Letter: Gun-free zones are killing zones

Most gun massacres have occurred in gun-free zones like schools, malls and, yes, military bases. Thus, the effort to make these zones safer has made them magnets to the crazies. The public is actually safer in concealed-carry states, in nongun-free zones. It is time to look at the facts and correct the flawed thinking of gun-free zones.

The most-useful federal law needed is one to require all gun-free zones to provide armed security. The armed security should be armed adequately to eliminate any threat, which may include visible carrying of assault-type weapons to match the killers. All other areas not designated a gun-free zone should allow concealed-carry and this includes schools, universities, stadiums, malls etc. The idea of allowing properly trained teachers and supervisors in schools to be armed should be considered.

Concentrating on passing more gun-control laws is a waste of time in the USA, as there are millions of all types of weapons including the dreaded assault rifle already out there and there is the Second Amendment.

Charles Barrow

chemical engineer

Baton Rouge

Comments

1) Comment by popseal - 21/01/2013

Advertising is based on the fact that buying habits are affected by repetitive broadcasts of the same message. "ON KILLING" by Col. Dave Grossman PHD psychology professor at West Point Military Academy makes the same point about the 'desensitization' process that affects the mentally disturbed in reation to the act of killing. Don't look for a politician to take notice of these facts, because the cheap votes are gathered elsewhere.

2) Comment by Noel Hammatt - 21/01/2013

Oh my, when did getting the facts correct, evaluating possible courses of action, including opportunity costs, and then taking prudent action equate to thinking that "nothing has to be done." Nothing could be further from the truth. Taking the correct action is the difficult part. I'll go with H. L.'s quote: "For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. " H. L. Mencken Read more at http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/h/hlmencke129796.ht ml#RJVhVVqvXB5iR6vs.99

3) Comment by Whatnow - 21/01/2013

When Obama said, "if we can prevent only one death by banning assault weapons and large clips, it will be worth it", I wonder if he thought that during Fast and Furious? But, we will never know will we since his Executive Privilege pardon of Holder. What a smooth talker.

4) Comment by Springer98 - 20/01/2013

Mr. Hammatt, this is the last that I have to say to you on this letter. I believe that not only are you wrong, but you are in a small minority, when you think nothing has to be done. These school shootings will continue & probably with more frequency. To do nothing would be foolish. My Granddaughter is in a school that has no protection from some blood crazed nut or just a plain old evil person. I will have to agree to disagree with you!!

5) Comment by Noel Hammatt - 20/01/2013

@Springer98: Wrong on all three counts. What you are calling "your point" has been made over and over, and yes, it is lame. Has no validity in logic, no matter how hard you try to defend it. And an attack on your argument is NOT at attack on you. Don't know why you are so defensive about it. Never have thoughts I was perfect, my friend, and I usually do back up my arguments with data and facts. Less than 2% of all violent deaths of school-age children due to homicides takes place at schools or on the way to and from. Homes and neighborhoods are much more dangerous. Fact. ANd no, I don't remember when I misrepresented (or perhaps one of us was not clear) you on here, if I did, I apologize. I do believe, and have made thjs abundantly clear, that we ought to move forward in our response to Newtown with facts and with a clear appreciation for opportunity costs. And NOT base our decisions on some mis-guided notions that we have to do something. Nothing we do will change what happened to those poor children, and to their teachers who were incredibly brave in their response. My heart goes out to them, and to theri families, as I am sure your's does to. I am not fighting you, or anyone else on here. I simply want us to make the best possible decisions as we move forward. Peace.

6) Comment by Springer98 - 20/01/2013

Noel Hammatt, for you to say that the point that I made, that you happened to disagree with, is one of the lamest, IS an attack on me. Whether you think you are perfect or not, your opinions & 50 cents might get you a cup of coffee. I remember a while back when you misrepresented a statement that I made on a post right here on the Advocate site. Surely you remember that one? Also, I expect if you were the parent of one of the 6 or 7 year old children that were killed in Newtown, Conn., you might think the problem just might be as great as the attention it is recieving.........

7) Comment by 1ryben - 20/01/2013

Security at Sidwell is not armed! The NRA was saying we needed armed security. In their ad they implied there was armed security at Sidwell. If you are just advocating security, the yes, they have security. So does the Bingo hall down the street? Virginia Tech had an entire police force.

