Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Thursday, October 18, 2007
Larry Elder :: Townhall.com Columnist
Do "Gun-Free" Zones Encourage School Shootings?
by Larry Elder
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Will the Dems' health care Christmas Present to America be an improvement or detriment to our health care system?


This time, Cleveland.

A 14-year-old suspended high school student entered Cleveland's Success Tech Academy, a gun in each hand, and opened fire, wounding four. Later, we learn that the shooter's past included violent confrontations, mental problems and at least one previous suspension. A month earlier he told a friend that he intended to shoot up the school. But no one, apparently, took his behavior seriously enough to notify authorities.

Meanwhile, a high school teacher in Oregon, with a permit to carry a concealed weapon plus training, sought permission to carry her firearm to school. In fear of her ex-husband, against whom she filed and received two restraining orders, she wanted the ability to protect herself in the event he showed up. Furthermore, she argued that even without the fear of her ex-husband, the Second Amendment and Oregon state law allow her to carry her firearm to work. Her school district, however, prevents her from carrying a firearm to school.

This raises a question. Do shooters consider schools "gun-free zones"? Do they consider it unlikely that any authority figure -- whether teachers or, in some cases, security guards -- poses an armed threat? But in some school shooting cases, guns helped to end shooting sprees and minimize loss of life and injury.

Edinboro, Pennsylvania. A 14-year-old middle school student opened fire at a school graduation dance, being held at a local restaurant. The shooter killed one teacher and wounded two students and another teacher. The armed teenager was apprehended by the restaurant owner, who grabbed his own shotgun from his office and went after the shooter. Staring into the owner's shotgun, the teen dropped his gun and surrendered.

Pearl, Mississippi. A 16-year-old sophomore entered Pearl High with a hunting rifle under his overcoat. He opened fire, killing two students and wounding seven. The assistant principal, Joel Myrick, ran to his truck and retrieved the .45 automatic he kept there. Running back, he spotted the shooter in the parking lot. Ordering the teen to stop, the vice principal put his gun to the shooter's neck and held him until police arrived.

Grundy, Virginia. At Appalachian Law School, a disgruntled student on the verge of his second suspension entered a school building and shot and killed the dean and a professor. He then shot four students, killing one. Hearing the shots fired, two students, Michael Gross and Tracy Bridges, ran to their cars to retrieve their guns. With guns aimed at the shooter, Bridges ordered him to drop his weapon. When the shooter turned and saw Bridges' gun, he laid down his weapon and put his hands in the air. (My pro-Second Amendment documentary, "Michael and Me," goes into detail about this incident, as well as others.)

Professor and economist John Lott checked 280 separate news stories in the week after the Appalachian Law School shooting, and only found four that mentioned the students who stopped the shooter had guns. The Washington Post, for example, said the students "helped subdue" the killer. Newsday wrote the shooter was "restrained by students." The Richmond (Va.) Times-Dispatch, however, wrote that the shooter "was wrestled to the ground by fellow students, one of whom aimed his own revolver at [the killer]." Four months later, the Times-Dispatch detailed the students' actions, including the second student's use of a gun.

What do felons think about an armed citizenry? A survey of convicted felons by the National Institute of Justice found 74 percent of the felons agreed that, "One reason burglars avoid houses when people are home is that they fear being shot during the crime." The survey also asked these felons whether they had abandoned at least one crime because they feared the intended victim might be armed. Thirty-nine percent said they abandoned at least one crime; 8 percent had abandoned such a crime "many" times; 34 percent admitted being "scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim"; and nearly 70 percent knew a "colleague" who had abandoned a crime, been scared off, been shot at, wounded or captured by a victim packing heat.

A survey of 23,113 police chiefs and sheriffs across the country found that 62 percent of these top cops agreed that "a national concealed handgun permit would reduce rates of violent crime." About 80 percent of rank-and-file police officers, according to polls, support the right of trained citizens to carry concealed weapons.

Israel gets it. Since the 1970s, on school campuses in Israel, policy requires teachers and parent aides to arm themselves with semi-automatic weapons. The result? School shootings have plummeted to zero.

As for Cleveland, would allowing authority figures to arm themselves have resulted in reduced casualties, or perhaps even deterred the shooter in the first place? No one can say for sure. But no doubt at least some Cleveland parents now believe the benefits of armed campus adults outweigh the costs.

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author
Larry Elder is a syndicated radio talk show host and best-selling author. His latest book, "What's Race Got to Do with It?" is available now.
 
TOWNHALL DAILY: Be the first to read Larry Elder's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.
 
©Creators Syndicate
Well, duh,
If I want to shoot as many people as I can before someone stops me, I don't go to an NRA meeting! Ever hear of someone going on a shooting rampage at a gun club? No they go where they know no one will be able to stop them. And I doubt the sign on the edge of the campus that says it's a "gun free zone" is going to make them leave their weapon in the car! I can hear it now, "Oops, this is a gun free zone, better commit this carnage some wheres else!"

And BTW
In the Pearl, Mississippi incident, if I remember correctly, the AP had to park his truck off campus in order to keep his firearm there, which means it took more time for him to retreive it allowing the shooter more time to do potentially more harm.

Common Sense
Being able to defend yourself by exercising your 2nd Amendment rights is just a matter of common sense.

That's why liberals don't get it.

I will say it AGAIN
News stories, you can fill volumes with what you don’t see or hear in them!
As for me cold, dead fingers is not a slogan!


HUNTER /Tancredo 2008!
http://www.gohunter08.com

Parental Choice; Crazy Shooters
Maybe I missed it, but in the recent spate of townhall articles on school shootings I don't recall seeing mention of the mother who bought an arsenal for her emotionally screwed-up kid or the father who was deterred from buying his son an assault rifle only because his own felon history came to light. Townhallers don't like laws or government. They like free choice. They especially like parental choice. How about when the parents are as screwed-up as the kid, and their choices facilitate disaster and tragedy? Should something not have prevented that boy from having, what was it, thirty weapons in his room?

Also, I have followed the arguments for arming teachers and have suggested new problems I think would derive from that. Posting armed guards (who are not teachers) may be less problematic. It seems logical to assume that a potential shooter would avoid a protected place. However, an emotionally-disturbed teenager may not be all that logical. He is already thinking pretty grandiose thoughts when he plans to panic a school population of perhaps 1000 and mow down all his enemies. Why would he not also strategize to take out the armed guard (or teacher) first? It is worth remembering that crazy people are not stupid.

