I'm fascinated to know how this would work in school systems where textbooks are often woefully out of date, parents have to hold bake sales for the most basic needs, and teachers have to purchase their own supplies. No one seems to have even raised the question of how this could possibly work from a financial standpoint.

Amy, the facts disagree with you here:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/07/23/six-facts-about-guns-violence-and-gun-control/

See items 4 and 5. Higher rates of gun ownership are correlated with higher homicide rates and states with stricter gun control laws have fewer deaths from gun-related violence.

There may be an argument that gun control is not the complete or only answer to reducing the number of violent deaths in the US, but dismissing it out of hand seems counterproductive.

Amy - perfect solution.
Besides that's what normal people and even (gun)control-freaks do when threatened -- dial a phone to get SOMEONE WITH A GUN to come rescue them.

"You stop school shootings by having two or three people on campus who have more than their bodies to try to stop the shooter. Ideally, the principal of every school and one or two other people should have guns, safely stored or worn, and there should be measures to make sure there is a backup person (or persons) in case of their departure from the school (like at lunchtime) or illness."

That's what I've been wondering about too. Make sure the principal and two or so other teachers take some sort of credentialed firearms course and then give the school two very well armored and robust gun safes and the firearms some group of experts determines is the best to use in this situation. 45? Shotgun?

I assume some number of teachers are asked/forced to take CPR classes each year.

I know very little about guns, etc., and I would be curious to hear from others about the problems with such a plan.

As much as people want to believe it couldn't happen to them (if only we did more of X or stopped doing Y, or got rid of our least favorite group of people), the sorry fact of the matter is that this COULD happen to you. It COULD happen to your kids. There IS no way to stop it, because there is no way to wave a magic wand and make all the homicidal crazy people disappear in a poof of pink smoke. You don't even know who they are until it's too late.

"Sorry to ruin your day."
-- Reality

Having the possibility of someone with a firearm on premises would be quite a deterrent. Allow teachers, office staff, and even cafeteria workers to [conceal] carry. Perhaps have a police officer walk through at a random time of day.

Then perhaps we can go back to asking why it is too expensive to have seat belts on school buses.

> No one seems to have even raised the question
> of how this could possibly work from a financial
> standpoint.

You first, bunny— Where will you find the money for the gun control enforcement, or armed school security, which you would presumably prefer?

Sorry Amy, have to disagree with you here....the US has a problem with guns, so the answer is more guns? Huh? I may be biased, being a Canadian, but I think a balanced approach of a gun ban and better access to mental health care is required. Yes people will still kill people without guns but when was the last time someone went on a stabbing spree? And yes criminals will ignore gun bans but you usually don't see the paranoid schizos robbing banks just like the bank robbers and car jackers usually don't go shoot up a school.(No profit.) Arming teachers would only produce better guns and armour from the psycho, and put a big red target on the backs of the teachers who likely have never even dreamed of firing a weapon.

Just sayin.....

Ahhh, love the element of surprise here.
A school-marm, or three (a cook, a janitor) blasting away in the general direction of the shooter's balls would greatly delay the slaughter of the babies. Hopefully indefinitely.
Bonus points for actually hitting the SOB -- a paid semester off perhaps?

> Higher rates of gun ownership are correlated
> with higher homicide rates

Not rilly.

> states with stricter gun control laws have
> fewer deaths from gun-related violence.

Yew shure?

> There may be an argument that gun control is
> not the complete or only answer to reducing
> the number of violent deaths in the US, but
> dismissing it out of hand seems
> counterproductive.

Out of hand? Exactly how many palms would it take to choke it to death? Is there ANYTHING you could say, or show, to make them change their minds? That's not a rhetorical question. What would change their minds?

There's no such thing.

No, this is not about evidence for the coddled, isolated, emotionally-plucked idiots who want to blame things instead of people. If they were more courageous about stepping out into the world of unfamiliar tax brackets and unfamiliar indoor voices, they'd know better.

But they're not courageous.

wtf: "when was the last time someone went on a stabbing spree?"

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2012/12/19/security-video-stabbing-spree-at-chinese-school-shows-pupils-fleeing-in-panic/

Gun crime went up in Australia after their ban. The UK has plenty of gun crime too. If it's okay for there to be an armed, anonymous person on flights for protection, why not in schools? There is a district here in Texas that DOES have armed people in every school. Hasn't been a problem for them.

Really-we're just supposed to sit around and get shot one after the other while waiting on the police?

It wouldn't put a target on schools. There is a reason every mass shooting in the last 20 years(excepting the Giffords one, if you call that mass) has taken place in a gun free zone. They're cowards.

http://www.abc4.com/content/news/top_stories/story/conceal-and-carry-stabbing-salt-lake-city-smiths/NDNrL1gxeE2rsRhrWCM9dQ.cspx

Yes Meloni, I've seen it before and knew damn well someone was gonna call me on that one, but how many shootings in the past two months versus how many stabbing sprees? Just saying if guns were banned or at least ALOT harder to get (up here you gotta have a reason and a license, and even the friggin cops need to fill out paperwork every time they draw their weapons...) there'd be a lot less gun violence, especially if you couple it with free access to mental health care. Never going to completely eradicate it, we have the occasional shooting up here, but it would be a significant improvement.

http://thegardenisland.com/news/local/police-kill-suspect-in-deadly-stabbing-spree/article_6ffc238a-1d8b-11e1-84f7-001871e3ce6c.html

> here is no way to wave a magic wand and make
> all the homicidal crazy people disappear in a
> poof of pink smoke.

Pink, huh?

Interesting choice. Not saying there's anything wrong with it, PJ, it's just a little audacious.

I always imagined a moist, swirling mist, orange-ish (when lit by the sun from the correct angles), with notes of cinnamon and clove, accompanied by that 'Star Trak Transporter' sound (from the original series in the 1960's, not the sequels) instead of a "poof".

It's kinda funny how each of us dreams of something different...

...WHEN WE IMAGINE DEPLOYING COSMICALLY IRRESISTIBLE POWERS TO GUT THE FREEDOMS AND CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OF OUR PERFECTLY INNOCENT FELLOW CITIZENS.

Nonetheless, our larger perspectives cohere.

Right on, Sister.

Still curious about an explanation for the funding mechanism here, including what is certain to be skyrocketing insurance rates for both the school district and the individual school employees who carry firearms.

Has anyone run numbers on the feasibility of this?

Meloni;

Now can you google all the shootings in the US in the last little bit? And you had to google them. How many shootings can you remember off the top of your head?

Not ignoring you going to work potluck. Be back.

Also, less casualties and less severe wounds for the most part with a knife, you also can't mow down dead 22 people in 3 minutes flat, giving the hostages a chance to RUN! With an AR-15, it don't matter if you run!

You first, bunny— Where will you find the money for the gun control enforcement, or armed school security, which you would presumably prefer?

You presume a lot. I haven't proposed a damn thing here, and would lean toward making no changes at all. If these sorts of things happened every day, perhaps; but on the face of it the draconian, wildly expensive proposals Im reading make about as much sense as what's been done to the TSA after one idiot tried to light his shoe on fire.

This kid (or worse, think Columbine) had an assault rifle, bulletproof vest, and the element of surprise. Who really thinks that the average educator can be trained to deal with that?

> I may be biased, being a Canadian, but…

Yep, I'd say you are. Canada's shores are defended by the United States Navy as a matter of course. It's not that we think you're cute and are trying to be nice, it's just a geography thing: Given our 3500 miles of shared borders, it's easier to patrol them ourselves and be sure it's done right than it would be to trust, or insist that you make the sacrifices to do it yourself. In perhaps the most fundamental way, your nation has failed to master and thus minimize the potential for violence.

So, Yeah... "Bias."

Finish your vegetables, too.

> I haven't proposed a damn thing here, and would
> lean toward making no changes at all

Snark respectfully withdrawn.

Eric, that's a great point. I've read so much over the last couple of years about how teachers are incompetent and failing our children.

If you can't trust someone to teach ABC's, why on earth would you trust him or her with a Sig Sauer in the classroom?

Way to have an intelligent conversation Crid...when in doubt, you're wrong cause it's my sandbox. Must be a pretty small sandbox. Btw, we've had this conversation before, so I'd say it's pretty much done. I won, in case you don't remember. And just so's ya know, most of the gun violence in Canada is committed with guns smuggled from the US.

Just sayin...

Kevin:

You did propose a problem, that of money.

But the issue isn't just issuing "guns" - it's just stopping not allowing them. To begin with. Then we can work on other things.

Who really thinks that the average educator can be trained to deal with that?

You know, you're right. Better to just be a sitting duck.

Who's going to train police to "deal with that?" Nah, silly.

In this case, it's an extreme situation. But one where the victims being disarmed did not help. The wishful thinking did not help. The imaginary line on the ground did not help.

But had one adult been there with a gun - maybe. It's happened before. Spree killers stopped cold by one, barely "trained" person with a gun. Maybe nobody would have had one. Maybe.

Has anyone run numbers on the feasibility of this?

Why would insurance premiums increase with less likihood of school shootings?

Kevin, very good point! Sadly funny, sadly true.

Factual Interjection, you're going to have to change your moniker.

See items 4 and 5. Higher rates of gun ownership are correlated with higher homicide rates

Correlation does not equal causation.

Repeat until you automatically think that whenever you start to type or think "correlated".

That rule-to-remember when citing statistics aside, it's simply not borne out by crime stats. Even on a state level, it's hard to meet. Get more granular onto the county level, and you'll find less than 50 counties who have 3/4 of all the homicides. In the entire nation.

and states with stricter gun control laws have fewer deaths from gun-related violence.

Chicago certainly does. And Detroit.

No, that's an oft-cited talking point, but again, one that's mangling statistics to try and get there.

There may be an argument that gun control is not the complete or only answer to reducing the number of violent deaths in the US, but dismissing it out of hand seems counterproductive.

Who's dismissed it out of hand? It's talked about continually. The major media on a yearly basis considers it a holy grail to get the guns they enjoy outlawed by the peasants.

You can see where gun "control" leads. Every time. Semi-autos are "banned" and gun crime increases (because the criminals don't care). Now it's pump shotguns that are "too rapidly fired..." "Deadly shotguns with large pellets"...

It's not dismissed out of hand. It's dismissed due to the track record, and last but certainly not least, the fact that it was considered a inalienable right for a reason by the Founders.

That reasoning hasn't changed.

You who want to "control" people have a lot more proof to demonstrate - including honesty - if you want to renegotiate the social contract.

If you can't trust someone to teach ABC's, why on earth would you trust him or her with a Sig Sauer in the classroom?

I guess I'm glad you're not teaching my kids if that would be an issue.

Think that was more a poke at decline of the western educational system Unix....

Why would insurance premiums increase with less likihood of school shootings?

Because homeowners' and business owners' insurance rates increase by the mere fact that someone owns a gun. And school districts, by and large, carry liability insurance.

Because homeowners' and business owners' insurance rates increase by the mere fact that someone owns a gun.

I've never had that, nor known of anyone who did.

And school districts, by and large, carry liability insurance.

As they should. And they should be paying out when decisions are made that they're liable for.

Granted, it's not a level playing field, (watch how fast the lawsuits blame anybody but the school - in some fairness it's mostly the legislature's fault, who get to have 'sovereign immunity') but we'll see how that goes.

wtf: Yes, but it's a non-sequitur. If the teacher passes the requisite background and other requirements for current concealed carry, there's no reason to deny - even if they can't teach.

> Must be a pretty small sandbox.

No, it's your sandbox, it's just that you don't have the will to protect it yourself... Hence, your own example of porous borders.

> I won, in case you don't remember.

It's rhetoric, not a sports contest: Is there a particular matter you'd care to link or describe? It's never too late for me to bring enlightenment to the beclouded... But goofballs often skip my mind, and being Canadian makes you doubly forgettable.

