What to do after Newtown

[Hemodoc]

Hemodoc, how exactly do you define "gun control"?

Sorry, I don't buy the whole "Obama's out to get your gun" conspiracy theory.  The greatest force behind the current anti-gun sentiment is not President Obama but is, instead, Adam Lanza.  Sure, I believe that Obama is anti-gun.  I suspect that now, a lot of people are anti-gun, but I'm not seeing anyone demanding the total confiscation of everyone's firearms.  Just what exactly is it that you and Mr. LaPierre think he is going to do?

I have no doubt that people are already lawyering up to sue Nancy Lanza's estate.  But I urge you once again to remember that her son was not a child and must bear some responsibility, if not ALL of the responsibility. 

Then again,that's the risk any gunowner runs if s/he keeps any sort of weapon in her home and it is stolen by a third party.  Are you saying that any gunowner who has a weapon stolen bears responsibility if that weapon is used to murder someone?  If your weapon is stolen, then it obviously wasn't adequately secured.

How do you keep your weapons secured?  How does the law respond in your state if your gun was stolen from you and was used in a crime?

Everyone, keep in mind that the investigators don't have all of the information yet regarding how Nancy Lanza stored her weapons.  But legally, she had the right to keep her guns in her home.  There is no law against that.  Perhaps she thought she had adequately secured them.  And that brings me to this question...should any gunowner who has a mentally unstable person living in his/her home be legally banned from keeping their legally acquired weapon at their home?  Does the Second Amendment not apply to the parents/family members of people who are suspected of being mentally ill?

First of all, Obama's record is clear on his position on gun control. If the Adam Lanza incident prompted him to engage in this endeavor, then why was he not moved likewise by the Aurora shooting or the Arizona shooting. Please, it is a political calculation that he could not engage in gun control before the election. This has been widely understood by the gun owners of America that gun control would be a big issue after his election.  If you don't believe me, go to some gun forums and look up old posts prior to the election. This is not news to us, we have been expecting this.

Secondly, why are you associating me with the NRA. I am not a member and they are simply another large POLITICAL organization that do not always represent the interests of gun owners. Many gun owners are rightfully soured on this political institution. There are many security experts who have for a very long time advocated for armed personnel in schools, especially since Columbine in 1999. The fix was accomplished in other nations, yet America continues in its political correctness.

Gun control will not reduce or eliminate the threat. It is time to do what American churches have already done, mostly through unpaid volunteers. You can't prevent every shooting, but you should have a plan in place to eliminate the threat of mass killings done in the minutes it takes for the police to respond.

Adam Lanza likely was insane at the time of the shootings and thus under our legal system is NOT responsible for his actions. That is where the not guilty by insanity defense comes from.

We have already had confiscation of firearms in several nations, pretending we are not at risk for that action here in America is likewise simply avoiding the truth. There are many with that goal.

Securing weapons is under the reasonable person's actions. In other words, what would a reasonable person do to secure their weapons. Gun locks and safes are the standard in CA.

Stealing guns is an entirely different issue, but most kids don't have the ability to steal an entire safe or blow torches to get them open by cutting through the steal. Two very different issues altogether. The issue is possession of your firearms. Gun locks and safes are the standard in most states.

Most states do not hold you responsible for stolen guns used in crimes, but from what I have heard, that is a provision of the UN small arms treaty, but that is only a rumor at this time since it has not been finalized.

I don't believe you should ban guns at all. If you cannot secure your weapons, then you should consider keeping them elsewhere or sell them. That is ALREADY the legal requirement today anyway. Gun ownership goes along with the legal responsibility of securely possessing them as well.

[MooseMom]

First of all, Obama's record is clear on his position on gun control. If the Adam Lanza incident prompted him to engage in this endeavor, then why was he not moved likewise by the Aurora shooting or the Arizona shooting. Please, it is a political calculation that he could not engage in gun control before the election. This has been widely understood by the gun owners of America that gun control would be a big issue after his election.  If you don't believe me, go to some gun forums and look up old posts prior to the election. This is not news to us, we have been expecting this.

OK, so Mr. Obama's record is clear on his position on gun control (I'm not sure that it really is, but I'll take your word for it).  So what?  He can't do much by himself, now, can he?  Any new gun control measures will have to be passed by Congress or by the representatives of local cities/states.

Whatever is "widely understood by the gun owners of America" isn't necessarily true.  "Widely understood" can be synonymous for "wildly believed."  I seriously doubt that we would be having this national conversation if it had not been for Newtown.  What evidence do you have that the President's second term would be a platform for the repeal of the Second Amendment (is THAT what is "widely understood"?).   The President shouldn't even HAVE to be thinking about this issue because he has more important things to do.  If the gun owners of America really WERE more responsible, then the President could just get on with grappling with things like the economy and Afghanistan.

Secondly, why are you associating me with the NRA. I am not a member and they are simply another large POLITICAL organization that do not always represent the interests of gun owners. Many gun owners are rightfully soured on this political institution. There are many security experts who have for a very long time advocated for armed personnel in schools, especially since Columbine in 1999. The fix was accomplished in other nations, yet America continues in its political correctness.

Rereading my last post, it DID look like I was associating you with the NRA; that was not my intention.  My apologies.

As for having armed personnel in schools, first of all, it is really sad that we are having to discuss this at all.  Shows that something is fundamentally wrong with this country.  I don't know if it is "political correctness" that has kept us from having armed security experts at our schools' doors...I don't even know what you mean by that.  I suspect it is more a feeling of incredible sadness that America's children have to be protected in such a way...this sadness that it may indeed be necessary.  Maybe we as a "civilized" society don't want to have to admit that we are having to kowtow to those who have to have their guns above all else.

It is my understanding that there was an armed guard at Columbine at the time of that shooting.  A lot of good that did.  Schools have multiple entrances and exits, and most high schools are enormous.  College campuses have many buildings including dormatories and recreational facilities.  I just don't see how practically it would work.  And the expense would be enormous.  Who would pay for having what would really have to be a small army protect, say, The University of Texas?   Congress certainly wouldn't allocate funds for that.  Would the states pay for it?  Let's see...having adequate, armed protection at daycare centers, community centers, parks, swimming pools, elementary schools, junior high schools, high schools, community colleges, massive state universities, private universities...anywhere where children and/or students congregate...where does it end?  These are specific questions I put to you, Hemodoc.  Do you have any good practical ideas on how we might do this AND pay for it? 

