Educators Rule Out Arming Teachers
by Hugh McQuaid | Jan 8, 2013 5:19pm
Google
(25) Comments | Commenting has expired
Posted to: Education, Public Safety, Newtown
Hugh McQuaid Photo
Joseph Cirasuolo, executive director of the Connecticut Association of Public School Superintendents
Education association officials who attended a school security symposium Monday said no single idea was identified to make schools safer. However, they did agree that arming teachers and administrators has more potential to cause trouble than good.
More than 850 people participated in the Connecticut School Security Symposium on Monday at the Aqua Turf Banquet Facility in Southington. The event was sponsored by a coalition of the state’s professional education associations. A group of school officials briefed reporters on the symposium at a Tuesday press conference in West Hartford.
The symposium was organized to help address school security questions after the Sandy Hook Elementary School shootings last month in Newtown.
Joseph Cirasuolo, executive director of the Connecticut Association of Public School Superintendents, said the day’s events covered a wide range of topics. Among those were how to prevent or mitigate school shootings, as well as how to prepare, respond, and recover.
From buzzer systems to bulletproof glass, Cirasuolo said there was no singular takeaway generated by the symposium, which featured academics and law enforcement experts from around the country.
“There is no one-size-fixes-everything approach to this. Each community is unique. In fact in some communities each school is unique,” he said, adding that the symposium was designed to give school officials tools to determine what works in their community.
However, representatives of the education associations dismissed the idea of arming school personnel during a question-and-answer period Tuesday.
The idea has been put forward by some of the groups who make up the gun lobby in Connecticut.
“One of the things that was recommended against very strongly was arming teachers and principals, because when it comes down to it you can make sure somebody knows how to use a firearm — shoot it — but you need to make sure the person that has the firearm knows how to use it in a school setting,” Cirasuolo said.
The speakers at the symposium thought it was unrealistic to expect educators to be trained in the proper use of guns inside a school, he said.
Karissa Niehoff, executive director of the Connecticut Association of Schools, said the prospect of arming teachers and administrators as well as training them to use the weapons presents liability concerns for school districts.
Hugh McQuaid Photo
Karissa Niehoff, executive director of the Connecticut Association of Schools
“It’s just a huge factor and there’s really no data out there to support arming faculty to prevent any kind of tragedies. So that was a very shortly discussed topic for some very powerful reasons,” she said.
Some firearms advocates have also called for armed guards to be stationed in every school. Wayne LaPierre, the National Rifle Association’s CEO, advocated that position at an NRA press conference in December.
Officials who attended the symposium were not necessarily opposed to having an armed guard at schools, but they said that if that is the path schools opt to take, it should be a police officer.
“The recommendation was pretty strong,” Cirasuolo said. “If you’re going to do something of that type, make sure the person who is there is a trained police officer . . . trained to work in schools.”
Niehoff said there was a school resource officer in the high school where she served as a principal, and she said it was an outstanding experience having the officer on the grounds. The officer was a part of the school community, teaching some legal classes, even acting as one of the football coaches, she said.
“He was just a tremendous presence in our school,” she said.
Though trained police officers can be one strategy towns can consider to make their schools safer, Cirasuolo seemed doubtful that their presence would prevent school shootings.
“Keep in mind that one third of the schools in this country already have armed personnel on site. Keep in mind that at Columbine there was an armed guard and he could not prevent what occurred there,” he said.
The debate over school security will continue when the governor’s task force tackles the issue as part of a broader discussion on gun control and mental health.
Tags: Hugh McQuaid, school shootings, newtown, school security, dh
(25) Comments
posted by: NoNonsense2012 | January 8, 2013 6:37pm
“Education association officials who attended a school security symposium Monday said no single idea was identified to make schools safer.” Raise your hand if you’re surprised by that statement. There is NO single idea that will make schools safer. The solution, if there is one, will encompass a variety of measures from tightening gun laws to enhanced security protocols to increased access to mental health treatment to reducing exposure to violent entertainment (read: parental guidance, not censorship) to who knows what else. But more guns in schools? I think not.
posted by: Speak up | January 8, 2013 6:51pm
It seems kind of silly. On the one hand teachers are nothing more than lazy union thugs who just show up everyday and don’t even know how to plan lessons and engage their students which is why we need to align test scores to their evaluation and thus, their worth. But on the other hand we should be considered worthy of training to shoot guns to protect the children we are not capable of teaching. Got it!
posted by: AntonK | January 8, 2013 10:10pm
Meanwhile, those who actually work in the schools flock to gun training classes. Curious…
http://www.courant.com/news/connecticut/hc-training-teachers-to-use-guns-0109-20130108,0,4582657.story
posted by: sightover | January 9, 2013 7:35am
Of course. Same with pilots after 9/11, too?
