NRA Executive VP Wayne Lapierre called for armed guards in all schools in the U .S.
NRA calls for armed security in every school
by Nathan Phillips | Dec 21, 2012 | Newton | 80 comments
by Nathan Phillips | Dec 21, 2012 | Newton | 80 comments
NRA Executive VP Wayne Lapierre called for armed guards in all schools in the U .S.
September 13, 2023
Men's Crib September 13, 2023 5:20 am
BTW: This was after he blamed everyone but the victims and the NRA for last week’s tragedy.
Anything the NRA says has to be understand in light of the fact that it has close financial ties to the gun industry, which is in business to sell more guns. For instance, seven years ago, the NRA got Congress to pass a law that will prevent the victims of the Newtown school massacre from suing gun manufacturers.
Shameless. Absolutely shameless.
So they are saying for people to keep rifles and semi automatics, etc. municipalities, during difficult financial times, has/should fork over money and spread police even thinner than they are right now, just to keep guns. Really????
Puts in perspective the reasonable and prudent pleas for locked doors during the school day, intercom systems and visitor badges.
In a way, I’m glad this is the stance they are taking, for it’s plain to see their primary driver is promoting even more guns in society, irrespective of consequences.
Thanks Margaret – We dont have to worry about having armed security in Newton when we cant even get the Superintendent nor the Mayor to lock the school doors.
Or it’s common sense Dan. Other parts of the country do this, and other countries do this as countries policy, and they haven’t had any incidents. There have also been known instances of armed faculty stopping school shootings. This admittedly may not be neccessary given how statistically rare the instances are of violence in schools. That said, people keep guns in their homes for protection. People keep guns in their businesses for protection. People carry guns for protection. Police carry guns for protection. How this suddenly goes out the window because it is a school is beyond me.
And of course the NRA has an agenda, and of course they are backed by the gun industry. That doesn’t make them wrong on this point, however. Shooters, bombers, crazy people, etc are a security threat. Schools are a target. Everywhere else in the country that is a “target” we have some level of security, whether it is clandestine or open. Clearly schools have become a target, why is it so absurd to train a couple staff members who are willing and have them carry a gun concealed? Can anyone give me a valid answer other than how it makes you “feel.”
Yes, it requires us to admit that schools could in fact be a target, and your children are never 100% safe. That is a fact regardless of what you do about it.
Mike
Mike asked:
why is it so absurd to train a couple staff members who are willing and have them carry a gun concealed? Can anyone give me a valid answer other than how it makes you “feel.”
Mike, the answer is simple. You’re dealing with children. If a teacher hides the gun in his/her desk, goes to lunch and a kid plays around with the desk, finds the gun and starts playing with it…someone will get hurt.
I remember an instance, several years ago, where a child and his friend was playing in the family den(?) and he and his friend (all of 7 years old) found the parents gun, started playing with it and he shot his friend. The friend was dead. Was it the child’s fault? Of course not, the child was just being a child…the parents were responsible for that childs death. Not because they fired the shots, but they were reckless in putting the gun in a place where their children can find it. Just too dangerous to have guns around kids and to support an idea where the best answer to have guns is more guns around kids is ridiculous and reckless
Sorry, Mike, but requiring teachers to be armed is a bad idea. There is no place for guns in a school full of children under the age of 18. Period. Even my good friend in my office who is a lifelong NRA member and hunter who loves shooting his semi-automatic weapons at the gun club, and disagrees with me about everything having to do with gun control, firmly believes it is the stupidest idea he has ever heard. He and I do agree on one thing: leave law enforcement to the police.
That would be a valid point… but a gun used for protection will be on the teachers person in a concealment holster at all times as part of the policy. Some of the newer holsters are quite impressive, you can even tuck a shirt in over them and hang upside down and the gun won’t fall out, some also have positive retention. This would of course be part of the training and the city/PD could mandate or approve certain equipment. There is absolutely ZERO reason a teacher couldn’t be just as if not more proficient at using a firearm should the need arise as any LEO. Like any security policy measures would be put in place to assure it is as functional as possible. For example this brand of holster I recommend to most students: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ti-njk_j11c
Mike
They wouldn’t be enforcing laws, they would serve as a last line of defense. CT should have made very clear that having no line of defense inside the school makes no sense. This idea has nothing to do with “gun rights,” “being a member of the NRA,” or “enjoying shooting semi-automatics (which is 90% of guns on the market) on the weekends.”
Bear in mind NNHS used to have an award winning rifle team, they still had the trophies when I went to school there, and one of my teachers told me they still had the old rifles locked up in a vault or records office.
I’m not advocating as some others in the gun community do that we forcibly arm teachers, or let anyone with a gun bring it into the school. I am saying come up with a system where select faculty members who DESIRE IT are given additional training by some law-enforcement program so that they can serve as a low-cost well equipped security asset to the schools.
I will say again, this is in practice within the United States and in other countries and it works well. To discount the idea based only off ignorance is as irresponsible as not bothering the lock the doors.
Mike
Maybe it’s time we classified the NRA as a terrorist organization? They’ve been complicit in more deaths of US citizens than Al Qaida.
Also, I feel the need with all threads gun related, to point out that “Mike” and “Mike Striar” are two different people. While Mike Striar supports the other Mike’s right to own and carry a handgun for self defense, our positions differ substantially beyond that. I don’t like guns. I would advise people to not own them. I feel assault weapons should be banned. I also believe gun manufacturers should be required by consumer law, to include technology that would assure a gun can only be fired by it’s legal owner.
I like your uneducated reactionary thinking. So why should assault weapons be banned again, you know besides the term being made up to make them sound more scary and them being functionally identical and slightly cosmetically different? Just curious? You usually have well thought out arguments so I’d like to hear this one. Also, why would you advise people not to own them? 100s of millions do to no ill effect. Do you advise people not to own cars? What about knives? Swimming pools? Trampolines?
Mike
You know,Mike, [not Mike Striar], you might actually get listened to more if you refrained from called folks on this blog “stupid’ and “uneducated” and other denigrating comments. You’re entitled to yuour opinions, but that doesn’t make everyone else’s ridiculous.
Just saying.