8) Comment by Noel Hammatt - 20/01/2013

@Springer98: Sir, I never attacked you. I did say that your argument this one time, in the preceding, was the lamest argument. It was. You then go on to attack all kinds of things in my years of service, without even understanding the point I was making. C'est la vie. @Attila. Either of the two approaches (And I think the old "if it saves just one life" is patently absurd no matter where it comes from.) is equally absurd, as you point out, IF the goal is to save one life. I point out the opportunity costs of either approach. And then, point out that it is basically attacking a problem that isn't nearly as great as the attention it is receiving. Schools are still the safest places for children. Thanks for your comments.

9) Comment by Springer98 - 20/01/2013

Sidwell Friends School even posted an ad on 11/28/12 for a night shift police officer, so they could have 24 hour a day security at the school!! This was done before the trajedy at Newtown, Conn.

10) Comment by 1ryben - 20/01/2013

Please check out nationmaster.com to compare crime statistics from country to country. Compare USA to those with stringent gun control laws. Which has the lower amount of gun deaths or homicide by gun violence. I know you'll pick Australia and say "but look at their level of assaults." You'd be correct, Australia's rate of assault is higher than USA, but how many of those assaults may have been homicide if they had easier access to guns? Gun control laws in municipalities are difficult to enforce when it is so easy to go right out of the city limits where such laws don't exist. It is difficult to find much research on the effectiveness of the varying degrees of gun control. Many influential people and groups, including the NRA, have opposed any massive, government funded research. One of Obama's executive orders clears the way for the CDC to finally do the research.

11) Comment by Springer98 - 20/01/2013

@1ryben, I'm not understanding??? Whatnow, thanks for proving that this yahoo (in the words of DMJ), has no clue what he or she is talking about!! Next time do a little research before you make false statements! Anyone knows that the President's children have Secret Service protection. There are children at that PRIVATE school, that have parents in high government positions.Yes, there is much more security than just Secret Service. The situation is very similar to "Obamacare" being great for just regular citizens, but the President & his family & members of Congress are exempt from participating in it.

12) Comment by Attila - 20/01/2013

Mr. Noel, I do not dispute that your contention that armed guards may take away educational resources that could be used in other areas. My point is that Obama and Biden state that if only one life could be saved by banning "assault" weapons and large capacity clips it would be worth it. I contend that if only one life could be saved by having armed personnel at each school it would be worth it. Obama and Biden's proposal would take away rights guaranteed by the Constitution. Mine would simply cost money, and most certainly save more than one life.

13) Comment by 1ryben - 20/01/2013

Ellis Turner, associate head of Sidwell Friends, as saying: “Sidwell Friends security officers do not carry guns.” http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer- sheet/wp/2013/01/18/no-sidwell-friends-school-has-no-armed-guards/ http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/4-pinocchios-for-a-slashing-nra- ad-on-security-at-sidwell-friends-school/2013/01/16/95b2127a-6032-11e2-9940- 6fc488f3fecd_blog.html

14) Comment by Attila - 20/01/2013

@wadep66: If I were Dawson I would just tell you that I do not have to be a veterinarian to know horse poop when I see it..Dawson does not need to cite statistics all it takes is a little common sense...ever hear of that?

15) Comment by wadep66 - 20/01/2013

Dawson: California has more auto deaths than other states. I guess we need to throw out all of those traffic laws because they don't work at all. Your use of statistics is really impressive. Thank you for your expertise on the effectiveness of the law and your sweeping research that proves there is no existence of any support for gun laws having a positive impact. Where did you get your PhD in statistics, law and social justice?

16) Comment by Whatnow - 20/01/2013

According to a scan of the school's online faculty-staff directory, Sidwell has a security department made up of at least 11 people. Many of those are police officers, who are presumably armed. Moreover, with the Obama kids in attendance, there is a secret service presence at the institution, as well. http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/gregory-mocks-lapierre-proposing-armed-guards-sends-kids-high-security-school_691057.html

17) Comment by Dawson - 20/01/2013

1ryben there is simply no research or case study to support that more gun regulation equals fewer gun deaths. Chicago, DC and Detroit are the most regulated and have the most gun deaths. It is simply not possible to regulate the criminal. They will not follow ANY gun law that is pushed on to the law abiding citizen. All regulation does is take arms out of the hands of the law abider, it does nothing to slow down the criminal. I'm not familiar with the story of the women in a theme park so I cannot comment.

