Authorities investigating possible connection between abduction cases
Iowa Legislature 2013 adjournment in sight, leaders say
Oklahoma tornado death toll currently 24, not 51, medical examiner says
Iowa City debates whether police officers belong in schools
Linn County casino campaign cost $3.43 million, final figures reveal
Are gun-free zones in schools and other designated areas effective?
Related Stories
In the wake of the Newtown, Conn., school shooting that left 20 children and seven adults dead, polls show public support for stricter gun control at a 10-year high.
However, gun rights advocates say they will push the Iowa Legislature to expand gun rights and abolish gun-free zones, including schools.
“The problem we have is there are too many so-called gun-free zones,” says Aaron Dorr of Iowa Gun Owners. “There are way too many areas where law-abiding Iowans are victims of the system because they are not allowed to defend themselves if something happens to them.”
That includes schools, Dorr says. The failure of gun-free schools should be evident in the wake of the Sandy Hook school shooting, he says.
“Our position is that it is an undue burden to be shot in the back of the head while trying to protect students in your classroom because you are legally prohibited from protecting yourself,” Dorr says. Iowa Gun Owners is hearing from teachers “crying out to have the option of having a weapon in school because they are scared of being victims.”
Do you think gun-free zones in schools and other designated areas are effective?
-u20042.png?1366232523)
Dorr’s statement that teachers are crying out to have weapons is highly questionable. I don’t know of a single teacher, active or retired, that favors this position. I’ve never heard of a teacher’s union or school administration supporting this position either.
They are effective; they have definite effects. Now are those effects positive or negative? Like with most things, that depends.
If the gun-free zone is enforced; that is, if security personnel are there making sure people entering the zone are don’t have guns and inside the zone protecting the disarmed people from aggressors inside the zone, then they can be effective. But like any other security strategy, they are not 100% effective. Witness that, even after TSA agents with metal detectors were deployed at airports, there were still persons who managed to get weapons inside the secure zone. Also remember that there was a security guard at the entrance of Columbine High School. Once the two shooters got past them, there were no other armed people inside and the claimed they had a bomb they would detonate if any police tried to enter the building.
On the other hand, if the zone is posted but not enforced, it will effectively disarm all law-abiding citizens, but not prevent anyone willing to break the law from entering with a gun. In this situation, they are worse than useless, making the zone an attractive target for anyone who wants to kill, injure or otherwise terrorize a large number of defenseless people. It was pointed out in reports that the Aurora Colorado theater shooter did not choose the closest theater showing The Dark Knight Rises; out of the five different theaters near him, he choose the only one that prohibited citizens with Concealed Carry Permits from possessing a gun on the premises.
So having a blanket, one-size-fits-all gun-free school zone law makes no sense, because prohibiting firearms does nothing to stop criminal and is worse than useless if there the zone is not adequately secured.
First off, there were security guards, actually officers at Columbine, but they weren’t at the door. At the time of the shooting they were in their car, and had to scramble to get into the fray.
I have known teachers that have carried, secretly, in schools, as well as some who were known by their superiors to carry. Just because some union or organization might not be advocating carry in school, it doesn’t mean that some teachers in a rough school might not think it is prudent.
Gun free zones are just like advertisements, those intent on doing harm know where they will likely face the least opposition so, well, where would you choose to go?
The second ammendment says that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, this is fact, and it is something that many of the current lawmakers and the president himself are being willfully ignorant, or simply trying to take from the people. Never give up your right to defend yourself or those you love.
Galt,
It wasn’t a security guard at the entrance of the school on Columbine. It was two sheriff’s deputies–one of whom was assigned to patrol the school, the other happened to be in the vincinity— inside the building.
I don’t know where you got your information on the Columbine shooting, but it’s wrong.
However, what’s really interesting about your post is the phrase “one-size-fits-all gun-free school zone law”. You don’t like “one size fits all” solutions yet you insist on proposing one. Let’s solve the problem of the not 100% safe gun free zone by turning schools and all kinds of other places into gun free for all zones.
