Let's take an honest look at a sickening, yet irrefutable, fact. 20 children and 6 adults were slaughtered at an elementary school in Newtown, Conn....
« Back to Article
Fact is, this letter is 100% correct. Like it or not, Principals, Vice Principals, and a Security Guard (or two, preferrably two) should be in ALL SCHOOLS ARMED with a weapon holstered on their hip. Extensive Backround, Mental Health, Criminal, FBI Fingerprint, Etc background checks should be conducted on each of these individuals before authorizing them to do so, but I do think that it's at that point. NO I do not believe ALL teachers should have guns, not because a teacher isn't responsible enough, not because they don't have the right, but because if you create too large a 'stockpile' of guns, students who want to get ahold of a gun, can/will if there are too many ways to get one, too many people to get one from. Honestly, I'll go as far as to say that I think it's come to the point where Principals & Vice Principals should not only carry a holstered gun on their hip, they should be trained thoroughly in self-defense and shooting of the firearm they are carrying.
0 Agrees | 1 Disagrees |
Report Abuse »
Furthermore, I think that it should be made mandatory that ALL schools have metal detectors and cameras installed, as well as a 'Security Center/Room' where an armed Security officer can monitor the school. I actually am a Security Guard, albeit my post does not require me to carry a firearm. I would be the first in line to officer my services in protecting the schools in this area.
0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees |
Report Abuse »
I do agree on one thing that people have mentioned though. Despite what I believe should be done, there is NO Guarantee that it would've saved these children, principals, and teachers. That is just something you can't guarantee. It's about taking the extra steps, the extra precautions, if you CAN take a precaution, you SHOULD take a precaution. In the end, will it save lives? Unfortunately...there is only one way to find out.
"Chris, I offered statistics to back up your claim and now you move the target and say I am wrong"
I didn't in any way indict your statistics. I said they have absolutely nothing to do with the fact that having a gun in your home makes it far more likely that you or a family member will be injured or killed with a gun.
Because the NRA website doesn't tell you that, doesn't mean it isn't true. Remember, the job of today's NRA, is to move as many guns as they can. To create sales.
If the fruitcake that executed the children in CT, had been on the terrorist watch list, he could have sauntered into any gun store and bought all the firearms he wanted to SPECIFICALLY because the NRA spent incredible time, money and effort to block a bill that would have prevented people on the terrorist watch list from buying guns. It's their job to sell guns. Period. If there is a gun problem, their solution is, you guessed it, MORE GUNS.
1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees |
Report Abuse »
A record # of Guns have sold since December 14th, specifically Assault Rifle Firearms. So that's the public response to a much needed change. Most of us agree there's no reason for people to own assault rifles, yet, people are rushing out to buy them, to stockpile them, why? Because soon they'll be illegal. With the potential ban, they should also require people to surrender Assault rifles. They have a list of people who have boughten registered guns of the type, that seems like a good place to start.
wwhickok-"A record # of Guns have sold since December 14th, specifically Assault Rifle Firearms. So that's the public response to a much needed change. Most of us agree there's no reason for people to own assault rifles..."
Assault Weapons are already banned for sale in the US. The look alike semiautomatic weapons are not assault rifles. In fact, you can take an ordinary wood stocked semiautomatic hunting rifle and change the stock to make it look like an AR-15. But it's still the same weapon.
2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees |
Report Abuse »
Chris, where are the statistics to back up your claim? You've given us nothing to back it up. Or is it a case of you said it so it must be true?
my apologies Mike, I should've been a little more clear about what I was referring to. I'm referring to rapid fire magazine's and weaponry. Semi-Automatic Military Style Guns, etc. I'm referring to the fact that I AM in favor of the reinstantment of the ban that expired in 2004. Which would get rid of guns like the AR-15 and other guns that have been used in these high profile shootings and massacres. I am however, NOT in favor of a complete ban on ALL guns. I am in favor of the Right to Bear Arms.
By "like the AR-15" I'm simply saying, Guns that are similar to. I believe, as I've stated multiple times, that if there is a precaution you can take, you SHOULD take it. The exception to my belief on that principle is eliminating guns all together. I think the type of guns that we are permitted to own, can be jusitifiably controlled but the allowance to own them at all cannot be. We as citizen's have to be allowed to protect ourselves. If you take that right away from the citizens it'll be like trying to trap a rabid wolverine in a corner...nothing good comes out of it.
252 W. Fourth Street , Williamsport, PA 17703-0728 | 570-326-1551