From washingtonpost.com:
Republicans in the House of Delegates, responding to the mass shooting last week at a Connecticut elementary school, are working on legislation to provide funding for armed officers at Virginia elementary schools.
The measure would expand an existing school resource officer grant program, now mostly used for high schools and middle schools, GOP leaders in the House said Thursday.
“Today, we are announcing our intent to expand funding for a school resource officer grant program to encourage the creation of school resource officer positions in Virginia elementary schools,” Speaker William J. Howell (R-Stafford) said in a written statement. “This is a critical step toward making sure all of our schools are as safe as possible.
“We must look closely at everything we can to make sure our children, schools and communities are safe,” he said. “This includes evaluating school safety, our mental health laws and services, and our gun laws.”
The current program was created with middle and high schools in mind, although some elementaries have sought and obtained grants for officers at their campuses. The legislation would provide additional funding and would focus more on elementaries.
“Today, 80 percent of Virginia’s high schools and middle schools have full-time school resource officers,” said Beverly J. Sherwood (R-Frederick), who chairs a House Appropriations subcommittee on public safety. “Unfortunately, only about 25 percent of elementary schools have assigned school resource officers, many of which serve multiple schools. The expansion of this program will encourage the hiring of full-time school resource officers in Virginia elementary schools.”
Good plan but localities cannot be asked to pay for this expenditure. They are strapped enough already. The cost to round out SROs in PWC would probably be between $10-15 Million per start up and a little less in years after. Granted, PWC is the second largest county in Virginia but that gives us an idea of what the cost would be.
The people of Virginia have to look at what the program would involve and assess what situations a SRO would be able to handle. One armed officer can only be so many places at once. As we react to horror around the nation, we need to be careful not to commit to costly knee jerk reactions that really don’t do what we intend for them to do.
Any time school resource officers are put in schools, that is an officer who is not on the street. New officers would have to be hired and trained to replace those officers who go into the school setting. Hiring untrained officers for these positions would be unacceptable. According to the website, Prince William currently has 15 SROs. They have 91 schools. There isn’t even an SRO for each middle and high school–all part of last year’s cut back.
What if the plan was not to use trained police officers? What if the plan was to hire “security officers?” That would be a lot less expensive and a lot less reliable. “Security officers” simply do not have the training that a sworn police officer has. It might be a good idea to have the delegates spell out exactly what they are talking about.
I think it would be wonderful to have a School Resource Officer in every school but I am just not sure that we can afford the luxury. The question then becomes, can we afford to NOT have them? This endeavour will take some major ponying up on the part of the taxpayers. I don’t see it happening without a big fight. People will still want to go on the cheap and arm the teachers which simply isn’t acceptable. If the teachers wanted to pack heat they would have become police officers. 2 different skills sets are involved.
Armed teachers WOULD NOT have to become police officers. A police officer’s job is to arrest criminals, along with other duties.
An armed teacher would do nothing more than defend a class.
Once upon a time….Cargo, check the planet you are on. I said if teachers wanted to do that they would have become police officers. So one class gets an armed Rambo-teach and the other does. Law suit time. How do you justify that Mary doesn’t have equal protection?
“Nothing more” than defend a class from a gunman. Moon’s rules do not allow me to use the adjectives that come to mind when reading this comment.
Cluelss, I really have no rules about profanity, not being Molly Milk-toast myself. Please continue and do a little cussing for me.
So a deranged mad man enters the room with his automatic assault weapon firing at full bore. How many kids, teachers aides and teacher/protectors is he going to kill before he is either stopped by others or kills himself?
Gun fights in the classroom is not my idea of a safe and sane approach. Children will not be safe. I still advocate fencing off the schools with double locked entries controlled by professionals with metal detectors. Less expensive and it keeps the gun carrying lunatics away from our kids so they can’t get close enough to commit mass murders.
Double locked entries don’t want benefits either! I agree BS If the intent is to prevent masds murders in schools, that way is far more likely to stop a psychoitic madman than a Rambo-teach.