Unix;

Assuming that you are correct and that arming teachers is the answer, how do you deal with the big red target you just put on their backs? Make them wear flack jackets all day? Any gunman is going to shoot at the guy holding a gun first, and that person is going to have next to no experience in firing a weapon or avoiding a bullet, even if they take a course. Also, how do you explain to little Johnny why Mr. Jones is wearing a flak jacket and assault rifle?

Did you really think that ANYTHING in your country —besides cold air– was more likely to come across your Arctic border rather than that of the 'States?

Man... Canada, y'know?

Canadians.

I've never had that, nor known of anyone who did.

But Unix-Jedi, it doesn't make it any less true.

I'm not talking about gun owners' liability insurance. I'm talking about basic homeowners' insurance rates, which are affected by a variety of factors from treehouses to trampolines. Guns are one of them, and they increase insurance rates, not decrease them.

If owning a gun did decrease your insurance rates, don't you think that fact would be touted by both insurance companies and gun manufacturers?

Boy Crid, you ARE an angry little bigot aren't you? Did a Canadian break your heart? You poor, sweet befuddled little jack off, I empathize. Since it was last year, and I already outdebated you, you aren't worth my time. However, feel free to look it up yourself. My screen name used to be Angel, but then I found out there were two of us.

Pouting isn't sexy, Angel... I don't love you enough to Google you.

Guys, I'm bigoted...   Against Canadians!

Admit it: That's adorable!

Remember me now do you? LMAO! Awwww....she made fun on your dick size too. You poor sad little man, you must have shriveled in the cold. I just assume teats it, since you know so much about us, you've been up here a time or two and have little man syndrome.....Just what IS your problem with us any way? Aside from us having free education and healthcare, winning world wars I and II for you, wiping up after your wars, and having a lower crime rate? I could go on, but being so literate on the subject of Canadians, I assume you already know.....Is it cause you're after our oil too now? Or is it the Artic you're pissed off about?

wtf:

Assuming that you are correct and that arming teachers is the answer,

I didn't say that.

I did however, say that stopping disarming them was a damn good plan.

Any gunman is going to shoot at the guy holding a gun first

As opposed to shooting kids first? Good. Well, in my estimation.

You do understand that's what you're advocating, right? The kids getting shot first, rather than the teacher with[out] the gun?

I'm not saying every teacher be armed - not what I said at all. But if you want to ascribe that to me anyway (as you appear to), fine. That complaint of yours in the hypothetical is better than the alternative.

and that person is going to have next to no experience in firing a weapon or avoiding a bullet, even if they take a course.

Lots of presumptions there.

But there's still a major hole in your logic.

At that point, there is a person intent on doing evil there. If the teacher is armed or not does not change that fact.

It changes the possible responses in that eventuality.

Also, how do you explain to little Johnny why Mr. Jones is wearing a flak jacket and assault rifle?

Diversity.

Kevin:
I've never had that, nor known of anyone who did.

But Unix-Jedi, it doesn't make it any less true.

Yes, it does. In my experience, over 25 years of liability insurance, with 7 companies, in 5 states, that has never been the case.

I am not telling you - unlike you telling me that it is the case everywhere - that it's not the case anywhere. But it's demonstrably not universal.

So yes, it makes your statement as a absolute incorrect.

winning world wars I and II for you

Yannow, the Canadians might want to brag a little less on their school system than they are now, eh?

Unix;

I should have simply said "assuming arming teachers is the answer. My bad.

I'm not advocating they kill the kids first. I'm saying why make a target more obvious? It makes sense that the gunman would shoot the guy with the gun first, cause he wants to kill as many people as possible. Arming a teacher seems to me like sticking a big red neon sign over the teachers head saying "Shoot Me! Shoot Me!" In an ideal world, no child or adult would be shot, but again, why give them a big glittery target?

And diversity? Really? I think armed teachers would be, in its own way, traumatizing to young children. That, or it would desensitize them to guns.

Google it Unix.....it's there....

I finally found at least one set of numbers.

A school district in western Pennsylvania (Butler County -- I don't want to embed a link on Amy's blog), but you can Google it) got a court order earlier this week to allow its security guards -- all retired state troopers, not teachers -- to carry firearms on campus.

The district has 11 elementary and 3 secondary schools. The annual insurance rider will be $25,000 for this fairly small school district (7,500 pupils). I'm not sure exactly what liability that rider covers, nor at what financial level.

WTF (apprpriate name, that): Crid has made reasonable arguments and you have responded with schoolyard insults. Yeah, You Won, all right. You just go on believing that. The truth would obviously fry your brain.

"Guns are one of them, and they increase insurance rates, not decrease them."

I have never been asked by an insurance agent whether or not I own a gun. Given that, I don't see how it would matter to my homeowner's rates one way or the other, since they don't know. Maybe it's different in other states.

Dang! Late to the party, but as a card-carrying NRA member, you all know I'm all for the arming of and training people in the use of firearms. And ya know, it wasn't that long ago that most principals (of the high schools, anyway) actually did have immediate access to firearms, as did many of the local lads, because, you know, hunting? A lot of kids used to do it before school (and after, during the season), and so did some of the teachers. They actually had gun racks *gasp* in their pick up trucks! Oh MY!

And still, this happened: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bath_School_disaster

Yeah long time ago, which just goes to show, you never know.

Now, let's think rationally about the idea of having responsible adults be allowed to provide for our school childrens' safety without the hand-wringing and whinging, shall we?

Cousin Dave;

How the hell do you describe maligning Canadians as a reasonable argument? Especially when you guys have waaaaaaaaaay more frequent episodes of gun violence? He hasn't even addressed my original entry, just insulted Canadians, as he's very fond of doing, hence the small penis syndrome. Funny you don't call him out. And by won, I was referring to an argument about just that subject I had with him last year. But I guess his arguments are so weak you feel the need to defend him.

food for thought, and interesting asides... aside.

Many schools already have armed police resource officers.

And this DID NOT HELP AT COLUMBINE H.S. nor Platte Canyon.

Many schools are simply too big for one or two people to do anything, IF it's an inside job done by students, as it has been. [not for Platte Canyon, but he had hostages.]

At Columbine, those slimeballs planned it out with evil precision, doing things to divert attention, and planning on how to also hurt first responders.

Their clash with the Police Resource Officer, didn't get either badguy, PROBABLY because there was to much possibility of other innocents being shot or caught in crossfire.

there are situational reasons why all this is hard.

ESPECIALLY, most teachers will be against anyone CCW, and are not the kind of people to even feel comfortable knowing ANYONE has a firearm in school that isn't a police officers. Talk to teachers, majority of whom are women, and you will discover that they are afraid of a lot of things, including Jenny's bento box knife.

I think this angle of uparming some staff, is just not doable, because of all the different things that need to align for it. We need to harden schools, certainly, but in Conn. [and others] it already was. We need to make them NOT gun free zones, so that badguys may not be sure of easy pickings, and because it doesn't work anyway... and allow those that are comfortable having CCW, carry them discreetly... and then we need to address the potential mental issues, and that sort of thing.

The animals are fiendishly smart, and you could certainly drive yourself crazy trying to cover every possible scenario...

because they have the element of surprise, they have the initiative of planning.

So. how do we identify those who are in need of help? How do we identify those who are just out to do wrong? These questions are far more important, but also more difficult.

And? as painful as it is... a sense of proportion. roughly 50 MILLION children attend k-12 in the US every day.

http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=372

we try our very best to keep them safe, but you can wall yourself in, you cannot wall the world out.

wtf:

I'm not advocating they kill the kids first. I'm saying why make a target more obvious? It makes sense that the gunman would shoot the guy with the gun first, cause he wants to kill as many people as possible. Arming a teacher seems to me like sticking a big red neon sign over the teachers head

OK. Let's examine your logic.

Gunman bursts into the room.

There are 2 groups. Kids, Teacher(s).

One of them is going to be shot first.

Your prior logic was "but they'd be shot first if they had a gun".

With me so far?

Since you were opposing that idea, then the only (realistic) alternative in that scenario is that they're going to shoot the kids first.

Somebody's going to get shot first.

So, given that, I'm not uncomfortable with the teacher being able to shoot BACK - drawing fire if needed - and complicating the job of the guy there to rack up a body count.

Ok, the logic of the thought process aside, the next factual issue is: Spree shooters almost always give up when confronted. When armed opposition approaches, they'll give up or commit suicide.

Again, I'm in favor of that being sooner, rather than later.

And yes, I'm well aware of the great assistance and massively nobel efforts by the Canadians in the world wars. But I wouldn't say they "won the war", by any stretch. Fought above their weight class? By far.

Kevin:

I finally found at least one set of numbers.

Finally? I think that demonstrates it's not a "obvious" situation, then.

That's what I was saying. I'm sure somebody raises insurance rates. But they go up for lots of other reasons.

But your contention was:

Because homeowners' and business owners' insurance rates increase by the mere fact that someone owns a gun.

That's not a "mere fact", but a very contextual and hardly universal situation.

It might increase. I said before it was possible.

And it might even go down if those schools end up being safer.

wtf:

How the hell do you describe maligning Canadians as a reasonable argument?

You're all the same with your beady eyes and flapping heads.

Our homeowners' insurance went down a little because we have an alarm system. No one even asked about firearms.

You're all the same with your beady eyes and flapping heads.

Bwaaahahahaha!!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KBCAg5CWDWE

SwissArmyD:

The animals are fiendishly smart, and you could certainly drive yourself crazy trying to cover every possible scenario...

You don't. Down that path lies the abomination that is (we are assured) the TSA.

You do your best, you layer your defenses, and you plan to be flexible, and presume that the bad guys have your playbook.

Don't expect magic, don't trust in magic, and empower the good people to do their jobs.

Wow -- just woke up from a migraine-induced sleep. More on that below -- and my hope that coconut oil will help.

http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2012/12/19/how_my_dinner_v.html

Lotta comments here. Can't wait to read them.

I see three problems with arming teachers.

Most of them are women.

Most of them are union members.

Most of them are Democrats.

And unfortunately most of the administrators are former teachers.

However, I do remember when I was a kid, that schools had these large boxes in the hallways.

Inside the glass fronted case was a large axe, a firehose, or an extinguisher. Sometimes all three.
In this computer age, I see no reason why a safe or drawer could not have an electronic lock
that could be released with a key code or panic button, and give access to a loaded firearm.

Like for a fire drill, kids should be trained to run, at the sound of shooting, out the door as quickly as possible, not to hide under the desk, and wait for somone to pick them off.

Another excellent solution, is to get the government out of the education business. A private school does not have to answer to every parent taxpayer as to whether security measures are pc or not.

It is now possible to get a better free education off the internet than in most public schools.

For those of you who think public education is a universal right, I point to Japan.

Kevin: "Because homeowners' and business owners' insurance rates increase by the mere fact that someone owns a gun."

BS. I’m still a young man, in my late 50’s, so you may have a lot more experience than I have. I have at various times had homeowner and renter insurance. Never once have I ever been asked on an insurance application or by a sales agent if I own a gun. And I've never heard of anyone who has. Do you claim that you have?

For life and accidental death insurance, I've often been asked if I participate in sky diving, scuba diving, race car driving or spelunking, but I've never been asked about shooting or hunting. And I've never heard of anyone who has. Do you claim that you have?

Unix;

You're right, someone has to be shot first, but while the death of so many so young is horrific, I for one will not advocate the death of an adult over the death of a child, or vice versa. I am not God and would not presume to choose. Which is basically what a part of your argument boils down to, you are asking people to choose the death of one over the other. While the children are innocent and untouched, the adults have just as many loved ones as do the children. And if your argument is their age, I believe, though I would have to look it up, that one of the teachers was only 27. Not a child, certainly, but still way too young to die.