No “authority” need arm teachers, BTW. Teachers who are permit holders should be allowed to carry as a personal decision. This is still (nominally) the USA and the individual is still (nominally) sovereign.
Is it really MORE dangerous to allow a responsible person - one who shoulders a weighty responsibility - to carry concealed in a hidden holster? Many permit holders train religiously; 99% carry responsibly and discretely.
Would it really be more dangerous when the next insane killer ignores laws against “gun free” zones, inevitable magazine bans, and MURDER?
Most ATTEMPTED mass killings are stopped by first responder deployment of a legally-used firearm.
Look at Pearl High School in ‘97, Appalachian Law School or Santee, CA in ‘01, or the Mayan Palace Theater just recently. Fort Hood? Oregon Mall??
Its appalling that deep-blue places like CT pride themselves on being inclusive while exhibiting HATRED for a class of armed watchdogs that should be welcomed as part of the solution to post-modern societal violence.
Go on CT, in your infinite wisdom, and pass punitive measures to repress responsible firearms owners. Crap on the people who would gladly put their lives on the line for you. Scoff at the rubes and rednecks who still value community and responsibility. You will not end violence. You will only make it easier for evil men to act with impunity.
posted by: gutbomb86 | January 9, 2013 12:26pm
@sightover - flawed thinking. The presence of a few dozen firearms in a school setting increases the changes that one will find its way into the hands of a child, and teachers are human, too. They tend to be just as mentally unstable as the rest of us humans. And they have rooms full of students - all of whom are still learning self-control, etc.
Like a lot of gun advocates, you’re proceeding from the mistaken assumption that there’s no added risk that comes with the presence of firearms. Teachers have no business carrying firearms. And save the “sovereign” citizen nonsense for the next extremist propaganda planning session.
The educators have staked out a middle ground with a recommendation to add school resource officers. Instead, of accepting this as a good idea, you’re campaigning to continue arming everyone. This false argument of “safety through proliferation of firearms” has been promoted by the NRA and the gun manufacturers for one simple reason - to sell more guns to more rubes, and we’re all less safe because of it.
The sooner you accept the understanding that so called law abiding gun owners are now proven to be every bit as human as the next guy, the sooner you’ll understand why the rest of are no longer happy accepting the risk represented by the flood of firearms coming out of the factories every day and finding their way into the wrong hands.
posted by: Joebigjoe | January 9, 2013 1:44pm
Gutbomb I just dont get you. I hope you’re well because you’re a fellow human being, but if you have any doubts please seek out help.
A few dozen firearms in schools???? Who said that? EVER? How about one?
Seriously, I think Adam Lanza was responsible for this horror and his mother a distant second. People like you that try to mislead to keep our children from being safe are pretty close to Lanzas mother.
posted by: gutbomb86 | January 9, 2013 2:04pm
@joe - you apparently didn’t read my comment, which was in response to another commenter who made the suggestion that teachers should carry firearms because it’s their “sovereign” (read: wingnut) right. You missed the context and made some sort of suggestion that there’s something wrong with me, when really you need to get your own house in order. At the minimum, read more carefully before you try to marginalize someone else.
And you’re trying to put all the blame on one woman as well, in an effort to distance the problem from your precious guns, while we’re all now painfully aware that the very presence of a firearm increases the likelihood that it will fall into the wrong hands. Please spare us that thinking. It’s transparent and only serves to benefit the gun makers.
posted by: Joebigjoe | January 9, 2013 2:16pm
Gutbomb I reread the comments and I still dont see where you get to that many firearms. No one is saying every teacher should be packing and I have also said that they should not have them in a holster, but how about just one, securely locked away for a properly trained person to use to save the children or at least buy time? Would that be so bad?