What if the gun-carrying lunatic works at the school? Metal detectors can be easily circumvented, especially by an insider. Maybe we can spring for full body scanners manned 24/7 by TSA agents.
@Emma, what if the gun-carrying lunatic does work at the school? That has been my concern all along. There is no way to really screen out with 100% success those kinds of people. Sort of like we cant totally screen out pedophiles. I have been wanting to bring that up without adding to the fear factor.
Nothing is going to be 100%.
You are reducing my position by using an absurd proposition. Tell me, how many times in the last 100 mass murders of school children did a school employee commit hose murders.
I don’t know the answer to that one. it sure is one reason I don’t want to arm school personnel though.
Let’s face it, every so often a pedophile slips through. Every once in a while some school employee goes postal. (happens more often than you think) Do we want people armed?
I mean THOSE murders.
Your absurd proposition deserves an absurd response. Our kids don’t need to live in a police state such as you describe. And what protects them on the playground, on the buses, walking to and from school?
Resource officers.
Or in the case of the Osbourn student last year–nobody. The City stepped up its patrols before and after school and probably did more things than I am aware of. I guess I am saying team effort.
The Bull Run near miss was from within the school. The NOVACC incident near miss was a student. Both were where they should be. Both had “tools” they shouldn’t have had. In one case the adult who worked in the school did not do the right thing.
Did that lady do jail time?
It’s just not as simple as sticking a gun in someone’s hand. Unless a gun is pointed at you. If the bad guy approaches and you think they have a gun – just shoot anyway?
What I find amazing is that the second amendment is a safeguard against the prospect of federal government tyranny. So instead of reasonable concession on high powered weapons and background checks, we are going to add significantly to the police state. Really?
It’s not whether someone just has a gun. It’s whether a reasonable person feels that human life is at immediate risk? Then yes, shoot. Better to defend it before a judge than to prematurely explain your sins to your maker.
There was an armed guard at Columbine during the rampage there. The guard even managed to get off a few shots. Virginia Tech even had its own police department. Nope, this idea has been tried and has failed miserably. Time for some limits on guns.
A plan is coming to me….how do we do drugs..legal ones? We have different tiers for costs and we have tiers for levels of potency and addiction.
I think there should be a level 1 for everyone who has the legal right to carry a gun. Non-repeating, no rapid fire, no multiple killing type weapons sold here.
As the damage a gun can do if found in the wrong hands increases, so should the checks and balances that are applied towards gun ownership. If you want to own some multiple fire machine gun type, then you had better be willing to pass some psych tests and some handling skill tests.
I just don’t think everyone has a right to have an AK-47 type weapon or UZI. I dont know those kids of guns so don’t play gotcha with me anyone. Gotcha is like shooting a fish in a barrel with me. You know what I mean.
Who decides? committees made up of a variety of people respresnting different points of view.
@Starryflights Oh, come on, Starry! Have you bothered to actually read about what happened at Columbine? Police today view the Columbine security video as part of their training, so that they can learn the mistakes that were made and the policy changes that were made immediately post-Columbine. Columbine police responded traditionally–by securing the perimeter and not entering the building. After the shooting, SWAT teams now are supposed to enter IMMEDIATELY, stepping over the bodies if they have to, to stop the threat as soon as possible. THAT was the major failure at Columbine, not the unwillingness or inability of a single security guard to contain the damage.
I usually ignore your knee-jerk auto responses, but the record really needs to be set straight here before some person new to this blog takes you seriously.
I’m sure you’re not including a teacher in a school.
@Emma
That is correct as I know it. Nationwide training was developed and put into place after that tragedy. Of course another major fact that came from that was how “outgunned” cops are.
There are many facets of this problem. I’m disappointed in the lack of discussion. I’ve only heard stands. No one person has the answer so good discussion is needed. I’m seeing and hearing six year old behaviour – “I wont do it” and “she did it too”.
I think this question was asked somewhere. “Gun Show Loophole”.