I call it like I see it. Saying that we should “ban assault weapons” without specifying what those are is UNEDUCATED and misleading. Case and point – The rifle the shooter used was NOT an “assault weapon” as they were defined in the 1994-2004 AWB which Connecticut maintained after its lapse federally. Deval Patrick then comes out and says that rifle couldn’t be purchased in Massachusetts and he is completely incorrect because the only thing that makes something an “assault weapon” is cosmetic differences, and that rifle was compliant in Massachusetts. Our own governor doesn’t even know the laws he is pushing! It’s an arbitrary term as its applied with the intent of taking something away that people thinks looks scary so someone can say they did something. True assault rifles are fully automatic and are already heavily regulated and were not used in any of these mass shootings.
This video from a few years ago further discusses the actual law as it existed federally, and demonstrates how pointless it would be to re-enact it. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YjM9fcEzSJ0
Take the 10 minutes and educate yourself on what you are ACTUALLY talking about banning before you put hundreds of companies out of business, and effect 10s of millions of law abiding Americans.
Mike
I should clarify I find Mr Striar to be a smart and well intentioned man, but like many on this issue, I view his reaction impulsive, and one that will have an overall negative effect on the country. If he still wants to advocate for a ban after being able to explain and understand it beyond the intentional misinformation that is put out in the mainstream media than so be it.
I don’t know how that NRA fellow lives with himself. Resorting now to selling guns to kindergarten teachers ? Unbelievable. LaPierre is a corporate equivalent of a war criminal. Our response in Newton should be to ban guns to the fullest extent state and federal law will allow.
What would that accomplish Shawn? And its likely even an “assault weapons ban” won’t pass constitutional muster under Heller, as it should be.
Mike
The statistical likelihood of a child being killed in a school shooting is extremely low. I believe there have been ~323 in the past 15 YEARS. Compared to the number of kids killed in car accidents, drownings, fires, non-school homicides, etc….. the 15 total based on 2007 numbers is something along the lines of 210,000 over a 15-year period.
I’m not saying the Newtown shooting isn’t a horrific tragedy and that we shouldn’t take a close look at the security of our schools. We absolutely should.
Suggesting that all teachers be armed, or that some be armed, or that police or military personnel should be stationed at every school in the country seems massively excessive. Also, having one or several people armed at a school isn’t a guarantee of safety – it’s an illusion of safety.
Personally, I want my kids in a gun free school. Should we lock the doors…..sure. Should we be vigilant about who gets in the building during school hours……absolutely.
After that, we’re drifting into Police State territory and at that point I believe we’ve all lost.
that should read “the 15-year total”
How do people feel about pepper spray or stun guns?
I agree that it really isn’t something to fear. At the same time, the only thing that will have an appreciable effect in that 1 in X Million chance will be some armed staff members. It absolutely is not a guarantee of anything, but it is a chance where none exists under current policy.
As far as tasers and pepper spray, tasers are illegal in Massachusetts and good luck shooting pepper spray at someone with a gun. If you want anything to actually be able to counter the threat of a shooter you need another trained shooter.
Mike
Mike– Mine is not an impulsive reaction. I favored the assault weapons ban that used to be in place, and believe it should have been renewed. I fully understand how an AR15 works, and that functionally there is little or no difference between it and other rifles that are not categorized as “assault weapons.” My issue with assault weapons is not the way they function, but the appeal of their warlike appearance to crazy people who are predisposed to mass shootings.
You know I support the Second Amendment. As with all constitutionally protected rights, I try to take as liberal a view as possible, favoring the rights of the individual, over the ability of the government to restrict personal freedom. I understand why some people feel the need to own or carry a gun for protection, even while recognizing that statistics show that their gun is more likely to be used against them than for its intended purpose. I respect you more than most gun owners, because of your training and commitment to gun safety. But I think you have to recognize that most are not like you. Once you acknowledge that most gun owners are not as committed to training and safety, you have to recognize the potential for mayhem, and the reason[s] we are confronted by so many gun incidents.
So, what’s the solution? Sadly, there is no “solution.” But there are things we can do. We can do everything in our power to make weapons less accessible to unauthorized users. Fewer guns in general. Eliminate assault weapons, the weapon of choice for lunatics like those shooters in Columbine and that nut job in Newtown. I honestly believe, Mike, that these measures [as unappealing as they are to you], are in fact the best way not only to reduce gun crime, but also to protect YOUR Second Amendment rights.
So if we make “assault weapons look different” then shootings will happen less often? Considering I can count on one hand how many times these so called assault weapons have been used in high profile crimes that’s pretty disconcerting. Virginia tech, pistols, one of which was a .22, both with 10 round “low capacity” mags. Columbine – The cheapest guns they could afford, occurred during the AWB. The rifle this shooter used in CT was a ban compliant rifle, IE not an assault rifle under the ban definition. So the fact that millions of GOOD people own these rifles because they are good rifles makes all of us who own them crazy? The vast majority of students I teach end up buying them because they are great rifles. I don’t think I have any friends who are gun owners who don’t own at least one. I protect my family with one because it is a great rifle. But because you have some theory based off 3 shootings that they way they look appeals to people who want to use them we should ban them?That makes even less sense than the theory that they are [falsely] more dangerous. Likewise, how can you say you support my 2nd Amendment rights yet claim desire to arbitrarily ban firearms in common use for defense? I can almost guarantee with complete certainty that if this kids mother had only had pistols he would have killed her with them, and then taken them to the school, and the numbers at the end of the day would have been the same. I don’t think anyone will buy the “black rifle made him do it’ argument.
As for your more likely to be used against you then to protect you statistic, like all statistics, it is applied improperly in your description. First of all, it doesn’t take into account the crimes stopped due to the presence of a gun without shots fired. Next, it cannot fairly be applied as a blanket statement. Like all people, a percentage of gun owners are complete idiots. These idiots may account for 95% of the accidents even if only making up 10% of gun owners. You can’t then go ahead and say because of these 10% of idiots we will average the statistic over the other 90% of you who are not idiots. It would be like me saying because you own a car you are X times more likely to run someone over while driving drunk. If you aren’t an idiot and don’t drive drunk, that statistic doesn’t apply to you. To further elaborate, as a gun owner who considers himself responsible, I personally may be a virtually infinite number of times more likely to use my gun in self defense than have an accident. It is something that is a complete case by case basis, and the statistic is skewed heavily by a small percentage of people who are clowns.
Ours is a very large country. There are roughly 100,000 public schools in the US. Put guns in those 100,000 schools under any program, under any training or screening regimen and you can be virtually guaranteed that some number of new gun related injuries and fatalities will occur every year. They will each be flukes. They will each be some failure of one system or another but new gun fueled deaths are inevitable.