By the way, when was the last time you were in a school when the bell rang? Do you really think people with conceal carry in a packed hallway trying to figure out which one of these running kids has a gun is a good idea?
How about training people in rapid evacuation. Oh wait. They already do. It’s called fire drill.
By the way, did you know that Wal-Mart not only sells guns and ammunition, Wal-Mart also allows people to carry guns on their property. There have been at least 50 shootings on Wal-Mart property in the last year. Which must mean that your idea works to keep us all safe.
“However, what’s really interesting about your post is the phrase ‘one-size-fits-all gun-free school zone law’. You don’t like ‘one size fits all’ solutions yet you insist on proposing one.”
Where do I propose that? I was suggesting that way remove the blanket law so that individual schools and school dtstricts would be free to choose the policy that best fits their situation.
“Let’s solve the problem of the not 100% safe gun free zone by turning schools and all kinds of other places into gun free for all zones.”
Ah, your totalitarian soul raises its ugly head, and you project this attitude onto others. It confuses freedom from top-down authoritarian rule with anarchy or a “free for all”. Because having all the existing gun laws except for the gun free school zone laws constitutes a “free for all” in your confused mind.
Galt,
What you call “freedom” is what would be described as “dystopia” if it were a novel. In real life, it’s just a nightmare
You’re talking about a world in which everyone is free to choose to own as many guns and of whatever type they want with few restrictions and under the guise of choosing the policy of self defense that best fits their situation It’s a world in which everyone is either forced to carry guns with them everywhere or else hire armed bodyguards. t’s a world in which the police are outgunned and overwhelmed and the government is forced to send in the military to control things. If they can. It’s a society of a type that we have not lived in for at least the last one thousand three hundred years.
Bottom line, I don’t want your freedom. I want to be able to walk down the street reasonably certain that some lunatic is not going to shoot me.
The criminals never seem to read the signs and leave their weapons outside.
The only thing a Gun Free Zone results in is a place for the mentally deranged individuals to find the easiest targets for their violence.
Many law abiding citizens who have valid reason to need additional protection of themselves are being forced to either break the law and conceal carry anyway or leave guns outside in cars which are easy to break into, and is also still illegal. These persons have no desire to violate any law or do the wrong thing but are forced to make the decision between safety and the “letter of the law.”
I disagree with Aaron Dorr pushing for “Constitutional Carry” which is no regulations at all. He gets too extreme there. We need permits to carry, we need training and registration to the extent that weapons can be traced, as they are currently. We need to add the protection of law that if forced to defend one’s life the victim cannot be sued by the perpetrator of the crime.
I would accept that Schools might should be a Concealed Carry Only zone.
There are many reasons to have open carry allowed, so more discussion on that is warranted before a final decision is made.
Keep Gun Free Zones but don’t be surprised it is in them where these multiple murders happen. The sign might as well read: Criminals, you will meet no resistence here. Come in shooting, we will call 911 if left alive.
Back in the 19th century, entire Old West towns decided that they’d had enough of Civil War veterans suffering from PTSD, alcoholism, and drug addiction turning the place into a shooting range and declared themselves “gun free” zones within the first five years of founding. All firearms had to be checked at the sheriff’s office.
Seemed to work for them.
Cowhands didn’t ride into town shooting up the place. Gun duels on main street did not happen. Drunks in saloons didn’t take out the mirror, the naked lady painting, the bar keep, or each other.
All that gunplay was invented. It was the stuff of dime novels and penny dreadfuls and Wild West shows and ‘B’ movies. That there was violence in the Old West is without question. It just didn’t happen in town. At least not the way you see it in the movies.
What “gun free” does is give people a head start on calling the policeeaving the area (a person with a gun is assumed up to no good), prevent accidents (like the one that happened in a movie theater shortly after Aurora when a gun toting nitwit sat down, his gun fell on the floor, and shot him), and prevent the police from taking out law abiding citizens playing vigilante. When police are looking for a shooter, they tend to think that anyone carrying a gun is the bad guy they are looking for.
We’ve had recent cases—there was one in New York City— where bystanders have been injured in confrontations between police and shooters. If police officers make those kinds of mistakes, how much more mistake prone would be civilians.