“To date, the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) has prevented nearly 1.8 million criminals and other prohibited purchasers from buying guns. The law also has a deterrent effect—prohibited purchasers are less likely to try to buy guns when they know comprehensive background check requirements are in place.
Unfortunately, current federal law requires criminal background checks only for guns sold through licensed firearm dealers, which account for just 60% of all gun sales in the United States. A loophole in the law allows individuals not “engaged in the business” of selling firearms to sell guns without a license—and without processing any paperwork. That means that two out of every five guns sold in the United States change hands without a background check.
Though commonly referred to as the “Gun Show Loophole,” the “private sales” described above include guns sold at gun shows, through classified newspaper ads, the Internet, and between individuals virtually anywhere.
Unfortunately, only six states (CA, CO, IL, NY, OR, RI) require universal background checks on all firearm sales at gun shows. Three more states (CT, MD, PA) require background checks on all handgun sales made at gun shows. Seven other states (HI, IA, MA, MI, NJ, NC, NE) require purchasers to obtain a permit and undergo a background check before buying a handgun. Florida allows its counties to regulate gun shows by requiring background checks on all firearms purchases at these events. 33 states have taken no action whatsoever to close the Gun Show Loophole.”
Lyssa, I’m with you when it comes to background checks for private sales on firearms. It makes no sense to have to jump through hoops for store sales but not for private sales. I know I differ from Cargo and some others here on that issue, but I really have no problem with background checks for ALL transactions.
@Lyssa Yes, a teacher, a nun–just about any law-abiding person who is able to focus their front sight on an identified threat. I don’t think one person can stop two shooters who have the advantage of planning and surprise, who may have bolted doors shut and planted explosives, such as at Columbine. But all it takes is one well-placed shot. It’s better than no chance at all while waiting for the police to arrive.
By the time a SWAT team is mobilized and at the scene, the damage could easily be done. They are not the answer. Every school will not have one deployed. These shooters are smart enough to figure out how to get into a building with their weapons but usually not smart enough to get out. They go on their rampage and then usually either kill themselves or are killed.
Nancy Lanza used trigger locks on the majority of her collection her son might not have had access to quite so many guns and he may have stopped with her.
I don’t think because you are a good shot you are capable of threat assessment. Is it a gun or not? There is quite a bit of tactical judgement that requires a bit of training.
HAD Nancy Lanza used trigger locks….
Yes, but there are teachers who may have those skills or who may be willing to take some level of training. No one expects them to replace SWAT teams. I’m not so much concerned whether someone has a gun as I am about where the muzzle is pointed and what I believe their intent is. And I’d rather they be allowed to squeeze off a shot or two rather than wait to be executed.
By the way, no one should ever “play dead” when threatened with shooting. These guys aren’t stupid–they usually know who took their rounds.
I’m using “they” too much–“their intent”–meaning the criminal shooter. “They be allowed to squeeze off the shot” — meaning the armed, trained, law-abiding teacher or admin.
Emma: R U then advocating a gun fight in a classroom filled with children? Ask yourself how many friendly fire deaths there in war.
Aren’t you being a bit of a drama queen? Why is the solution so all-or-nothing to you? I like to see people at least have a fighting chance. If all they do is squeeze off one shot that disables the criminal, they’ve done a great thing. Otherwise, I guess you would prefer they cower until the police show up or they get executed, whichever comes first.
Ask yourself if you prefer what actually happened at Columbine–12 students and one teacher hiding or playing dead and ultimately getting executed, vs. the possibility that one or both of the shooters could have been taken out or at least incapacitated before all that carnage. There is no guarantee that an armed person would have stopped the threat (I think I acknowledged this at least twice, and also discussed my ambivalence about arming teachers at least a couple of times in the last week, but don’t let facts stand in the way of your anti-gun hysteria), but at least it would have been more of a chance than they had.
@BSinVA
I can’t imagine a teacher trained or not attempting to keep kids safe, assessing the threat of an intruder and firing off a few rounds without – making an error in judgement (how would that go down) or hitting someone else. Throwing away all guns isn’t going to work either any better than arming teachers.