18) Comment by 1ryben - 20/01/2013

You're not understanding. Neither school that Obama or Jindal sends their child has security. The security is provided by their respective security departments. If their kids were not at these schools, these schools would not have armed security. This is not an issuer where the "elites" are doing one thing and denying the "commoners" the same.

19) Comment by Springer98 - 20/01/2013

@1ryben, I never called for a security detail for every child. The school that they attend, along with other "elite" government officials, is provided with armed security, not EVERY child! As far as personal attacks, if you will read Hammatt's personal attack on me, you will see who attacked whom, first. Try to pay attention now......

20) Comment by 1ryben - 20/01/2013

Increased gun regulation equals fewer gun deaths.

21) Comment by 1ryben - 20/01/2013

@Dawson, Why can we restrict First Amendment rights and not Second Amendment. There was a woman in a theme park in Orlando that got arrested for the words she spoke! She did nothing but use her free speech rights. Where was the uproar? She has the constitution on her side too! The first amendment is pretty clear.

22) Comment by 1ryben - 20/01/2013

@springer98, so we should have a security detail for every child? You can't see the difference between the President's children and ours? Fair is not necessarily the same as equal, it's one of the biggest lessons we can teach our children. You may disagree with people, but personal attacks are childish and petty. It's also a sure sign you're losing the argument.

23) Comment by Springer98 - 20/01/2013

@Noel Hammatt,In my opinion your response to my comment is the many lame comments you have made on this site as well as when you were a school board member. "Presidential families have had security provided for many, many decades. Jindal's children have armed guards, but it has never been the case that ALL schools had armed guards. Neither public or private. It is not about Jindal's or Obama's kids." Why don't you tell me something that I don't know? In your mind Jindal's & Obama's children are much more important than just any old citizen's! You might think that there are Royal Families in the U.S., but I don't think so! I believe that every child's life is just as important as the Governor's or the President's children are!!

24) Comment by Dawson - 20/01/2013

DMJ is at it again. The correct side on this doesn't need statistics we have the 2nd Amendment and the constitution that the liberal/progressive/socialist/communist hate. How about providing any study that shows more gun regulation equals less crime? Chicago, DC, Detroit? When the legislature passes a law that criminals will obey we may be able to get somewhere. Since that is impossible the legislature can only regulate the law abiding which does absolutely nothing but make the criminal stronger.

25) Comment by agagent - 20/01/2013

The Obama daughters are attending an elite school for rich kids like their dad. We will probably hear about their struggle with poverty like Michelle said about Obama.

26) Comment by 1ryben - 19/01/2013

Sorry, Sidwell Friends School does not have armed security. The President's children do get Secret Service protection (required by law). Secret Service protection for the children of the President is not the same as armed school resource officers.

27) Comment by Noel Hammatt - 19/01/2013

@Springer98: Of all arguments, that is one of the lamest. Presidential families have had security provided for many, many decades. Jindal's children have armed guards, but it has never been the case that ALL schools had armed guards. Neither public nor private. It is not about Jindal's or Obama"s kids.

28) Comment by Noel Hammatt - 19/01/2013

@Attila: I basically laid out some data. Not sure why your question about the President and Vice-President is germain to my points of data. In other posts I pointed out the inherent failure of many to understand the "opportunity cost" of taking some particular action. To provide just one example, since schools are currently facing shortfalls all across Louisiana, the cost of adding additional security in schools would likely reduce not only other personnel in the schools, perhaps eliminating counselors sand social workers, but might also entail other cuts outside of schools, like to police forces. So, again, when we choose a course of action, given that resources are limited, we are cutting off other possible courses of action. Schools are the safest places for children. Trying to make them safer.,.. might just cut services to families in need of intense help with children exhibiting severe mental and emotional challenges. Balance it all out, is my request. Use data and logic.