If people don’t want guns in their homes or businesses or parks or schools, they have the right to say no. If people don’t feel safe with that, they have the right to go elsewhere.
What pro-gunners do not have the right to do is impose their video game paranoid fantasies on the rest of us
“If people don’t want guns in their homes or businesses or parks or schools, they have the right to say no.”
People have the right to not have guns in homes or businesses they own or control regardless; because they are private property.
Public parks and schools, on the other hand, are not private property.
“If people don’t feel safe with that, they have the right to go elsewhere.”
If you don’t feel safe in the United States, which recognizes the God-given right to self defense, you have the right to go elsewhere. In fact, I recommend you do, because you don’t seem to many of the core values of this country.
Sorry Galt, I’m not going elsewhere. I was born in this country. This is my home.
If you have a god-given right to self-defense (and where in the Constitution does it say that you have any rights that are god-given), I have the right to live in a world that is not over-run by a bunch of paranoid wackjobs intent on turning my county, my home into a war zone.
The United States has the highest number of guns and the highest number of deaths by guns per capita in the world. With regard to rampage shootings, we’ve had more of those in the last three months than occurred in the first three decades following WW II.
At what point does the body count get high enough even for you?
Gun free zones effectively prohibit law-abiding citizens from arming themselves in those areas. Gun free zones effectively create a shooting gallery of unarmed innocents in those areas for the evil among us to do evil.
Gun Free laws are useless because they are un-enforceable. They do not protect schools and provide the opposite. Killers rarely if ever plot to kill in areas where it is known that the anticipated victims have weapons. Where the address’s of gun owners were recently published there are fears that those who don’t have guns will become victims. The I’m fat because of flatware is as dumb as guns (by themselves) harm people. We are all safer if more law abiding folks are armed. No matter what is done to prevent it the bad guys will always have guns. We must protect the good from the bad. Gun banning protects the bad from the good and that is nuts!
If “gun free zones” were so successful, then why don’t banks, courts etc. just put up a sign that says “gun free”, then they wouldn’t need armed guards/sheriffs guarding those places. Face it, if you think children are valuable then there’s no reason not to allow firearms in schools, whether personnel or armed security. The new school admin building down on Edgewood proves that the school district has more than enough money for armed guards.
Let’s get over it. No new laws are going to be passed and no one is going to have their guns taken away. Just accept the fact that these type of shootings are going to become common just like car accidents. As long as it doesn’t affect you or your loved ones, it is just another day in America.
The state of Utah has been allowing school teachers, administrators and janitors that are trained in firearms safety to have access to a firearm stored safely on campus for a couple of years. See http://larrycorreia.wordpress.com/2012/12/20/an-opinion-on-gun-control/
Gun free zones defined by the government to prevent law abiding citizens from keeping and bearing arms.
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
So explain again how the govt can infringe on one of my enumerated rights?
On that one, Mr Williamson, easy. The government can do it via Article I Section 8 clauses 15 & 16. “Well regulated militia” means a militia well regulated by Congress, not a gaggle of survivalist yahoos playing war games in the woods, and certainly not neighborhood watchers shooting to death children armed with Skittles.
The federal government is charged by the Constitution with insuring domestic tranquility. Which means that the federal government has a compelling interest, should it choose to exercise it, in well regulating the guns that ordinary people own
Ms Bell as usual the words you use dont mean what you think they do.
Congrss can requlate the malitia.(all adults)congress is prohibited from infringing on the individuals enumerated right to keep and bear arms.
Nice misrepresentation of the George Zimmerman self defense altercation. Defending yourself against an individual slamming your head into the concrete is a basic human right. That you refuse to recognize this proves your opinion driven by emotion and not fact.