Mike, most of your discussion is about the good guys with guns stopping the bad guys with guns. What you conveniently leave out of the discussion are the countless people that are injured or killed very single year by the guns of law abiding citizens. These deaths are inevitable when the country is awash in fire power – everything from kids finding guns in their house, crimes of passion by previously normal people, to suicides, to all sorts of freak accidents, confrontations involving inebriated or otherwise impaired people, etc, etc. These are statistically inevitable when we have 100’s of millions of guns floating around.
… and now we should bring them into the schools? You’ve got to be kidding.
Nope. Not kidding. I don’t think it is necessary due to the low rate of these incidents happening. That said, it’s the only way to actually have any sort of system that could stand a chance against a shooter, everything else is just feel good BS. I’m also not talking about having every teacher armed, rather a select few. If you put fail-safes in place it would not be infallible, but you’d have a much improved security situation at schools. Guns don’t just go off, accidents are due to negligence. You can beat negligence out of people, but no, you will never have 100% safety rate. That said, as long as those with guns aren’t messing with them at school, than there shouldn’t be any problems. With cops most incidents occur when they draw their weapons, when they are clearing or loading them, and when they are negligent and try to re-holster them with their finger on the trigger. If none of these actions occur in the actual school than the incident rate could be even further reduced, but no, never non-existant. That said, locking your doors and banning high capacity magazines aren’t going to do squat…. well locking the doors may buy you more time to go into lock-down and get the PD on the way.
As someone who practices safe weapons handling, myself nor any of my friends have ever had any incidents due to negligence, this includes people I know who have been shooting 30+ years.
Mike
sorry, but 323 fatalities in 100,000 schools over the past 15 years just doesn’t warrant the risk of adding hundreds of thousands of armed personnel in our schools – every school day of the year from now on.
There’s no guarantee an armed civilian would even do anything other than piss their pants when confronted with an actual threat.
So the potential benefit here hardly seems worth the risk.
The important thing is it should be organized i think its a good idea but if the community opposes it so be it. on a local case by case basis.
There has got to be some reasonable middle ground.
I will agree with many people that a integral part of many of these shootings and our reaction to it has to do with fear and the fear of guns and people rarely make good decisions when in a state of fear.
Seriously, we want to turn our streets and schools into a war zone? We want to see armed guards as a daily presence? As someone mentioned above, does this miraculously come for free? Is this actually appropriate for the situation?
I can support more gun education. A lot of fear comes from the unknown. However, just because one knows how to shoot or handle a gun, doesn’t mean one needs to own one. I know people who have come back from the war and will not willingly handle a firearm again if they didn’t have to and are thankful that they are back in an environment where they don’t have to.
I do support the second amendment. But just because you can doesn’t mean you should let alone have to. While I agree with MANY of the clearing up of untruths that Mike Striar cited in his debunking of many gun myths, these all go further to better education and information. I would not go so far to agree with him that therefore we need to encourage more people to own guns.
Know thy enemy. I rarely think banning is ever the solution to anything. Guns exist and worse, they are constantly misrepresented by Hollywood perpetuating their fiction. I love fiction … but it is best when one can differentiate fact from fiction. I sure wish Hollywood would take more care to take the opportunity and responsibility in how they use their tools of the trade, however I understand that may be demanding a lot without the population keeping them honest about. So, if we, as a general population knew more about what we were watching:
a) we may actually enjoy the films more and at a different level.
b) Would be able to pressure Hollywood not to only stretch the truth or facts when creatively necessary. I take heart in thinking of the long way Hollywood has come in portraying foreign languages, adding seatbelts to most driving scenes, etc … but I digress.
Margaret Albright also brings our attention to the simple fact that there is also danger in becoming too lax and complacent in our “safety”. As rare and unlikely as it would be for violent crime in our community, unlocked doors (of doors that already have locks) and freely accessible small children in a freely accessible community is simply inviting trouble and there are many slightly more cost with a slightly greater effort ways to still make our schools safer. Let’s start there.
@Mike Striar, the gun industry knows its customers. Bushmaster markets the AR15 with a “Man Card.” Yes, that Bushmaster. The one that makes and sells the semi-automatic rifle Adam Lanza used to kill his mother and mow down 2o first graders and 6 women at the Sandy Hook elementary school in Newtown, CT. “Consider your man card reissued,” Mr. Lanza.
The deep irony in Wayne LaPierre’s call to action for Congress to spend billions every year to put armed guards in every school to guard against people with semi-automatic weapons who can legally buy or get them easily and without background checks thanks to, wait for it, Wayne LaPierre and the NRA and the gutless wonders in Congress, would cost more than buying back semi-automatic weapons and ammunition.
@Greer, respectfully, “gun education” isn’t going to get it done and movies and video games aren’t to blame. In almost every other country where they have strong gun laws, they gun related deaths are in the double digits, while here in America we have 11,000 gun related deaths a year. They have the same access to movies and videos there, so I am going to go out on a limb and say maybe it is our gun laws, or lack thereof, that are to blame. There is no need to carry a semi-automatic weapon and high capacity magazine for protection and the way to keep all guns out of the hands of madmen is to close the loopholes for background checks and make permits harder to get for mentally unstable people and people with criminal records.
Let’s stop hiding our heads in the sand. These mass shootings are committed by intelligent, calculating, sociopaths who plan these massacres carefully and deliberately. In almost every case, they shoot themselves to avoid capture or commit suicide by police officer. They are only interested in going out with notoriety and don’t have any interest in survival. Passing laws against violent movies and video games is moronic when it is still easy for them to legally obtain their killing machines. I challenge anyone to read that Bushmaster ad again and explain to me why that is okay with you, but Halo 4 and Pulp Fiction are not.
****************************************************************************************
@Greer– I think you’re confusing my comments with comments from the other “Mike.” All my comments are posted as “Mike Striar.” As our positions differ significantly, I’d appreciate everyone noting the difference.
*****************************************************************************************
My own view is that armed security is needed (along with locked doors and buzzers). These mass killers tend to stop their killing once confronted with armed resistance. Both the Newtown and Portland shootings of this month ended when the killer was confronted with armed resistance (in Newtown it was the arrival of the police; in Portland, it was a private citizen with a concealed carry permit.). Having armed security on site would significantly lessen the time the mass killer has.
National debates about gun control and mental health and Hollywood are fine, but when it comes to protecting your child at your school, we need to think locally. Newton schools are no safer than those in Newtown or Colorado (Columbine) were thought to be and we need to think how we can make them so.