29) Comment by Springer98 - 19/01/2013

I understand that the president's daughters attend a school that has armed security. If this is true, why should his children be entitled to armed security & our's not be?

30) Comment by agagent - 19/01/2013

Read grumpy for more examples: the murderers either shot themselves or surrendered.

31) Comment by HerbF - 19/01/2013

"Only one life" is what I'm talking about too. We could end up with legislation that would cost a whole lot. That's why I'm concerned with the legislative reaction to the Newtown event. How many "lives" would be saved by lowering the speed limit? And, I'm actually for raising it. Public convenience is important and valuable. And, the truth is that it's worth a whole bunch of "lives".

32) Comment by wadep66 - 19/01/2013

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/gun-threats-and-self-defense-gun-use-2/ Read this to see the flaw in the "self defense" statistics. Most of them were illegal uses so the "innocent victim" isn't really innocent.

33) Comment by wadep66 - 19/01/2013

agagent: The killers fear being shot so they shoot themselves in the head? Is that what you are saying?

34) Comment by wadep66 - 19/01/2013

I'm curious to see what the proposed solution is here. I've yet to hear it. Most of those who are gun advocates fear the government will go nuts and take over the US unless they each keep a locker full of assault weapons. Yet, if the answer is government armed guards at every corner, how does that not position the government for easy takeover of our freedom?

35) Comment by Chucky - 19/01/2013

If we can only prevent one, what a stupid starting point.

36) Comment by Attila - 19/01/2013

Mr. Noel, According to your logic since killings at schools are so rare as to not warrant armed protection why does our Imperial President and his vice buffoon continue to make comments such as "if we can prevent only one death by banning assault weapons and large clips, it will be worth it." I guess it must all be a matter of "perspective".

37) Comment by Attila - 19/01/2013

DMJ said: " Yes...more guns to combat the problem of too many people with guns. What could go wrong?" That is just another example the convoluted logic of the left. I have a question for you DMJ. if someone ordered you to "squeal like a pig" like the character in Deliverance, and you had a gun, how many times would you shoot them?

38) Comment by HerbF - 19/01/2013

I'm for reducing the number of assult weapons and the size of magazines. Probably the concealed carry should be more acively enforced. Then I might get one, and I would be in the system. But, I am not really sure about anything else. The mentally ill and guns aren't a real good combination, but we would have to be telepathic to catch most of these people. And, we aren't. Plus, mental illness only explains "some" of the killing events. Most are simply people who are mad. They are ready to die and want to take a bunch of us with them. I don't think we can defend that. I think we can take some reasonable steps, some of which are mentioned above, but we are always going to have these killings. It's just a fact of life. And, it's possible that we will do damage to ourselves with bad legislation by trying to "fix" something that can't be fixed.

39) Comment by Noel Hammatt - 19/01/2013

@palefire, thanks, likely as not the misunderstanding was mine alone. We were making similar points completely.

40) Comment by Noel Hammatt - 19/01/2013

@Grumpy, you are correct. I wasn't trying to cover all scenarios, and there is no question that the quicker we have enforcement people on the scene, usually en-masse, the shooters either give up, are commit suicide. No quibble with that point at all! My point was very specific to the claim being made that having armed guards or concealed weapons will act as a deterrent to these individuals. Not likely is my point. As to the fact that most acts of violence directed against individuals or schools or workplaces are actually thwarted because someone actually spoke up about their concerns, again, you are absolutely correct. Sometimes the families should have been suspicious, and sometimes colleagues or friends. At any rate, with the carrying of a gun onto a campus (I am speaking here of students bringing a gun to school) most students cannot wait to show someone else what they have. I took a .38 automatic off a child in a local school one time, so I am a little bit m,ore familiar with this scenario. How did I know he had a gun in his backpack? Another student told me. This happens in most cases where you hear there was a gun found on campus. For the record, in the case of the student in my classroom with a gun, his mother had given it to him, saying that he needed to show it to other kids who were "picking on him." Showing my ignorance, I guess, I asked the student if it was only for show, why did he have a full magazine in it? He answered, in that tone only teenagers can best produce for adults, "They're not stupid, if I didn't have it loaded they would know!" In EBR, with the exception of a student killed at Glen Oaks high by a student who got out of his car on the road, and walked onto the campus and shot a student nearby (not much a guard could have done here, and neither shooter nor victim was in any of the buildings on a very large campus) there has been no murder of a student on campus since I returned home from the military in 1984. So, during a thirty year time frame when we have averaged over 50,000 people a day on our campuses, there has been one death due to activities we are talking about here. Just to put it in perspective.