Williamson,
At this point, we can let the jury decide whether or not George Zimmerman had the right to follow, then confront, then kill a child armed with Skittles
As for your enumerated rights, District of Columbia vs Heller (2008) determined that you have a right as an individual aside from membership in a federal or state militia to keep and bear arms. But that right is not unrestricted—-”Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: . . The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms”
Australia, which has a “gun culture” similar to ours, put in some fairly stringent restrictions following the 1996 Port Arthur Massacre and cut their murder by gun rate in half. It’s a one second google search. Look it up
“Effective” for who? So-called “gun free zones” have the effect of alerting criminals that they’re not likely to be stopped by anyone carrying a gun there. For example, the shooter in Aurora, CO drove by two other theaters showing the same movie to the one that had a posted “gun free zone” sign. Any business who posts a sign that says they don’t allow weapons inside is advertising to criminals that they are a “good” place to rob, or commit a crime. So “gun free zones” ARE effective for helping criminals carry out their plans. Those who think a sign is going to stop a person bent on evil should really consider the logic of why a criminal would “obey” any rule. No, “gun free zones” are a “feel-good” measure for politicians to portray themselves as trying to “do” something about a problem – that will have no positive effect, and more likely will have a negative effect when no armed citizens are there to render aid in stopping the crime. [and why does the media downplay the multiple examples when a private citizen did so, such as the Oregon Mall shooting, within a week of the Sandy Hook shooting - which could have had dozens of dead, but thanks to that one private citizen, loss of life was minimized.]
How did a “. . . private citizen did so. . . ” in the Oregon mall shooting ?
Smith,
This might answer your question. From Wiki:
Jacob Roberts (the shooter) “attempted to reload the AR-15 at that point, but was unable to do so, the weapon having apparently jammed, but Roberts managed to get it working again. During that time, Nick Meli, a concealed carry permit holder, drew his Glock 22, and took aim at Roberts but did not fire since there was an innocent person behind Roberts.” Meli was certain that Roberts saw him and that his gun might have convinced Roberts to flee.But there is no way of knowing because Roberts committed suicide.
The number of mass shooters who commit suicide is very high. It’s high enough to indicate that what these shooters want is to commit suicide in the flashiest way possible. If that is the case, then good guys with guns isn’t going to stop them.
There are thousands of school teachers in Iowa. If Mr. Dorr can document that the Iowa Gun Owners association is really hearing from “teachers crying out . . . ” (how many, are they really teachers, Etc.) I’ll be more impressed — my credibility meter registering more than zero.
Why? Does your narrow mind not comprehend that individual teachers might not march in lockstep with their union leaders?
Or do you just want to intimidate them by publishing their names, like that newspaper in New York did?
From the position it appears you are replying to my post though I cannot really relate your comments to my post. A reader can choose to read it as written or invent what the choose to read. Note that I said “document”. It’s hardly a “narrow mind” that expects claims to be documented (otherwise they remain only claims).
Speaking of claims, being the issue is teachers then it follows that’s who “them” is regarding the publishing of names. Document the publishing of teachers names in regard to their positions regarding guns.
What deranged bad guys go around reading “gun-free” zone signs before blasting away at the populance, anyway? Does not heir being deranged cut into the notion that they would be that calculating? I’m not convinced. The target usually has some meaning to the mass kiler, or at last a study of te incidents would suggest. The Columbine killers attended the school they shot up. Lu Gang targeted the people at the U of I he felt had wronged him in two separate buildings. The Aurora theater killings apparently had to do with the movie being shown. The post office rampage in Oklahoma City was carried out by a former employee. And so on. Don’t kid yourself that these people or any others looked for gun-free zones before committing their crimes, at least until we take one of them alive and he tells you that it was a factor. Until then, it is an NRA fantasy to promote more concealed carry laws and gun sales.
I don’t know the answers to gun violence, but I know a distraction when I see one. This is not about Newtown or gun-free zones. It is about Mr. Dorr and the NRA wanting to be able to put a semi-automatic in the hands of everyone in the State of Iowa who wants one, regardless of whether they are mentally fit to have one or not, along with 30-round magazines and armor-piercing bullets, I shouldn’t wonder. The profits would be enormous for their sponsors, the gun and ammunition industries. Hopefully, Iowa common sense will prevail and turning Iowa City or Cedar Rapids into Beirut will not happen. Hopefully.
“What deranged bad guys go around reading ‘gun-free’ zone signs before blasting away at the populance, anyway?”
