEY"RE ONLY INVOLVED IN ABOUT 1% OF GUN DEATHS! Hmmm...

      January 10, 2013 at 10:49 am |
    • Arsh

      i have yet to see a clip above 10 rounds. usually if you need more than 10 rounds you design a magazine. Seriously how is any gun owner supposed to take a liberal comment seriously about guns when they don't even know anything about them. I don't go suggesting things to you that I have no background knowledge on. Don't go shoving your nose in peoples business if you no nothing about the subject

      January 10, 2013 at 11:36 am |
      • Arsh

        *know

        January 10, 2013 at 11:39 am |
      • angryian

        I completely agree with everything you're saying, but most newly purchased AR-15 rifles come with a 30 Rd magazine. Of course, there are 10 round magazines out there. There are also drum magazines that can hold 100 rounds of ammunition. I'm with you though. So many people know nothing about firearms whatsoever, leaving them without a leg to stand on when it comes to solutions on preventing any sort of crime that involves firearms. Look through the comments on the most recent school shooting using a shotgun. People seem to believe more people would be hurt if it wasn't the fact that it was a shotgun and not a semi automatic assault rifle.

        January 10, 2013 at 11:52 pm |
  100. Jim

    I have little faith in the education establishment's ability to do much efficiently or effectively so this could head south, but security guards are certainly reasonable. To anyone who thinks these things are crazy, PLEASE do keep in mind that after 9/11 we put armed National Guardsmen in airports, then followed by lots of TSA - we did NOT ban box cutters and airplanes

    January 9, 2013 at 8:10 pm |
    • humberto

      It was the south that tried to rob children of a education.

      January 10, 2013 at 12:57 am |
      • humberto

        And caused bussing.

        January 10, 2013 at 12:58 am |
1 2 3