41) Comment by palefire - 19/01/2013

Noel, I was making the point that having armed people (even trained ones) won't prevent or even lessen the severity of mass murders. Sorry, if I didn't make that clearer.

42) Comment by MBW - 19/01/2013

Really Advocate? That desperate for clicks? This must be like the 9th or 10th letter about gun control that you've posted.

43) Comment by Grumpy - 19/01/2013

@ Noel, You make valid points. Armed guards do not always provide a deterrent to suicidal/homicidal madmen. Here are a few other points that you seem to have missed. 1.) As to prevention, the Secret Service released a report that indicates that in most cases, others knew of the shooter's plans. When those "others" report potential shooters, intervention is often successful. When those "others" remain silent, mayhem and tragedy often follow. 2.) As to reduction/apprehension, etc... Typically the shooter commits suicide, is shot or surrenders... only after he encounters armed resistance. Most often the single event that brings the attack to an end is the presence of armed resistance. To be sure, there are exceptions but armed resistance remains the one thing that lessens or ends the attack in most cases. When preventive measures fail, it appears that it becomes true that the sooner we can arrange for the shooter to be introduced to armed resistance, the better. Cases in point: Lanza (Sandy Hook) committed suicide as police approached. Cho (Virginia Tech) committed suicide as police approached. Holmes (Aurora Theater) surrendered when police approached. Hasan (Ft. Hood) was shot by M.P.'s ending his attack. Page (Sikh Temple) committed suicide after being shot by a police officer. Roberts ( Clackamas Mall shooter) encountered a legally armed civilian, ran away and committed suicide. The list goes on...

44) Comment by Chucky - 19/01/2013

Not aware, Aware,Prepared,Fight Flight or Freeze. Noel Hammatt – the four levels of awareness, Stage One might be described as your reading a book or watching TV or just spaced out thinking of anything but where you are. The second is where everyone should be when leaving the house, example would be I see the curb I see the hole in the sidewalk I see my surroundings and people in it. Third, I see that the area I am in posses danger example, person on corner has hands concealed could be threat, Dog coming my way friend or foe ? Fourth level, Dog attack , person pulls gun , Stage three should have prepared you, that is when you do the what if. You are correct no one can stay at level three all the time level two you can Be Aware then act to what you see and feel. I am sure someone can say this better and in a shorter space.

45) Comment by agagent - 19/01/2013

"Moreover, gun bans create vulnerabilities by disarming law-abiding citizens. Professor of criminology Gary Kleck of Florida State University found that the number of defensive gun uses may be as high as 2.1 million to 2.5 million times per year. Additionally, there have been numerous occasions where mass shooters have been stopped before they could continue their mayhem by ordinary citizens with lawfully possessed firearms." -posted by Heritage Foundation (meaning brainless liberals who get all their information from Obama talking points will discount it.)

46) Comment by nimby? - 19/01/2013

hate to beat a dead horse . but reduction or removal of legally registered firearms will have little if no effect on those who don't care for the law . the BRAVE program supposedly knows who the major culprits of local crime are . they prefer dialogue . if they know such why can't they simply be rounded up and have their weapons taken away ? due process , unless caught in the act there is nothing but a violation of rights , ACLU territory . certain law restrict the law abiding citizens while others protect those who do not . makes sense ....