Would you support a special tax on all gun purchases and ammunition that would specifically pay for the armed protection you are calling for?

Gun control will not reduce or eliminate the threat. It is time to do what American churches have already done, mostly through unpaid volunteers. You can't prevent every shooting, but you should have a plan in place to eliminate the threat of mass killings done in the minutes it takes for the police to respond.

I wouldn't trust "unpaid volunteers" to protect all of America's schools.  We're going to have to allocate a massive amount of money to give special training to and gainfully employ the people we expect to protect our children.  There will need to be armed personnel in place by 7:30 AM at the earliest at each door of every school in America, and that personnel must remain in place until after every child/student has left the premises, and they must be there EVERY school day.  You cannot expect an "unpaid volunteer" to accept this sort of serious commitment.  To do otherwise would be irresponsible and "politically correct".  You cannot do this on the cheap.

Adam Lanza likely was insane at the time of the shootings and thus under our legal system is NOT responsible for his actions. That is where the not guilty by insanity defense comes from.

There has been absolutely nothing to suggest that he was insane.  Nothing. 

We have already had confiscation of firearms in several nations, pretending we are not at risk for that action here in America is likewise simply avoiding the truth. There are many with that goal.

This is where your argument starts to get a bit screwy.  There probably ARE people in this country who would LOVE to have a wholesale confiscation of guns, just as there are undoubtedly those who would LOVE it if EVERY American has his/her own private arsenal.  Does anyone really believe that we are "at risk" of confiscating all the guns in this country?  Really?

Securing weapons is under the reasonable person's actions. In other words, what would a reasonable person do to secure their weapons. Gun locks and safes are the standard in CA.

Stealing guns is an entirely different issue, but most kids don't have the ability to steal an entire safe or blow torches to get them open by cutting through the steal. Two very different issues altogether. The issue is possession of your firearms. Gun locks and safes are the standard in most states.

Again, Adam Lanza wasn't a kid.  He was an adult, and he very possibly used a blow torch or some other extraordinary measure.  We don't yet know.  Since he resided in his mother's home and had used these weapons in the past under her supervision, I am not sure that it can be argued that he stole anything.  How would a prosecuting attorney who wanted to sue Nancy Lanza's estate support that argument?  If she had the legal right to have those weapons and had the necessary documentation (which she, in fact, did) and license, then I am not sure on what grounds the estate could be sued.  Hmm...just wondering out loud.  What do you think, Hemodoc?

And that brings me back to what I think is my very intriguing question.  While it might be "responsible" to keep weapons and ammunition out of your home if you suspect a family member who lives with you has some mental or psychological issue, it is not illegal to keep guns in your home under these circumstances.  Do you feel that the right to bear arms under the Second Amendment should not extend to those who have a mentally ill person living with them?  How about if you just SUSPECT someone in your home is mentally ill?  I am wondering if you thought your son was crazy, you might hesitate to get him treated out of fear that you might have to remove your guns from your home.  Do you see the problem?  Anyone have any thoughts in this regard?

I don't believe you should ban guns at all. If you cannot secure your weapons, then you should consider keeping them elsewhere or sell them. That is ALREADY the legal requirement today anyway. Gun ownership goes along with the legal responsibility of securely possessing them as well.

Surely you don't believe that anyone should be able to have whatever weapons and whatever ammo they want, whenever they want!  Maybe it's the ammunition and the clips and magazines that we should be taking a serious look at. 

I'm sure that most gunowners THINK their weapons are always secure.  Sure, gun ownership goes along with responsibility, but how many times have you complained about how few people these days exercise "personal responsibility"?

[Hemodoc]

First of all, Obama's record is clear on his position on gun control. If the Adam Lanza incident prompted him to engage in this endeavor, then why was he not moved likewise by the Aurora shooting or the Arizona shooting. Please, it is a political calculation that he could not engage in gun control before the election. This has been widely understood by the gun owners of America that gun control would be a big issue after his election.  If you don't believe me, go to some gun forums and look up old posts prior to the election. This is not news to us, we have been expecting this.

OK, so Mr. Obama's record is clear on his position on gun control (I'm not sure that it really is, but I'll take your word for it).  So what?  He can't do much by himself, now, can he?  Any new gun control measures will have to be passed by Congress or by the representatives of local cities/states.

Whatever is "widely understood by the gun owners of America" isn't necessarily true.  "Widely understood" can be synonymous for "wildly believed."  I seriously doubt that we would be having this national conversation if it had not been for Newtown.  What evidence do you have that the President's second term would be a platform for the repeal of the Second Amendment (is THAT what is "widely understood"?).   The President shouldn't even HAVE to be thinking about this issue because he has more important things to do.  If the gun owners of America really WERE more responsible, then the President could just get on with grappling with things like the economy and Afghanistan.

Secondly, why are you associating me with the NRA. I am not a member and they are simply another large POLITICAL organization that do not always represent the interests of gun owners. Many gun owners are rightfully soured on this political institution. There are many security experts who have for a very long time advocated for armed personnel in schools, especially since Columbine in 1999. The fix was accomplished in other nations, yet America continues in its political correctness.

Rereading my last post, it DID look like I was associating you with the NRA; that was not my intention.  My apologies.

As for having armed personnel in schools, first of all, it is really sad that we are having to discuss this at all.  Shows that something is fundamentally wrong with this country.  I don't know if it is "political correctness" that has kept us from having armed security experts at our schools' doors...I don't even know what you mean by that.  I suspect it is more a feeling of incredible sadness that America's children have to be protected in such a way...this sadness that it may indeed be necessary.  Maybe we as a "civilized" society don't want to have to admit that we are having to kowtow to those who have to have their guns above all else.

It is my understanding that there was an armed guard at Columbine at the time of that shooting.  A lot of good that did.  Schools have multiple entrances and exits, and most high schools are enormous.  College campuses have many buildings including dormatories and recreational facilities.  I just don't see how practically it would work.  And the expense would be enormous.  Who would pay for having what would really have to be a small army protect, say, The University of Texas?   Congress certainly wouldn't allocate funds for that.  Would the states pay for it?  Let's see...having adequate, armed protection at daycare centers, community centers, parks, swimming pools, elementary schools, junior high schools, high schools, community colleges, massive state universities, private universities...anywhere where children and/or students congregate...where does it end?  These are specific questions I put to you, Hemodoc.  Do you have any good practical ideas on how we might do this AND pay for it? 