AGAIN AND AGAIN
from interviews in prisons: unarmed person - a killer's dream.

lilly
Actually, the boy in question had approximately 30 air guns (long arms and pistols), mostly BB-firing types. This hardly constitutes an "arsenal", unless you suspect him of plotting to massacre the local sparrows. The only actual firearm he had that would have been useful for his supposedly-intended "Columbine" replay was a "carbine" firing 9mm rounds (probably a Hi Point, which IMPO is a good weapon for the other fellow to use- mainly due to its chronic unreliability).

The police (but not the news media, obviously) were more concerned with the four pipe bombs he had made himself. Which, need I point out, are illegal destructive devices that you cannot buy at your local stocking dealer. The components are, however, available at any local hardware store- or junkyard, for that matter.

And BTW, when I first went into law enforcement training (as an 18-year-old high school honors grad on a college scholarship to study criminology), my mother (God rest her soul) had to sign the 4473 form for my service pistol, a Colt Mk IV Series '70 Government Model in .45 ACP.

It all comes back to the old theatrical motto, "What's the motivation?"


cheers

eon

Lilly
Your last line above caught my eye. You are not just correct, you are a near perfect example.

OK lilly
Maybe you can be happier if we all disarm because some fool acquired their kid’s guns. Make me happier if those parents just got the same sentence, right along with the kids. You can not hold the rest of the people that own guns responsible because of a few stupid people. If so can we hold everyone responsible that owns a car when a man goes berserk and leads police on a chase to his ex-wife’s house where he rams the house hoping to kill her? Shall we drag the GM people out of the factory and jail them because it was a chevy van? I think not.
PS when you carry a gun in my state, its called a conceal carry permit (under the coat) and if schools did this, the butt wipe doing the shooting would never see it coming and they would not know which teacher is packing.


HUNTER /Tancredo 2008!
http://www.gohunter08.com

Sure they do
The only solution to gun related killings is to bering more and more guns to schools.

One must wonder how other nations survive without arming teachers with semi automatic weapons? Not to talk about the nations that somehow manage to teach the kids without one of them shooting others dead on regular basis.



van
Would banning guns prevent any of the shootings no they would just find some other way to kill as many people as they could or find a way to illegally buy a gun.

So Van
You are saying that having your school shootings drop to zero is a bad thing? I say we let the teachers that have the training and permit to pack do so. If they has to shoot one dead to save many who only came to school to learn, so be it!

HUNTER /Tancredo 2008!
http://www.gohunter08.com

Van
Hey Van.........Here's a concept.
Other nations don't have spoiled brat kids who are taught that everything they do is perfect. They do not teach that everyone is a winner and school lessons are all about self esteem. So when "other nations" kids grow up they are able to handle adversity without shooting anyone who calls them a bad name.
If you can recall, when schools used to teach the three R's and insist on dicipline, shootings were not a problem.

forder
i think that could also be to blamed on less news coverage, now we have like 10 news organiations that play news all time we hear about it more often. to make an assertion like that we will need to go check news reports from back in the day. i just rember that Charles Whitman (or however you spell his name) from the 60s how many smaller instances where there were only one or two people were killed and was never in the national news.

Mr. Burns is Correct
The purpose of “gun-free zones” is to give the “left” as represented by millions of soccer moms a warm & fuzzy feeling that because there is a sign in front of little Johnny’s schools, he will be safe because the sign will protect him from the bad people. You laugh, but millions of ignorant and stupid soccer moms actually believe this!

I remember some years ago ex-senator Fritz Hollings, of South Carolina, actually argues in the U.S. Senate against arming pilots. Instead he lobbied for the posting of “signs” in English and Arabic stating that the FBI would investigate and punish to the fullest extent of the law anyone who hijacks this airplane. This Neanderthal actually believed this was MORE effective in preventing hijackings than arming the crew.

The “left” hates guns; except when they are in the hands of leftists and those who obey (the police) the orders of the leftists. In terms of having the average citizen own and carry a gun that’s just wrong.

We can cite all the logic and evidence we want but arguing with a soccer mom is like arguing with a snapping turtle; there is no way you can change the mind of a turtle by utilizing intelligence and logic.

Van
How many school shootings do you read about in Israel where ALL teachers are armed? Arming teachers will prevent school shootings, period. It really is that simple.

Gun Free Zones
Creating "gun free zones" means creating Danger Zones.

Dumb
Putting up a sign that says "This school is a Gun-Free zone, is akin to putting a sign on your home that says "There are no guns in this house"

Response to Lilly
Although I am not sure I accord it much weight (my guess is that not that many mentally imbalanced people have totally lost their instinct for self-preservation), I will concede that your argument about the presence or potential presence of firearms failing to act as a deterent for a really crazy person is not a frivolous one. Having said that,however, we need to proceed to the next step in the anlaysis of the issue. If a person is so deranged that he or she is going to cut loose with a firearm on a school campus no matter what, how then do we minimize the bloodshed? This issue came to the fore in the aftermath of Virginia Tech, where the carnage took place-not atypically- over a significant expanse of time and space. One armed student or administrator could easily have saved dozens of lives. This factor was present in the vast majority of the other school shootings as well.

Doc
If you read my post I don't think I recommended disarming everybody and I acknowledged that armed guards might not be a bad idea. The point of my post was that a screwy mother was totally incompetent to deal with her son. Rather than do ANYTHING to help him work out his problems with other kids, she started homeschooling him and, on top of that, she bought him an arsenal. And we don't seem to have anything in place to circumvent that. Rather, our existing laws helped her out, and the result was tragedy.

Re arming teachers, I posted the other day some logistical problems. Let's talk about high schools (where the shootings often occur). If you rely on armed teachers, you're not talking about mandatory arming of teachers since all teachers would not be willing or competent to be designated shooters. Assuming it to be a voluntary program, you would have x number of armed teachers to protect x number of students. Thus you would hope to distribute the shooters wisely. Imagine a huge high school with six wings and a population of 1500 students and staff. You'd want to spread out the shooters to maximize availability in an emergency. But teachers have to work in certain locations because of equipment placement (wood shop, gym, band room, chemistry lab etc) and classroom availability in various departments (for adjacence to necessary books and supplies). On top of that, teachers don't usually work in one place all day but usually shift classrooms and assume various duties. I think the problem of "where is the armed teacher" would be enormous. (Then there is the problem of legal liability if a student is shot by a teacher, a can of worms the size of Mt Everest.)