One thing I fail to understand is why it takes a person of any age dying in a mass shooting for America to tackle the question of gun control. Another is why when faced with the need for gun control, so many Americans will scream "You can't take my gun, it's against my rights!!!!" When possession of an object, any object, even a car, becomes a question of public safety, the greater good outweighs any personal freedoms you may feel entitled to. There is the whole slippery slope argument, but I don't see anybody questioning the right to own a grenade.....

As to a shooter offing themselves when confronted, you can't be sure of that. There are those that choose death by cop (would you have a teacher live for the rest of their lives with having to kill someone?) those that are convinced a flak jacket will save them, (never understood how they forget the possibility of a head shot...)and those that are hopped up on drugs and believe they are invincible. Too many variables.

Lets also not forget the off chance that a teacher could slip by unseen and possibly save more children, whereas if they have a gun, I'm pretty sure they'll be noticed!

As for WWI and WWII, if it weren't for Canada's contributions, we would have lost. By we I mean the Allies; without whom the US would not have had the sheer numbers to fight. Vimy, Normandy, the Netherlands... etc etc etc. Canada turned the tide on a number of battles, but we can agree to disagree.

Hey man, you guys can make fun all you want, it's not the US flag people are slapping on their backpacks so they don't get killed! :P

I'd like to point out Besslan school. 300+ dead in a leftist paradise. Free though shitty healthcare, free food (well when there is any), no one but the government has ANY guns, free education (but you study what the gov needs). Britts banned guns yet the IRA had actual assault weapons, full autos. They did go on killing sprees.

If we do not address what is causing this then it will have NO effect except to punish law abiding citizens.

I live in Mass. Strict gun control AND free healthcare cradle to grave welfare (under multiple names), like Canada. Just north is New Hampshire, No gun control no free healthcare and very limited welfare. Mass gun deaths 1.53/100K or 169 total. NH 0.43/100k or 18. California the other brady bunches favorite states 4.82/100k or 2392. These are old stats but the last ones not gathered by the anti 2A lobby. The currently published stats combine suicides with homicides and accidents. Suicides account for the majority of these deaths and have NO correlation to gun laws.

Amy;

What if he happens to be standing in front of a group of second graders in defensive mode? Would he even think about that? They don't have enough training to cover all the possibilities. Even if they do take a course. How intensive could even three courses be?

BTW should read gun Homicides not deaths.

"If owning a gun did decrease your insurance rates, don't you think that fact would be touted by both insurance companies and gun manufacturers?"

Yes. But owning a gun or two or five has no effect on homeowners or renters insurance rates, so there's nothing to tout. If a homeowner had a large, valuable gun collection that he wanted to cover, that would increase his rates for the same reason a valuable coin collection or valuable jewelry would.

Mostly, I agree with the idea of an armed person on campus, but, there are some things we need to consider before we turn our elementary schools into FOrt Apache.

=========================

Keep in mind that school shootings are not an everyday occurence. PUtting extreme measures in place to stop what will never happen in the lives of most of the teachers and students seems like overkill.

=========================

Also, keep in mind that, according to most studies on the subject, education majors are often the least intellectually inclined of students and go through one of the least rigorous curricula in college. Are these the people we want armed around our kids?

=========================

If we want something more than a minimum wage guard providing security at our elementary schools, we're gonna have to pay for it (and it will be unionized).

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

"BEAR TAX! D'OH!"

=========================

You stop school shootings by having two or three people on campus who have more than their bodies to try to stop the shooter.

What happens when the gun falls out of a purse or a holster and a kid picks it up.

What happens when an accidental discharge hits a kid?

Or when a kid gets ahold of a teacher's gun and starts fooling around with it and shoots one of his playmates?

=========================

...then give the school two very well armored and robust gun safes....

And, since schools shootings are so rare, the gun safe is rarely opened or checked.

The staff starts piling stuff in front of the gun safe(s).

The new secretary's desk is pushed up against it because the new copier is larger and takes up more room than the old one (the new one's got a collate tray).

The Dunder-Mifflin delivery guy is directed to stack the reams of paper in front of the gun safe because the paper cabinet is blocked by the stack of computers for the new computer lab ... which is still under construction and won't be complete until sometime in the summer.

The teacher with the combination writes it down (or uses her birthday) and a student gets ahold of the combination.

The staff loses the only remaining key (or copy of the combination). The outgoing principal had it, but he moved to Belize.

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

And the shooter(s), knowing there is a safe, finds it first and start the rampage at the gun safe to make sure no one can get to the guns in time.

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

Uncertainty may be the best defense. If someone connected to the school could be armed....

The solution can't be fixed in one place. It has to be flexible and that means mobile ... with all the attendant dangers mentioned earlier.

=========================

Higher rates of gun ownership are correlated with higher homicide rates and states with stricter gun control laws have fewer deaths from gun-related violence.

There's that often used but not often understood word again, "correlated."

Did you know that higher rates of traffic accidents are correlated with higher numbers of people with driver's licenses?

Is the higher gun ownership caused by the higher level of gun violence as people buy guns for protection? Or have these states with stricter gun control laws found a way to disarm criminals?

And what kind of gun control? Does it include heavier sentences for use of a gun in committing a crime, thus discouraging criminals from using guns?

And what about stabbings, beatings, bombings, poisonings, and stranglings? How do the gun control states rank with those? How does the overall homicide rate compare?

[I'll read the article tonight at home - using computer with IE8 and it's having "compatibility" issues so too many pages are coming up blank.]

=========================

And just so's ya know, most of the gun violence in Canada is committed with guns smuggled from the US.

But still committed by Canadians.

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

Of course, if we ban guns in the US, no one will start smuggling them in from Mexico. 'cause the US is the only problem when it comes to guns.

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

Is that anything like the oft-cited lie about 90% of the guns used in violent crime in Mexico are originally from the US? Even our Secretary of State made a big splash with that little lie.

It turned out that it was 90% of the guns that were actually were tracable.

In 2007 and 2008, Mexican authorities recovered 29,000 firearms at crime scenes in Mexico and submitted 11,000 guns to the ATF for tracing. Out of that 11,000, only 6,000 were successfully traced – 5,114 (90%) of those actually came from the US. So, it turns out that only about 17% of the guns used in violent crimes in Mexico came from the US.

Guns made in the US are marked with serial numbers so they can be traced. Those made in many other countries don't come with serial numbers and cannot be traced. So, it's easy to blame the US.

=========================

...winning world wars I and II for you....

Those Canadian bicycle troops storming ashore at Juno on D-Day were especially helpful. Thank you for those.

And all those Canadian aircraft and tanks came in real handy. Canada truly was the "arsenal of democracy."

=========================

What if he happens to be standing in front of a group of second graders in defensive mode? ... They don't have enough training to cover all the possibilities.

Yeah, it's so much better to just let the kids be gunned down, with no possibility of anyone stopping them.

I sent this to Glenn Reynolds the other day -- from a Libertarian Party press release:

Responsible gun owners can and do prevent mass shootings from occurring and escalating:

A 1997 high school shooting in Pearl, Miss., was halted by the school's vice principal after he retrieved the Colt .45 he kept in his truck.

A 1998 middle school shooting ended when a man living next door heard gunfire and apprehended the shooter with his shotgun.

A 2002 terrorist attack at an Israeli school was quickly stopped by an armed teacher and a school guard.

A 2002 law school shooting in Grundy, Va., came to an abrupt conclusion when students carrying firearms confronted the shooter.

A 2007 mall shooting in Ogden, Utah, ended when an armed off-duty police officer intervened.

A 2009 workplace shooting in Houston, Texas, was halted by two coworkers who carried concealed handguns.

A 2012 church shooting in Aurora, Colo., was stopped by a member of the congregation carrying a gun.

At the recent mall shooting in Portland, Ore., the gunman took his own life minutes after being confronted by a shopper carrying a concealed weapon.

wtf:

You're right, someone has to be shot first, but while the death of so many so young is horrific, I for one will not advocate the death of an adult over the death of a child, or vice versa.

It's not advocacy - it's simple logic. And I'd prefer that a adult, with some control of the situation, be shot rather than a child who has no ability to affect the outcome. Had he waded in with a machete or mace the outcome would have been forgone.

basically what a part of your argument boils down to, you are asking people to choose the death of one over the other.

Yes.

Heard of "Women and Children First"?

There are times when in a civilized society, people draw the line and say "This person will risk their lives for everyone else."

Firefighters. Police (Which has changed in recent years with the advent of the "everybody goes home at the end of the shift" ethos, but still cops understand that they're in a dangerous profession).

Teachers.

They are there in loco parentis and get to decide all sorts of things as a result.

As a result, they take on the responsibilities.

Including protecting the children at their own risk.

That's already there. When it isn't, we won't have a civilized society anymore.

One thing I fail to understand is why it takes a person of any age dying in a mass shooting for America to tackle the question of gun control.

They've been trying - hard - to ban guns (for the citizens) since before I was born.

The "question" is brought up repeatedly, especially by Hollywood and the Big Media, who ignore their hypocrisy (while they have armed guards (not to mention their for-profit status and tax evading)).

Usually, the biggest proponents are just flat-out dishonest. Openly. "Assault weapons" was a good example. Coined by Sugarmann especially to confuse people.

Another is why when faced with the need for gun control, so many Americans will scream "You can't take my gun, it's against my rights!!!!"

Yes.

You have a god-given natural right to your own determination.

You need to think on that concept before denigrating it.

Plus, you have yet to prove a "need".

When possession of an object, any object, even a car, becomes a question of public safety, the greater good outweighs any personal freedoms you may feel entitled to.

I prefer that in the original German.

Do you mind?

There is the whole slippery slope argument, but I don't see anybody questioning the right to own a grenade.....

When the Second Amendment was written, the Founder owned artillery. Ships of war with multiple cannons that routinely fired "Grapeshot" - think a shotgun. Times 1000.

As to a shooter offing themselves when confronted, you can't be sure of that.

No, but historically it's been the case. It's how it's profiled by the experts.

It's what happened in this case.

There are those that choose death by cop (would you have a teacher live for the rest of their lives with having to kill someone?)

Sure. I don't see a problem with that, if the choice is "or let the teacher and a roomful of kids die [so we can score political points]".

Too many variables.

But you're the one planning the one-size-fits-all-solution.

Lets also not forget the off chance that a teacher could slip by unseen

... that's not what I'd call it, but OK.

,em>and possibly save more children, whereas if they have a gun, I'm pretty sure they'll be noticed!

And might stop it right then and there and save far more.

Clackamas Mall Concealed Carry Showdown
12/17/12 - The Truth About Guns [edited]

Jason at EasyBakeGunClub interviewed Nick Meli. Nick carried a gun under a concealed carry permit. He confronted Clackamas mall killer Jacob Roberts, probably saving many lives. Nick didn't fire a shot, but the gunman was afraid of any armed resistance.

=== ===
As the girls took cover Nick, with his gun drawn, moved behind a pillar, looked towards the shots, and saw the gunmen moving towards him.

The gunman turned to cross a walkway bridging the open space and connecting the two sides of the mall, so he could continue his rampage inside the large Macy’s Home Store on the other side, where Nick was standing.

(Nick couldn't shoot because shoppers were at a distance in the background.)

Nick quickly backed into the Macy’s Home Store and took cover while keeping his eyes on the gunman. Despite being outgunned, Nick stayed in cover but visible to the gunman.

The gunman now knew he had an armed person in the mall. This was no longer his gun-free zone. The gunman avoided the Macy’s Home Store and ended his rampage by fleeing to a service corridor and into the stairwell to the lower level. He then took his own life, unbeknownst to everyone in the mall.
=== ===

Say what you like Conan, if it weren't for us, you guys wouldn't have had the numbers.In this case, the cheese does not stand alone. And again, Vimy, Normandy, etc. And Juno was a Canadian victory.

As for still gun violence being committed by Canadians, it would have been a hell of alot harder if not for US guns.( And while what you say about mexico may or may not be true, that's still 17 percent that wouldn't be on the market.