Would you support a special tax on all gun purchases and ammunition that would specifically pay for the armed protection you are calling for?

Gun control will not reduce or eliminate the threat. It is time to do what American churches have already done, mostly through unpaid volunteers. You can't prevent every shooting, but you should have a plan in place to eliminate the threat of mass killings done in the minutes it takes for the police to respond.

I wouldn't trust "unpaid volunteers" to protect all of America's schools.  We're going to have to allocate a massive amount of money to give special training to and gainfully employ the people we expect to protect our children.  There will need to be armed personnel in place by 7:30 AM at the earliest at each door of every school in America, and that personnel must remain in place until after every child/student has left the premises, and they must be there EVERY school day.  You cannot expect an "unpaid volunteer" to accept this sort of serious commitment.  To do otherwise would be irresponsible and "politically correct".  You cannot do this on the cheap.

Adam Lanza likely was insane at the time of the shootings and thus under our legal system is NOT responsible for his actions. That is where the not guilty by insanity defense comes from.

There has been absolutely nothing to suggest that he was insane.  Nothing. 

We have already had confiscation of firearms in several nations, pretending we are not at risk for that action here in America is likewise simply avoiding the truth. There are many with that goal.

This is where your argument starts to get a bit screwy.  There probably ARE people in this country who would LOVE to have a wholesale confiscation of guns, just as there are undoubtedly those who would LOVE it if EVERY American has his/her own private arsenal.  Does anyone really believe that we are "at risk" of confiscating all the guns in this country?  Really?

Securing weapons is under the reasonable person's actions. In other words, what would a reasonable person do to secure their weapons. Gun locks and safes are the standard in CA.

Stealing guns is an entirely different issue, but most kids don't have the ability to steal an entire safe or blow torches to get them open by cutting through the steal. Two very different issues altogether. The issue is possession of your firearms. Gun locks and safes are the standard in most states.

Again, Adam Lanza wasn't a kid.  He was an adult, and he very possibly used a blow torch or some other extraordinary measure.  We don't yet know.  Since he resided in his mother's home and had used these weapons in the past under her supervision, I am not sure that it can be argued that he stole anything.  How would a prosecuting attorney who wanted to sue Nancy Lanza's estate support that argument?  If she had the legal right to have those weapons and had the necessary documentation (which she, in fact, did) and license, then I am not sure on what grounds the estate could be sued.  Hmm...just wondering out loud.  What do you think, Hemodoc?

And that brings me back to what I think is my very intriguing question.  While it might be "responsible" to keep weapons and ammunition out of your home if you suspect a family member who lives with you has some mental or psychological issue, it is not illegal to keep guns in your home under these circumstances.  Do you feel that the right to bear arms under the Second Amendment should not extend to those who have a mentally ill person living with them?  How about if you just SUSPECT someone in your home is mentally ill?  I am wondering if you thought your son was crazy, you might hesitate to get him treated out of fear that you might have to remove your guns from your home.  Do you see the problem?  Anyone have any thoughts in this regard?

I don't believe you should ban guns at all. If you cannot secure your weapons, then you should consider keeping them elsewhere or sell them. That is ALREADY the legal requirement today anyway. Gun ownership goes along with the legal responsibility of securely possessing them as well.

Surely you don't believe that anyone should be able to have whatever weapons and whatever ammo they want, whenever they want!  Maybe it's the ammunition and the clips and magazines that we should be taking a serious look at. 

I'm sure that most gunowners THINK their weapons are always secure.  Sure, gun ownership goes along with responsibility, but how many times have you complained about how few people these days exercise "personal responsibility"?

Dear Moosemom,

You reject the only viable answer to this tragedy, armed guards capable of stopping them just as they did in the 2007 church shooting in Colorado Springs. You continue to dwell on issues that have no proven record of reducing violence. I have pretty much already addressed all of the issues in the last post.

As far as Adam Lanza, if the mother was seeking to have him involuntarily committed and he was burning himself, there is certainly some red flags to consider he may indeed have been insane at the time of the shootings. 

If the kid had blow torched his mother's gun safe, I suspect we would have already had a story on that in the press from someone. I would be very surprised to hear that is how he secured the guns.

[noahvale]

^

[willowtreewren]

gang·bang or gang-bang  (gngbng)
n. Vulgar Slang
1. Sexual intercourse, often rape, involving one person or victim and several others who have relations with that person in rapid succession.
2. Sexual intercourse involving several people who select and change partners.
v. gang·banged or gang-banged, gang·bang·ing or gang-bang·ing, gang·bangs or gang-bangs
v.intr.
1. Vulgar Slang To participate as an aggressor in a gangbang.
2. Slang To participate in violent gang-related activities.
v.tr. Vulgar Slang
To subject to a gangbang.

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2009. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
gangbang [ˈgæŋˌbæŋ] Slang
n
an instance of sexual intercourse between one woman and several men one after the other, esp against her will
vb
1. (tr) to force (a woman) to take part in a gangbang
2. (intr) to take part in a gangbang Also called gangshag [ˈgæŋˌʃæg]

Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged © HarperCollins Publishers 1991, 1994, 1998, 2000, 2003

On the other hand, the Urban dictionary DOES have the definition that you use listed (5th) with the above definition listed as first. Since this discussion has focused on guns (and not even guns used by gangs, except for the arguments you bring up), I still think it would be better to leave off the use of "gang banger."

Noah, thank you for the Post article. It is food for thought.

Hemodoc you say:

Dear Moosemom,

You reject the only viable answer to this tragedy, armed guards capable of stopping them just as they did in the 2007 church shooting in Colorado Springs. You continue to dwell on issues that have no proven record of reducing violence. I have pretty much already addressed all of the issues in the last post.

I doubt I am the only one who disagrees that this is the ONLY viable answer.

I posted a link earlier about how the confiscation of assault weapons in Australia affected mass shootings in that country. Did you look at that link? Unfortunately both sides of the argument can cherry pick statistics to support their view.

You also dismissed Jbeany's knowledgeable post on legally altering the trigger mechanisms .