However, why wouldn’t the NRA insist on thorough backgrounds on all gun purchasers? Have they taken a position on this? What is their position on trigger locks? And why wouldn’t they encourage states to participate with Feds on registration laws. It seems like they could endorse these things without tampering with the constitution.
“Squeeze off a shot”, “anti-gun hysteria”, “shooters could be taken out”…sounds as though someone watches too many cop shows on tv.
What’s the objection to registering guns? We register dogs. Which is more dangerous? Is it the fear that the feds are going to knock down the door and take them away?
@Emma
Your Virginia republican delegates are proposing one security person per school, which is precisely what Columbine had. Those are the facts. By the way, I am not against the proposal, just pointing out that the historical record behind it is not favorable.
How SWAT responds is a different issue altogether.
@Lyssa
Except that the shooters did not get their guns through the non-existent gun show loophole.
NICS has also not resulted in a SINGLE arrest of any prohibited person seeking a gun illegally. AND its been ruled that answering the form truthfully, when purchasing from a dealer, cannot be used as evidence due to the law against self incrimination.
Loughner and Cho went through all the hoops. The latest shooter stole his weapons from his dead mother. We still don’t know what she did to secure them. The press has not informed us. However, even he was not considered a prohibited person. He just did not want to wait 2 weeks for the firearm. Columbine…the weapons were illegally purchased…and some were stolen. And bombs were made.
Starry is blindly equating Columbine’s tactics with current tactics, to advance an agenda for gun restrictions.
Registration of guns always ends up in confiscation. Registration of guns does NOT help in crime fighting, since it only affects the law abiding. The NRA is against registration. They were actually pushed to that BY the members. The NRA leadership is usually pushed to those positions. They tend to want to be more liberal. They were instrumental in the formation of the 1986 gun control act.
The NRA backed the NICS. They’ve also backed the ability of any citizen accessing it for the transfer of firearms without having to go through an FFL. The Bradys and the VPC are against universal checks without the bottle neck of an FFL. I don’t have a problem as long as private sales stay private. NO paperwork.
The hysterics over the inability of teachers being unable to assess a threat is laughable. It would be obvious who and what the threat is. Arming teachers is not the perfect solution. Neither is adding guards or more police. As it was said, how much of a police state do we want? If you want more security, Moon is right. We pay for it. Security theater is worse than useless as it gives a false sense of security.
We need to train for in school violence the same way we train for fires. By learning from experts and taking their advice.
http://www.policeone.com/active-shooter/articles/2058168-Lt-Col-Dave-Grossman-to-cops-The-enemy-is-denial/
http://www.policeone.com/active-shooter/articles/6064989-Active-shooters-in-schools-Should-teachers-be-trained-by-police-firearms-instructors/
http://larrycorreia.wordpress.com/2012/12/20/an-opinion-on-gun-control/
More polices/guards…fences..good. Armed teachers….last chance defense…good. Hyperbole and extremism because ideas may be distasteful…not so good.
However…here’s a radical idea.
There are 130+ thousand schools in this country.
This is the list of school shootings since 1927
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_school_shootings_in_the_United_States
How many mass shootings were there? What is the actual threat assessment? Perhaps we need someone more knowledgeable about determining what the actual situation may be before we urge politicians to do “something! anything!” because decisions made in haste and during high emotion do not usually turn out well.
Perhaps arming school teachers in some districts is not a good idea and in other districts, its perfectly fine. Opinions will differ according to understanding of the capabilities of training. Perhaps an increased security presences will be needed.
We are bickering over what, exactly? Many here want to restrict weapons and don’t seem to understand what a fundamental change in American rights that would be …nor how useless that would be in changing criminal behavior. There are 300+ million firearms in this country. Most of them semi-auto. Those owners will not give them up. Some gun owners WILL fight confiscation. There are 3 million AR type rifles alone in private hands. The media and anti-gun politicians spread disinformation and fear with “assault weapon” hyperbole. AR rifles are no different than any other semi-auto .223 rifles NOT considered “assault weapons.” Restricting firearms to single shot is not feasible or realistic. Neither is putting a police force in each and every school.