Either way, I am not the one who started the Canada-US debate. I'm merely defending my side of the border. Which you guys attacked. Shocker!!! While we're on the subject, if you guys are so proud of guarding our borders for us,(as pointed out by Crid) how come guns are still getting through?

Say what you like about gun control, I still don't hear anyone arguing about their right to own a grenade. Or their right to sell drugs. Or their right to drive drunk.

Unix;

So teachers, when hired, sign a clause to defend these children with their very lives? Really?

You are right in that society will choose one to defend the other, as in police, firefighter, military. Teachers are there to teach our children, not to defend them with automatic weapons. And women and children? All the teachers there were women. Most elementary teachers are.

And I am not proposing a one size fits all solution, if you read my original entry, which I'm pretty alot of people didn't, I said a balanced approach of BOTH gun control and better access to mental health care are required.

Amy;

If nobody has guns, then it's a moot point. Lot harder to mow down 20 people with a knife.....

BS. I’m still a young man, in my late 50’s, so you may have a lot more experience than I have. I have at various times had homeowner and renter insurance. Never once have I ever been asked on an insurance application or by a sales agent if I own a gun. And I've never heard of anyone who has. Do you claim that you have?

Certainly. State Farm.

Finally? I think that demonstrates it's not a "obvious" situation, then.

Unix, I "finally" found one set of numbers about school district insurance that sprang directly out of the current situation, which is what I'd been looking for all day.

As far as a firearm increasing homeowners' insurance costs: Having a gun in the house will make your rates go up. If your agent didn't ask you about it, good for you. You can likely bring down your cost with trigger locks or other safety measures.

I'm not saying guns make a house more or less safe; I'm saying a firearm in the house is going to make your insurance higher than your neighbor's house without a gun. Don't take my word for it; check with the National Rifle Association.

"One thing I fail to understand is why it takes a person of any age dying in a mass shooting for America to tackle the question of gun control." WTF

You don't understand because you are starting off with the preposition that "Gun Control" IS the correct outcome, and it is only a matter of time until everyone sees that.

A few more people are killed every year in car accidents than by guns... and ~70% of those killed by guns are ACTUALLY killing themselves.

Of the 30% left [~10K] somewhere between 70 and 90% are criminals or have records: http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-08-31-criminal-target_N.htm

So let's say the murder rate is 3000 people a year who AREN'T criminals themselves...

In a nation of ~310,000,000 people that works out to 1:103,333

Hey, isn't that under the average for developed nations [conspicuously NOT including Russia]... some of whose nations don't allow guns to be owned?

All in our nation with more guns than people.

No matter how thin you slice it, it's still baloney. The numbers depend a lot on what you choose to include, and who you choose to look at. My numbers are just back of the napkin musings, 'cuz I dunno what I don't know.

What I do know is that people die every year, every month, every day.

We wish to figure out how to make sure that is isn't an innocent kid on their way to school, who walked only 3 blocks and disappeared. That it isn't a kid in the crosswalk with her mom, killed by a drunk driver [didja know that 13,000 people are killed by drunk drivers every year, many themselves?]

We wish all these things, so we put thought into what can be done.

And EVERY SINGLE STINKING TIME, it starts with a person's decision to effect the outcome of someone else's life.

In a free society, even in a not free society, that is a very wild card.

But at least we have to honor the truth of it.

For all the people concerned about liability and costs associated with arming teachers. I believe the Israelis already have such a program. http://old.nationalreview.com/kopel/kopel200409022215.asp

I remind you that after 9/11 a program was implemented to arm airline pilots. The govt seemed able to deal with the funding and liability issues. As I recall the only people that seemed to have a problem with arming airline pilots was the federal bureaucracy. Congress had to force the bureaucracy to implement the program.

Again on funding, you can't tell me there isn't plenty of pork in state and federal budgets that could be cut in order to provide funding so that our school children don't have to cower in the corner of a room hoping they won't be murdered.

" Amy, the facts disagree with you here:"

I believe people are making a mistake in using that Klein article without looking at the data. If you go to the source for the top graphs:
http://www.kieranhealy.org/blog/archives/2012/07/20/america-is-a-violent-country/

It says "Note that “assault” as a cause of death does not distinguish the mechanism of death (gunshot, stabbing, etc). If anyone knows of a similar time series for gun-related deaths only, let me know."

So the data is based on death by assault... NOT death by gun.

I also suspect the later graph of the states based on a couple things:
1. It says "deaths due to injury by firearms" which includes suicides at least, and anyone that wants to kill themselves will simply find another way.
2. I suspect the data used or at least it's being highly swayed by higher population centers in some states. Places like Chicago have huge issues with gun violence (despite stricter laws there) yet it's colored as one of the lowest states, death wise.

wtf: "It makes sense that the gunman would shoot the guy with the gun first, cause he wants to kill as many people as possible."

No, it makes sense that one or more of three or four staff members with a gun would have shot the psycho first and stopped him from killing any more defenseless children. The psycho at the elementary school stopped killing children and killed himself when other people with guns showed up. It makes sense that the he would have killed more defenseless children and adults if the people with guns had taken longer to arrive, and would have killed fewer if people with guns had arrived sooner or been there already.

The psycho at Fort Hood shot down defenseless people unhindered until men and women with the guns finally showed up. They shot it out with him, and that was the end of it.

The Aurora psycho shot down defenseless people unhindered until guys with guns showed up. Then he instantly surrendered.

The psycho at VT shot down defenseless people unhindered, and then shot himself when guys with guns finally showed up.

The psychos at Columbine shot down defenseless high school students and teachers unhindered, and then shot themselves when guys with guns finally showed up.

The Oregon Mall psycho shot himself after seeing an armed citizen point a gun at him.

The psycho who shot down four defenseless people at a youth camp in Arvada, Colorado, where there were no guns except his, later attacked and shot down five defenseless people at a church in Colorado Springs - until a woman with a gun at the church shot him multiple times. He then killed himself. The pastor of the church said the armed woman may have saved over 100 lives.

Armed, peaceful, law abiding, private citizens are remarkably effective with their guns when defending themselves, their families and fellow peaceful citizens. They rarely fire more rounds than necessary, and rarely hit innocent bystanders.

> Hey man, you guys can make fun all you want,

In the big moments, it's never funny:

When Mr. Chrétien says that Canada will stand "shoulder to shoulder" with the Americans, he is, in fact, describing exactly where we won't be standing. "Shoulder to shoulder" is a military expression, for comrades in arms marching forward on the field of battle.

125,566 miles of coastline, more than any other nation, and moistened by three oceans... But across my adult life and probably all of yours, precisely zero carriers in the water.

> it's not the US flag people are slapping on
> their backpacks so they don't get killed! :P

The patootie-smile cartoon at the end is the perfect touch, especially after the exclamation point: It's fun to be the teenage boy living over the garage who smokes dope and laughs at Dad, who has to drive to work everyday and pay taxes.

Of course should express whatever opinion you want; of course you should.

"Hey man."

It's just very difficult to take you seriously.

Kevin,

You say State Farm has higher premiums for gun owners. Odd, I have my homeowners and umbrella policy with State Farm. They have never asked me if I own a firearm. Infer therefore, they are not concerned with whether I own a firearm because their premium structure is not affected by it.

This makes sense since firearm accidentally firearm fatalities have been declining for years. You are more likely to be injured from household poisons or your bathtub than by a firearm.

> Remember me now do you? LMAO! Awwww....

No. I thought you were a guy...

(Does that happen a lot?)

...And still don't remember the exchange that got under your skin.

Everyone!: Take out a pen and write down the first three things the come to mind, word associations style.

Ready?

Go!

Canadian competence.

(1.) _________________

(2.) _________________

(3.) _________________

Turn in your work by 10am Thursday. And remember, Shatner lives in L.A. now.

Kevin: "Certainly. State Farm."

Who're you trying to BS? I've been insured by State Farm, as a homeowner, a renter, a driver and live person for the past 23 years. They don't care whether or not you own a gun - as evidenced by the fact that they never mention it, verbally or in writing.

If nobody has guns, then it's a moot point.

Again, there are laws against drugs and I can walk a few blocks, buy them (and any guns I might want), and be back at my place ready to shoot up or shoot somebody within 15 minutes.

Your extreme naivete might be charming, but for the subject matter.

I still don't hear anyone arguing about their right to ... to drive drunk.

Nobody's arguing for their right to shoot guns drunk either. The argument being made is in favor of responsible gun ownership.

And nobody's arguing that because cars cause so much death, they should be banned.

=========================

...if it weren't for [Canadians], you guys wouldn't have had the numbers.

While Canadian soldiers performed valorously, in terms of sheer numbers, Canadian manpower was not significant factor in the war.

According to Wikipedia: "Approximately half of Canada's army and three-quarters of its air-force personnel never left the country, compared to the overseas deployment of approximately three-quarters of the forces of Australia, New Zealand, and the United States."

Canada suffered 45,400 military deaths in World War II. The United States suffered 416,800 (including Coast Guard and Merchant Marine).

However, Canada's casualties were a greater percentage of its population (0.4% compared to 0.32%).

Which means Canada did not contribute the tide-turning numbers of manpower you seem to think. It's 1939 population was too small (US: 131.028 million vs. Canada: 11.267 million). Even Germany dwarfed Canada in terms of population (69.850 million).

The British Second Army hit Gold, Juno, and Sword beaches on June 6, 1944 (D-Day) with 83,115 men - of which 61,715 were British (i.e., not Canadian).

The US Army hit Omaha and Utah beaches the same day with 73,000 men (none were Canadian).

Of the 7,106 naval vessels supporting the invasion, only 121 were from the Royal Canadian Navy.

Thank God you guys were there to turn the tide. What would we have done without you?

=========================

If nobody has guns, then it's a moot point. Lot harder to mow down 20 people with a knife.....

Not if none of them have a knife.

=========================

It's fun to be the teenage boy living over the garage who smokes dope and laughs at Dad, who has to drive to work everyday and pay taxes.

Of course should express whatever opinion you want; of course you should.

"Hey man."

It's just very difficult to take you seriously.

That's exactly wtf's attitude, right down the wink-wink moniker.

It was bugging me how to describe it.

Mention it to them and see what they do.

The psychos will go to the gun free zones first. That is because they generally don't have to worry about anyone shooting back immediately.

In the film's audience in Aurora, CO there were eight CCW licensees. They weren't carrying because of the gun buster sign on the front door.

Even if you don't add armed security, but just take down the gun buster signs, the appearance of the target changes. Even if none of the teachers are carrying concealed, the psycho won't know if a parent might be around who might be a CCW.

As for worrying about a kid getting his hands on a teacher's firearm, the whole point of carrying concealed is that nobody is supposed to know you're carrying. Whenever you're out in public, look around and identify all the people around you that are carrying concealed. One of the first things an NRA instructor will discuss is how to safely and securely carry a firearm. You don't just shove it in the waistband of your jeans.

I don't find the comparison between guns and drugs compelling. I don't know anyone who is addicted to guns and would do anything to be able to squeeze a trigger from time to time. Gun purchases aren't like that.

I don't support a gun ban, mostly because I think any ban we passed would be so full of loopholes as to be worthless, and there are too many guns on the street already. I do support rational restrictions on gun ownership, like background checks, licensing and limits on ammo. Guns aren't like cars. When used as intended, their purpose is to kill living things, and it's not too much to ask that we at least try to keep whack jobs from owning them. That said, none of those things would have mattered in Newtown.

We seem to have some national John McClain fantasy in which an average person becomes a smoking badass. It happens sometimes. More often, some asshat accidentally shoots his son in a parking lot. It's not enough that people have guns. It's not even enough that they train on the range. We're asking people to throw themselves into combat, and acting appropriately in a combat situation requires training, not just a desire to be helpful. Even cops and soldiers don't always shoot where they intend to. "Friendly fire" is a phrase for a reason.