As an educator I am most concerned about the "culture" part of the equation. And although it will take time and effort, I think we could make a difference there. One of the basic tenets of Montessori education is teaching for peace. I am not about to have ANY weapons on school property as a regular security measure. In fact, a dad who is a policeman actually asked permission to come on the property to collect his child while in uniform, since he would have his firearm on his person. That goes to show how seriously our parents take our peace education and policy on weapons. This dad was not even going to be getting out of his car!

America is a violent nation. We have had a culture of violence from our very inception. but does it still serve us well?
Handgun deaths only last year:
    48 Japan
    8 Great Britain
    34 Switzerland
    52 Canada
    58 Israel
    21 Sweden
    42 W. Germany
    10,729 US
That is about 30 deaths a DAY. Of those roughly half are children under 19 years of age.

As Moosemom says, these victims should be part of the conversation.

[Chris]

Well it seems from previous news also that the one problem in common is that parents do not store the guns properly in a safe area that can be locked down to restrict access. Definitly would make it easier to access if it was key locked and a key was in the room or on the owner, but memory or a code does hinder access more.
 
Most of the gang shootings tho are done with illegal purchased firearms where gun laws would not help. However there should be something for proper gun ownership for those who obtain guns properly, but do not store them properly to avoid kids accessing the firearms.
 
So it seems with some reports the mother knew her son had some issues, yet may not have taken steps to properly lock down her firearms to prevent easy access.

This kid was 20 years old.  Not a child!  Said to be a genius?  You don't think he could figure out a way to get to her guns in a safe?  If you know your kid or person living with you (age 50?) has mental problems you get the guns out of the house.

I did not call him a kid. Of course there will always be "if there is a will, there will be a way", ot's human. However something that can slow them down can give someone time to interfere, warn, or get out of the house and call 911.

[Simon Dog]

As Moosemom says, these victims should be part of the conversation.

As should any individual who has ever been violently assaulted (including sexual assault) or family of anyone who has been killed because they were unarmed due to a law preventing them from obtaining, and using, a concealed carry permit.

[Rerun]

What about knife owners?  In the beginning I'm sure it was "who had the biggest stick".   Do people have those shoulder missile launchers.  You see them put them on their shoulder and it launches a missile and it hits a building and kapowey!  Please tell me  'no'.

         

[Rerun]

As Moosemom says, these victims should be part of the conversation.

As should any individual who has ever been violently assaulted (including sexual assault) or family of anyone who has been killed because they were unarmed due to a law preventing them from obtaining, and using, a concealed carry permit.

PINK ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM   

[Hemodoc]

gang·bang or gang-bang  (gngbng)
n. Vulgar Slang
1. Sexual intercourse, often rape, involving one person or victim and several others who have relations with that person in rapid succession.
2. Sexual intercourse involving several people who select and change partners.
v. gang·banged or gang-banged, gang·bang·ing or gang-bang·ing, gang·bangs or gang-bangs
v.intr.
1. Vulgar Slang To participate as an aggressor in a gangbang.
2. Slang To participate in violent gang-related activities.
v.tr. Vulgar Slang
To subject to a gangbang.

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2009. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
gangbang [ˈgæŋˌbæŋ] Slang
n
an instance of sexual intercourse between one woman and several men one after the other, esp against her will
vb
1. (tr) to force (a woman) to take part in a gangbang
2. (intr) to take part in a gangbang Also called gangshag [ˈgæŋˌʃæg]

Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged © HarperCollins Publishers 1991, 1994, 1998, 2000, 2003

On the other hand, the Urban dictionary DOES have the definition that you use listed (5th) with the above definition listed as first. Since this discussion has focused on guns (and not even guns used by gangs, except for the arguments you bring up), I still think it would be better to leave off the use of "gang banger."

Noah, thank you for the Post article. It is food for thought.

Hemodoc you say:

Dear Moosemom,

You reject the only viable answer to this tragedy, armed guards capable of stopping them just as they did in the 2007 church shooting in Colorado Springs. You continue to dwell on issues that have no proven record of reducing violence. I have pretty much already addressed all of the issues in the last post.

I doubt I am the only one who disagrees that this is the ONLY viable answer.

I posted a link earlier about how the confiscation of assault weapons in Australia affected mass shootings in that country. Did you look at that link? Unfortunately both sides of the argument can cherry pick statistics to support their view.

You also dismissed Jbeany's knowledgeable post on legally altering the trigger mechanisms .

As an educator I am most concerned about the "culture" part of the equation. And although it will take time and effort, I think we could make a difference there. One of the basic tenets of Montessori education is teaching for peace. I am not about to have ANY weapons on school property as a regular security measure. In fact, a dad who is a policeman actually asked permission to come on the property to collect his child while in uniform, since he would have his firearm on his person. That goes to show how seriously our parents take our peace education and policy on weapons. This dad was not even going to be getting out of his car!

America is a violent nation. We have had a culture of violence from our very inception. but does it still serve us well?
Handgun deaths only last year:
    48 Japan
    8 Great Britain
    34 Switzerland
    52 Canada
    58 Israel
    21 Sweden
    42 W. Germany
    10,729 US
That is about 30 deaths a DAY. Of those roughly half are children under 19 years of age.

As Moosemom says, these victims should be part of the conversation.

Dear Willowtree,

Thank you but I will continue to call gang bangers just that. Perhaps you could share your personal experiences with gang related activity and how it has affected you. I have been personally affected by this with one of the members of my family.  I KNOW WHAT IT MEANS.  I already stated this to you including the gang rape jumped into the gang initiation. DID YOU READ THAT? I already know and understand what gang bang means thank you and I understood the vulgar dictionary definition when I was about 13. Are you for real?.

Here read this one: 

Definition of GANGBANGER

: a member of a street gang

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/gangbanger

gang·bang·er  (gngbngr)
n.
1. Slang A member of a violent street gang.
2. Vulgar Slang One who takes part as an aggressor in a gangbang.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/gangbanger

gangbanger
gang·bang·er [gang-bang-er]  Show IPA
noun
a member of a violent street gang.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/gangbanger

Good grief, gang banger is what I will continue to call them. Thank you. If it is good enough for Merriam-Webster and the others, it is good enough for me.

Did you read the links I gave on mass murders in Norway and Germany who have very stringent gun control?