So I think each community needs to pick a solution that is right for it. What may be right for Texas and West Virginia (e.g., arming teachers or volunteers) is likely not right for Newton. What I think is right and reasonable for Newton is a Newton or state police detail at each school. I don’t think such a solution creates a fortress mentality. Kids should trust our police and shouldn’t be scared by their presence.
Related to this, I think we need to loosen the restrictions on civilian flaggers to reduce the number of police details at construction sites and transfer those detail opportunities to our schools.
It’s much cheaper and less imposing to set up a training program for non-police.
Ted, since you are making the accusation that gun laws are too lax, what loophole specifically are you referring to that allows people to bypass background checks (I do know of one that is not applicable in this state, and I would support closing it if it is done a certain way). Also, have you ever been proficient with or carried a gun? Have you ever even shot a gun? Because as someone who is in this field I can tell you you are way off base telling people what they “need” for self defense. So if you could elaborate that would be nice. If you are going to advocate stricter enforcement and bans you better know exactly what you are talking about and why, which I am not sure you do.
Ted, I do completely agree that video games are not to blame. I would place a little blame with the media making you famous if you commit one of these acts, but ultimately they are calculating sociopaths. Just as the Bath school bomber and Timothy McVeigh were, who used no guns at all, or the most infamous shooter at Virginia Tech who used hand guns with “low capacity magazines” or the Columbine shooters who illegally acquired their guns through a straw purchaser. Maybe if we made straw purchasers liable for any crimes committed with the firearms they traffic and sentence them accordingly straw purchasing and trafficking would go down, rather than commuting their sentences to less than 2 years.
With regard to civilian flaggers, they use them out here in western Mass all the time and they work fine, and don’t demand the outrageous wage details get paid.
I try to clarify gun myths because they are perpetuated so much by the media and Hollywood, which results in people like many on this board advocating for further bans and restrictions based on a false sense of “danger” of one gun versus another.
Mike
Oh wow, that makes much more sense to me. My apologies for confusing the two Mikes. My apologies to Mike Striar and to Mike.
@Ted Hess-Mahan — you make good points and I want to be clear that I do not blame movies or video games. However, they could be more helpful and I was just expressing a wish that more accurate portrayal of gun violence and usage would help. No one ever blamed car accidents on movies, but I definitely appreciated the ramp up in seat belt usage in most recent films produced.
As for referencing other countries:
a) At least in China and Europe, they actually do have different access to violence in movies and games … violence is much less “prettified” (some would say “glorified”) . For instance, compare the French film “La Femme Nikita” and the American “Point of No Return”, supposedly the same movie, but one produced in France and the other in Hollywood or even how the film “Farewell, My concubine” was originally received in the US) and while these other countries do have access to the less gory Hollywood productions, they also see the real damage that guns and violence produce.
b) Many of those countries have many restrictive laws on freedoms that we do not have here in the US. That is in fact why many of our families came to America. While that does not dismiss the potential value of some of their methods and policies for us here in the US, we should always proceed with caution when we move things from one context to another.
I definitely agree with the statement from Anil:
However, while some armed police detail in our schools in the wake of last week’s shootings may be a temporary solution until the “right” solution is had in our schools, I have not been convinced that this is the correct long term solution for us in Newton. I am glad that the NPS has prioritized addressing this issue and hope to hear their proposed solutions soon.
BTW I noticed some beefed up security in some Citizens Bank branches as well as Bank of America branches. Is this a related response as well?
My problem with blaming movies and video games is being a veteran myself and also an infantryman millions of 18 year olds in this country are trained by the most advanced military system in the world to be able to kill, many thousands do, and we don’t come back and slaughter tons of people in droves. There have always been serial killers, mass murderers, terrorists, etc throughout history. They aren’t going anywhere as sad as that is. With 300 Million people we need to accept that no matter the laws terrible things will never be completely stopped. Guns happen to be the tool recently because they are accessible. Did you know that Columbine was actually a failed bombing that had it worked would have killed hundreds? Fortunately it did not go down as planned, but the Bath School attack did, and killed more children than any of the school shootings ever had, and McVeigh had 19 children among his victims in his bombing.
Mike
Columbine High School had an armed security guard.
Virginia Tech had their own police department.
Ft. Hood is a military base.
Arming more people with guns is not the answer.
Not a guarantee.
Yea Virginia tech had a police department that was nowhere near the classroom, the event lasted a couple minutes. Fort hood also forbode (like all military bases) anyone but their own police department from carrying guns. AND the DOD police (a woman native to Newton Mass if I recall) shot the shooter ending his rampage. As I said, it is not a guarantee. Columbine also had armed police show up and wait outside for hours which changed school shooting response protocol forever.
It is not a guarantee. Bill Clinton suggested this the first time in 2000, but the NRA suggesting it is EVIL, because its the NRA and all.
Mike
@Mike (not Striar): Thanks for changing your logon.
No problem, I didn’t intend to cause any confusion, I figured I’d have a bit of fun clarifying 😉
Mike
Whats the role of family members, especially parents, in all of this? It seems to me each episode has had red flags looking back. More education, a vigilant citizenry?
Sometimes these things can’t be caught. You would hope a parent would know if their child was homicidal, but clearly that has not always been the case.
Mike
Best tongue-in-cheek internet post I’ve seen about the NRA solution to mass killings:
Really, it’s better than what the NRA came up with. It would probably be cheaper and more effective. But that’s not the NRA’s goal, is it?
Did anyone actually watch the NRA press conference? I didn’t, but ended up reading the transcript, and they aren’t calling for anything as radical as I expected. Trained and retired police officers in schools. Considering when I was at NNHS we had plain clothed youth cops going in and out with a gun on their hip openly I really don’t see how this is ridiculous to you all. Also, as I stated earlier, Bill Clinton announced this idea in 2000.
More teachers should go to gun stores ;-P, though I don’t know how that would stop people from stealing, straw purchasing, or murdering and then stealing guns from people.
Mike
Mike [not Striar]– Thanks for being a good sport, and having a sense of humor about it too. I really do respect your opinion, even though we don’t completely see eye-to-eye.
Mostly, I would like to take a moment to thank you for your service to our country. I don’t want that to go unacknowledged, simply because we’re engaged in a debate. To a large degree, who we are as individuals is shaped by our life experiences. The closest I’ve ever come to putting on a uniform, was the silk Versace shirts I wore on the campaign trail a few years ago. I can’t even begin to imagine how the experience of service during wartime would effect your perspective on the world around you. You have more than earned the right to express your opinions as vocally and passionately as you’d like.