The ones who are deranged, but not illiterate.
“Does not (t)heir being deranged cut into the notion that they would be that calculating?”
When one looks at how some of them, like the Aurora Theater shooter, plan, acquire multiple guns and ammo in the time leading up to the crime, plant bombs and employ strategy, one has to conclude that they are calculating enough.
“The target usually has some meaning to the mass kiler, or at last a study of te incidents would suggest.”
“The Aurora theater killings apparently had to do with the movie being shown.”
The Dark Knight Rises was showing at many theaters; it was the first weekend the movie was shown. The point was, there were at least 5 theaters showing it near his home, but he didn’t commit his crime at the nearest one; he went to the only one that prohibited Concealed Carry.
The time is past for single minded emotional arguments and time for serious introspection. Clearly the facts indicate that the idea of “gun free zones” has been proven to be a falicy. The adage, guns don’t kill people, people do is true. What I believe is necessary is for people to give serious thoughts to what we are trying to prevent and what are real solutions.
Its time to turn our attention to dealing with people. Mental health of disturbed and disadvantaged people needs help and attention. We should stop giving money to people who simply don’t want to work and work on helping people who really can’t help them-selves. All of the horrific killings have been committed by people who were obviously deranged. In few cases they took their own lives while taking others with them. I don’t see anyone out there who has a handle on why these people feel that way or what to do about them.
Stop arguing about the guns and focus on the shooters.
Open carry was voted for in Iowa by our legislature to help curb the violence. The majority spoke and guns in public and openly so are wanted and encouraged. We the majority need to vote out these city by city gun free zones such as parks and malls so we have ONE clear law that is easily followed by all law abiding citizens. A county by county choice confuses and negates the intent of our legislature. Keeping track of city versus county versus state parks is an undue burden to the law abiding public with no ill intent. We need one law, not 50, covering such places so as we travel we can keep within the law. The lack of all counties and cities following the lead of the legislature is a measly attempt by anti-gunners to avoid accepting maority rule. If they don’t like the law they can stay home or move out of state.
Elsewhere in today’s paper there is an article about an excellent locking mechanism that should be in place in every clasroom asap! I would bet gun owners and shops would gladly contribute to making it happen. I will.
Thompson,
Curb what violence?
Iowa is the state where the lead stories on the local news are either the weather or traffic accidents.
I’m having difficulty understanding your state of high anxiety over bad guys and shooters and home invasions and, for all I know, attacks by killer tomatoes. You want to live like that, fine. Just don’t shoot the paper boy
What the pro-gunners posting here are not taking into consideration is the ever escalating arms race we are caught in.
One of our first shooting spree mass murders occurred in Camden, NJ, September 6, 1949. Howard Unruh, a WW II veteran, shot and killed 13 people—5 men, 5 women, 3 children including a 3 year old boy. His weapon was a Lugar pistol. He had 33 rounds of ammunition.
Adam Lanza had a Bushmaster AR-15 (virtually identical to an M-16) and two pistols, a Glock 10 mm and a Sig Saur 9 mm. He also had enough ammunition, in large capacity clips, to kill every single person in the school.
James Holmes, the Aurora Theater shooter, had a 12 gauge Remington 870 Express, a Smith & Wesson M&P 15 with a 100 round magazine, and a Glock 22. He was wearing protective tactical clothing and initial reports indicated that he was wearing a bullet proof vest.
Except he wasn’t. What he had on was a tactical load bearing vest.
Except anybody can buy kevlar vests for about $100 off the internet.
Which means that in order for people to protect themselves from people like James Holmes and Adam Lanza in NRA approved style, we’d all have to be carrying with us at all times military style assault weapons, 100 round magazines, and body armor. A police issue conceal carry .38 just ain’t gonna cut it
Another thing to take into consideration–which the pro-gunners aren’t—is that between 1949 and 1979, we had 4 spree killings. Prior to 1949, I was able to locate only one—in California in 1927.
Since 1980 we’ve had at least 65 and counting, four in the last month alone.
This has tracked with the growing number of increasingly lethal guns in civillian hands. Estimates are that there are probably close to 300 million guns of various sorts out there.