47) Comment by Noel Hammatt - 19/01/2013

@palefire: I think I saw your post on another article or letter, where in that case it actually made some sense. Here, your reference to this letter, not so much. Anyway, I am going to take a stab at answering your point. I think, not sure, but I think you are suggesting that since universities, malls, and theaters have armed guards, then why doesn't it make sense to have armed guards at schools. Let me attempt to show some possible differences. The guards at these locations are not really there to stop the kind of attacks we saw a few weeks ago. They are more to prevent hold- ups, fights, thefts, and the like. In many cases, they are there to provide customers with a sense of safety. I might add, that in the case of a person willing to die, as I mentioned above, having these guards is not much of a threat. Remember, if I am coming in to a mall, or theater, or an entire university campus, the chances are I am going to do much damage long before someone "gets the drop on me." And no, I don't mean "me" personally. With an automatic weapon (or a semi, it doesn't really matter) any individual not afraid of dying can wreck havoc on a community. By the way, these same police officers on a college campus, they are also giving out parking tickets, arresting unruly students and lawbreakers, and assisting in traffic control. Not really proving eternal vigilance over the possibility of an armed killer in their midst. So, there are some reasons why armed guards are at universities, theaters and malls. In schools, especially high schools, and sometimes middle schools, they are there for similar reasons. To ensure domestic tranquility, or at least attempt to. Not really there to prevent terrorism or prevent attacks such as we have seen.

48) Comment by Noel Hammatt - 18/01/2013

I usually do not get engaged in these discussions, except to point out that schools are the safest places for children. Pretty much always have been, and all the evidence bears that out. I have posted, in great detail, about that in other discussions here at The Advocate online. For the record, I was indeed trained and considered a fairly good marksman with virtually every individual soldier-fired weapon in Nato and even some of the Soviet-bloc weapons. I have also lived in other countries where there were shotgun carrying or automatic weapon-carrying soldiers or guards in public places like banks and in airports. Interestingly, in these high-risk areas the soldiers/Guards carried their weapons "at the ready." Though on safe, each weapon was actually held in a position where it would just need to be sighted in and fired. No pulling out a weapon from a holster or other action was necessary. In spite of that, banks were robbed, and people were shot. The first point I am making is that there is almost NO way for a guard, armed and trained, to stay at the high levels of vigilance needed to get off the first shot. I led a group of soldiers whose job it was to attempt to infiltrate communications field units on maneuvers. We seemed to always get into the perimeter and cause hovoc. Not because we were so much better trained thatn those guarding the complex, but because they could not maintain enough alertness, if you will, during peacetime. That level of vigilance, after weeks, months, and years of nothing happening, is almost asking for superhuman capabilities. Doesn't happen in real life. It also means that the guard has to be at the right place, at the right time. There are very few schools and campuses where there is only one entrance. Maybe only one legitimate one, but there are always other ways to get in. So, while it may be possible that every now and then (as though these shootings happened often, which they don't) a guard just happens to be at the right place, at the right time, and gets the drop on someone who they think is carrying a weapon, that is actually not a highly likely scenario. There have, in fact been guards, armed and trained, who were killed or wounded in attacks at schools. Goes back to my point earlier about getting the drop and keeping an incredibly high state of alert. In high risk areas, while I was in the military, the armed guards were changed, at least every 2 hours if not more often. Finally, and this is crucial given some of the statements in the letter above. Let's think about the idea that having armed guards (or concealed weapons) is going to make these killers "think twice." Really? How many of them went in KNOWING their last shot was being saved for their own suicide. Come on, let's be realistic about this, and not base policies on movie scripts.

49) Comment by Chucky - 18/01/2013

1ryben , 62

50) Comment by 1ryben - 18/01/2013

A fistfight encounter? How old are we? Call me an idealist too, but I can assure you that I'll never get into a fistfight. I'm a...what do you call it.....oh yea....a mature adult. I kid, but really? I think DMJ did make a good point though, why all the resistance to research? What does the NRA and the like fear?

51) Comment by Chucky - 18/01/2013

Well DMJ you are honest and consistent. I do think at time you and others are idealist and we do need those because it will never get better if we do not know what better is. On this topic I will say even if every one gave up their guns I would keep mine because in a fistfight encounter 80% ( a guess) would hurt me really bad or bash my head in, OK maybe a sword would do if no one had a gun.

52) Comment by palefire - 18/01/2013

i'm still waiting for the people that agree with this letter to explain the fact that Universities, malls, and theaters have trained arm professionals on their grounds.

53) Comment by DMJ - 18/01/2013

Agagent, still waiting to hear what very credible and nonpartisan agency conducted that very sound and scientific survey you keep mentioning. This should be good...