The situation matters, too. A person is more likely to be effective when he has a few moments to collect himself, the lighting is good, etc. You're less likely to be effective in a dark, crowded theater, with people screaming and running all around you. When a guy is wearing body armor, he expects armed resistance and isn't likely to go quietly just because someone else has a gun. Someone who is willing to kill himself likely isn't going to be a pushover, either.

Arming teachers and school administrators is insane. What do we do when a teacher goes nuts and fires on her students, or overreacts to a situation, or has her gun stolen?

These kinds of massacres are awful, but they don't happen often enough to warrant the kind of knee-jerk reaction that gave us the TSA.

Whoa...leave for few minutes.....

I could argue all the different points, but since you guys have written a book since I've been gone (about thirty minutes, boy you guys sure love your guns....) I'll stick to two main points. Crid, it's useless to argue with you because you're just anti-canadian no matter what anyone says. I'll just point out that you're an arrogant bigot, and leave it at that.

1. You need a license to buy a fire arm in Canada. Canada has way fewer mass shootings than the US, even taking population into account.
2. No one argues the right to own a grenade.
3. No one wants to argue access to mental health, which is the root cause. Less crazy people equals less gun violence.

Night All!

Conan and Crid, you can both bite the whitest part of my ass. Which, in the true north, is pretty damned white.

Whoa...leave for few minutes.....

I could argue all the different points, but since you guys have written a book since I've been gone (about thirty minutes, boy you guys sure love your guns....) I'll stick to two main points. Crid, it's useless to argue with you because you're just anti-canadian no matter what anyone says. I'll just point out that you're an arrogant bigot, and leave it at that.

1. You need a license to buy a fire arm in Canada. Canada has way fewer mass shootings than the US, even taking population into account.
2. No one argues the right to own a grenade.
3. No one wants to argue access to mental health, which is the root cause. Less crazy people equals less gun violence.

Night All!

Conan and Crid, you can both bite the whitest part of my ass. Which, in the true north, is pretty damned white.

The point is that anyone who really wants a gun can get one. Same as drugs.

Also, it isn't just hard-bitten addicts who buy drugs.

A good article from Mother Jones looks at the idea that ordinary citizens make a difference. It seems in almost all cases, the Good Samaritan has training beyond that of the Average Joe. Or it ends horribly.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/12/armed-civilians-do-not-stop-mass-shootings

I'm really glad none of the movie-goers in Aurora had guns. Imagine if several had tried to be heroes, the mess in trying to figure out where bullets where coming from, who was shooting, and who was a bad guy and who was a good guy.

Of course. Anyone who really wants a gun can get one. But making it harder might dissuade casual gun buyers, maybe even people like Nancy Lanza. The nature of drugs makes this a different sort of scenario.

That said, I don't think banning guns is the answer to massacres like this one. But comparing guns to drugs doesn't work, either.

Amy is right, making something illegal or banning it doesn't get rid of it, whether it's drugs (especially pot), underage drinking, guns, etc. So you take them away from law abiding citizens and just leave them to the criminals. Lots of unhappy (and perhaps dead) jewelry store owners in LA won't thank you for that.
Canada has a lower homicide rate period, well demonstrated and largely due to the lesser degree of economic inequality when compared to the US. Not due to the availability of guns. Half my family had guns when I lived in Canada and I have guns living in the US. I had a background check here in California same as back home.
If we want to reduce the risk of mass violence like some of the recent shootings, we should be working on getting better at picking up on the signs of "crazy about to blow f*cker" and doing something about it.

"3. No one wants to argue access to mental health, which is the root cause. Less crazy people equals less gun violence." WTF

that's interesting, I've said it several times... can't be the only one.

"2. No one argues the right to own a grenade." WTF

Nope. Why would we? It's not the same kind of weapon, isn't a force multiplier because of accuracy issues... and isn't mentioned in the Bill of Rights that I can see.

"1. You need a license to buy a fire arm in Canada. Canada has way fewer mass shootings than the US, even taking population into account." WTF

Yeah, and? You have just as many guns, though many are long guns, roughly 29% of housholds have them. and as of April 2012, unrestricted guns no longer need to be registered, though I don't attempt to know the ins and outs of all the different variations... so it must be something else that has nothing to do with guns, right?

Gee, wtf gets rebutted, gets nasty. Another deluded person who learned about guns in the dark, with popcorn in his lap. Must be an Occupy Wall Streeter.

Canada's gun control program is widely reported as an expensive waste. You might recall the enormous wilderness up there. Just like the USA, the nation is not all cities.

Meanwhile, no US provision for concealed carry has resulted in more deaths or more crime. Rather, the opposite. Clue: concealed carry permit holders jump through hoops to do that.

If you argue against the responsible possession of firearms, you're arguing to have yourself presumed guilty absent any action. That's sort of self-fulfilling: you shouldn't own a gun, because you don't know the first thing about them, or about people other than you think they're all nasty and need to be controlled.

Because this isn't about guns. It's about people. In the end, you can't control guns, just the people.

By the way: in this area (Augusta, GA), every dealer is sold out of AR-15's. There were about 200 in inventory among the few shops. Shippers are busy full-time, phones busy, resupplying those who are sure that they are going to be penalized yet again for the actions of some madman.

Say - is the madman really alone? Is there a national madness? No? Then how do you explain flags at half-staff for this? We've just elevated the actions of a sicko to the status of a lifetime of service as a President or Supreme Court justice.

Perspective: I have a copy of a 1958 issue of American Rifleman. In it, there's an ad for a Solothern 20mm gun - for $189.95. Ammo for it - yes, 20mm armor-piercing, half-pound projectile, good for 2" steel at 1km, was $75 for 100 rounds.
Know of any crime with that one?

This is such bullshit, blaming first the gun and then the law-abiding for the Connecticut massacre. Don't participate. You'll advertise your complete spinelessness.

"Higher rates of gun ownership are correlated with higher homicide rates"

Wow, this is a complete and utter lie. The facts actually show the exact opposite, and it is literally just half an hour work for anyone here to confirm it themselves. I know, I've done it. You can download the datasets for gun ownership rates by state, homicide rates by state, load them in Excel, and do a simple curve fit - the inverse correlation shows up immediately.

Still, it's not surprising that gun control advocates lie blatantly, since they are immoral, and lying is just another immoral behaviour. If they had principles, they would neither lie nor be for gun control.

"If nobody has guns, then it's a moot point."

Can we all have ponies in this fantasy-land?

If 'nobody' has guns, then if armed attackers invade your home you would be completely defense while they raped and murdered your wife and children in front of your eyes.

Our natural rights do not derive from statistics. Self-defense is a basic human right. It is THE most basic human right.

Still, it's not surprising that gun control advocates lie blatantly, since they are immoral, and lying is just another immoral behaviour. If they had principles, they would neither lie nor be for gun control.

That's ridiculous. It's easy to say, "People who interpret the facts differently than I do are immoral," but that doesn't make it true. The answer to whether gun ownership is correlated with homicide rates (more importantly, gun-related homicide rates) changes depending on how you fiddle with the numbers.

http://www.cato.org/guns-and-self-defense/

http://www.nber.org/digest/feb01/w7967.html

See, we can both do it.

so MonicaP... what KIND of gun ownership? Based on the strict rules of chicago, there isn't much gun ownership, and yet a very high homicide rate... mostly of other criminals.

What kind of gun ownership is that, and how are they calculating it?

That's my point, SwissArmyD. There are numbers to support both positions, depending on how you want to squint at them. But there's a paper here:

http://www.nber.org/papers/w9336.pdf?new_window=1

When you're working with correlation, you can "prove" just about anything.

"since they are immoral, and lying is just another immoral behaviour. If they had principles, they would neither lie nor be for gun control."

Yet, punishing people who have done absolutely nothing wrong based on zero evidence these measures curb mass shootings is somehow moral? How moral is it to punish those who have done nothing wrong? Take away their rights to protect themselves and turn them into potential defenseless victims?

Nice false alternative by the way. Sloppy thinking.

On what planet do you reside?

...who want to blame things instead of people...

It is a person, of course, who makes the decision to murder innocent people.

However, it is the type of things that person uses to murder innocent people which determines the degree of the slaughter.

Three years ago in November, a guy walked into a coffee shop in a suburb of Tacoma. He murdered four cops who were sitting together (and all four cops were armed.) Could he have done this with a knife? No. A baseball bat? No. A tire iron? No. He probably could have killed one cop if he used one of those things. Perhaps even two. But not all four. So what thing did he use to murder all four cops?

Any gunman is going to shoot at the guy holding a gun first, and that person is going to have next to no experience in firing a weapon or avoiding a bullet, even if they take a course.

Wow, assuming that the gunman is some Rambo-like figure firing an M-60, miraculously knowing whom to target first and hitting them straight away with minimal effort!

Fact of life: unless the shooter has seen actual combat, they're just as green as the people they're attempting to engage. Unless, of course, they've seen actual combat in which case leg up for the defender.

Also rookie cops on the street have as much training avoiding bullets. Which is to say "don't expose yourself needlessly to fire". And many cops take their time at the range when they need to qualify, and no other time.

Another thing: it's a lot harder to kill people if they're shooting at you. And it will force the shooter to slow down: he must clear every room or risk being shot in the back.

I'll leave you with this thought: any competent chemist can create sarin. All they need after that is a little HVAC training...

I'll have to read it extensively, MonicaP... One think I note is that it's 10 years old, and working with ~20 year old data... so I wonder if they've done something newer... I'll also be curious to find out if they are looking at criminal on criminal crime, or only criminal on civilian. Data granularity is an interesting thing. Thanks for the link.

Whoa! What's up with all the Canuck IGNORANCE!? Chill your Yanky xenophobic rhetoric already!

Canada Test

1. Hockey
2. Maple Syrup
3. Peace
4. Comedians
5. Clean Water 6. Manners
7. Humilty
8. No PACS!
9. Neil Young, Leonard Cohen*
10. Banting and Best - Insulin! All you fat-assed Twinky-stuffed Yanks would be dead without it.
11. Alexander Graham Bell - Ahhhh, yes the Father of the Annoying American Bluetooth Obnocto-Yuppy talking loud on the public transit!

....and that's just without Googling.

*Sorry about Nickelback, Celine Dion and Justin Bieber. :D

Also, LANZA WAS A FUCKING VEGAN! There's your god-damn answer. Yeah. I said it. Read Dr. Emily Dean's blog Evolutionary Psychiatry. Asperger's my ass. Just stop all this bullshit about gun control. Listen below to Canadian comedian Jon Lajoie's opinion on gun control here and then please all of you STFU! The latest American media shit-storm will be along any second to distract you like a shiny penny.

http://m.youtube.com/#/watch?v=xC03hmS1Brk&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DxC03hmS1Brk

and so, JD, I should be punished for that, because.

right?

"So what thing did he use to murder all four cops?"

Could he have murdered all four using an automobile?

Hi Amy,

Yes, I know, people commit violent crimes not guns, but, maybe, just maybe accessibilty might just have something to do with it. Take a look at the stats:

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_wit_fir-crime-murders-with-firearms

Canada is next door, and yet has 60X fewer gun related deaths.

And then last week in China a similar rage incident to the one in Connecticut, in which children were targeted resulted in stabbing injuries only, and although certainly traumatic, those children went home to their families.

The right to bear arms would have been important in frontier days, but seems quite silly in this day and age. I suspect that if the principal or teachers had been armed, there may have been even more casualties due to crossfire amidst the pandemonium.

"The right to bear arms would have been important in frontier days, but seems quite silly in this day and age."

See!! See!

"Muskets!". "Obsolete!". "Canada"!

Here is one for you guys....

IRRELEVANT.

(I swear this shit is getting creepy.)