The truth is obvious.
One is not made safer by being made defenseless.

Lilly: 20,000 odd gun laws have not eliminated the need for self-defense; they have only impinged upon our Right to defend ourselves.

Gun Free Zones
If you are a gun fearing wuss (GFW) just put a sign on your door saying "This is a gun free house, please don't hurt me".

Proud Territorial
I doubt the issue is as much about self-preservatation as grandiosity. On one side you have a 15 year-old kid who doubts not that he can accomplish Armageddon all by himself. On the other side you have folks who think that anybody with a carry license is an expert sniper. It falls to the rest of us to apply some reality to the situation---would every teacher lusting to go armed into the school be as expert a shot as he likes to think? As the old song teaches us, "Ever'body talkin' 'bout heaven ain't goin' there." . "Collateral damage" seems likely.


sheepdog
That is a great point. How about it, Van? Are you going to do that? Are you going to let the criminals know that you have no way to protect yourself until 20 minutes later when the police arrive? I'll pay for the sign. A man's responsibility extends to the protection of his family; at 160 lbs I am not going to knock down a 250 lb trespasser (but my 9mm will).

Sage Got This One Right
Excellent argument. Gun Free Zones beg to be abused by armed assailants.

By definition, America is an armed society.

It is absolutely silly and dangerous to create Gun Free Zones that only those that follow rules comply with. As usual, every time elitist Liberals force their silly ideas on others, people get hurt.

Lilly
Truth be told, the average CCW holder is a far better shot than the average cop. As an NRA certified instructor I know this as a fact. I see the cops shooting at our range all the time and while I do not claim to be a crack shot, I (and 95% of the other non-cop members of our club) can outshoot them blindfolded. This myth that cops are good shots like in the movies is just that; a myth. How can anyone who is required to fire his gun twice a year for a few minutes be a better shot than someone who goes to the range once a week or even once a month? I would rather have armed teachers who go to the range and take CCW seriously than a cop in each classroom; the kids would be a LOT safer.

Hey lilly
Speaking of not logical, that's you!! Why don't you break into my house and try to take my guns. Go ahead. Make my day.

Simple solution
I propose we get rid of the military and declare the world a "war free zone" and disarm the police and declare the country a "crime free zone". Then lilly and likeminded libs can buy tee shirts declaring their bodies rape free zones. Let's see how long that will work.

Lilly's remark about homeschooling was predictable. One home schooled kid arms himself and threatens to shoot up a school and now that is the problem. Most public schools should be declared education free zones as that would be a far more accurate description.

I am John Doe!

Van Dreams Of Other Nations
Van writes: "One must wonder how other nations survive without arming teachers with semi automatic weapons? Not to talk about the nations that somehow manage to teach the kids without one of them shooting others dead on regular basis."

I can not speak for other nations, but America, by definition, is an armed society. Making rules that ignores that fact is absolutely silly and dangerous.

This is America. We are an armed nation. Get used to it. Plan accordingly, instead of pretending otherwise. Such silliness as pretend Gun-Free-Zones only begs for abuse and puts innocent people at great risk.


Lilly Misses The Point
Lilly offers, "If you rely on armed teachers, you're not talking about mandatory arming of teachers since all teachers would not be willing or competent to be designated shooters."

Arming the teachers or not arming the teachers is not the issue.

We are an armed nation. Get used to it. Making pretend Gun-Free-Zones inside of an armed nation is a sick joke. If you can not enforce a Gun-Free-Zone 100 percent, you are deliberately puting innocent people at risk.

These schools employ pretend Gun-Free-Zones. They are absolutely dangerous and should be avoided at all times.

The utter stupidity of lilly revisited.
lilly pukes:
"Townhallers don't like laws or government."

And you obviously like mollesting children. Hey, my statement is just as honest as your statement, idiot!

The difference between us and your ilk is that we like laws and government that is CONSTITUTIONAL. You know, laws and government that abide by that document you and your kooky commie ilk wish didn't exist?

You and your ilk, however, not only don't like the Constitution of the United States, you DESPISE freedom in general. That is why you so aggressively work to eliminate any and all freedom. You support confiscatory taxes, you support laws that make us helpless from your criminal behavior, you support nonsense "environmental" laws that prohibit us from doing anything at all. You, IN FACT, HATE freedom.

lilly then vomited:
"Should something not have prevented that boy from having, what was it, thirty weapons in his room?"

By YOUR logic, since a nutbag could do a lot of damage with, say, a car, all cars need to be banned. After all, should something not have prevented Fat Ted Kennedy from murdering Mary Jo?

"Should something not have prevented that boy from having, what was it, thirty weapons in his room?"

You're making our argument for us. Thank you. That is why the notion of carrying a concealed weapon is such a good one. No one knows just who is carrying, thus a Democrat who wants to murder children cannot possibly target those who are carrying.

lilly
Oh, so it may be hard and take some effort, so let's scrap the idea. There may be collateral damage so let's keep the system that we have now. In this system there will be no students killed by accident (only those killed on purpose). As a father of four I can tell you it would sure make me feel a whole lot better knowing that nobody interfered with the murder of one of my kids. Lilly, why the tired rhetoric? Can you libs never resist the urge to use phrases like "every teacher lusting to go armed into the school". And can you never take one thing (a voluntary program) and substitute something else (a mandatory program)? Why do you ignore the numbers and studies? Guns in the hands of skilled, responsible adults will deter crime. Only those inclined to do so will be issued permits, with training and background checks. A CCP is only a license to carry a gun, not use it with impunity. It is a privilege that can be revoked very easily. Don't you fear criminals more than honest citizens?

The third quote:
The third lilly mumbling I quoted was supposed to be:

"Why would he not also strategize to take out the armed guard (or teacher) first?"

Cut-and-paste error.

Beowulfe
There was a time when I thought like Lilly, but I grew up and put away childish notions. I am done living in fear. I am vigorously petitioning my husband for a Glock 17, and the concealed weapons permit, and the class that comes with it.
If teachers are permitted to carry, I am 100% sure that the crime rate in schools would go down to nil. These perpetrators are cowards, and if there's even a remote chance that a teacher is armed, they will not take a chance with their own lives. If they were truly suicidal, they would try to turn the gun on themselves, not the rest of the students. Volunteering at a rape crisis center with a suicide hotline taught me that much.