By the way, Biden just said that Obama might put in gun control through executive order. I think you know that I want comprehensive common sense solutions determined by our 535 elected members of Congress and I do not, nor should you or anyone else want, this or any other President using executive order to modify the 2nd amendement of our Constitution. That will lead to charges of being like Hitler and Stalin and let me assure you, that nothing good will come of that.
posted by: gutbomb86 | January 9, 2013 3:07pm
@joe - clearly I said it’s a good idea to put a school resource officer in schools. Arming teachers is crazy.
And now you’re talking about executive orders and Hitler and Stalin. Those discussions are without merit. I don’t doubt that many of our gun advocates here in America are, in fact, bigoted and paranoid. I’ve communicated with dozens of them online, sad to say.
I am happy to see the gov’t disarming crazy, paranoid individuals who are building arsenals in their homes - arsenals that represent a threat to neighbors and everyone else.
If the president has to use executive orders to disarm dangerous, unbalanced people, then so be it. That’s leadership. I’m not concerned that the president would try to disarm all of us. Mainly because it’s absolutely ridiculous to think it could be accomplished. That’s just paranoia talking as well. The time has come to end the unfettered proliferation of firearms in our culture.
We all saw Alex Jones embarrass gun advocacy on the Piers Morgan interview. That’s what we’re dealing with.
posted by: Joebigjoe | January 9, 2013 3:33pm
I missed you saying you supported SRO’s so I apologize for that.
However the Hitler/Stalin comments aren’t far fetched if this actually occurs.
Something they want to do is have a national database of guns/gunowners and that you cant sell or transfer guns without the govt being involved. The liberal in me reads that and says “oh having a list makes sense so bad people dont get guns.”
The 99% conservative in me says “hey, when I die, and I want my sons to have any guns I own, they have to go to the govt for the transfer and at that time the govt could say no for whatever reason, and if they dont go to the govt they are now felons.”
Sorry those are Hitler Stalin type games.
posted by: gutbomb86 | January 9, 2013 4:53pm
@joe - i’m guilty of aggressive tone as well on occasion. But this is where the gun control debate ends up, often, because there’s a sense of intractability from the gun advocate side that’s punctuated with an “or else!” attitude.
I don’t think there’s a “micro” solution that’s going to remove guns from society entirely, ever. There are almost 300 million guns in circulation here that we know about with tens of thousands more flooding into the marketplace on a daily basis. Why is it that gun advocates can’t see the problem?
I prefer a “macro” approach - drastically curtail production and limit drastically the kinds of weapons available to consumers. Once the limitations are in place, start buying back the worst kinds of firearms. Over time, this will reverse the proliferation. There’s more than enough of them now. We have to stop proliferating them into society or these kinds of killings will continue.
And unfortunately the Hitler-Stalin thing is just a non-starter, IMHO. It kind of turns the discussion into theater. If gun advocates were really concerned about that, they should have spoken up when the Patriot Act was passed, and then renewed, etc etc etc.
From my observations over the years, gun advocates (by and large) have only become concerned about federal overreach since the election of a black president and at the urging of hate radio and tv hosts. They were unconcerned about all the federal overreach under the last guy, and he pretty much forced us into two overseas wars simultaneously - two wars that gun advocates, by and large, celebrated. The mindset really does start at the top.
We’re going to be fine. A lot of people NEED to be disarmed. Sooner we realize it, the better.
posted by: Joebigjoe | January 9, 2013 6:22pm
Oh Gutbomb, you provided me so much to go after with facts, but I think I’ll just pass this time.
Lets get back to the specific story we’re commenting on.
Todays Courant page A5 has a good sized piece on Ohio and Texas teachers taking gun classes. In Ohio 900 teachers signed up for a three day gun class and Texas 400 spots filled immediately.
I dont feel they love their kids anymore than our teachers do here and no one could show more love than the heroic principal and staff at Sandy Hook.
I myself would prefer SRO’s but I just want someone trained that can respond until police get there.
Since we would agree that our teachers don’t love our kids any less, why would teachers in two of the most populous states in the country feel they need to get trained, and ours don’t?