If you want to believe that gun control of law abiding citizens will stop mass murders in gun free school zones, go ahead. You will continue to have this problem by taking guns away from law abiding people. You can talk about about peace all you want, but that does not mean that evil will stop existing in this world. That is plain and simple denial and completely void of the facts.

in any case, far be it from me that I try to change folks minds on this issue. Israel, Peru and the Philippines controlled this problem of school shootings by placing anonymous concealed carry individuals into the school zone. If you wish to reject this proven strategy, good luck staying safe in your schools. The only way to counter someone with a gun is to have a good guy with a gun. You simply cannot get around this fact.

Once again, the churches in America got the message more than a decade ago and now arm, unpaid, volunteer security teams have already saved lives from mass murders. If the American public wishes to believe gun control will make them any safer, good luck.

The same principle works for defending against mass murders…it just doesn’t work HERE, because it is politically incorrect to employ it HERE.  After the Ma’alot massacre in 1974, Israel instituted a policy in which volunteer school personnel, parents, and grandparents received special training from the civil guard, and were seeded throughout the schools armed with discreetly concealed 9mm semiautomatic pistols.  Since that time, there has been no successful mass murder at an Israeli school, and every attempt at such has been quickly shortstopped by the good guys’ gunfire, with minimal casualties among the innocent.  Similar programs are in place in Peru and the Phillippines, with similarly successful results.

http://backwoodshome.com/blogs/MassadAyoob/2012/12/15/against-monsters/

As far as what Jbeany stated, if you read my post, with all due respect, she was wrong. Once again, the trigger jobs she was talking about is to make it easier to pull the trigger. This has nothing to do with making a semi-auto full auto. I guess you likewise did not look at the link I gave on how to field strip these very easy to use weapons. They are built with small component parts that can be interchanged very easily. Sorry, Jbeany is wrong about making guns full auto. That is NOT what her husband did, trust me, or he would be dead or in jail today no doubt.

[Hemodoc]

What about knife owners?  In the beginning I'm sure it was "who had the biggest stick".   Do people have those shoulder missile launchers.  You see them put them on their shoulder and it launches a missile and it hits a building and kapowey!  Please tell me  'no'.

         

LOL, no, that is definitely a way to get dead quickly from the police or a long paid vacation without much of a view. Very much illegal, but who knows with our open borders if some terrorist group could bring them here.

[jbeany]

What about knife owners?  In the beginning I'm sure it was "who had the biggest stick".   Do people have those shoulder missile launchers.  You see them put them on their shoulder and it launches a missile and it hits a building and kapowey!  Please tell me  'no'.

         

LOL, no, that is definitely a way to get dead quickly from the police or a long paid vacation without much of a view. Very much illegal, but who knows with our open borders if some terrorist group could bring them here.

Hey Rerun, just google "potato gun" or "pumpkin gun" - they can build 'em, just not the ammo to go in 'em!    And I'm thankful for that....I've seen how far one of my neighbors could launch a pumpkin with his home-made veggie cannon.   

[Hemodoc]

It is interesting how some of the most anti-gun politicians are only anti-gun for your rights. Senator Diane Feinstein, a long standing anti-gun senator was at one time a concealed carry permit person herself.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/12/19/Flashback-Dianne-Feinstein-s-own-conceal-carry-permit-story

So does Barbara Boxer and Chuck Schumer.

http://www.ammoland.com/2011/08/17/political-elite-with-concealed-carry-permits-a-symptom-of-only-ones-not-support-for-gun-rights/#axzz2FlJ3FHNv

Many of the same movie folks who outwardly and publicly oppose concealed carry have them for themselves. The politically connected often oppose for you and me, but they get their permits through their connections.

Security with firearms is good for them, but not for us is the underlying message that many of them send.

[Rerun]

Every President alive past and present has security guards packing guns follow them around and their family.  What would happen if we stopped that? 

Why not have various people in our schools pack.  No one would know.  A nut job would know that his life would or could be short lived. 

Although these jerks usually have a bulit proof vest or head gear. 

Just thinking outloud.   

[Hemodoc]

Dear Moosemom,

Columbine did have an armed guard on campus and a second cop was nearby. Both engaged the shooter outside, but when he went inside, they secured the perimeter and waited for the SWAT team to show up. That was the police protocol in 1999.  That is NOT the protocol in place today. The police now have Active Shooter programs where the first responders go in before SWAT gets there.

That was the training in mind for the 2007  Colorado Springs church shooting. What was the effect that time, the shooter was stopped at the point of entry into the building by an incredible act of courage of a single security person. She wounded the shooter and then he committed suicide with a shot to the head. She saved many lives that morning.

Likewise, the police who arrived first on the scene at the latest school tragedy immediately entered the building. Sadly, it was already over.  In addition, most police cars have shotguns and the same black rifles people want to ban. Handguns best use is to be able to fight back to your rifle. Now the police enter with the rifle and their handgun is a backup weapon. Much different thinking on this whole issue than in 1999.

Shoot first: Columbine tragedy transformed police tactics

Around the United States, police say the strategy has saved lives time and again.

In North Carolina, active-shooter training became part of the state's law enforcement academy curriculum in 2001. Last month, a rampage at a Carthage, North Carolina, nursing home that killed a nurse and seven helpless patients was cut short when 25-year-old Officer Justin Garner entered the facility alone and wounded the gunman with a single shot. Garner had undergone active-shooter training.

"Fifteen years ago, if I heard about what that officer in North Carolina did, I would have said 'What a fool, he violated every procedure that we knew about,"' said Steve Mitchell, program manager with the Commission on Accreditation for Law Enforcement Agencies in Fairfax, Viriginia. "It's been a complete turnaround."

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/2009-04-19-columbine-police-tactics_N.htm

[MooseMom]

Dear Moosemom,

You reject the only viable answer to this tragedy, armed guards capable of stopping them just as they did in the 2007 church shooting in Colorado Springs. You continue to dwell on issues that have no proven record of reducing violence. I have pretty much already addressed all of the issues in the last post.

As far as Adam Lanza, if the mother was seeking to have him involuntarily committed and he was burning himself, there is certainly some red flags to consider he may indeed have been insane at the time of the shootings. 

If the kid had blow torched his mother's gun safe, I suspect we would have already had a story on that in the press from someone. I would be very surprised to hear that is how he secured the guns.