The best thing the democratic party ever did for this minority was to make me a conservative.

Max Power
A hearty 'AMEN' on your last post.

Long live the second amendment!

YLG
Not that this is to be a gun forum but... if you have not handled firearms frequently an auto may not be the best weapon. If an auto jams (which Glocks almost never do) you have to remove the clip, clear the chamber, replace the clip and rack it. That is a lot to handle in a desperate situation. I will usually recommend a revolver in .38 caliber with hollow point bullets for women and inexperienced shooters. If it jams, you just squeeze the trigger again and work on a new chamber. If you really feel you need more punch, a .357 packs it. Smith and Wesson make some very nice models sized for the female hand. One very large advantage of the .38 with a hollow point is that it very unlikely to pass through your target and hit someone else. And if you miss, it probably won't travel through a wall and hit someone on the other side. This is the main reason I don't use a .45 for home defense- I am afraid that an errant round will travel the length of the house and hit one of my kids. All that aside, good luck and I hope that you never need to draw that roscoe.

Let'sPretend
Just suppose Lilly's misconception were the reality.

We could make it mandatory that every teacher, as part of his certification process be required to take and pass firearm safety and shooting classes, and to carry a weapon at all times, like the police. We could even deputize them, to make it legalistic.

Now, what person, even a crazy one, would attempt to kill anyone in the fish barrel school, where the government has herded children so anyone who wants to find a minor victim knows exactly when and where to look? Even the crazies will know they don't have much of a chance to accomplish their dreams.

Even if we take the voluntary approach, and do not advertise which teachers are armed, the effect is the same. Were we to assume that only 1 in 12 teachers is armed, the crazy is still not going to know where he can go to carry out his plan. He may do the Russian Roulette thing, but with a 12% chance of immediate failure, the odds are really against his carrying out a mass murder.

As a child, in Magna, Utah, I rode the bus with students who carried their loaded rifles and shotguns to Brockbank Junior High School and Magna High. There were no wild shooting sprees. Knives were everyone's tools, girls as well as boys, and there were no stabbings or accidents, either.

Guns and knives do not cause killings, but idiots who fear them them do. The unarmed, law-abiding citizen will always be at a disadvantage to the armed criminal and to the politicians and bureaucrats who want to force their way on him.

Schools owned by the state have, as their
primary purpose, the indoctrination of
future taxpayers and citizens.

Le
==
Please visit http://www.schoolandstate.org

gun free zones
democrats=liberals=progressives=socialists=commielike lilly do not like real americans defending ourselves from criminals and crazies.i think it is because perps and traitors are their core constituencies.when i was in school we had shooting clubs where you brought your rifle to school and we never had a problem with crazy kids.students who could not control them selves were removed and sent to the training school for bad boys.lilly you should educate your self about fire arms. when you say any one can buy an assault rifle which implies a fully automatic weapon you expose your ignorance on the subject.i suggest you read john lotts more guns less crime which has real facts rather than faiy tales from the left.

Let's Pretend
1 in 12 is 8 1/3%, not 12%. Sorry for any inconvenience due to the typo.

Herding children into a single place, by force,
and advertising they are defenseless is just
one more reason that governments should have
nothing to do with education. Schools are
pervert lures.

Le
==
Please visit http://www.schoolandstate.org

gun free zones
democrats=liberals=progressives=socialists=commielike lilly do not like real americans defending ourselves from criminals and crazies.i think it is because perps and traitors are their core constituencies.when i was in school we had shooting clubs where you brought your rifle to school and we never had a problem with crazy kids.students who could not control them selves were removed and sent to the training school for bad boys.lilly you should educate your self about fire arms. when you say any one can buy an assault rifle which implies a fully automatic weapon you expose your ignorance on the subject.i suggest you read john lotts more guns less crime which has real facts rather than faiy tales from the left.

There should be no CCPs! They are an
infringement, period! and the Constitution's 2nd amendment says the "right of the people to keep (own) and bear (carry) shall not be infringed." It does not state except where we designate a "gun free zone", there are no exceptions to the type of arm or the place one is allowed to bear it. You may not like the unlimited freedom it conveys, but that is how it is written and that should be the final say. All gun control laws are patently UnConsitutional!

Mr. D
Mr. D writes:
"Being able to defend yourself by exercising your 2nd Amendment rights is just a matter of common sense. That's why liberals don't get it."

Liberals don't want conservatives (citizens of the Constitutional Republic of the USA) to be able to defend themselves. Once law-abiding citizens are disarmed, the leftists (marxists & nazis) would then have the "ability" to destroy our Constitutional Republic for socialist fascism - murdering civilians who don't agree with the destruction of our Constitutional Republic, much like Marx, Stalin & Hitler were guilty of.

(Many of the fans of the communist/nazi movement in the USA are upset with their ability to be financially equal to those who legitimately earn their wealth. What these "fans" don't understand (or accept) is that once we have succumbed to socialist/fascism, there will be no lower class as there is in western Europe – we will all be peons.)

typos
"their ability to be financially"

their INABILITY to be financially

typo
"their ability to be financially equal"

their INABILITY to be financially equal

School shootings
Some realistic thoughts about reducing school shootings.

1. Every teacher should have access to a Tazer. It's not as permanent as a gun but still fairly effective.

2. Simply allow people that already have shooting ability (former cops or military especially) to carrier weapons.

3. POST Signs "Armed Guards & Armed Teachers" There might only be one teacher in the whole school with a gun but that's enough to make people think twice.

4. Have any teacher that desires to carry their weapon on school grounds under-go some psychological assessments as well as close quarters shooting (CQB) training. (Pay them extra for their increased service)

5. Have strict "rules of engagement" for teachers that include something along the lines of "no shooting first". They can only shoot after a shot has been fired. Or perhaps if a weapon is pointed directly at someone in a menacing fashion.


It's been said over and over again
but if you take guns away from the law-abiding, the only people with guns will be the lawless.

Lilly and others who fear firearms
I do not fear your views regarding firearms, rather I think think them either misinformed or without firearms experience. I believe you could enjoy a responsible firearm safety course, including range firing.

I've taught firearms safety and their responsible use since 1962 to hundreds of men, women and children and I know not one of them fails to respect a firearm for its ONLY use - that is to put a bullet out the end of the barrel when everything functions properly - where that bullet goes and what it does depends on the individual squeezing the trigger.