“What is the objection to registering guns?” is asked in the same thread that radical restrictions on ownership of firearms is suggested: “I think there should be a level 1 for everyone who has the legal right to carry a gun. Non-repeating, no rapid fire, no multiple killing type weapons sold here.” The only way to get to that is by confiscation of all previously owned guns.
The reason why Emma and I speak about armed teachers being capable of stopping criminals is because it has already happened on more than one occasion. An armed teacher is not a “Rambo. An armed teacher is simply someone prepared with a proper tool to defend themselves. I see objections to “gun fights in classrooms.” As opposed to what? No gun fight…just the shooter having his way? I do like the idea of a fence around appropriate openings…to control entry. Hardening the schools is very sensible. I’m all for keeping the bad guys out?
But again, back to the radical idea? How bad is the threat? What’s the reasonable expectation of it? What is the best way to respond to what the actual threat? Is the threat a shooter like the “perfect storm” of a mentally ill man that lived with a mother in denial and kept her guns at home? Or is it more like Columbine…with emotionally disturbed, or just plain evil, students? Or is it something completely different? See the list of school shootings.
I actually shouldn’t have approved this diatribe. It isn’t good for anyone’s blood pressure. Obviously the filter has more sense than I do.
Don’t try to pull Emma down this long, lonesome trail. She has been very clear that she has mixed emotions about it.
I don’t think that the American public wants public educators armed. I don’t think they are paid enough for that kind of responsibility.
Truthfully, I don’t think most people understand the enormity of responsibility of the classroom until they do it. Even substitutes really don’t take on the responsiblity. Teachers do. They will ultimately be the decision makers.
Just how right do you have to be? Ask Jamie Addington who was an assistant principal at Bull Run Middle School when a student was locking and loading in the boys room. Mr. Addington got it right and avoided a horrible situation. I am not sure a lot of people would have gotten that one right. Mr. Addington was a hero.
By the way….what do you feel about Bill Clinton’s suggestion to putting more armed personnel is schools, a program that Obama cut? Gregory objected to the idea by the NRA but sends his kids to a school with a full security team.
from RedState:
We don’t remember the same level of incredulity being leveled at former Department of Education Secretary, Bill Bennett last week when he proposed the same thing. We do recall 12 years of worship by David Gregory and fellow Democrats in and out of the media of the former president since he stated the following in 2000, on the one-year anniversary of the Colorado school shooting at Columbine:
Clinton also unveiled the $60-million fifth round of funding for “COPS in School,” a Justice Department program that helps pay the costs of placing police officers in schools to help make them safer for students and teachers. The money will be used to provide 452 officers in schools in more than 220 communities.
“Already, it has placed 2,200 officers in more than 1,000 communities across our nation, where they are heightening school safety as well as coaching sports and acting as mentors and mediators for kids in need,” Clinton said.
President Clinton signed crime legislation passed by a Republican Congress that paid local schools to hire armed security. Moreover, most of those, treating the NRA as if it had proposed giving free vodka to alcoholics, send their children to private schools with armed security.
Of course, these facts weren’t mentioned on MTP. Rather, Gregory attempted to play trial lawyer with a cross-examination of LaPierre that sought to treat as a fatal “admission” that an armed guard might not always prevent all deaths by murderous gunman. LaPierre deftly reminded the MTP host that the problem at Columbine was not that security guards were present and armed, but that state law procedures had prevented those guards from responding immediately; and that those laws were changed after the massacre.
Cut the crap. Now that is the stuff that just pisses me off. You know that wasn’t his intent. Stop spending stop spending and so a grant that covered cops in schools got its head on the chopping block.
We aren’t going to even talk about that. Let’s just talk about the absurdity of those in Congress who want to stop spending so they are ready to throw the entire economy in turmoil to get their way. These are the stupidest damn people in the world.
People don’t object to discussing armed police (not guards) in schools. The object to the prison-like setting. What they really object to is LePierre pointing the blame at everyone else around and not absorbing any of it himself. That’s what people really object to.