54) Comment by DMJ - 18/01/2013

I'm sure they do, occasionally...but that's the exception, not the rule. It's more likely that the "good guy" will shoot someone he knows, get shot by that gun, shoot himself, or have the gun stolen from him only to be used on someone later. If you have a kid and a gun, it's more likely that kid will get shot by that gun than an intruder. And about the bad guys with guns...how'd they get them in the first place? You'd think legal gun owners would want to know, but every effort at researching this is met with staunch opposition by the gun lobby. Why?

55) Comment by Chucky - 18/01/2013

OK DMJ see if you like this , Good guys with guns never stop bad guys with guns.

56) Comment by billynurse - 18/01/2013

It doesn't take a survey to realize the obvious. Even the deranged at Virginia Tech, Sandy Hook, etc. would seriously think twice before running into where a "concealed-carry" very well could be waiting.

57) Comment by DMJ - 18/01/2013

That stupid survey again... Care to post a reference?

58) Comment by agagent - 18/01/2013

A survey of criminals showed that over a third were stopped from committing a crime by an armed victim. A larger percentage decided not to attempt a crime because they knew or believed the intended victim was armed, and the vast majority of criminals knew another criminal stopped by an armed citizen.

59) Comment by agagent - 18/01/2013

The mass murderers are cowards and do not want to face anyone who can defend themselves: The Sandy Hook murderer shot himself when he heard the sounds of approaching armed law enforcement. The killer in the Portland area mall killed himself when a legal carry citizen pulled a pistol on him.

60) Comment by Lannonmac - 18/01/2013

I have no problem with armed security guards, who have been properly trained, providing security at schools, in fact I see no alternative. It is a fact that the assault weapon gene is out of the bottle and there is little anyone can do about the millions of AR-15s, AK-47 and other assault rifles already sold in the USA. Therefore the only alternative we have to protect our children at schools and universities is to provide armed guards to shield them from a maniac wielding an assault rifle. As for the wisdom of arming school teachers, school Administrators and school janitors, just think back to your school days and think if you would want your teacher, principle or janitor running around with a loaded .45? Not me, no way. Nothing against my teachers, but no way would I want them locked and loaded. I am a solutions kind of guy, so I think we need a viable game plan to protect our kids from maniacs. Let’s stop the idiotic NRA false bravado about guns being needed to “protect us from tyranny” and the quixotic fantasy of gun confiscation and get down to brass tacks. Likewise, stop the stupidity of suggesting that gun-free zones are the problem, let’s face it, maniacs having access to firearms is the problem, so let’s get going and trying to do something about it. The logical short term solution is to hire enough police to be stationed at each and every public school in the USA. This will not be a cure-all, but it is the best quick protection I can think of. It would make sense that Veterans be the first pool of possible recruits for additional police, they have already had firearms training and many of them have already had advanced combat training. Also, when the inevitable whining about how much this would cost and how it will balloon the deficit, just ask yourself this question: “How much is my kid worth?”

61) Comment by Being_Stupid - 18/01/2013

Gun Free Zone = Welcome Criminals

62) Comment by Being_Stupid - 18/01/2013

Gun Free Zone = Mass Murder Zone

63) Comment by DMJ - 18/01/2013

Yes...more guns to combat the problem of too many people with guns. What could go wrong?

64) Comment by [e-mail] - 18/01/2013

As for the cost of providing armed security guards it's a simple matter of substituting them for the myriad of non-education employees who hang on the fringes of every school district. Say for instance, union make work jobs like "coordinators".

65) Comment by Attila - 18/01/2013

When did anything that liberals do make sense. They are all for those armed guards, many of them little more than poorly trained private security people, embrace "solutions" that they know won't work, but close their minds to common sense. Why am I not surprised.

66) Comment by Bighug - 18/01/2013

It makes no sense to have armed guards for the president, legislators, banks, and all the myriad of other places that have them, but not at schools to protect kids. One school administrator argued that the cost would be too much for the system to bear. Who pays for those state troopers assigned to King Jindal? Our leaders need to get their priorities straight.

67) Comment by palefire - 18/01/2013

Trained people with guns are stationed at movie theaters and universities. So... yeah.

68) Comment by Chucky - 18/01/2013

I agree, if i can not carry then someone with the government certainly should be.