We teach 'drivers ed' in schools, why not 'firearms ed' - IF drivers ed makes for safer drivers, would not firearms ed make for safer gun handling?

When Palestinians began killing school children in Israel, the parents and teachers armed themselves - NO MORE SCHOOL SHOOTINGS!

One cannot child proof a gun, but one CAN gun proof a child -

A criminal, is by definition, one who fails to obey the laws of society.

'Gun Free Zones' INSURE victims inside are denied their RIGHT of self defense - the only defense against an unlawful firearm is one in the hands of a law abiding citizen, whether police, military or a law abiding citizen. And a LAW ABIDING citizen will not misuse a firearm.

Do 'Drug Free Zones' insure there are NO drugs available? Of course not.


The Right To Bear Arms Is Not A Mandate
Rich L offers, "Constitution's 2nd amendment says the "right of the people to keep (own) and bear (carry) arms shall not be infringed."

Although, I agree with you that this is our right, it is not a mandate. The Constitution describes the Government's position, only.

One citizen's right to free speech, bear arms or whatever ends at the good will of another citizen's property. We are still Americans and private property means something. Each of us, on our own property have the right to regulate speech and weaponry as we see fit.

If a community wants to create a Gun-Free-Zone, that's okay with me. It is their right to do so. However, in nearly every case, these are pretend Gun-Free-Zones, where the rule is not 100 percent enforced. In a country of armed citizenry, as we are in America, pretend Gun-Free-Zones are silly, irresponsible and dangerous.

For me, a Gun-Free-Zone designation is a guarantee that my family will never go there.


It is a mandate
A militia is **all** the (originally) men between the ages of ~18 and ~55, unless physically or mentally disqualified. Since the militia is required to be armed, it only stands to reason the 2d amendment requires all men, at least, be armed and trained (the XVIII definition of well-regulated) as fighting men.

In the interest of sexual equality, we could extend the requirement to women, as well as men, although that goes far beyond the intent of the document.

Schools exist to assure the government that
future taxpayers will be trained in obedience
to capricious edicts.


Le
==
Please visit http://www.schoolandstate.org

Challenge for lilly and her ilk
If you think "gun free zones" are such a great thing, then I challenge you to place a sign in your front yard reading "This home is a gun free zone."

Do that and come back in a month to tell us how it worked out for you...assuming you're still alive.

LS Confuses Rights With Mandates
LS offers, "It is a mandate A militia is **all** the (originally) men between the ages of ~18 and ~55, unless physically or mentally disqualified. Since the militia is required to be armed, it only stands to reason the 2d amendment requires all men, at least, be armed and trained (the XVIII definition of well-regulated) as fighting men"

The Constitution speaks for itself, "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed".

We are not in a dictatorship. The Constitution is not a Communist Manifesto, full of Mandates of how citizens must act. It is a promise to its citizens of how the Government will act.

In America, we are a fee society without Government Mandates. We have the right to bear arms or speak our minds, or, not.

In America, your rights end at the good will of your neighbor's property. And, vise versa, your theirs ends at the good will of your property.

Gun free zone for law abiding citizens
Don't you feel safe when you see signs that say Gun free zone for law abiding citizens (and "law abiding" illegal aliens!)?

Ther is a an old phrase "like shooting fish in a barrel".

Lily states:
"Posting armed guards (who are not teachers) may be less problematic. It seems logical to assume that a potential shooter would avoid a protected place."

Then continues with:

"Why would he not also strategize to take out the armed guard (or teacher) first?"

Is this your early warning system?

Then in another post:
"Imagine a huge high school with six wings and a population of 1500 students and staff. You'd want to spread out the shooters to maximize availability in an emergency. But teachers have to work in certain locations because of equipment placement (wood shop, gym, band room, chemistry lab etc) and classroom availability in various departments (for adjacence to necessary books and supplies). On top of that, teachers don't usually work in one place all day but usually shift classrooms and assume various duties. I think the problem of "where is the armed teacher" would be enormous."

With thinking like that, you know what kind of job Lily has.

With CCW, you do not know who is armed, or is at any particular location on schedule. But knowing that anybody is potentially armed, do you feel like taking a chance? Do you feel lucky?

Max Power, CVN65
This is my second attempt at this post, since TH went all screwy on me!

OK, you both win. My hubby agrees on the Sig and the S&W as alternatives for me.

Max: I completely agree that VA Tech is partly responsible for the shootings. In short, they denied citizens their right.

Thanks to you both for the tutelage!

Max Power says
"I love how anti-gunners always assume that people who wish to arm themselves for protecting are "lusting" after guns and violence."

We have an example of this going on in Dallas, Texas. Google "Rebecca Aguilar" and "Robert Walton" to get the details, but in short, a 70-year-old man who owned a junkyard--the property also contained his residence--had made over 40 calls to the police, had his residence and business broken into numerous times, and within two or three weeks, had to shoot and kill not one but two different burglars. Who scaled a fence to get onto his property, by the way.

Rebecca Aguilar is a local reporter. I haven't yet seen the videotape, just heard audio excerpts, but she followed this man as he went to a gun store (that surely was no accident) and badgered this poor guy, who was in tears and very distressed over what he'd had to do, and she asked him if he thought of himself as "trigger-happy"!!

Aguilar is on indefinite suspension.


Forgot to mention
The channel that employs Aguilar is our local FOX affiliate, so her bias was a bit surprising.

Max Power Brings Up A Good Point
Max Power writes,"schools and counties do not have the right to deny our 2nd amendment rights by simply hanging a sign that says "Gun Free Zone".

Actually, private communities do have the right to deny you the right to free speech and bear arms. The Constitution only promises that the Government will not infringe your right to free speech or bear arms. It does not speak for its citizenry.

We are not a dictatorship. The Constitution is not a Communist Manifesto of Mandates of behaviors for citizens. It is a promise of how the Government will act, not how citizens must act.

Although, many schools and counties walk a precarious line between Government and private community. My guess is that if a school points to the Constitution as reason to take "God" out of the pledge of allegiance, they would have little ground to enforce a Gun-Free-Zone. They can not have it both ways! Of, course, that is, unless they are Liberal, then there are no rules and it is all a bunch of nonsense.