At this point it’s easier for me to get my hands on military style assault weapons and large capacity clips than it is for me to buy cold medicine
http://www.ajc.com/news/news/local/mother-of-two-surprises-burglar-with-five-gunshots/nTnGR/
http://www.ksn.com/mostpopular/story/Breakup-triggered-San-Antonio-theater-shooting/W9cRvjsMyE2h_kOfOSyy2w.cspx
The media is not apt to report news that fails to advance their liberal agenda.
Can’t have facts getting in the way of a good emotional rant. Without stirring the emotions and at least giving the impression of of a good crisis…………that can’t be let go to waste. Governing by(percieved) crisis is the Democrat way
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122721278056345271.html
All of this is nothing but governing by crisis, because there is no evidence that restricting constitutional rights will make even a single person safer, in fact, evidence shows as more restrictions to guns are removed, crime goes down.
Simply put, something must be done. Doing nothing, or worse, having more guns out there is not going to help the situation. Let’s start with reducing the weapons we all know are not for anything other than killing people. No one needs a 50 caliber sniper rifle other than the military. No one needs a currently legal “bump fire” stock to turn a semi automatic weapon into a machine gun. Magazines that hold excessive amounts of ammo are great places to start to reduce the number of rounds being fired when these situations happen. We need to do something besides putting more guns into a system that swims in arms already. There is plenty that could be done, Stretching 2nd amendment arguments created when armies were made up of minutemen who armed themselves just doesn’t help the situation..
“Simply put, something must be done.”
Ah, the emotional call for action. Don’t just stand there! Do something! Anything! It doesn’t matter if it’s not thought through and actually makes things worse!
“No one needs a 50 caliber sniper rifle other than the military.”
It’s called the Bill of Rights, Steve; not the “Bill of What a Hoplophobe Thinks You Need”.
“No one needs a currently legal “bump fire” stock to turn a semi automatic weapon into a machine gun.”
Never mind that neither of these were used in the recent school shootings. It’s almost as if you want to ban these things because of your pre-existing hatred of the 2nd Amendment, not hatred of crime, because this would not prevent the crime that is driving this discussion. Then, after this measure is passed and another crime inevitably (bevause you haven’t fixed anything) occurs, you can launch into another panic round of pushing ineffective legislation. Lather, rinse, repeat!
If anything needs a waiting period in this country, it’s not the lawful purchase of guns, it’s legislating after a crime like Sandy Hook. Because I trust people like you pushing legislation less than I would trust another Adam Lanza in a room filled with unsecured firearms.
Perhaps I’m being overly optimistic but I think sanity will prevail and the Iowa Legislature will not expand gun rights nor abolish gun-free zones.
Your have a strange definition of sanity.
I’ve always subscribed to the definition of insanity as “doing the same thing, but expecting different results.”
Any psychologist could provide a much wider definition of insanity than “doing the same . . . “. But using that definition I guess the “more guns philosophy” is essentially: The answer to gun violence is more guns followed by more gun violence and the answer being more guns followed by more gun violence the answer being . . . We’ll see what the Iowa legislature does.
“Any psychologist could provide a much wider definition of insanity than ‘doing the same . . . ‘. But using that definition I guess the ‘more guns philosophy’ is essentially: The The answer to gun violence is more guns followed by more gun violence…”
If we were following that policy, you might have a relevant point. But since we’re talking about gun free zones, which by definition don’t allow citizens to lawfully keep and bear arms, your point is irrelevant, and sadly, so are you.