As I already stated above, I am not against the idea of putting a police officer at a school. They may help in breaking up fights, bullying, drug/alcohol use, preventing thefts of property or other such matters.
But as was demonstrated at Columbine, an armed officer will not likely prevent mass shootings. Contrary to what is written above, the officer at Colombine responded appropriately, even exchanging shots with one of the shooters. He did not halt the carnage. Only limits on firearms and ammunition magazines, in the long run, will prevent such massacres.
Resource officers in schools are invaluable. Perhaps their best function is the great PR between kid and cop. The SROs are rock stars to most kids and they all fight and jockey for position with the SRO. They have probably saved many a kid from being a little thug.
IN PWC, they aren’t the same as school security. They work with school security. The school security officer or person isn’t a uniformed officer or even connected with the police department. That person is there all the time.
I think one in every school is a great idea. I just don’t know who will pay for it. If there were money available I would put one in every middle school and 3 in every high school and make the elementary schools share, which defeats the purpose.
Cargo said:
Owners won’t give them up? If certain guns are determined to be illegal for private ownership, then all of a sudden that law abiding citizen isn’t so law abiding any more now is he? Law abiding isn’t situational. You either obey the laws or you shouldn’t. Anyone who says that is to me, not law abiding.
Maybe those owners need to rethink what it means to be law abiding.
Cargo, you obviously think people should be able to own whatever weapons they want to own.
Most Ameircians believe in limits and boundaries. There is the difference.
You try to make all people who don’t agree with you, which obviously means unrestricted gun ownership into the anti gun crowd. That is simply a lie. You want to be able to own whatever you want to own. So does every other person who is a gun nut.
I believe that everyone who isn’t a criminal and who is at the appropriate age should be able to buy a tier 1 weapon. Tier 2? The restrictions get tighter. Tier 3? Even tighter restrictions.
Part of the restrictions would be to pass tactical tests and psychological tests. The background tests could go back to childhood for some of these guns.
I haven’t restricted anyone’s right to bear arms. I have introduced step one of stop the insanity.
No mass murders are occurring with a 38 revolver.
I was sort of thinking that this was a place to start but if people want to be defiant and threatening…well maybe it should be.
“Only limits on firearms and ammunition magazines, in the long run, will prevent such massacres.:
NoW THAT’S a hilarious leap of logic. How do you know that? Are you saying that if the Newtown shooter had to take an extra 6 seconds or so to change a magazine, that there would have been time for a bunch of six-year-olds and unarmed teachers to overwhelm him? Please cite your data to support the effectiveness of those limits, because we all know how easy it is for the U.S. government to keep illegal weapons out of the hands of criminals, just like the government is able to so effectively block the flow of drugs and non citizens across its borders.
@Starryflights
Well this did a lot of good.
Factoid: Of the 23 richest countries in the world, the gun related death rate in the US was almost 22 times higher than that of the other 22 richest countries. America’s private gun ownership is the highest in the world with Yemen coming in second. In 2008, the US had 12,000 fire arm related deaths while Japan had a total of eleven. Japan has the least number of privately owned guns and the strictest gun control of those 23 countries. What conclusions may we draw from these facts?
@Moon-howler
Maybe those owners need to rethink what it means to be law abiding.
Maybe politicians had better make sure what unintended consequences they start if they start restricting freedoms. There are certain lines that many people have decided is clear tyrannical intent.
Part of the restrictions
I haven’t restricted anyone’s right to bear arms
One of these is not like the other.
Either something is an alienable right or it is not. Having to pass “tests” mandated by politicians to exercise a right is unconstitutional. Or do you want tests for any other rights? Perhaps a test to vote? Have to make sure that people understand the issues, read and write, etc? Its for the betterment of society.
@Lyssa
We may conclude any number of things. We may conclude that the culture is completely different. Their suicide rate is comparable without guns. We may conclude that they don’t have a “war on drugs” fueling criminal violence. We may conclude that theirs is a homogenous culture. We may conclude that many rights that we take for granted are not allowed to the Japanese.