Mac Moore
Most schools and all counties are not private they are part of the local govmerments and the constiution does apply to them. However a home owners assosciation (which would have been a better example and who i feel should be considered a local goverment) or a private business does not have to follow the Consitution and can restrict the presents of weapons however they see fit.

i dont know how you could not call a county govement.

GUN BAN NUTS WOULD BE RIGHT IF
Guns did not exist, just like Prohibition would have worked if man had not discovered fermentation or pot growers never heard of horticulture
Larry Elder is right-moreover-Japanese-American have a LOWER rate of crime thannative Japanese-despite fact that former can own guns.
Moreover-guns are not "banned" in Japan-shotguns are legal and even traded openly

Mr. Burns -- well duh!
quoth Mr. Burns: "Well, duh,
If I want to shoot as many people as I can before someone stops me, I don't go to an NRA meeting!"

Of course not!

You go to a Gun Show/Swap Meet!

(wait a minute . . . )

Libs like Lilly DONT GET IT
A few UNINFORMED Libs, (read here LILLY), object to armed teachers for the following reasons:
1: Liability.
Answer: > Provide Liability insurance paid for by school districts.
2: Logistics & Training: Specifically, armed teachers can’t fill all class rooms, and few are proficient with guns.
Answer: > Offer teachers weapons training similar to that airlines now offer pilots. The weapons training we receive is actually superior to that of most police officers. And though relatively few of us have volunteered for this training, it keeps bad guys guessing which pilot is packing. If a few teachers in each school had similar training, it would have a similar “chilling effect”. So a few armed teachers is obviously better that none. Ive heard no complaints, even from Libs, to arming of pilots who are responsible air travelers safety. So its mind boggling that Libs, even those as far left as Lilly, object to arming those responsible for our children’s safety.

Libs like Lilly DONT GET IT
A few UNINFORMED Libs, (read here LILLY), object to armed teachers for the following reasons:
1: Liability.
Answer: > Provide Liability insurance paid for by school districts.
2: Logistics & Training: Specifically, armed teachers can’t fill all class rooms, and few are proficient with guns.
Answer: > Offer teachers weapons training similar to that airlines now offer pilots. The weapons training we receive is actually superior to that of most police officers. And though relatively few of us have volunteered for this training, it keeps bad guys guessing which pilot is packing. If a few teachers in each school had similar training, it would have a similar “chilling effect”. So a few armed teachers is obviously better than none. Ive heard no complaints, even from Libs, to arming pilots who are responsible for air travelers safety. So its mind boggling that Libs, even those as far left as Lilly, object to arming those responsible for our children’s safety.

Military Man -- on Signage
quoth Military Man:

3. POST Signs "Armed Guards & Armed Teachers" There might only be one teacher in the whole school with a gun but that's enough to make people think twice.


I like that -- that's a danged good idea!

Should have quite the opposite effect of a sign reading "Gun Free Zone".

Reminds me of signs that read;
"Trespassers will be shot. Survivors will be prosecuted."

and before somebody else comments --
"Trespassers will be shot. Survivors will be shot again."

chr3354 - Agree In Outcome
chr3354 writes: Thursday, "...home owners assosciation ..... or a private business does not have to follow the Consitution and can restrict the presents of weapons however they see fit."

I disagree. Private business (an extension of private citizenry) must follow the Constitution. They can not choose to ignore it. However, the Constitution does not address the authority of private citizens or their properties as to regulating arms or free speech.

Arms and Free Speech are only addressed in the Constitution as areas that the Government promises to leave alone. Therefore, Arms and Free Speech are left to the private sector's business: your freedom to bear arms and free speech ends at the good will of your neighbor's property.

chr3354 continues, "I dont know how you could not call a county govement."

Within the US there are a lot of strange quasi-government / private property arrangements. I only left room for those odd exceptions. Other than that, I agree, County Governments are extensions of the US Government.

Conflict
"The Constitution is not a Communist Manifesto, full of Mandates of how citizens must act. It is a promise to its citizens of how the Government will act."

But then ...

"Private business (an extension of private citizenry) must follow the Constitution."

I see a conflict. If there is no mandate, how must the private citizenry follow the Constitution?

Governments have no more business running schools than they had running churches. And for the same reasons.

Le
==
Please visit http://www.schoolandstate.org

Nutzo Cops
I haven't seen it mentioned as yet, so I'll bring it up.

One of the things that gun-grabbers like to opine is that the 2nd only applies to police and army having guns ("militia") not the private citizens. This is ludicrous of course, but my point is that they love to say that they are the only ones who *should* have access to guns. Us mere private citizens are too unstable for lethal force.

Now wasn't there a story a few weeks back where a COP went nutzoid and shot four or five people? Coz his girlfriend broke up with him or something?

Interesting I didn't hear any calls for disarming all our police after this story broke.

The Issue Is Has To Be Addressed
The facts remain that we have a problem in the educational arena.
It doesn’t matter why these nuts are doing this, society is not addressing it.

Schools are unsafe places to be.
Armed guards probably aren’t the answer either. Most of them are just visible signs that make you think that you are safe. They are no different than someone with a concealed carry permit.

The problem has become such that we are faced with the lesser of the evils.
You are going to continue to stand by and let some deranged kid shoot up the school, or you are going to arm someone to stop them.

The police are not going to be able to respond quickly enough to stop the carnage.

I feel that the importance is that these individuals need to be trained beyond marksmanship. Even a video once a mouth to keep them familiar with there responsibility.

Armed personnel in schools is a serious issue, but it appears that it has become an issue that must be faced.

The schoolings are not going to stop. With terrorism, the likelihood is greater. We probably should be preparing for it anyway.

School administrators should be getting in touch with local law enforcement, and learn from Israeli authorities how to handle it.

It’s just a matter of time before it happens.

Correction on my last post
School shootings are not going to stop.

The Universal Militia
The obligation to serve in the militia in England is enshrined in common law, dating to Anglo-Saxon times. Only those who were worthy to serve in the militia were freemen. The common law mandated all freemen between 15 & 50 be avialable for service in the posse commitatus and militia. The militia could only be activated by a royal warrant.

English Common Law was the basis for the USmerican legal system.

The II Continental Congress codified training the militia through the Articles of Confederation. Art 1, Sect 8, of the Constitution transferred the power to call up the state-based militia to civilian control. The Militia Clause gives the federal government control over the militia. Authority to appoint officers and to oversee congressionally specified training remained with the states.