My feeling is peer pressure, and union pressure. I think most teachers want an SRO type solution, but most know darn well what types of psycho students are passing through their schools, and in the absence of an SRO solution want a trained person in their school. 1300 plus teachers in two other states cant be that wrong.
posted by: ctdad | January 9, 2013 7:43pm
It is unfortunate that mention of a particular common factor was omitted from the reports of this discussion. I refer to the fact that, with the exception of the Giffords shooting 2 yrs ago, all mass shootings since 1958 have occurred in designated GUN-FREE ZONES. Perhaps serious consideration should be given to the prospect of eliminating these zones, and removing the now-guaranteed lack of resistance that faces an active shooter. Again, the common thread is that these evil-doers selected targets of opportunity (i.e., fish in a barrel) in places that they were confident would be absent of anyone who would be equipped to stop them. I am also disturbed by the notion that we are comfortable protecting our money (banks), businesses, sporting arenas, and politicians by employing armed security to serve that role. But in the same breath, there is so much opposition to implementing a system of properly trained and adequately armed staff &/or administration within our school walls. How can those folks be sincere in their expression of care for our children as a “most precious resource”, when they refuse to consider a policy that has been proven to work both here and abroad?
posted by: Ernie | January 10, 2013 9:55pm
Two things
1. I heard an instructor offer to give free firearm safety course to all teachers in his ares. Not to arm them in school, but to formalizes them in firearms and if they do let them carry they will have been trained.
2. A letter to the Gov.
Come on All, Let’s stop the attack on the good guys and gals. The good people need your help in keeping things as is.
What is next, putting gays back in the closet ? No gay marriages because it may stop the population growth ?
Black in the back again because they are more prone to disease more so than others ? So let’s make their life miserable ?
Take women out of the work place and Gov as before ? Because, if the women were home like she should be, taking care of her family like a mother, wife, and good house keeper there would not be all this killing ?
Smokers, not in any public places, what is next can’t smoke in your own home ?
You the Gov. keep taking, and taking, and never giving. You want our rights, our money, our lives, and don’t let us have or keep anything, and now our freedom. And if you give something today you are looking for ways to take it back tomorrow.
You prey on disasters and death, so you can use it for your own benefit and profit. If the Doctor that lost his family a few years back had a gun things may have been different. But what do you, the Gov do? You use it to campaign with. And the news uses it to sell ads and increase their viewers. A man lost his family and no one lets him grieve; you think how to profit by his loss.
The poor families that lost their loved ones in Sandy Hook, between Obama using it to gain popularity, and start campaigning against firearms, CT. Gov the same, and the News selling ads, screw the families. How can they grieve when it is thrown it their face everyday ? But again why think of them when you and the news can profit ?
I believe in freedom and that All should be allowed to marry whomever as long as they’re in agreement.
I believe All are equal.
I ask you to please think about this Ban and give it a NO BAN VOTE.
Also NO to any taxes on autoloaders firearms, we should not have to pay to own something. It is not us the put this Country on the hole, non should we have to pay for Gov mistakes in spending.
My wife and I at 63 are still giving, we are both active members of the USCGAux, Helping so that the paid USCG can do their jobs. We get called in to SILS to cover the gate, communications, SAR, Boaters Education and more. And now you the Gov want more, you want us to pay for a right.
Thanks
Ernie
Below is a great quote by a GREATER man.
—
“Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We don’t pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children’s children what it was once like in the United States where men were free”
Ronald Reagan
posted by: sofaman | January 11, 2013 12:23am
@Joe, just FYI an armed sheriff serving as an SRO, was at Columbine the day all those kids were murdered. More guns at schools has proven to not be a solution. CTDad,same with your misinformation. From the recent Clackamas Mall mass murders, to Ft. Hood, there have been MANY mass murders in the presence of guns. More guns are NOT the answer. Our country is up to its neck with guns, and has the shameful lead in international murder rate to prove it.
posted by: Joebigjoe | January 11, 2013 8:57am
Sofaman I’m sure you mean well, but you have fallen for the lies.
At Columbine there was an SRO patroling the parking lot, as he was not allowed inside because they didnt want the kids to see a gun in school. He saw Eric Harris enter the school with a long gun. He fired at him with his revolver from a distance and could not hit him (one of the reasons for long guns as you cant hit someone with a handgun unless they are near you). He called for backup. They treated it as a SWAT situation which we no longer do as a country because as they waited outside the killings took place inside. That was the learning from Columbine related to law enforcement. We know alot but we are still blocked from Eric Harris’ medical records to see what kind of meds he was on. Seriously, we are not allowed to know which is part of my larger point.