@Starryflights
Starry, are you being WILLFULLY obtuse?
Never mind..yes. You are.
It took me about five seconds to read those two Wikipedia pages where you got your info. It’s nice that they lay out that data so neatly, flags and all, but as any Stat-101 freshman will tell you, correlation does not imply causation. The fact that the US has the highest number of guns per capita doesn’t translate to the assumption that those likely legally-registered guns are all running out and forcing their owners to kill people. There are social factors at work in the US, too.
Can you tell us what Wiki says about which demographics commit the vast majority of the gun crimes in the US? How Japan’s relatively homogeneous culture differs from from the US? Tell us about their immigration laws, and which imported gangs they have had to contend with when they have groups who refuse to assimilate.
I’ll make it easy for you. This is from Wiki: “Studies have examined if ethnic/racially heterogeneous areas, most often neighborhoods in large cities, have higher crime rates than more homogeneous areas. Most studies find that the more ethnically/racially heterogeneous an area is, the higher its crime rates tend to be.” What conclusions may we draw from these facts, given your US/Japan comparison?
Factoid: I’m betting you will not touch that one with a 10-foot pole. So go ahead and keep your blinders on and assume that legal and responsible gun owners have somehow turned your subdivision into a war zone.@BSinVA
Diatribe? I bring up numerous positions, bring up the possibility that arming teachers may NOT be appropriate in all places, that there are many positions to take, including the idea that we may be overreacting, and all you can see is a diatribe to “arm teachers.”
I’ve even said that before that its a mixed bag. I just happen to disagree with your perception that allowing teachers to carry is “turning them into police.”
What I said is that if they had wanted that role they would have been chosen police work as a career, or something to that affect.
You have taken several different positions on this subject. I have consistently said NO.
My main reason, but certainly not my only reason is that once again the public wants something on the cheap. Well, we’ll just make them thar teachers up at that thar school-house carry a gun. Its a cheap answer to something that people are ultimately going to have to pay for if that’s what they want.
@Cargosquid “Either something is an alienable right or it is not. Having to pass “tests” mandated by politicians to exercise a right is unconstitutional. ”
You mean like mandating pre-abortion vaginal probes? That didn’t seem too popular with most people here.
Obama cuts the spending and you blame the GOP? He cut it when the Dems were in control. There has been no cut in spending. This was cut during increases in spending.
I pointed out that Clintion DID what LaPierre advocated. Why isn’t the press decrying that? Oh, that’s right, just like here…the liberal democrats can do no wrong. Its only when a Republican or the NRA advocates for something that its wrong.
@ Emma and Cargo: the only aspect of this debate that you didn’t mention was GUN OWNERSHIP. Am I to assume that you do not attribute any cause and effect on our murder rate to gun ownership?
@BSinVA You want us to look at raw Wiki data about gun ownership (likely culled from legally-obtained guns) and state categorically that the number of legally-registered guns causes more gun crime? Umm, no.
factoid: In gun controlled England and Wales (clearly has a diverse population and massive new immigration and poverty) had only 50 gun homicides last year which was only 3% of the US rate. Australia banned automatic and semi-automatic weapons recently and their gun related suicides went down 65%. The US has 5% of the world’s population but 50% of its guns. Emma: is it now your position that if one factors out the gun crimes wherein non-registered or otherwise illegal weapons are used, then the US statistic will come into line with the rest of the developed world? If so, please state your sources. Thanks. BSinVA
@Emma
From your Wiki post:
“Studies have examined if ethnic/racially heterogeneous areas, most often neighborhoods in large cities, have higher crime rates than more homogeneous areas. Most studies find that the more ethnically/racially heterogeneous an area is, the higher its crime rates tend to be.” What conclusions may we draw from these facts, given your US/Japan comparison?
Is it this fear of the “other” that drives gun ownership or hoarding?
Many guns bought for home protection end up being used to commit suicide or to slaughter your family and friends then suicide. Hmmmm…