Securing a single church one day a week is VERY different from securing all of our schools, 5 days a week, 8 hours a day.  I have not rejected your "only viable answer", rather, I am asking pointed questions about how you envisage it happening, but you have not given me your ideas.  So I will repeat myself...

Schools have multiple entrances, are very large in the case of middle schools and high schools, and have multiple buildings spread out over a large area in the case of colleges and universities.  How are you proposing to make these institutions secure, and how are you proposing that it will be paid for?  Please refrain from ducking the issue and trying to distract us by claiming that I "dwelling" on anything.  I am considering your idea (and Rerun's) of having an armed presence at our schools and am merely asking how this would be done.  Like I have said, to do this right will take a considerable amount of planning and money.  I do NOT want "volunteers" being made responsible for our children's security at school, and I do not see how this can be done on the cheap.  I ask you once again...how will this work, and how will it be funded?  I am interested in anyone's thoughts in this regard.

No one will be able to prove that Adam Lanza was or was not insane, so insanity will not be used in as any kind of legal defense.  If he did not have an official diagnosis of severe mental illness (the term "insane" cannot be used in any sort of legal proceedings as it is not an offically recognized diagnosis, as I'm sure you know), then this is a non-starter.

As you also know, self-harm is not uncommon among young people, but they are rarely institutionalized as a result.

You are right in that if Lanza did blowtorch anything, we'd probably know it.  We will probably never know how he accessed the guns.  Maybe he spied on his mother and saw where she kept the key without her knowing that he discovered her hiding place.  If he was bound and determined to get at those weapons, he would find a way.   

[MooseMom]

Noahvale, I have no doubt that many, if not most, of the homeless have mental issues.  Once again, because we don't like to spend money on those who are ill and need treatment, many mental health facilities have been closed down, and consequently these people have nowhere to go.  None of them have insurance, so they cannot access treatment.

http://www.law.uchicago.edu/node/1329

So, here are my questions...

1.  In the wake of Newtown, there have been calls to have an experienced, armed presence at our schools.  How do we logistically accomplish this, and who will pay for it?

2.  There have also been calls to look more closely at provisions/treatment for the mentally ill and to improve mental health services.  Again, how do we accomplish this, and who will pay for it?

Folks, it all comes down to money.  It's not a freedom issue.  It's not a liberty issue.  It's not a security issue.  It's not a social issue.  It IS, fundamentally, a MONEY issue.  The NRA wants to scare us into buying more and more weapons and ammo, feeding the gun industry.  Mr. LaPierre blames the violence spewed out by the entertainment industry, another profit-making behemoth.  Do you really think the entertainment industry is going to stop making violent movies, TV shows and video games?  No, they are far too lucrative, and they are going to keep feeding us this crap, and we are going to keep demanding it.  That's the sad part.  We keep demanding guns and violent entertainment.  We are more than willing to keep buying guns and violent images because our entertainment is what is most important to us. 

We will happily pay for crap that excites us, but we are much more resistant to paying for the side effects of quenching our desires.  We have no intention of paying for better mental health facilities and treatment for those who are mentally ill despite our calls for such things.  And we have no intention of paying for armed guards at every educational facility in the land.  We won't even pay more for quality education, quality medical care for all and a much-needed revamping of our roads and bridges, which, frankly, are of third-world quality. 

It's all about the money and for what we are willing to spend...or not spend.

[Hemodoc]

Dear Moosemom,

You reject the only viable answer to this tragedy, armed guards capable of stopping them just as they did in the 2007 church shooting in Colorado Springs. You continue to dwell on issues that have no proven record of reducing violence. I have pretty much already addressed all of the issues in the last post.

As far as Adam Lanza, if the mother was seeking to have him involuntarily committed and he was burning himself, there is certainly some red flags to consider he may indeed have been insane at the time of the shootings. 

If the kid had blow torched his mother's gun safe, I suspect we would have already had a story on that in the press from someone. I would be very surprised to hear that is how he secured the guns.

Securing a single church one day a week is VERY different from securing all of our schools, 5 days a week, 8 hours a day.  I have not rejected your "only viable answer", rather, I am asking pointed questions about how you envisage it happening, but you have not given me your ideas.  So I will repeat myself...

Schools have multiple entrances, are very large in the case of middle schools and high schools, and have multiple buildings spread out over a large area in the case of colleges and universities.  How are you proposing to make these institutions secure, and how are you proposing that it will be paid for?  Please refrain from ducking the issue and trying to distract us by claiming that I "dwelling" on anything.  I am considering your idea (and Rerun's) of having an armed presence at our schools and am merely asking how this would be done.  Like I have said, to do this right will take a considerable amount of planning and money.  I do NOT want "volunteers" being made responsible for our children's security at school, and I do not see how this can be done on the cheap.  I ask you once again...how will this work, and how will it be funded?  I am interested in anyone's thoughts in this regard.

No one will be able to prove that Adam Lanza was or was not insane, so insanity will not be used in as any kind of legal defense.  If he did not have an official diagnosis of severe mental illness (the term "insane" cannot be used in any sort of legal proceedings as it is not an offically recognized diagnosis, as I'm sure you know), then this is a non-starter.

As you also know, self-harm is not uncommon among young people, but they are rarely institutionalized as a result.

You are right in that if Lanza did blowtorch anything, we'd probably know it.  We will probably never know how he accessed the guns.  Maybe he spied on his mother and saw where she kept the key without her knowing that he discovered her hiding place.  If he was bound and determined to get at those weapons, he would find a way.

Moosemom, why do you always accuse me of "ducking" questions. I give the most detailed answers of anyone discussing this issue on IHD. Just because you don't like my answers at times does not mean I am ducking anything. In point of fact, you continue to pose the same questions in various forms again and again.

What is the problem is that these schools and other areas such as the Aurora theater are gun free zones. The right to self defense is a fundamental human right that even the Bible recognizes. The right to self protection dates back over a thousand years in English law. The English common law is where America derived a substantial portion of our own constitutional rights, one of the most fundamental is the right to keep and bear arms. This right is not only for hunting, nor for personal defense, but it is a fundamental protection of free societies.