Hey! Let's arm the teachers with 2nd Amendment-era muskets! LMAO! Americans have NO idea how fucking stupid they look on the world stage. Ever since something called a George W and a Tea Party kidnapped your democracy and corporations became people! Your problems will continue to get worse while you value money over humanity. Where's Nero and his fiddle when we need him?! Carry on! Business as usual!

"Muskets!!!!"

Bacon bits. We are a Republic you moron.

Swiss, I was merely pointing out the fallacy of the very common "only people, not the weapons they possess, matter" argument. Four dead cops in Lakewood are a testament to that.

"Americans have NO idea how fucking stupid they look on the world stage."

Ah, the world stage, where Canada plays the part of Second Spear Carrier and never the leading man.

That being said, I think Canada is very pretty in parts. Especially the women in Montreal. Those parts.

"The right to bear arms would have been important in frontier days, but seems quite silly in this day and age."

Except for one, overriding, smack-your-own forehead thing:

The rulers of a country have access to arms.

Who are you?

If you cannot be armed, you are not in charge, no matter how you whine, 1st Amendment or not.

FSM deliver me from the Kumbaya crowd.

This statement of your reveals appalling ignorance about the entire purpose of private arms. It's not about hunting, or even self-defense against Indians or wildlife. It's about being able to say, "No!" when government comes calling.

You have no idea about history. Go back and tell your school you were cheated of an education.

Want a ban?

Haven't you noticed? Bans are only for some people.

Do you imagine you'll be exempt, or included in a ban? See, if you're exempt, how do you show you're deserving? If not, you will be told what to do by someone with a gun, and you have handed over the keys to your own shackles for a promise that they won't hurt.

That's some sickness.

Want more?

The President's own ancestors were saved from Klansmen by their own armed hands. Law enforcement actually worked FOR THE KKK to attack activists pushing literacy and sufferage for blacks!

Can you GET any sicker than to throw that away?

Could he have murdered all four using an automobile?

Sure, that's possible. But that just helps make my point: the thing a murderer chooses to use determines the amount of the carnage.

> Your problems will continue to get worse
> while you value money over humanity.

How old are you? Did you ever run a business? Ever hire anybody? Ever...

Fuggit. "Your problems will continue" until you kiss a girl.




The thing about all comparative studies is that once you've completed the actual calculations, two important conclusions are indisputable:

1.) The other nation being described as more civilized than the United States is very largely if not wholly dependent on the United States for international security, financial infrastructure, and similar foundations of comity. To this day. Wednesday as I type.

2.) The other nation is not the United States... Not as good as we are with opportunity, sexual fulfillment, globally-stunning cultural advances (Film! Jazz! Internet!), or any other number of achievements. (Men on the moon, forty years ago, before we got bored with it. [Bee-yotch])

You wanna live somewhere else because people are nicer and fluffier there? Have at it. Go to town.

But don't kid yourself. The United States is the SIGNAL of human dignity, aspiration, and progress. There are no contenders. We're the source code: We show them how.

"the thing a murderer chooses to use determines the amount of the carnage. "

And if the victims have a moment to fight back, the weapons they choose determine the amount of bloody defense.

"I've got a gun!"

*I have harsh words and tears!*

Game. Set. Match.

Republic Schmublic. What a joke. Elected? Yeah. If you got the dough! Hahahaha!

We are quite happy to be the US second banana spear joke and America's geographical hat! Don't think for one sweet fuck a second that we ever kid ourselves about your bloated self-interest and remain grateful as fuck while we are at it! It's kinda like being born into a rich family. Just circumstances. All that money we save on machines of war? We spend it on HEALTH CARE. For people. And sanctuary for Darwin the Ikea Monkey! Get your priorities straight. Sheesh!

No, Radwaste, you can't get much sicker.

But there is a severe national epidemic of oikophobia in the US, and gun ownership is just so "redneck" you know.

This isn't about logic and reality,

This is about people who are so bloody superior in their utopian stupidity that they would stand in front of an onrushing freight train, waving the UN charter.

It would never occur to them that Newtonian physics could not be repealed by a duly appointed legislative body.

"Signal of human dignity."

ROTFLMFAO!

Have you checked your incarcerated citizen stats lately?

How about you signal yourself a reality check.

Ahhhh, the internet. The only place where people "can put a porcupine in a barn, set it on fire, and expect to make licorice".
http://i2.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/original/000/000/348/retarded.jpg

With an AR-15, it don't matter if you run! -- wtf at December 19, 2012 11:36 AM

That shows your ignorance. An AR-15 is a semi-automatic .223/5.56 which is only slightly larger than a .22 bullet. Yes it has more muzzle velocity, but it isn't a magic light saber that will kill everything in it's path.

It might penetrate a typical wall, but probably won't penetrate two. Yes you can have a thirty round magazine, if not more. But you have to squeeze the trigger for each shot.

An AR-15 isn't a special kill them all gun.

"Gun control is no more effective at stopping people from getting guns than the drug laws are at stopping people from getting drugs.I can get either just blocks from my house. All it takes is the cash."

But drug laws DO help prevent people from getting drugs. Not completely of course--no one is naive enough to argue that. But they do serve as a deterrent and inconvenience. Depending on where you live, who you are, and who you know, the inconvenience might be minor enough to be negligible--(not surprising that's the case in LA.) But someone not "in the know" likely has no clue where to even begin getting ahold of anything illegal, or may find it too difficult to be worth the effort. And just the fact that it's illegal is deterrent enough for many people.

Applying this to gun control, true, the inner city gang member with a criminal record and connections to the mob is always going to have access to illegal guns, (and more likely than not was buying them illegally in the first place.) But the type of nerdy suburban white kid who historically commits these school shootings does not. I mean, can you really see Adam Lanza going downtown to buy a gun on the black market? How about his mom? Not saying that it couldn't happen, but it's a heck of a lot more work than grabbing one out of the living room.

Of course, the problem with this line of thought is that it takes guns out of the hands of the law-abiding and concentrates them in the hands of criminals--no one wants that. On the other hand, less guns in circulation means less guns in the hands of criminals in the first place. And unlike drugs, guns cannot be cooked up or grown in your backyard, smuggled in your bodily cavities, or flushed down the toilet. So you'd think that we'd have at least some measure of control over their manufacture and distribution. And frankly the thought of guns in the hands of a suicidal suburban psychopath scares me more than guns in the hands of an inner city gang member--I can avoid a driveby shooting in the ghetto by not driving through the ghetto, but when people starting shooting up elementary schools then no one is safe.

None of this is to say that we should ban guns, or impose draconian gun laws. But pretending like such laws would have absolutely zero effect is silly. The questions we need to ask are it what will the effects be, what are the trade-offs, and are they worth it? And what system of controls will promote getting more guns into the right hands (and at the right time), and less guns in the wrong hands?

(My two cents: 1) Less gun permits overall but more concealed carry permits, the logic being that if you're not qualified to carry a gun around then you probably shouldn't have it in the first place; if you are qualified to own a gun you ought to have it around when you might actually need to use it. 2) 1-2 per person limit--should be all that's needed for self-defense unless you can show that you actually hunt or have another valid use. Combine these two measures and you significantly decrease the odds of guns falling into the wrong hands and increase the odds that they'll be in the right hands during a crisis situation.)

Not Afraid:

http://on.fb.me/T8Hly7

> Have you checked your incarcerated
> citizen stats lately?

Should we send them to you? Naw... As PJ put it twenty five years ago:

I’d rather be a junkie in a New York City jail than king, queen and jack of all you Europeans.

I really love that accent. It's like fuckin' endearing, eh?

Just to be clear, maybe for new kids: I ain't got no quarrel with the Great White Northerners...

Dan Ackroyd did some good skits in the 1970's!

(He did them in New York.)

(But still!)

(Seriously... Tuzo. Props!)

But being scolded by dim bulbs from lesser and/or dependent cultures is not something we're required to be patient with.

Not new. And no kid. Pooor wittle Crid. Feels "scolded". What a pompous windbag. "Lesser" culture? You wear your American arrogance predictably well. Yawn. Pass the Grey Poupon!

Word.

> You wear your American arrogance predictably well.

It's a mix of birthright and practice... You wouldn't believe how often this comes up.

No, really... You wouldn't understand.

What the hell is the problem w/ Canadiens?
Dunno what that has to do with guns, since they have AS MANY PER CAPITA AS US.

it ain't the guns...

But there are many other differences. My thought is that they're just lucky at this point. Because the ACTUAL gun violence rate is the same when you only account for INNOCENT victims, and NOT gang violence. Don't have as much gang violence there, eh? Is it luck, or a homogeneous society. I've heard that the native peoples fare no better there, to both our shames.

In any case, it's kinda tough to point to any 2 countries and really compare them. Doesen't Canada compare better with Australia in demos?

We dun have to care much about the world stage. This is the place many people came to get AWAY from that world.

If you have a better way, spill. But don't point to your own gun control that is considered an expensive failure and say it's shiney. You can polish it, but it still smells bad.

ROTFLMFAO!

Your mom should revoke your Internet privileges for a week for using that.

Hmm. Lots of magical thinkers in the mix tonight.

As a firm believer in individual rights, I'm pretty much on board with allowing most people to own (and wield, if needed) firearms.

Conversely, I'm not opposed to reasonable (and realistic) restrictions to ownership (background checks and so forth).

Now, for those who would restrain and / or diminish individual rights of gun ownership, can you affirmatively (and accurately) answer the following?

1. Can you describe (accurately and in detail) the difference between a semiautomatic weapon and and automatic weapon?

2. Can you identify the name of the act that limits automatic weapons (among others), and the year it was implemented?

3. Demonstrate, with unambiguous empirical proof, how any solution that you want to implement would have prevented the Newtown tragedy (you don't get to use magical thinking solutions like having all firearms vanish in a puff of smoke).

4. And, finally, tell us how your proposed solution isn't the equivalent of trying to fight drunk driving by preventing sober people from driving.

" On the other hand, less guns in circulation means less guns in the hands of criminals in the first place. And unlike drugs, guns cannot be cooked up or grown in your backyard, smuggled in your bodily cavities, or flushed down the toilet"

This is a misconception. Gun circulation is not affected by legal personal ownership. Let me give you an example: The CIA has admitted to giving American made firearms to drug cartels. And tons of them. So it's not a person, individual who is affecting gun circulation.

What about it's manufacture and distribution? Can we control that? Nope, because we are not the only country making and distributing guns. You are right, people can't smuggle guns like you are assuming they smuggle drugs. But drugs are not smuggled or made like that anyways. It's an intricate system created by billionaires who can afford to buy submarines, build underground tunnels into US territory, pay off British banks to funnel their money and basically own a whole country south of the border. They'll be more than happy to get into the Chinese made gun game anyways.

As for it being harder for a psychopath to get guns because he's nerdy, white, suburban. He can make bombs, or buy guns illegally if he really wants to. And if he wants to kill kids he prob. really wants to.

Oh, and just for grins:

An awful lot of the 'dignitaries' who believe we need more restrictions on gun ownership seem to either own guns or are surrounded by other people who carry guns (i.e., Murdoch, Bloomberg, Feinstein, and so on).

In what way are they more deserving of this kind of protection?

In what way are they better qualified than someone who has properly completed a concealed carry course?

What makes their lives more valuable than ours?

And, if they get what they want (no guns in the hands of private citizens), will they then give up their guns (or their security forces)?

I'm pretty much guessing they won't.

To paraphrase Glenn Reynolds, "I'll believe they're serious about gun control when they give up the guns that keep around for 'their protection.'

> tell us how your proposed solution isn't the
> equivalent of trying to fight drunk driving by
> preventing sober people from driving.

A good comparison, but this is more pungent.

Now, I get to expand on Purple Pen's comment. :)

Guess what? Guns *can* be whipped up in the backyard, or in some apartment.

Ever heard of zip guns?

And that's the tip of the iceberg.