Fort Hood was a Gun Free Zone on a military base. All military base canteens are like that. The terrorist knew that and came in and shot up the place because he knew that they could not have guns. This government refuses to call him a terrorist even though he yelled Allah Akbar as he shot. Again, this is leading to my larger point.
To address someone elses comments let me address why there are so many guns? Distrust and well deserved distrust I think is the overriding factor.
From the standpoint of the good guys I see politicians from both parties go on 24 hour TV and radio and lie. They can’t answer a simple question. The ones that do are the exception. If I did that as a child the belt would be out. No, that’s not politics, that’s disrespect for the rights of the citizens to get straight answers to some very serious issues.
Do you know what really disgusts me? We’re all disgusted and sickened over Newtown, Aurora and all the others. We all know (even the 2nd amendment supporters) that the way to prevent this is multifaceted. These politicians don’t want to solve it, so we all fight it out here. What will solve it? When I’m not happy, DEZ and Gutbomb arent happy, and a host of other people arent happy, but we look at the solution and say “that should work and I didnt really lose my rights”.
There are alot of people that have never owned guns that are buying them now because they see that. They dont trust the lies and baloney thats being fed to the populace.
They’re just going for the shiny object to lie and say they solved or even reduced the problem. They’re playing to low information people and emotions.
If you dont agree with me then why are there more people out there now (many of them professionals) signing up for NRA pistol classes than ever before? These are people that were not gun people, but have finally decided that they don’t trust the government, they dont trust segments of society to act within the law, and they are just fed up.
2.5 million AR 15’s were estimated to have been sold in the last two weeks of December. It takes one person to do very bad things, but trust me when I say that 2.49999 million were sold to very law abiding citizens that bought them from distrust and fear. What reduces distrust and fear? Transparency.
posted by: Joebigjoe | January 11, 2013 9:24am
This is what I meant. This is a Democrat pollster saying it better than I ever could
http://www.examiner.com/article/tonight-pat-caddell-committed-democrat-and-political-film-consultant-received
posted by: NancyS | January 11, 2013 11:19am
detection of persons using a weapon might be useful as well. a microphone or some vibration monitoring device could localize the point source if any shots are fired. one of the first issues of any security force is to actually locate the person/s they seek.
sweep and clear, is done during warrant searches, for their own protection.
discrete hallway video cameras should cover any and all movement venues, and room doorways should be flush enough to prevent refuge.
IP cameras are CHEAP, just go to Ebay or any global source. its the integration of the components that requires the use of bonifide security installers that pushes the cost out of sight.
perhaps a bevy of small, yet active, handheld smartphones left discretely on a desk/table/chair/windowsill/bookcase/seat could relay real time activity to a central area/911 center/office for use during ‘an event’. some training would be needed to assure at least a teacher or aide in each occupied room be fitted with this device and ready to deploy it effectively during a problem. its only an idea, but there are plenty of options other than placing even a single weapon inside the school.
in most cases, the shooter has a virtual chicken pen of targets, holed up behind non-bulletproof doors. i would opt for escape routes, in any situation. moving targets are much more difficult to hit.
posted by: Joebigjoe | January 11, 2013 11:34am
I’m going to reply to this part.
“in most cases, the shooter has a virtual chicken pen of targets, holed up
behind non-bulletproof doors. i would opt for escape routes, in any
situation. moving targets are much more difficult to hit.”
My friend is an Austin Texas area police officer and his wife is a second grade teacher. He went into her classroom and reviewed the lockdown procedures which are stay in the classroom and stay in one area. He gave her different advice. In case of gun shots, break the single pane window in the class, put a small heavy rug on the shards of glass and get the kids to crawl out, and if you cant get out then dont put all the kids in the corner but scatter them all around the room which will make it infinitely more difficult for a shooter.
posted by: ASTANVET | January 11, 2013 1:43pm
GUTBOMG86 - nice language, so in this stream, you’ve called people who don’t want their property taken, nut jobs, mentally defective, wingnuts, and the topper Racist! wow! Hey how about you talk about the violence in Chicago, NYC, Washington DC, or ANY other urban city which are committed with guns? They have bar none the most restrictive gun laws and that doesn’t seem to stop the crime there. BTW, about 90% of all gun crimes are committed with pistols in urban areas. You seem to want to focus on rifles which account for 1% of all crime. Check out the FBI stats page on that stuff. You, like many progressives, will not let a crisis go to waste as you continue to try to strip us of our rights. You don’t want facts to get in the way.
posted by: Joebigjoe | January 11, 2013 1:59pm
One of my favorite stories about liberals and why they think the way they do about violence and evil is from Silence of the Lambs.