Thanks Mike, I’m glad we can engage in a civil debate and hopefully educate the by-standers in the process. I’m sorry if I come off as harsh sometimes but I firmly and truly believe that what I am advocating is what will provide the best possible outcome for school security. From my perspective when someone laughs off something like armed security it is probably as radical and surprising to me as what I am suggesting to them.
I also believe very firmly in what I signed up for as well as the constitution and while I agree our nation has a problem with violence, what I see from legislation in the past (especially from my perspective as a firearms instructor) is that it greatly effects those who follow the law and are good people and has little if any effect on our society as a whole. The 1994-2004 assault weapons ban (which Massachusetts maintains) was considered to have had no effect pretty unanimously. Even now the rifle used in CT was “compliant” with that ban and the Massachusetts ban (despite what our Governor thinks, which I find terrifying since he advocates for and signs off on these laws). California has a harsher version of this law and look how well that’s working out for them (take Oakland, for example). This of course is not just with firearms, take the “war on drugs” for example, our massive prison population, and stupid things like “operation fast and furious” which got less attention from congress than Roger Clemens doing steroids.
If there were a surefire answer everyone would be all over it. Obama himself said there isn’t going to be a way to stop this forever, but we have to try. I agree, we have to do something, but we have to take a realistic approach and not pull more useless feel good knee jerk legislation. I am in favor of integrating a mental health flagging system into the NICS checks, I am in favor of extending NICS checks to non-dealers who want to make private sales (which is what the “gun show loophole is”) and I am VERY MUCH in favor of going after straw purchasers and gun traffickers with much greater sentencing and much more aggression. I am not in favor of banning something 10s of millions of good people use for various reasons to no end.
Mike
On a separate note, I know a lot of you hate and don’t trust the NRA by default, but they do have a program (literature and a video) for elementary school kids that basically states if you see a gun don’t touch it and get an adult. It is called the Eddie-eagle program. I don’t recall ever having seen any of it during my time at NPS but it has probably saved countless lives across the country and is worth the 10 minutes to show kindergartners. Plenty of Newton families own guns, and I’m sure unfortunately not all of them take all the precautions surrounding how their children are exposed to them. Likewise, their children may end up at someone elses house outside of Newton who has guns, or a grandparents, etc. So the powers that be may want to look into showing it, the video can be found on youtube. Likewise teachers should talk to students regularly about not touching any gun they may find and getting an adult. It should be as second nature as what “911” is. I’m sure some will somehow twist this into an NRA conspiracy, but I hope the reasonable among us could agree this is common sense.
Mike
Mike (not Striar), good grief. ‘countless lives?’ Really? Like…countless? I know people on this string are trying to indulge you in your pro NRA ways but give me a break.
I did watch the NRA press conference. BTW, the NRA is not a political party. It’s not an elected official yet we all couldn’t wait to see what they had to say at their press conference. Talk about the tail wagging the dog.
Yeah what a great idea. Here is the job description: 1. Licensed gun owner 2. Must be willing to hang out at schools all day and nothing is ever going to happen 3. Must enjoy being around children. Yes, we are going to get the best and the brightest. Do you actually know how many schools there are in the US? How’s that TSA workforce expansion thing working out for us?
Yeah, this has success all over it. How long before we dealing with pedophile cases. How long before we are dealing with a Ft. Hood inside job murder suicide?
The problem with you NRA folks is you have no yield. Assault weapons. Gun show loophole. Give them up and show some willingness to work with people who don’t want to carry guns. If the gun show loophole isn’t that big of a problem, why not just give it up as a show of good faith?
I don’t have a solution to the gun problem in the US. I’m just tired of hearing mouthpieces like you say that we don’t have a gun problem and that more guns are the solution.
Here we go. You are so Jaded by your hatred of the NRA that you won’t even have anything to do with an affiliated program that yes, probably has saved lives. I’m not even currently an NRA member and I’m sorry, it is downright irresponsible to say you wouldn’t support a “don’t touch” form of education in schools.
As far as concessions, I can’t speak for the NRA, only myself. If you read anything I wrote I said we SHOULD open the NICS system up to private sellers. I think that would be a good idea. Your assault weapons claim is where we absolutely should stand firm. So called assault weapons have not been any more deadly than any other guns used in any of these crimes, and THEY WERE BANNED from 1994-2004 WITH NO EFFECT. So no, I will never support going down that road again. NFA of 1934 got “military weapons off the street” by taking care of Machineguns, Explosives, and other large bore guns and destructive devices. That is where the “Line gets drawn.” I will NOT support a ban on another word your side of the fence made up that will step on my feet and the feet of other law abiding gun owners which is just another step towards another ban. A clear line was drawn with NFA, arbitrary bans after that are just that, arbitrary. There is no functional difference between so-called assault weapons and every other legal semi-automatic gun out there, it is only appearance. Magazine capacity is only relevant to those limited on how many magazines they can carry on their person. I carry one or 2 of 12 rounds. If I were a psychopath like the VT shooter, I could just carry 20 10 round mags.
We have VIOLENCE problem in the U.S. Look at where the majority of crime is concentrated, and look at what its about. This whole more guns thing you guys ran away with is ridiculous. PRESIDENT CLINTON tried to start a program like this in 2000. We have armed security at banks, colleges, museums, for VIPs, private businesses and even some highschools. What the heck makes that so stupid at an elementary school? Because the NRA recommended something Bill Clinton did 12 years earlier?
You are a mouthpiece. Not a thinker. It doesn’t matter that you are not in the NRA. You are just regurgitating the same shit the NRA does. Unyielding bull$#@!.
F$%&ing clown. Keep regurgitating. Guns in schools. I’m guessing you aren’t a brain surgeon.
Editor note: Kim’s comment edited to blunt the potty mouth.
@Mike (not Striar): I watched the NRA press conference, from beginning to end. I was not prepared for how sickening I found Wayne LaPierre’s statement and attitude. I expected him to be just a little bit conciliatory. Instead he acted like the NRA is the victim. That’s what made me so angry. Reasonable people can disagree about gun control, but he should not have blamed everybody else. His focus on the movie and gaming industry was a complete sham, of course. I wonder how much money gun manufacturers spend in product placement advertising in both of those industries.