3d printers can make a receiver (and the other parts are simply a CNC machine away).

It's trivial to make a firearm (hell, they were being made centuries ago by some guy with a forge, for God's sake). You really think it's that much of a challenge now?

I personally know several people who have all of the equipment needed to create and build any manner of firearm, should I so choose. And I'm not particularly special in that regard.

This is the heart of the falsehood underlying those who want 'gun control.'

First, there are millions of these weapons already in circulation. If a bad guy wants them, he'll get them.

Second, it is trivially easy to create them with easily available machinery. Again, if a bad guy wants them, he'll get them.

This is the big thing that utterly evades the gun control crowd. At the *best*, even if everything they ever want is implemented, it only prevents the law abiding. It has no effect, whatsoever, on the criminals.

> A good comparison, but this is more pungent.

Yep, I liked that one, also.

It has the advantage of pissing off even more control freaks.

This came to mind when reading Amy's first line.

Read this:

Pietro Beretta and Sons - est. 1591

Oh, yeah. Guns are a NEW threat!

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

Major peeve: that the majority of people claiming righteous indignation that someone, somewhere possesses a gun - and who refuses, refuses to either learn about them or lift a finger in theri own defense - will not hesitate to call people with guns when their tender pink skin is threatened. They'll beg and plead with the police to have the thug shredded.
And then call the cop a pig.

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

You want a taste of reality? Here it is:

You've spent so long reclining in comfort, protected by rough men willing to do violence on your behalf, in your defense, that you cannot even recognize that the Newton massacre is what happens when they aren't around.

OK. Thanks for clearing this up for me. We're not so quick on the uptake here in the great white north. Must be the sub-zero temperatures.

What I now understand is that you're basically past hope. So while the adults are defending themselves from each other and your "land of the free" government, with assault rifles, please, please, at the very least arm every one of your children with bullet proof vests. They don't have a choice in the matter.

> Must be the sub-zero temperatures.

No, it's characterological.

> What I now understand is that you're
> basically past hope.

By my count you're either the third or the fourth aggrieved Canadian in this thread to witlessly intrude with schoolboy taunts during what is, in fact, an hour of mourning. There've been maybe a dozen of you over the years, and I enjoyed fucking with you each time.

Is it possible that any Americans have ever been peering across the border into Canadian blogs with your same attitude, eager to so fecklessly and vacuously claim the high moral ground in a matter of your interior dignity?

No. Not possible. You're Canadian... Nobody gives a fuck.

We're Americans, and we're full of people who want GREATER responsibility for their own safety, including FROM VIOLENCE, at any cost. This is not ironic to us: WE GET IT, m'kay? It's the daring and courageous component in our character that makes us the world leaders in so many respects. We wake up with roaring boners as others have already surrendered their belief that something great can happen that day, even before dawn.

Canadians, man.... Sheesh.

So while the adults are defending themselves from each other and your "land of the free" government, with assault rifles, please, please, at the very least arm every one of your children with bullet proof vests. They don't have a choice in the matter. -- OMCTC at December 20, 2012 4:39 AM

Please define an assault rifle for me.

Because if you are referring to the AR-15 or the AK-47 civilian equivalent -- no regular military unit in the world uses them. And just do a search for .223 semi-auto and you will find many other rifles that the same capability but isn't a "black" gun.

So sorry if anyone understood this to be a taunt. It was actually meant to express a cry of desperation for 20 young lives who died needlessly. This is the first time I have ever felt compelled to commented on a political blog entry.

I am so horribly upset about this atrocity as are all the commenters (American, Canadian, the rest of the world) who are questioning the "more guns are the answer mentality." It seems so absurd to us that our incredulity comes off as sarcasm.

And we are similarly incredulous at your naïveté, as well as your presumption.

Thanks fer checkin' in... We got this.

Bye now.

Yeah, well, incredulous or not, wrapping kids up in bullet proof vests isn't the answer either. Are you as "horribly upset" about all the crap going on in Syria and elsewhere in the Middle East? No? Because, you know, far removed and all that? Try living in the same state; hell try living in the town where it happened, you want to be "horribly upset". Drive up and down Route 25 and look at ALL the roadside memorials. Go down Churchill Road to the Sandy Hook area of town and look at the media circus. They're still there, imposing on the families' privacy, causing all kinds of traffic tie-ups at the funeral homes. And still they keep coming.
You are so far removed from it all, it's easy to sit in your cozy chair and make all kinds of assertions. Want to "express a cry of desperation"? That's not what's needed. Make a donation, there are plenty of sites on which to do so. WTNH.com is just one of the local news stations. Go. Donate. I double dog date you. I did. Light a candle. I did. A plethora of them. But don't come on here pretending to care and offering asinine "solutions". There are no solutions. What's done is done. Time for healing and reasonable solutions, not knee-jerk reactions. As if banning ANYthing is going to bring back all those lives lost.

Because, you know, it won't.

Sorry that should read "double-dog daRe you". Still. Go donate. Put your money where your mouth is.

(Almost a simulpost, Crid. Still I loves ya.)

"A cry of desperation."

THAT's how to use quotation marks, Ommy.

Whatever you comments were about, it wasn't compassion... I'd never believe that in a million years.

"It was actually meant to express a cry of desperation for 20 young lives who died needlessly. This is the first time I have ever felt compelled to commented on a political blog entry. "

Doooooooo something! Actually, I'm going to tell you exactly what you are. You're a narcissistic status-seeker who wants to be able to claim that you were on the "right" side of the issue and that, by your advocacy, you saved lives. Because you were politically correct. A member in good standing of the Tribe of Leftism. And that makes you a fundementally better human being than everyone else. Right?

Go fuck yourself.

http://www.fpaulvalone.com/Lott.html

"In a controlled study covering 19 years, the number of multiple-victim public shootings in states which adopted concealed handgun laws declined by 84%. Deaths from these shootings plummeted on average by 90%, injuries by 82%. Higher arrest rates and increased use of the death penalty slightly reduced the incidence of these events, but the effects were never statistically significant."

wtf:

So teachers, when hired, sign a clause to defend these children with their very lives? Really?

As compared to shoving them in front? Yes.

They are there, and granted in loco parentis, so yes. If they don't understand that - that's their problem. The teachers and administrators at the school seemed to understand that inherently.

You are right in that society will choose one to defend the other, as in police, firefighter, military. Teachers are there to teach our children, not to defend them with automatic weapons.

Sometimes, you're the infantry.

"Likewise, Al Miletta, an aircraft armorer in the 81st Fighter Group, arrived off the coast of North Africa in November 1942. "We disembarked over the sides on ropes with full gear and heavy .303 WWI rifle," recalled Miletta. As the men scrambled down swaying rope ladders, and officer aboard ship yelled down and asked what the men were. The soldiers, who were all aircraft mechanics and support personel, replied that they were Air Force. "Well, you're infantry now!" the officer replied. "That was a stomach-churner," Miletta said."

- Italian Americans in World War II, Belmonte.

Sometimes, you're the one who's there. Wishful thinking and percentages don't matter if you're the one there.

And women and children? All the teachers there were women. Most elementary teachers are.

Almost all. Another issue, that's not likely to be addressed.

Regardless. Are you claiming that women cannot defend themselves, or carry guns, or use them effectively?

Please clarify, for I am confused.

And I am not proposing a one size fits all solution, if you read my original entry, which I'm pretty alot of people didn't,

Yes, you're proposing "gun control" as in, less guns, more control, regardless of the facts, history, or situation.

I said a balanced approach of BOTH gun control and better access to mental health care are required.

Neither of which would appear to have made a significant difference here. Short of locking the shooter in an asylum, which we don't do anymore.

Kevin:

Unix, I "finally" found one set of numbers about school district insurance that sprang directly out of the current situation, which is what I'd been looking for all day.

Yes, I said that. Which means that you might find a case where it's right, but it's hardly universal.

As far as a firearm increasing homeowners' insurance costs: Having a gun in the house will make your rates go up.

No, it will not.

If your agent didn't ask you about it, good for you. You can likely bring down your cost with trigger locks or other safety measures.

My agent knows, because I've got specific riders for some antiques.

Rates didn't go up (except to cover the value.)

Also went up when I got engaged and covered the ring. Not because I was engaged, but I had more valuable things.

You have said, absolutely, it will go up, despite proof this is not the case. You've cited one case where it might.

I didn't say that it never did, but that it wasn't a certainty.

I'm saying a firearm in the house is going to make your insurance higher than your neighbor's house without a gun. Don't take my word for it; check with the National Rifle Association.

And yet, given proof this is not the case, you insist on saying it is. Repeatedly.

And the NRA's never told me that. They've tried to sell me additional insurance many times, though.

This is the problem with this discussion.

Kevin states that something is universal.

We point out it's possible, but not universal.

Kevin finds 1 case where it happened, and cites it as disproving all the other cases where it didn't.

We point out that that's not proving the case.

Kevin ignores our testimony, and insists that his long search for 1 that proves it proves it universally.

.... Be it insurance, trigger locks, magazine safetys, magazine limits... lather, rinse repeat.

there are some who call me 'Tim?':

Whoops, pasted this into the wrong thread box.

http://www.madinpursuit.com/pakistan/paki_13b.htm

Men and boys sat on the floors of these workshops (not a table or chair in sight) making guns from scratch. Their special skill was in taking an assembly-line-produced weapon (Smith & Wesson, Lee-Enfield, Kalashnikov) and reverse engineering it so that they could reproduce it by hand. They used primitive lathes, mud furnaces, anvils, hammers, bow drills and other modest hand-tools. Gun manufacture has little tolerance for error and Pashtuns have little tolerance for exploding weapons, so the Darra craftsmen are experts (even down to reproducing meaningless serial numbers and trademarks).

OTOH, I guess the counter is we drove all the craft jobs out of the country, so our public-educated kids would never figure out what a bunch of illiterate tribemen could.

Score one for the schools?

http://larrycorreia.wordpress.com/2012/12/20/an-opinion-on-gun-control/

I didn’t want to post about this, because frankly, it is exhausting. I’ve been having this exact same argument for my entire adult life. It is not an exaggeration when I say that I know pretty much exactly every single thing an anti-gun person can say. I’ve heard it over and over, the same old tired stuff, trotted out every single time there is a tragedy on the news that can be milked.
...
So now that there is a new tragedy the president wants to have a “national conversation on guns”. Here’s the thing. Until this national conversation is willing to entertain allowing teachers to carry concealed weapons, then it isn’t a conversation at all, it is a lecture.

Now when I say teachers carrying concealed weapons on Facebook I immediately get a bunch of emotional freak out responses. You can’t mandate teachers be armed! Guns in every classroom! Emotional response! Blood in the streets!

No. Hear me out. The single best way to respond to a mass shooter is with an immediate, violent response. The vast majority of the time, as soon as a mass shooter meets serious resistance, it bursts their fantasy world bubble. Then they kill themselves or surrender. This has happened over and over again.
...
Gun Free Zones are hunting preserves for innocent people. Period.

Think about it. You are a violent, homicidal madman, looking to make a statement and hoping to go from disaffected loser to most famous person in the world. The best way to accomplish your goals is to kill a whole bunch of people. So where’s the best place to go shoot all these people? Obviously, it is someplace where nobody can shoot back.
...
Yet when anyone from my side responds, then we are shouted at that we are blood thirsty and how dare we speak in this moment of tragedy, and we should just shut our stupid mouths out of respect for the dead, while they are free to promote policies which will simply lead to more dead… If the NRA says something they are bloodthirsty monsters, and if they don’t say something then their silence is damning guilt. It is hypocritical in the extreme, and when I speak out against this I am called every name in the book, I want dead children, I’m a cold hearted monster (the death threats are actually hilarious).
...
They should not be glamorized. They should be hated, despised, and forgotten. They are not victims. They are not powerful. They are murdering scum, and the only time their names should be remembered is when people like me are studying the tactics of how to neutralize them faster.
...
Now are you starting to see why “assault weapons” is a pointless term? They aren’t functionally any more powerful or deadly than any normal gun. In fact the cartridges they normally fire are far less powerful than your average deer hunting rifle. Don’t worry though, because the same people who fling around the term assault weapons also think of scoped deer rifles as “high powered sniper guns”.
...
Meanwhile, we had bad guys turning up all the time committing crimes, and guess what was marked on the mags found in their guns? MILITARY AND LAW ENFORCEMENT USE ONLY. Because once again, if you’re already breaking a bunch of laws, they can only hang you once. Criminals simply don’t care.