The II ensures that the federal government could not disarm the militia for any reason. But it did so by forbidding Congress do disarm the people. So while the people's right to keep and bear arms is a personal right, the context and the text do so in such a way as to insure that the individual states could always stand up to the federal government, Lincoln not withstanding.

So, if the militia is composed of all freemen (and women nowadays) and the militia clause and II arm, train, and activate the militia, then by logic that we -- or rather you, I'm too old any more -- must be armed, by Common Law and the Constitution.

Government is no better a teacher in the
XXI than it was a preacher in the XIX.
We excommunicated it, we must expel it.

Le
==
Please visit http://www.schoolandstate.org

LS Confused On Rights vs Mandates
Mac Moore offers, "The Constitution is not a Communist Manifesto, full of Mandates of how citizens must act. It is a promise to its citizens of how the Government will act."

But then ...

"Private business (an extension of private citizenry) must follow the Constitution."

LS points out, "I see a conflict. If there is no mandate, how must the private citizenry follow the Constitution?"

Simply, citizens can not arbitrarily abridge the Constitution. Luckily for the Citizens, the Constitution does spend time delivering Mandates. Simple stuff. Check it out.

LS Connects Dots To Mandate Bearing Arms
LS concludes, after a long string of connected logical dots, therefore, "(Americans) ...must be armed, by Common Law and the Constitution."

Well, good luck with that. Take it for a test ride. Let me know how that works for you.

Unca Alby Cautions Rights Challengers
Unca Alby offers, "One of the things that gun-grabbers like to opine is that the 2nd only applies to police and army having guns ("militia") not the private citizens. This is ludicrous of course, but my point is that they love to say that they are the only ones who *should* have access to guns. Us mere private citizens are too unstable for lethal force."

I think a case like that came before the Supreme Court, lately, and was, rightfully, shot down.

The 2nd Amendment is a pretty simple statement, "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". This does not say the militia has the right to bear arms. It clearly says "the people".

Of course, a Leftie might say it was a typo: the Founding Fathers were drunk when they wrote this, they really meant that only the police departments and military can bear arms.

The Militia
Armed citizens are militia in my opinion.

We have reached the point where we can not depend on military to protect its citizens at home. The National Guard can not protect its citizens. We can not depend upon police to protect US citizens.

If terrorists are on the loose, nut cases are on the loose, citizens have no choice but to protect themselves.

Gun-Free Zones
My sister worked as an M.D. in Israel for many years. Their practice of having armed teachers in every school was 100% effective, and they were dealing with terrorists far more proficient and motivated than your average middle school or high school nutcase. In my opinion, posting a "Gun-Free zone" sign signals the would-be mass murderer that there will be no resistance. Might as well put up a sign saying, "Defenseless victims inside." Any school district posting a No-Guns sign should be held criminally liable for any shootings that occur.

Bill of Rights Superfluous
"citizens can not arbitrarily abridge the Constitution."

That has nothing to do with whether the Constitution includes mandates on citizens. While i believe that everyone in USmerica should be armed as part of the universal militia, and that the Document, along with Common Law, mandates just that, I have no illusions that it would ever be enforced: the powers that be don't want a well regulated militia. It does not serve their purpose.

However, the Constitution starts from the presumption that governments have no inherent powers, and that every power this government has is one ceded by the people, through the states (whose powers derive from the same people). The Constitution affects, with rare exception, ONLY the government.

Beginning with the powerlessness of the state, through the Document, we the people grant to the state several enumerated powers, and ONLY those listed.

The Bill of Rights is a needless addition to the Charter. Since there is no power, for instance, for Congress to establish a religion, explicitly denying that power is superfluous. Nor did we grant the power to infringe the right to keep and bear arms; thus, to specify that it has no such power is to claim the sky is blue.

The militia is a simple extension of the right to self defense. A trained (well regulated) militia is still more effective. Working together, several are more effective than one alone. So, the only ones who should not be armed are those who choose not to defend themselves, or, perhaps, the truly anti-social.

I will believe that children should learn
in classes of 20 or more of the same age
when mothers start whelping litters about
that size.

Le
==
Please visit http://www.schoolandstate.org

The Public Needs Educating
This is what gets me the most with those who oppose to law abiding citizens carrying guns.

I can own a gun; I can carry a gun in my vehicle. If I had criminal intent, the law would not prevent me from carrying anywhere I wanted to.

I as a law abiding citizen go to the trouble of applying for a permit, go through the background check, take the training, and pay the state all the fees.

I am issued a permit that virtually allows me to carry in my vehicle, on the public street, but no where else that is prohibited, which are most places.

That means that I am force to not carry, or leave the weapon in the vehicle where it is easy prey for theft. I have already had a weapon stolen from my vehicle which was fortunately recovered.
Do you know what the thief received; probation. The rest of the stuff that he stole was just my loss.

I’m tired of restriction on concealed carry. If the state says that I have a right to be armed, and I have jumped through all of there hoops, I should be able to carry without restrictions.

Those who are afraid of law abiding citizens who are licensed to carry need to understand that license to carry is not a license to shoot. License to carry does not give me anymore freedom to use my weapon than if I didn’t have a license.

There are enough laws to bury a citizen in prison for many years for improper handling of a firearm, license or no license.

I have qualified for the right to carry. I should be able to carry anywhere I want unrestricted.
Statistics have proven that those who carry legally are responsible carriers.
Statistics have proven that states with conceal carry have reduced crime, even in spite of the restrictions.

Laws need to be changed. State legislators don’t have the courage to do what right.

People That Carry Are As Safe AS Cops
One of the main problems with our society is that they equate the law abiding citizen with a gun to the criminal on the street with a gun To them a gun is a gun no matter whose hand that it’s in.

If a carpenter is walking down the street with a hammer in his hand, and a crazy man is walking down the street hitting people in the head with a hammer, you can’t equate the carpenter with the mad man.

A firearm is a tool. It has no evil intent of its own. It is the evil mind that turns it into an evil instrument.

Concealed carry is not going to influence the mind set one way or another.
A license is not going to make any difference if I intend to do evil.

A concealed carrier is a rational human being, who understands that he lives in a violent society. He also understands the great responsibility that goes with carrying a firearm.

We are not people running around looking for trouble. I fear this politically correct society more than I fear the criminal. I fear being put in jail by one of these over zealous prosecutors more than I fear the thug on the street. Do you think that I want to shoot someone?