@Mike (not Striar), the NRA has absolutely failed by misrepresenting the term “responsible” in responsible gun ownership. By blaming everyone else for Newtown, the NRA has completely abdicated its own voice in the debate. Indeed, the concept of responsibility seems to be left elsewhere. The only roughly equivalent analogy I can think of is the tobacco industry, who held that smokers should already have been knowledgeable enough about the dangers of smoking. Therefore all smoking related deaths and illness were the responsibility of the smoker alone. The analogy is incomplete, and inadequate, but there is an odd harmony nonetheless.
Yes, there is too much violence in our culture, but high capacity firearms – firearms which have no reasonable application in hunting or in indeed any form of personal safety outside of dispelling a wave of light infantry – provide an easy channel for those who wish to move inflict violence in a massive display. The motives of such individuals is somewhat academic so long as the can find access to the means for unrestrained destruction.
Kim, you are right, I am a mouthpiece for common sense. Of course I also have my own rights in mind. That said, let’s consider both our positions and experience since you are calling me a “f$%&ing clown” and “non-thinker.” Oh, and we can’t forget that I’m not a brain surgeon. So we have me, who doesn’t have an overly impressive background, but I am relatively confident I have done more in the security field than you. I have spent 5 years in the Marine Corps infantry where I am an NCO. I did a tour in Afghanistan, where I spent part of the that time embedded with the Jordanian Armed Forces as an infantry instructor, where we taught them about everything from security to marksmanship to gun safety. Back home I am certified by both the evil NRA and the Massachusetts State Police as a firearms instructor, and I co-founded the Umass Amherst Gun Club (by the way we are quickly becoming one of the most popular RSOs on campus). No, I am not a brain surgeon regrettably, but I am almost done with my biology degree, not that I really need to justify my intelligence to a person who refuses to tell children not touch guns because the NRA had a hand in it. So go ahead though, since this seems to be your topic of expertise, why don’t you enlighten me on good security procedures, after clarify how many days you’ve carried a gun for protection and in what kind of various environments.
@ Gail. You are not getting any argument from me about the NRA having a degree of self interest. That said, thousands and thousand of gun owners every year (or previous non-gun owners) are taking their safety into their own hands. Many of us share this “police can’t be everywhere at once” attitude. As far as THAT goes, I do not think they are misrepresenting us. As someone who is very familiar with firearms, and knows how valuable they can be in the hands of someone who is trained, I am ALWAYS more comfortable if either myself or somebody I know is armed around me or any member of my family. You will also get no argument from me that he shouldn’t have blamed anyone else at all. This was a tragedy that was likely unavoidable.
I certainly do not buy into the video game or violent movie argument, I think it is ridiculous and I think the NRA really hurt their ability to have a reasonable discussion by suggesting it. There is something to be said for the media completely making people famous after they commit one of these acts. I am no mental health expert but I imagine if you want to make a cry for help and everyone to see your “pain,” and you are given this guarantee you will be famous for a week, you may take it as someone who is already mentally ill. Just look at the copy cats after all of these things. This past week there were a couple other attempted shootings immediately following Sandy hook (both were stopped with licensed gun owners, but you won’t read about that).
@ Chris. The NRA should not have played a super blame-game, but they still made a valid point (in my and many others eyes) about the lack of security at schools, and how we as a nation do protect other valuables through trained security without second thought. I get the impression some of you are fighting this because of the NRA. After Columbine happened and Bill Clinton suggested it, my guess is it wasn’t fought with the same fervor by non-gun owners.
I have already made my point regarding so-called high capacity firearms. You can take it or leave it, but in my professional experience with firearms I believe you are mislead intentionally by the media on that one. I will continue to argue that “high capacity magazines” make guns no more dangerous, nor do the so called “evil features” of “assault weapons.” Also the 2nd Amendment isn’t about hunting and not really even about personal protection. That said, these guns are still no more dangerous than guns people use to protect themselves everyday. As I’ve said before, since I only carry 1-2 magazines with me with my sig, I prefer to 12 rouns vs 2 10 round magazines. The extra 4 rounds doesn’t make a difference to someone who can carry a dozen or more 10 round magazines with them because they are hell bent on destruction. Likewise, the AR15 I use for home protection has a 30 round magazine, because if I have to grab a gun in the middle of the night I am not going to be pretending to be special forces and putting on all sorts of gear. To a “bad guy” if we some how made the 10s if not 100s of millions of pre-existing magazines disappear could still carry multiple 10 round magazines and change between them in half a second.
Mike
@”Mike (not Striar)” :
It’s rare to read anything here from someone with your background and expertise. Please contact me if you’d be willing to be a guest on an upcoming edition of Newton Newsmakers (www.newtonnewsmakers.org). Your voice in the discussion is valuable. [email protected].
Here is one New Jersey community that is already increasing security for when its students return to school January 2:
“Besides putting a cop in each of its schools — one kindergarten, five elementary, two middle and one high school — Marlboro will consider fortifying entrances with steel doors and bulletproof glass and installing surveillance cameras “all over” to feed to the police department, Hornik said.
Cost won’t stand in the way of “state-of-the-art” safety, he added.
“This isn’t a luxury item. This is a necessity, based on what we saw happen in Connecticut,” said Hornik, a Democrat who supports an assault-weapons ban and stricter gun control.”
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/jersey_town_adopts_schoolhouse_glocks_ID5tknLmS1oOuWbD62d51K
Its sounds every bit as effective and costly as the Maginot Line. Will the kids go to recess in a giant bulletproof dome and walk home under armed guard, I wonder?
I think re-enforcing doors is excessive. The problem with doing that is it makes it more difficult for first responders to get in.
My plan would involve arming existing faculty members who volunteer for the program. It would likely not cost more than a few thousand per faculty member including annual training, if that. A few hundred bucks plus the price of a firearm if they don’t already own and otherwise carry a firearm that would be subject to an approval process by the police department. It would not be obnoxious or in anybodies face. No student would likely ever know about it.
The reason people choose these targets is they want a soft target, something easy, that won’t fight back. You don’t need fancy bulletproof glass, highspeed armor and locks, and constant video surveillance. You need it to be KNOWN that the staff has the capacity to fight back. If headlines read “Newton Schools Adopt Clandestine Armed Response System” I guarantee you just wiped out 90% of the chance of something like this occurring at NPS. Instead the police department of the city of Newton has made it a policy not to even issue licenses to carry without restrictions placed on carry. This is ANNOUNCED on the police web site.