The director of that film was a well known Hollywood anti death penalty person. As part of the production of the film he went to Quantico VA to meet with the FBI profilers whose job it was to find serial killers. They played for him the audio tape of a well known murder of a young woman in his home state of California. The two killers decided to audio tape it for kicks.
As he tells the story he sat there crying uncontrollably and at that moment became as pro death penalty as anyone could ever be. As he stated, “he really never knew that people could be so evil” until he heard this. He would read all the stories and watch the news like everyone else, but until he really felt the presence of evil, it never really sunk in.
Same with the gun control good guy bad guy discussion. Liberals (I actually shouldnt say that because some liberals are very pro gun)live in a fantasy world and the connections in their brains havent really understood and accepted the evil things that the common man, and governments are capable of.
posted by: sofaman | January 14, 2013 1:27am
@joeBigJoe: Your zeal for contradicting those you perceive to be of the “wrong” political persuasion has clouded your thinking. Plus, your facts are wrong. Dept. Sheriff Gardner was certainly not prohibited from having a firearm at Columbine HS. As he said in his post shooting interview, he was in his office earlier that day (armed), and only left the school to have lunch at a nearby sandwich shop. Main point, the presence of a gun-carrying SRO, did NOTHING to deter Klebold and Harris from committing the atrocity. Same with Cho’s actions in VT, and in Ft. Hood, you left out the fact that armed military police were present. In EVERY case, the presence of armed guards did nothing to prevent the murders. The idea it’s OK, to allow the mentally disturbed, terrorists, etc. to have accessto guns as the NRA defends is beyond indefensible. Rant your divisionist Right Wing nonsense all you want, but America is fed up with continued DO NOTHING proposals after these tragedies.
posted by: Joebigjoe | January 14, 2013 9:45am
Sofaman this discussion is about facts we learn from the past, and how we can protect children and other innocent people in the future.
Ft Hood- This was done at a medical readiness center where guns were not allowed. The first guns arrived from outside the building. Want some facts?
Sergeant Kimberly D. Munley encountered the gunman exiting the building in pursuit of a wounded soldier. Munley and the gunman exchanged shots; Munley was hit two times: once in her thigh and once in her knee, knocking her to the ground. In the meantime, civilian police officer Sergeant Mark Todd arrived and fired at the gunman. The gunman was hit and felled by shots from Todd. Todd approached the gunman and kicked a pistol out of his hand. Hasan was placed in handcuffs as he fell unconscious. The incident lasted about 10 minutes. Notice the words “exit” and “arrive”?
Columbine- The SRO was in his car eating lunch near an area that the students would sneak outside to, to have a cigarette. The shooters tried to set off bombs to get people to exit the cafeteria where they were waiting outside with guns. They didnt go off so they shot two students who were outside. The first shots were fired and the custodian called the deputy three minutes later. It took him two minutes to drive to the location as Columbine was HUGE. He saw one of the shooters going into the school and shot at him from 60 yards away with a revolver and missed which is an almost impossible distance to hit someone with a revolver. The plan at that time which has since changed was to treat it as a hostage situation and not enter the school, so he waited for SWAT as the shooters killed and wounded people inside. Again the good guy with the gun was not in the school and like Ft Hood not in the medical center cafeteria.
Va Tech- you really go over the deep end here. You cannot have nor has anyone ever said that there can be armed security in every building of a college campus. Having said that Cho killed someone on campus and the police and administration made the decision not to tell the student body, so these adults went off to class not knowing that a murder had occurred on campus. I dont know the laws of the state of Virginia on gun permits as it relates to age, but again you use liberal and pretty sick propoganda to make it seem like since there was obviously a police station at a major university that armed people were there to protect the students. What was to blame other than the shooter who is the obvious choice? The fact that he was declared incompetent by a judge and that the gun store did a background check and it came back with no issues, is a big issue, and even today as reasonable gun owners say improve the background check system, people on the left want to protect Crazy Johnny from being on a list.