One of the first steps tyrannical governments place on their people is "gun control" and gun confiscation. We are now in a new era where "peaceful" governments in western nations are now imposing gun confiscation on their populace. That has already happened in Canada, England and Australia. Studies show no decrease in violence and England now has more than twice the number of gun crimes today as they did before the ban. In addition, personal violence against innocent law abiding people is climbing and they have no recourse to defend themselves especially with home invasion crimes. So, it appears that you are the one dwelling on issues that have no proven track record on reducing violence. Israel has not had a mass school shooting since 1974. Here is a quick overview of how they accomplished this. Yes, they have paid security, at least one, but they also have several armed volunteers who are well trained as well. We have millions of well trained folks with concealed carry that would gladly volunteer just as Israel. I would gladly spend time when my grandchildren are old enough to go school. Today, I would be arrested for trying to do that. Makes no sense.

http://www.bizpacreview.com/2012/12/17/kalberg-why-there-are-no-school-shootings-in-israel-11515

Churches often have daily activities AND private Christian schools. When was the last time you saw a Christian school suffer a mass shooting. I would point out that the Amish school massacre is a much different event and a much different theology. School security once again is a proven success in other nations that don't have to deal with all of the political correctness of America. I have already cited those resources several times. That is a PROVEN method of stopping these crimes used by other nations that are just much more practical than the US. The manner in which Israel accomplished this was with a volunteer group carrying concealed handguns with anonymous volunteers. What sort of budget did that cost for an unpaid volunteer force. That is exactly what the churches of America already did.

Secondly, remove the restrictions for carrying concealed on school campus for lawful citizens with CCW permits. If you are going to put in place an airport style gun free zone, you cannot do this without having armed security to protect those that would violate that provision and engage in violent attacks. If you are going to make a certain place a gun free zone denying the fundamental right of self protection, then you MUST have your own security forces to guarantee personal protection of the people that visit your gun free zone. That is what the TSA does at airports. You are not allowed, but they provide the protection. That is simply reality. Sticking our head in the sand and continuing in denial that some sign or law saying you can't bring a gun to school will protect the kids. Here is a learning point, laws don't protect us, but guns in the hands of the good guys do.

It is unlawful to shoot any of our high ranking political figures, but they have several federal agencies with guns protecting them.

In addition, there are already many school systems with full time deputies stationed at these schools. The schools in my California town are so protected with two deputies in each school. Coupled with the active shooter tactics adopted since Columbine, we are much better prepared to respond. I remember one night walking the empty halls at the hospital after midnight only to hear someone running behind me. I turned and saw a cop with a 12 ga shotgun running to the pediatric area. There was a man with a gun threatening the staff. He ran when the alert went up and no one was shot that night. The cops no longer set up a perimeter and wait for the special weapons and tactics folks to show up. I have seen that reaction in person with this event that thankfully ended with the creep running instead of shooting.

Now, kids that hurt themselves ARE placed into inpatient centers all the time because that by definition is being a danger to themselves or others. Not sure where you got your information on that. Any child that has documented self mutilation will gain the attention of health care officials very quickly.

As far as Adam Lanza, his mother believed he was in need of inpatient mental health care which implies that his condition exhibited elements of insanity depending on how that is defined. A family member voiced this and it was confirmed by the police as a likely motive for the killings. If he had survived the shooting and surrendered, you can bet your bottom dollar that the insanity defense would be his defense. Above and beyond that, can't speculate at present any further.

[Hemodoc]

Every President alive past and present has security guards packing guns follow them around and their family.  What would happen if we stopped that? 

Why not have various people in our schools pack.  No one would know.  A nut job would know that his life would or could be short lived. 

Although these jerks usually have a bulit proof vest or head gear. 

Just thinking outloud.   

That is the solution in Israel and it has worked well since 1974.

[Hemodoc]

Noahvale, I have no doubt that many, if not most, of the homeless have mental issues.  Once again, because we don't like to spend money on those who are ill and need treatment, many mental health facilities have been closed down, and consequently these people have nowhere to go.  None of them have insurance, so they cannot access treatment.

http://www.law.uchicago.edu/node/1329

So, here are my questions...

1.  In the wake of Newtown, there have been calls to have an experienced, armed presence at our schools.  How do we logistically accomplish this, and who will pay for it?

2.  There have also been calls to look more closely at provisions/treatment for the mentally ill and to improve mental health services.  Again, how do we accomplish this, and who will pay for it?

Folks, it all comes down to money.  It's not a freedom issue.  It's not a liberty issue.  It's not a security issue.  It's not a social issue.  It IS, fundamentally, a MONEY issue.  The NRA wants to scare us into buying more and more weapons and ammo, feeding the gun industry.  Mr. LaPierre blames the violence spewed out by the entertainment industry, another profit-making behemoth.  Do you really think the entertainment industry is going to stop making violent movies, TV shows and video games?  No, they are far too lucrative, and they are going to keep feeding us this crap, and we are going to keep demanding it.  That's the sad part.  We keep demanding guns and violent entertainment.  We are more than willing to keep buying guns and violent images because our entertainment is what is most important to us. 

We will happily pay for crap that excites us, but we are much more resistant to paying for the side effects of quenching our desires.  We have no intention of paying for better mental health facilities and treatment for those who are mentally ill despite our calls for such things.  And we have no intention of paying for armed guards at every educational facility in the land.  We won't even pay more for quality education, quality medical care for all and a much-needed revamping of our roads and bridges, which, frankly, are of third-world quality. 

It's all about the money and for what we are willing to spend...or not spend.

The estimated cost is 5 billion a year for the entire nation with one armed guard at $50,000 a year. That is not even what we pay for one day of the Federal budget. We spend 11 billion a day by the Feds. So for 12 hours of our government, we could place armed security in every US school. It is not about money at all since many school systems already deploy deputies on staff today to the schools since that prevents a lot of the police responses without having them deployed there. That actually reduces over all police costs in those cities. Yes, money is one of the issues, but deploying police in the trouble spots actually decreases costs and saves lives by preempting crime. It is not about money, it is about priorities and overcoming political correctness. I disagree that we can't afford this.

It is all about freedom, liberty, security and choices our society will make. Protecting our children is a very simple fix but America lacks the political will to do so. That is on us and our shame that we don't care enough to provide a truly secure area for our kids to learn.