Ding dong, ding dong……Bell is a ringin’
I guess the two home invasions and shootings in CR in the past few days don’t count as crime. When shots fired calls go out every night of the week and, have for many months now, but no casings are found or wounded they don’t make the news. Where are all these stolen cars that police find coming from if we never have crime? The domestic disturbance where a hammer was used did not make the news but hammers kill more than rifles. (notice I said RIFLES) google it…it is a fact. Talk to your local LEO, listen to scanner traffic and you will see the true CR that the biased media wishes to hide. It probably is good to hide a lot of it as no one would want to move here and we have a hard enough time growing our tax base. The crime is all around you but if you stick your head in the sand and never leave the pc, life is the fantasy you create for yourself. I am the least anxious person I know but you judge others who won’t fall for your biased statistics and slanted studies. It is ironic that the party of acceptance goes on the personal attack and makes unfounded claims when they cannot shoot apart the message. As long as your non american, aethiest, gay, abortion doctor does not have a CCW, which most of them do, you are accepting. What’s that old saying about one’s friends they keep? Up until 1979 if you did wrong your family would kick your butt and hold you accountable. It used to mean something to respect one’s family. others and authorities. Now kids are taught to mock anyone different from themselves and it isn’t illegal unless you get caught.
Pathetic.
Thompson,
The issue isn’t whether or not the incidents you list are crimes, but whether or not allowing people to carry loaded guns on school property and inside school buildings is an appropriate response.
That you would throw “non american, gay, abortion doctor” into this discussion indicates that you don’t know what an appropriate response is.
Great discussion here.
You might enjoy this: http://smgs.us/3i51.
The question is not should there be gun free zones,
The question is why is the govt denying those that want to, the ability to provide protection for themselves and others? Dont people have rights? Aren’t those rights protected from govt interference?
Government limits the rights of the individual in consideration of the overall rights of the general population. Anytime you get beyond the solitary hunter-gather you encounter laws even if it’s only tribal law enforced by the tribe. Would you want laws limiting the ownership of machine guns repealed in the name of “provide protection of themselves . . . ” ? What about planting land mines on your property? Should the government allow that in the name of property protection ? ( I wound not be surprised in the least if the answer of some of the “I’m always threatened” paranoids would be a resounding YES! )
I think that the White House and the Senate should be declared gun free zones. I mean, strictly for safety, of course.
wow, and an appropriate response is to ramble about what towns did before indoor plumbing? I forgot to add “dope smoking doc.” Since you didn’t get the analagy it was acceptance of immoral and illegal activity but no tolerance for our God given rights. (now see how wound up she gets) Laws and Rules are ineffective without a belief system of morality.
I am surprised they don’t add God with a line thru it to the school zone signs. And we wonder what or why normal has changed?
Jumping to demand new legislation is not appropriate after any tragedy.
Appropriate responses should be made after studying Utah, Colorado and Texas schools where CCW is allowed. See how it works for them and adopt laws that have some benefit other than to push an agenda or cater to some dillusional hysteria. Having talked to a school administrator in another state, the public would be surprised at what is taking place but putting policies out in the open for the criminals to know is detrimental to the cause. Suffice it to say the least, ignorance is bliss for many.
I guess, Mr Thompson, given that Columbine had an armed sheriff’s deputy assigned to the school, guns inside schools doesn’t seem to work so good.
Besides that, most school shootings have been done by students at that school, not criminals on the prowl looking for gun free places to shoot up for no particular reason. Also, most of these shooters would have passed a standard background check. I don’t think there’s a single school shooter with a prior criminal record. And with the exception of the Virginia Tech shooter, Seung Hui Cho, not a single school shooter would have come up as dangerously mentally ill.
Now if you can bring yourself to stop tossing insults long enough to do an actual search and come up with a school shooter—K through 12, college, university, doesn’t matter—that would come up red flagged in a background check, I’d like to know about it.
With regard to armed security guards preventing these kinds of shootings, this should be of interest:
“A 22-year-old Virginia man stole a Mercedes SUV at gunpoint the day before he shot dead a Virginia Tech police officer and then took his own life, police said Friday. Virginia State Police on Friday identified Ross Truett Ashley, 22, as the man who killed Virginia Tech Police Officer Deriek Crouse and then himself about 30 minutes later” CNN 12/08/11.
In case anyone is interested, a “Colt Thompson” is a Thompson sub machine gun manufactured by Colt.
Mr named after a banned sub machine gun made this statement: “Jumping to demand new legislation is not appropriate after any tragedy”.
We’ve had 62 and counting of these tragedies in the last thirty years. How many more of these do we need before we are allowed to demand new legislation?