Mike
@Mike(not Striar): There’s not a chance you can have a headline like “Newton Schools Adopt Clandestine Armed Response System” or even a program like that without students knowing about it. Students read newspapers and they listen to their parents talk. They talk among themselves. Besides, if you’re going to put guns in the schools, wouldn’t you want to teach students gun safety?
Regardless, I don’t think I’d feel very secure about the safety of Newton’s students knowing that there are guns and ammunition in the middle or high schools. I think it would be a disaster waiting to happen.
P.S. Mr Shapiro I sent an email your way.
Mike
They might know about it, but elementary and middleschoolers aren’t going to know who is carrying a gun concealed. A crucial part of this plan is that the only guns at all in the school will be on the person of those who are trained at all times, no exceptions. For example, you know that thousands of Massachusetts residents carry guns concealed. How many have you noticed? You are probably in the same location or interacting with at least one a day, let alone a week.
Students should all be taught the basic “if you see a gun get an adult and don’t touch it.” This is common sense. We live in a country where half the people own guns, and though the number is small (much smaller than drowning, car accidents, and falls) children do die or kill accidentally with guns they “find” every year. Some people will always be irresponsible with guns around children. I have friends who were never told about their parents guns and found them as children, fortunately nothing bad happened. I had other friends who knew about their parents guns and were educated and knew never to touch them, or didn’t have access to them. It is common sense, and regardless of what the city does about school security, it is absolute common sense to teach children not to touch a gun and get an adult repetitively through grade school. Unless of course you are as smart as Kim and think that because the NRA had any hand in this it is some vast conspiracy. Not touching a gun and getting an adult should be like not crossing the street without looking. It should be taught to every child, anyone who doesn’t do this themselves or support it being done in schools is a fool without child safety in the forefront of their mind in my opinion.
Do you have any evidence to support it being a disaster waiting to happen? Do you have experience with guns, bad experience with guns? As someone who is responsible and around them regularly, and works with and lives with others who are responsible and around them regularly, in properly trained hands the chance of a disaster is almost non-existent.
Mike
No, I can’t produce evidence about something that hasn’t happened yet. I should have written, “I’d fear it would be a disaster waiting to happen.”
I have no experience with guns. But I have experience with teenagers. And I have experience writing and editing crime reports. Teens do stupid things.
How does teens doing stupid things have anything to do with a few select teachers carry concealed firearms? Your concerns aren’t falling upon deaf ears, but I in my experience I don’t think they are validated. This wouldn’t be as simple as “giving teachers guns.” Protocol would need to be established to select faculty, train faculty, and determine equiptment the faculty would be able to use. Their would need to be additional training on use of force. There would need to be policy as to what the faculty would avoid while working. For example, the few select faculty members who carry guns may be required to call on other faculty to break up fight if it is determined that is what is best to ensure the retention of their firearms. It’s much easier to go buy a gun off the street and bring it to school than steal it from someone with even a little bit of training in weapons retention.
This would need to be a well thought out, well planned policy, but I am confident it could be instituted safely and effectively.
Mike
Mike (not Striar) – You asked – “Do you have any evidence to support it being a disaster waiting to happen?” Yes, I do. According to the CDC, there are 14,000-19,000 nonfatal injuries stemming from accidental shootings per year in the U.S. Note these are accidental shootings, not including crime, not including mass shootings as happened in Newtown. Note that no other country has statistics even remotely like this. Now why would that be? Is it because we’re inherently more violent? Is it because we watch violent movies? No, its because unlike all other remotely civilized countries, our country is awash in millions of firearms.
There are roughly 100,000 public schools in the US and you’re suggesting that we have at least of couple of armed staff people in each school. So that’s a plan for bringing a few hundred thousand guns into our children’s schools. Given the statistics year after year about gun injuries and fatalities involving just the guns owned by law abiding or sane people, how can anyone suggest bringing hundreds of thousand of guns into our schools is not “a disaster waiting to happen”
Yes, you plan to train and screen these people, but as you yourself said – ” Some people will always be irresponsible with guns around children.”
You also said “I am ALWAYS more comfortable if either myself or somebody I know is armed around me or any member of my family”. Not me, I will ALWAYS be uncomfortable if somebody is armed around me or any member of my family.”
In the wake of the recent (latest) horrific mass shooting, gun proponents have loudly made the case that virtually any tightening of restrictions on gun ownership somehow violate the 2nd amendment. This argument is completely specious. As you pointed out in an earlier post, certain types of guns (machine guns, etc) have been banned since the 1930’s. Even the NRA accepts that as constitutionally valid. So there is absolutely no question that the 2nd amendment does allow us to limit access to guns. The only question is what we want those limits to be.
I hope the senseless death of all those children wakes us all up to do something to begin reeling in our out of control gun culture rather than bringing 100,000’s of new guns into our schools.
Well said, Jerry.
How many of those accidents are in the LE community and with people professionally trained? Yes it occurs but that does not make up the majority of the country. Because a small number of cops have accidents do you insist none of them carry guns? Of course not. The same should be said for properly trained staff.
As far as you not feeling safe around people properly trained to used guns, I feel sorry for you that you feel you can’t trust yourself or others around you. How do you feel driving a car? As a passenger in a car? Using this nations roadways?
@Mike, your analogy does not stand scrutiny. The prime design goal of an automobile is to serve as a means of transportation. The prime design goal of a firearm is to launch a projectile at high speed at a target. That target may be intimate or – as is the concern in this conversation – a living being, perhaps human.
The trust one has in fellow drivers is that we all have the common goal of getting to our destination, as is the design goal. There is much more room for concern on the motives and means regarding someone carrying a firearm. Hence, the worry.
Apologies – iPad has changed “inanimate” to “intimate”. In any other setting, I’d make a joke about this.
Posting from a phone/Ipad is always fun.
So all drivers are well intentioned? Every year at least one student at Umass is wiped out by a drunk driver, usually not on their first offense. I ride a motorcycle, and now I am noticing texting even more than I ever have as I am riding. Drivers may have the end goal of getting to a destination, but they often do it with flagrant disregard for anybody else. Immediately following the incident in CT I had someone drunkenly preach to me about gun control, and then jump into their SUV to drive through campus.