That’s why I say that the last thing that our society needs to fear is an armed law abiding citizen.

Some people are afraid of all those high capacity guns. Are you aware that in a justifiable shooting that the number of shots fired can make the difference of whether you go to prison or don’t.

Are you aware that someone with a concealed carry permit can only use the force necessary to defend an attack? You can only stop the attack. Everyone with a concealed carry permit knows that.

Some of these liberals keep visualizing all these people carrying guns getting drunk and shooting up the place. Not gonna happen! If it ever did happen the person is going to jail and never be allowed to possess a firearm again.

foxfire22 Is Preaching To The Choir
foxfire22 writes: "People That Carry Are As Safe AS Cops"

Amen!

LS: A Serious Student Of The USA
LS writes, "Bill of Rights Superfluous"

I can see that you are a very serious student of America. I like that.

We may not agree on how the dots are connected, but I respect your commitment to what is right.

As they say, Don't Let The Bastards Get You Down! Semper Fi!

Errata
I posted incorrectly about the gentleman in West Dallas who had to shoot the intruders. His name is JAMES Walton, not Robert, and he owns a machine and welding business.

Questions to think about
Not all liberals are crazed to take your guns away. My father taught me how to use long guns and I had a cousin who taught me how to use handguns. Maybe I’m an atypical liberal, at least on this issue. I also believe the evidence is clear and decisive that the 2nd Amendment allows Americans to own and carry guns, which is firmly supported by the relevant case law.

Just a couple of things Th readers might want to think about some ramifications of allowing students and teachers to carry while in school. Lots of teenagers have all sorts of tough issues they’re trying to deal with and many of them have poor judgment. We see that in auto accident statistics, drinking and drug problems, and lots more. Now just imagine some of these kids armed. The random snub, the fight over a girl, the breakup of a couple, and lots of other scenarios wind up with somebody shot dead in the high school parking lot.

Send these kids to college and the quarrel between roommates or the hazing of a fraternity rushee ends in a gun fight and more body bags. Also, consider that kid who just knows that I graded him too low on the quiz last week. He gets strapped and comes looking for me. [If I did teach on a campus where students could carry, I’d be carrying too.]

I don’t have answers, but I do think we should all look carefully at whether or not an armed school population is a good thing. My own preference is for armed guards. This could be handled by local police on a detail basis, i.e., serving when they’re not on duty for additional pay.

Gestell
RE: your comments regarding immature teenagers with guns on campus: I assume you’re referring to college students: First of all, NO college student under 21 can obtain a CCW permit. So we’re NOT talking about teenagers, as you suggested.

Now that your first lame argument is shot down in flames; please explain this, IF you can, (which I doubt). When I was a 13 year old High School freshman, I and others in my school often carried guns to class. And here’s the real shocker. WE WERE ENCOURAGED TO DO SO! NO, I didn’t attend the HS from Hell. Back then most schools in my State had rifle teams. And contrary to what most Libs would believe, there were NO incidents of improper gun use where the halls ran red with blood. Rifle team behaved in a mature responsible manner, though we had the means to settle disputes in a deadly manner. Care to explain this? Didn’t think so. So much for your lame arguments.

Armed Guards vs. Armed Teachers
Why not get off-duty police officers and teach them how to be teachers?

Best of both worlds! We can have armed guards and armed teachers at the same time, and not have to hire any extra staff!!

:-)

Armed Teachers vs. Armed Guards
What's that you say? Why not do the reverse? Teach the teachers everything they need to know about how to handle guns and how to be armed guards?

So instead of teaching a guard how to teach English, we teach an English teacher how to be a guard?

No no no, that'll never do. This way means the teachers are armed, and we can't have that. The liberals will have ceramic constipation (they'll sh*t a brick).

reply to Ragnar Deneskjold
I'm aware that teenagers can't get CCW permits.However, many college students are 21 or older, and I don't see that you've answer my point about problems that might result if a significant percentage of them were carrying on campus.

And my high school had a rifle team as well, without any problems. The sort of discipline you refer to is relatively rare today in many schools, so I'm not as sure as you that no problems would result today if, for example, 13 year olds brought rifles to school.

You agree, then, it's not "the guns"?
"I'm not as sure as you that no problems would result today if, for example, 13 year olds brought rifles to school."

It's the culture. I know many young men and women whom we could trust to carry rifles, pistols, shotguns and Mace(tm) because they would not use them except for self-defense of target practice in the schools, well, apart from the fact that none of them goes to school--they're all family-educated.

But if your school had a rifle team, and perhaps many like the students I attended with in the 50s and 60s, simply had their firearms with them on account of because, and there were no problems, it is not the arms themselves that cause the problems today. It is, what many mindlessly call, the culture of irresponsibility.

When game wardens took away the old bulls in Africa, elephant herds became wild. The young bulls, left for their superior semen, attacked calves, cows, and other animals, destroyed trees, rampaged villages. Those herd elders had been the glue that kept elephantine society whole.

We eliminated fathers from many societies, notably the black working class by the dual attack of welfare and drug convictions. The Black Family doesn't exist anymore in huge swaths of USmerica. In its place we have the rap culture (you know, like on a Petri dish).

Guns do not kill people in 2007 any more than they did in 1957. But the people who have them are not socialized to the standards that allow us to permit them to use them.

GRTF-welfare schools are
largely to blame.

Le
==
Please visit http://www.schoolandstate.org

reply to LS
Agreed. Guns are tools, nothing more. However, they are lots more lethal than most tools if they are misused. What many liberals really are hoping for is a lot of cultural change that will make guns less legitimate in our society. They want a culture where the idea of using guns to harm people just doesn't exist, at least for the vast majority of Americans. I don't think this is very likely, so I don't expect it. Unlike conservatives, however, I do favor very rigorous and well-enforced gun laws--basically what we have, with some of the loopholes closed up.

There is no way that guns are going to disappear from America, so I support any program that trains people in proper gun use and safety. I also support efforts like that of the school teacher in Oregon to be allowed to carry in her school. She has a CCW permit in her state and is evidently properly trained.


Salient Points
Perhaps we owe kudos to The Sage, Mr. Elder, for another excellent article. Where has he been, though? I purchased a new car with Sirius radio, tantalized by the thought of hearing his dulcet tones, but now cannot find his program. We need more of his anti-'Victocrat-Republitarian' ideas.
Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.