Finally, I have said before in this or other threads that I dont own what people call an assault weapon. I never felt the need. However, I am being really open here when I say that I’m seriously considering one the more I see lies from the anti-gun people. You are really scaring alot of law abiding Americans into making these purchases with your lies and utopian ideals. Now we see George Soros and Moveon.org offering up disarming ideas while this guy has destroyed currencies of countries, supported Occupy, and other shady things when he was a young Jewish man during Hitlers reign all adds up to me getting very close to spending whatever I need to to get a so called assault weapon.
posted by: gutbomb86 | January 14, 2013 1:24pm
@joebigjoe
Now we see George Soros and Moveon.org offering up disarming ideas while this guy has destroyed currencies of countries, supported Occupy, and other shady things when he was a young Jewish man during Hitlers reign all adds up to me getting very close to spending whatever I need to to get a so called assault weapon.
So Joe it’s pretty clear to me that you’re kind of a crazy person who probably shouldn’t have access to weapons. You’ve approached reason a few times on this website but for the most part you make outrageous statements. You were on the 5 yard line before, but now you’re in the endzone. The babbling about Hitler and Jews really just kind of seals the deal.
You appear to be angry that other people want to reduce gun violence, and you equate it to some sort of world view that doesn’t fit your politics. Why is it that so-called “gun advocates” are the only ones throwing around the word “utopia?” And you see the concept as a threat. That’s nutty. Is your idea of “utopia” a place where first graders are murdered in cold blood by a guy who got his hands on legally purchased weapons that were left unsecured by a gun advocate? That’s nobody’s utopia, Joe. Is utopia something achievable Joe? Has anyone ever suggested that? Not here. Not on this website.
Let’s admit the problem: On gun safety, the honor system isn’t working, Joe. It’s not working. That’s all there is protecting the rest of us from gun owners. The honor system. And it’s B.S. You and your cohorts in the gun advocacy business are just as fallible and damaged and drug addicted as the rest of us, and you can’t guarantee that your firearms are secure. Even a gun safe only goes so far. A gun safe can be stolen and opened elsewhere.
Further, you’ve just made some sort of half-baked threat against George Soros and the folks from MoveOn.org, referencing their activities as a reason for you to buy an assault weapon.
What for Joe? What are you going to do to the folks at MoveOn or George Soros with an assault weapon? Is George Soros going to come to your door to take away your assault weapon? Is it paranoid and delusional for you to suggest that he might? (Answer is “YES” Joe.) What about the folks who feel the same way about the NRA? What should they do, Joe?
It’s time for you to get a grip on reality. We are less safe because there are 300 million privately owned firearms in circulation (that we know about). Statistically speaking, we would be much better off if that number were something like 30 or 40 million. And we should probably start looking at requiring gun & ammo safes and inspecting those safes as well, in the home. *Inspections in the home.* Rights come with responsibility. That would be a start.
Obfuscation and a defense of the failed status quo are not solutions.
posted by: Joebigjoe | January 14, 2013 2:00pm
Gutbomb you are very uninformed and it’s very sad. God bless you and your family if things go bad because of your naitivity if things go bad in this country.
Now go take the time and look at the Pozner family ideas. No one is taking any guns away unless you screw up some pretty reasonable laws. She just lost her angel in Newtown.
One another note. does George Soros scare me? yeah he scares me and he scares entire countries and millions of other people in this country. I think when you provide financial support to a group of people that attack police officers, and also deny having any weapons but are caught with explosives that you and I cant buy anywhere it gives good reason to be afraid. Oh yeah he isnt even a US citizen so stay the *&^% out of our countries issues.
Home inspections create lists of firearm holders. How has that worked out in the last century Mr/Mrs History Major?
Mr./Mrs Statistics major, how do figure we would be better off with 30-40 million guns vs 300 million. Sounds Ok on the surface, but how about a better argument of getting guns out of the hands of the 3-4 million criminals and nut jobs and leave my gun and my family the hell alone!!!