Despite the massive capacity for vehicles to kill, we treat them with little respect. This begs the question why people insist they are so uncomfortable with either themselves or someone they know carrying a gun. It is in my experience, usually due to unfamiliarity. People fear what they don’t understand. I guarantee MOST of the toughest critics of firearms (though admittedly not all) have never been proficient with or even shot a gun before. I would bet that if half the people here took the time to seek out proper education and then practiced or used a firearm with any regularity they might be more open to what I am suggesting. Yet despite almost everyone having been in at least one pretty serious traffic accident, and usually knowing someone killed in a car accident (happens in Newton too), people still think nothing of letting some 19 year old babysitter or someone they have never met drive their kids around. My sister was in an accident where her friends mother didn’t even have any of them wearing seat belts and hit a tree. I was in the car with my father when we were hit and the car was totaled. My mother was hit by someone who wasn’t paying attention and crossed the yellow lines and totaled her car, and a few years later was in a pile-up. Everyone has stories like this, but we are all familiar with cars so we don’t all demonize them. Likewise, too many people still drink and drive so they down play it, despite this being one of the most irresponsible things you can do. Newton has had fatal MVAs and tragic DUI related incidents. Yet plenty of 16 year olds are driving around in quite powerful cars in Newton, while texting, and often drinking.
The same goes for so-called assault weapons. If you actually used and realized that the difference with these are fully cosmetic and not functional, or that the capacity of a magazine has little effect on how fast one can actually shoot, you may change your tone about what we really should be focusing on with regard to gun control. The majority of gun violence is in the inner city with illegally trafficked firearms. We need real punishments for those who traffic and straw purchase firearms. Not a year or so of probation. As we know, when drug dealers get probation they don’t stop selling drugs. There are problems with the proliferation of stolen and sometimes straw-purchased weapons, yet we don’t want to have anything to do with fixing that because it’s much easier to blame an object than a complex legal system and politically appointed judges and DAs. Just look at this guy in New York, they are already focused on what gun he used despite him being out of jail after having killed his 92 year old grandmother with a hammer… Where is the real problem there?
Unfamiliarity allows one to be overly worried or critical of something, but that doesn’t make it right. Tell me I at least made a point here?
Mike
@Mike, you have made your point, but it still misses the basic fact. The genesis of the automobile – its reason for being – is transportation. People can and do misuse cars outside of their intended uses and cause injury through malice and/or negligence.
Guns are a different story altogether. Their primary and sole purpose is to inflict bodily damage. A gun carrying more than one charge and bullet can inflict damge to more than one target before being reloaded. This is the design spec. It is the basic fact of what the tool is designed to do.
And people can and have killed multiple others with motor vehicles on more than one occasion, intentionally or not. There is arguably an equal or greater risk, yet we all use them with regularity and often little regard for being overly cautious. So maybe guns are designed to inflict bodily harm, but a gun on the hip of a well trained teacher or staff member would appear to pose less risk to the surrounding students than when that same staff member gets in their car. Compare the number of firearms accidents to the number of car accidents, the death rates due to accidents, and the ownership rates and tell me the gun under the control of a trained person is still more dangerous because of its intended purpose.a
Are you serious?
And no to armed guards at every fire, although police escorts aren’t uncommon and are actually mandatory in certain violent areas where there has been a history of assaulting firefighters. Welcome to reality.
I certainly represent a viewpoint that apparently doesn’t coincide with yours. I could say you are a mouthpiece for the gun control lobby. It certainly seems like you have taken up the party line of using no evidence or facts to support anything and are now just hurling insults.
I do support guns and gun owners, so you aren’t incorrect there. Apart from the practical matter of people being armed I firmly believe in the 2nd amendment and its validity today, and I swore an oath to protect the constitution. I also do support some gun control and gun regulation as I have specified. Also, using my background (predominately as a civilian shooter) I believe an armed security program could be functional.
You however can just hurl insults. you are welcome to continue.
Here’s a pertinent Op-Ed in the Boston Globe today.
All I got from that is that only one perspective is correct, and the other perspective is completely comprised of “fools.”
Here’s what I got from it. The idea of addressing the widespread problems of gun violence in our country by introducing more guns into more spheres of our public life, is indeed foolish.
So we should reduce guns in general then, right? Ban concealed carry? Disarm police officers? Get rid of armed guards at banks and armored cars carrying money? Take the armed security details off politicians? Get rid of federal air martials? I would say that would be foolish.
I do not advocate forcibly arming people, but I firmly believe there is something to be said to creating “zones” where written in the language of the law no people who are law abiding will have guns. Over and over again those have been the areas which have been targeted, that’s a fact. The wonderful people of this town seem to have no problem with the interim solution of leaving these places as unguarded and even going so far as to publish that fact in papers, as well as the fact that the doors aren’t even locked. That, in my mind, is foolish.
Mike
Mike, please don’t intentionally try to muddy the water. No one has suggested disarming the police, disarming the TSA or any other law enforcement agent.
We’ve been discussing the idea, suggested by you and various other gun proponents, of bringing 100,000’s of guns into our schools as a way of reducing gun violence.
At the end of the day, we here in Newton have to live (or something else) with our own policies. With that in mind, I have a basic question for Newton residents:
What would residents feel about making Newton a gun-free zone – period (the exception being for police officers and [safely stored] hunting rifles)?
Nobody is muddying any waters. You linked to an article that stated having any sort of armed good guys, guards, faculty, cops in schools would only make things worse and only be supported by fools. By that logic, every common target in the U.S. that we currently have security around is made more dangerous by that security.
Bill, you live in a city with thousands, if not tens of thousands of gun owners. Heller says you can’t ban handguns, so that won’t happen. How many of these gun owners have been committing crimes and having accidents in Newton? Plenty of good people carry guns in Newton as well. I carry a gun whenever I am in Newton (I live in another city for school currently) and I nor any of the other thousands who pass through are about to stop.
How about appealing to the police chief to change the towns policy of not allowing Newton residents to carry guns anywhere in the state while people from other towns are freely able to carry guns through Newton?
Well, the guy with the gun certainly knows how to dominate a conversation. 33 out of 77 posts isn’t a bit excessive? I hate guns. I grew up having them pointed at me every time I left my house. They turn my stomach. I have witnessed shootings. I was sickened by the President of the NRA’s in-your-face arrogant statement. I do not want guns anywhere near our children. Now I suppose the guy with the gun, who obviously disagrees with me, will insist, even though he has nothing new to add, in having the last word.
This and the previous comment, is from Marie Jackson, not Jerry Reilly.
Its been me against pretty much all you, so I’ll defend my position. Sorry for your bad experience. I wish we didn’t have the problems with crime and violence in this country we do.