Lastly, the NRA is NOT trying to scare anyone to buy more weapons. In fact, it is Obama that has scared folks into buying guns, you have it backwards. We already have millions of guns in this nation with millions of people who know how to use them well. Make schools open for concealed carry by permit holders and much of the target of schools as gun free zones disappears. You have it backwards, the NRA is protecting our rights to keep and bear arms. They are not the only gun rights group as well and many of us in the gun community don't support the NRA because it is a political entity that often compromises our rights.

The Oregon mall shooting a couple of weeks ago came to an end when a concealed carry person confronted the shooter with a handgun but did not shoot. That was enough for the creep to take his own life since these creeps are cowards at heart and seek the helpless and defenseless people in malls and schools that cannot defend themselves. That is the MO.

[Hemodoc]

In countries with very limited exposure to guns, mass killings still occur. The worst knife attack was the 1987

Banjarsari massacre

The massacre began at Wirjo's home, where he attacked his adoptive son Renny and his friend Arbaiyah, both 4-years-old, with a parang and a sickle. While Renny managed to escape, Arbaiyah was hit in the neck and died. Wirjo then entered the home of Maskur, a neighbour, where he first killed Mrs. Maskur with the sickle, before turning against her 80-year-old husband, who tried to help her. Afterwards he made his way through the village, assaulting people at random.

By the end of the day Wirjo had hacked a total of 32 people, most of them farmers on the way to their fields and students going to school. 18 of his victims died at the scene, while two others later succumbed to their wounds in hospital. As the culprit was nowhere to be found authorities temporarily suspended classes at local schools, while people locked themselves in their homes.

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

In the Osaka school massacre in 2001, 8 children were killed by a man with a knife.

We are focussing on the tool not the underlying issue of mental health and school security.

[Hemodoc]

Dear Moosemom,

I just found some interesting information on concealed carry in public schools. For quite a while, Utah was the only state to allow people with a concealed carry permit to carry in public schools and colleges. Private schools retain the right to restrict concealed carry. Teachers in Utah today are allowed to carry if they wish. I can't recall any mass shootings in Utah in recent history. Apparently Oregon and New Hampshire also allow CCW permit holders to keep their weapons when on campus. I will have to look up some more references to confirm that.

Legally Carry at Utah Public Schools?

Until very recently, Utah was the only State in the Union to allow a concealed weapons permit holder to lawfully carry on public school property. I recently learned, that Oregon and New Hampshire now also have similar laws.

After decades of banning guns on University campuses, in 2004, the Utah State Legislature, after much debate, finally passed a law expressly allowing concealed weapons permit holders to carry on state property. This law was subsequently challenged and upheld in 2006 by the Utah Supreme Court.

The current law in Utah provides that it is lawful for a Utah CCW Permit holder to carry on any public school property (K-, and colleges). A private school retains the right to elect to prohibit firearms. So, the distinction under Utah law, is public vs. private schools.

http://utah-concealed-carry-permit.com/gunsatschool.php

Here is a CCW instructor from Oregon talking about the right to carry in public schools in Oregon with a CCW permit.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P8yXKxtyWOw

[jbeany]

In countries with very limited exposure to guns, mass killings still occur. The worst knife attack was the 1987

Banjarsari massacre

The massacre began at Wirjo's home, where he attacked his adoptive son Renny and his friend Arbaiyah, both 4-years-old, with a parang and a sickle. While Renny managed to escape, Arbaiyah was hit in the neck and died. Wirjo then entered the home of Maskur, a neighbour, where he first killed Mrs. Maskur with the sickle, before turning against her 80-year-old husband, who tried to help her. Afterwards he made his way through the village, assaulting people at random.

By the end of the day Wirjo had hacked a total of 32 people, most of them farmers on the way to their fields and students going to school. 18 of his victims died at the scene, while two others later succumbed to their wounds in hospital. As the culprit was nowhere to be found authorities temporarily suspended classes at local schools, while people locked themselves in their homes.

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

In the Osaka school massacre in 2001, 8 children were killed by a man with a knife.

We are focussing on the tool not the underlying issue of mental health and school security.

Sadly, I think we need to do both, but you are right, Hemodoc, that gun control isn't the only issue we need to look at...

After all, the worst school attack in US history didn't involve guns at all.  A man in Bath, Michigan blew up the local school and set off shrapnel loaded bombs though out town.  46 people died from injuries sustained that day.
 
Haven't heard of that one?
It was in 1927.

[Hemodoc]

In countries with very limited exposure to guns, mass killings still occur. The worst knife attack was the 1987

Banjarsari massacre

The massacre began at Wirjo's home, where he attacked his adoptive son Renny and his friend Arbaiyah, both 4-years-old, with a parang and a sickle. While Renny managed to escape, Arbaiyah was hit in the neck and died. Wirjo then entered the home of Maskur, a neighbour, where he first killed Mrs. Maskur with the sickle, before turning against her 80-year-old husband, who tried to help her. Afterwards he made his way through the village, assaulting people at random.

By the end of the day Wirjo had hacked a total of 32 people, most of them farmers on the way to their fields and students going to school. 18 of his victims died at the scene, while two others later succumbed to their wounds in hospital. As the culprit was nowhere to be found authorities temporarily suspended classes at local schools, while people locked themselves in their homes.

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

In the Osaka school massacre in 2001, 8 children were killed by a man with a knife.

We are focussing on the tool not the underlying issue of mental health and school security.

Sadly, I think we need to do both, but you are right, Hemodoc, that gun control isn't the only issue we need to look at...

After all, the worst school attack in US history didn't involve guns at all.  A man in Bath, Michigan blew up the local school and set off shrapnel loaded bombs though out town.  46 people died from injuries sustained that day.
 
Haven't heard of that one?
It was in 1927.

Actually I am aware of that tragedy which killed 46 people if I remember correctly and injured 58 more. The man killed his wife, set his farm on fire and then detonated bombs he had secretly planted in the school over several months. When fire and police showed up at the school, he drove up in a car and exploded a suicide bomb that killed several more people.

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

Once again, Utah has several years experience of allowing teachers and others with concealed carry permits to legally carry on public school grounds. Despite Moosemom's dismissal of this as part of the solution, Utah already is ahead of the curve and it looks like two other states now allow it as well possibly.

Colorado already has several colleges that allow students over the age of 21 to conceal carry with the proper permits. This has not resulted in increased violence, in fact, not a single incident has occurred with the armed students. Demonizing guns will not give us the solution folks are looking for.

[noahvale]

^