That's enough of a great piece.

Go, read the whole thing.

I'm very late to this, but the only thing State Farm has ever asked me about concerning firearms is if I needed to insure them beyond a certain value. In other words, they are treated like jewelry, and stamp and coin collections.

My premiums went up because of my swimming pool.

It's easy to say, "People who interpret the facts differently than I do are immoral," but that doesn't make it true.

Acctually it does, want to know why? Facts dont need interpreting

All that money we save on machines of war? We spend it on HEALTH CARE.

So then you admit that canadas healthcare system is a finacial fraud that could not be maintained with out the help you recieve from america?

"So teachers, when hired, sign a clause to defend these children with their very lives? Really?

As compared to shoving them in front? Yes."

~Unix-Jedi

...I laughed out loud for the first time all week. Thank you.

& thanks to Flynne for the link to info on the 1926 school bombing; to Crid for the link to Althouse's blog (well said); and to Amy for hosting this conversation.

My mother was a public school teacher for over 30 years, a profession she chose even after a student picked her up and locked her in the supply closet during her student teaching. She taught children labeled "learning disabled/ emotionally disturbed." She never complained about all that she did for her students - what pained her was all that she couldn't do for them. I see the same wearing away at my friends who are public school teachers.

That principal. I would have given her a gun. Ammo. Training. If she wanted them; if I had known. I can think of several sane, smart, fiercely devoted people who work in public schools for whom I would proudly do the same, if only they could carry concealed in a public school. I think a lot of people would, no bake sale needed.

Why all American children need firearms training. All of 'em. In school. Taxpayer-funded. No opt-outs.

"Why didn’t the boys pick up the firearm?

"I'm a Boy Scout and Kolton and me took a hunter safety class. One of the rules is that you treat all guns as if they're loaded,"

http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2012/12/20/boys-make-the-right-move-with-loaded-gun-in-theater/?hpt=hp_t3

All that money we save on machines of war? We spend it on HEALTH CARE.

So, you're proud of the fact that your government is not only failing in its obligations to defend your country's territorial integrity, but also its people's freedoms and safety.

Somehow your government mooching off its neighbor to the south is a point of pride for you?

Since you're not spending much on your own defense, preferring to draft along on America's preparations, you owe us some money.

We'll take cash ... or Ontario. Maybe Vancouver and an oilfield to be named later.

Olga: The right to bear arms would have been important in frontier days, but seems quite silly in this day and age.

Radwaste: This statement of your reveals appalling ignorance about the entire purpose of private arms. It's not about hunting, or even self-defense against Indians or wildlife. It's about being able to say, "No!" when government comes calling.

You have no idea about history.

Radwaste is right, Olga. He mentions history, so here's a great example from history. When the U.S. government came calling on the Confederacy, people in Confederate states said "No!" and took up arms against what they viewed as government aggression. And they didn't just have private arms. They had an army, with artillery, cavalry and brilliant generals like Robert E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson. And everyone knows the outcome: the Confederacy withstood this government aggression, defeated the Union forces and won its independence.

Actually, JD, thanks for the assist!

Since the South was killing bluecoats 3-1, former Union generals founded the NRA.

(Thanks again. It would have been SO much better for Southerners to just bend over and take it, huh?)

"History" isn't just one point you want to try to make.

The confederacy had every right to break away, and quite frankly I'm of the opinion that the war was rigged in order to give the federal government more power

> You have no idea about history.

An acquaintance recently mentioned this aphorism. I'm not saying it can't be done, but you need a warm heart and a frosty command of facts. Sometimes people get so horny to be sarcastic that they lose track of their particulars.

Also, I'm sorry to have taken so many of Amy's disk bytes with the Canada thing, but those were the people who were being especially foolish about this. And that's vital information about 'where their heads are at,' as the kids used to say.

Never let people cluck.

Never let people cluck.

Never let people cluck.

Never let people cluck.

People who think they're being daringly sarcastic when they say things like "more guns are the answer mentality" are naive.

'K?

Inexperienced. They don't know a lot of different kinds of people.

They are not decent. They are not smart. They are not courageous.

Olga: The right to bear arms would have been important in frontier days, but seems quite silly in this day and age.

The Bill of Rights was written and passed by a group of people afraid of over-reaching FEDERAL power.

Until the 14th Amendment, the Bill of RIghts applied only to the federal government, not to state governments, who were free to restrict speech, require compliance with a state religion, censor the press, and impose a police state on their citizenry ... and free to restrict firearm ownership; as if they could do so to a population not far physically removed from offended indigenous peoples and far removed from any sort of assistance in the event of attack by the aforementioned indigenous peoples or from neighbors with less-than-neighborly intentions.

The 14th Amendment recognized most (if not all) of the rights enumerated within the Bill of Rights as individual rights.

This was done mainly in response to former Confederate states using the fact that the Bill of Rights did not apply to states as an opportunity to impose exclusionary laws aimed at former slaves and Yankee carpetbaggers.

The founding fathers were familiar with the history of England, whose armed yeomanry was essential to preventing the authority of the king and Parliament from becoming absolute. They enshrined the ability of states (and citizens) to defend themselves by force of arms against federal aggression into the Constitution.

In the country's early wars, there was only a small standing federal military. States raised military divisions (e.g., the 54th Massachusetts Volunteer Infantry of Glory fame) and sent them to assist the federal war effort. These divisions were often commanded by political appointees and cronies of the governor or powerful legislators. This was not the best system as it resulted in too many incompetent generals, bodies of ill-trained soldiers, and confused chains of command.

The tradition of state militias lived on in the National Guard. Today, the Guard forms the ready reserve for the US military and can be called up and federalized in the event of a national emergency. That makes it difficult for governors in a state emergency as any request for federalization of disaster relief means the governor will lose control of state's Guard to federal authorities.

It's legitimately debatable whether the founding fathers intended the 2nd Amendment to allow individual citizens to arm themselves or for states to form military forces (militias) independent of federal control.

The massive expansion of federalism over the intervening years, however, lends a certain credence to the position of individual citizens being the "militia" rather than any organized state National Guard, which, in today's military structure, can be quickly and immediately subordinated to federal authority.

Given the ease with which federal and state governments have in the past (and even recently) run roughshod over citizens' rights (in this country and in others), having an armed populace able to resist the widespread imposition of absolute government authority if the available forms of non-violent redress fail could come in handy - if we want to remain the land of the free.

Besides, who's gonna rescue us from a dictator?

JD:
He mentions history, so here's a great example from history.

Oh, goodie. I love history.

When the U.S. government came calling on the Confederacy, people in Confederate states said "No!" and took up arms against what they viewed as government aggression.

Errr. Well, kind of, but not really.

And they didn't just have private arms. They had an army, with artillery, cavalry and brilliant generals like Robert E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson.

Just no factories. (We fixed that for next time.)

And everyone knows the outcome: the Confederacy withstood this government aggression, defeated the Union forces and won its independence.

Couple of things.
1) The Confederate army fell apart due to some stupid decisions. Replacing Hooker, IIRC, was a major one. Lee driving North into Pennsylvania was the other.

Fighting a purely defensive battle, the South was doing very well.

2) Regardless of the tactics and strategy and failures of said same, the Civil War was 2 governments clashing.

Most claims about the Confederacy being some libertarian paradise can be dispelled easily enough by looking at the Confederate Constitution and the laws they passed.

3) That said, as Radwaste pointed out, the South kicked the North's ass when it came to "skill at arms". Grant hamburgered the South by realizing that he could take 10x the casualties, and still "win". (In short). That, plus the logistics that the industrialized North could throw at the South was the real deciding factor.

As one wag jokes, the South killed the North at a clip of 12 to one. Sadly, schools were bad, and they didn't know they were outnumbered 14 to 1.

http://sultanknish.blogspot.com/2012/12/its-time-we-had-serious-discussion.html

Senior analyst for the Violence Policy Center Tom Diaz was being interviewed on NPR last night, he said that the military doesnt really need assault rifles or guns designed for anti terrorism.

These nuts wont just be satisfied with taking away citizens self defense rights, but our capability to defend the nation itself.

"Senior analyst for the Violence Policy Center Tom Diaz was being interviewed on NPR last night, he said that the military doesnt really need assault rifles or guns designed for anti terrorism."

Because he's a nut and believes that guns are the worst possible evil. Btw no military on earth uses assault rifles as per the AWB definition. So I suppose on that front he is correct.

Btw the second they get an AWB they will go after those deadly sniper rifles (bolt action internal mag). I've heard rumblings of that from IANSA, Brady and VPC. Anyone who believes they will stop is either lying or delusional. In 86 Hugues promised he'd stop at Auto, which he banned for civies. Promised openly that he was not going any further. Well fast forward to 94 and he's championing the AWB for Semi autos. Also auto since the 20 had to be registered with the ATF (or equivalent) and were very tightly controlled long before the ban.

Also if you take ALL US gun deaths since 76 (suicide homicide and accidents) in the US you have 200k - 300k. Governments run a muck killed 100s of times more in far fewer years. Mainly under the guise of a more just society. So their mantra is far more blood soaked than the 2nd amendment.

Btw for all of Canada magical healthcare they have a nearly identical suicide rate as the US. The reason they don't have the same number of mass shooting is that their press doesn't glorify the killer. Ours does; mainly to push the gun grabber agenda.

David,

Everything I've heard so far about stopping a repeat of Newtown has been at the federal level. There has been almost nothing about doing it at the state or local level.

I live in the rural hinterlands (read shared zip) of a bedroom community that is a bedroom community to a medium city in Ohio. The village my zip represents, I think, has a total of 10 police officers.

There are three school buildings; elementary, middle and high school; all within about two miles, but it is not one campus.

Tying up the three police officers as School Resource Officers, five days a week, would effectively leave no other legal presence on a day-to-day basis in the rest of the village.

But there are any number of retirees, stay-at-home moms, vets, off norm schedule workers that are also CCW holders.

If the state dropped the gun-buster rules for the schools. The school districts then ensured the back and side doors were locked, that leaves the front door to come in. You can put 5-7 wireless cameras on the remote doors for less than a $1,000.

I'm sure that you could get one or two people who would be willing to sit in the office one day a week, and just read a book, play solitaire, whatever. Not roaming the halls or anything else. Sort of like a community watch program. No uniforms -- maybe business casual clothes depending on the district.

There could even be an armed "school guard" training program similar to armed pilots program. Essentially there would be no cost to the school unless they want to pay for the background check. The school gets security, and the bad guy has to figure out is the target "hard" or not.

Jim P. Who is probably the first person in my adult life to suggest a way to move civilization in a forward direction without the further involvement of GOVERNMENT .

You just don't hear suggestions like that anymore.

For the average stooge on the street, it's deploy the irresistible power of government or go home.

Props, dude. We'll have Amy send you out an AG Blog windbreaker with a tiny little Eiffel Tower on the collar. Wear it in good health.

Another point brought up by a radio host tonight -- letting teachers, or admin staff, carrying concealed -- what if the teacher went off "his meds" or otherwise lost it?

What would happen today; they aren't searched coming into the school anyway?

So if a teacher is out to kill students -- (s)he will be able to do it with "impunity" because they are expected to be there.

Adding a firearm isn't more dangerous. They can get one in anyway.