My wife and her fellow teachers are meeting for prayer this morning together and are wearing the green and white colors of Sandy Hook.

 

My sister's school is also wearing green and white.

For those of us advocating actual debate we must be prepared that the ONLY answer may be "there's nothing we can change that will have an impact."

 

It's a legit possibility.

For those of us advocating actual debate we must be prepared that the ONLY answer may be "there's nothing we can change that will have an impact."

 

It's a legit possibility.

 

Agreed

For those of us advocating actual debate we must be prepared that the ONLY answer may be "there's nothing we can change that will have an impact."

 

It's a legit possibility.

 

As I've read through the comments on here & in other places, this thought keeps coming to my mind. I don't really have a position on gun control as of yet. Part of this, I'm sure, is due to the fact that I do not own a gun & it's doubtful that I ever will. I know nothing about guns. I hear a lot of conversation about hunting/guns & those people might as well be speaking a different language. I just have no knowledge of them.

 

I know for sure that I support the constitutional right to bear arms. I don't know, however, what I would define as "arms." I don't know if the creators of the Constitution had in mind that we should be legally permitted to own an AK-47. So even though I don't have a solid position on this, I'm pretty sure I could be convinced that some semblance of stricter gun control be put in place.

 

However, I really don't see how this event could have been thwarted with different laws in place. Does this mean we should resist any changing of the laws? No. But I'm not convinced such changes would have prevented this from happening.

 

This is a needed debate, but I'm not sure there are definitive right & wrong answers.

For those of us advocating actual debate we must be prepared that the ONLY answer may be "there's nothing we can change that will have an impact."

 

It's a legit possibility.

That was kind of what I was alluding to in the other thread. Has the size of our country and culture created a scenario in which nothing really can be done? We can obviously try and "fix" the present system in place, but with the understanding there is no secret formula to protect everyone.

The Catholic church in town will host 10 funerals this week.

For those of us advocating actual debate we must be prepared that the ONLY answer may be "there's nothing we can change that will have an impact."

 

It's a legit possibility.

 

Very true. With all the guns already out there it is not realistic to think that any new gun control laws will get those guns off of the street. And honestly, when you're dealing with a human so defective that they want to murder innocent people and do not plan on surviving the attack themselves all you can do is try to prevent as much damage as possible. If they view what they are doing as a suicide mission then you can't really prevent it from happening--you can just hope to end it as quickly as possible.

That's one tax hike that I wouldn't mind.

 

So a tax hike for armed guards is okay.

 

But a tax hike to give teachers a salary increase (particularly the ones who have not had one in over 4 years like my wife) or to create more education positions - would that be okay or would you be against that one.

 

See, the reality is more people are quick to say "I'm for that tax hike" but not for the one that also impacts lives but in a different way.

 

The truth is, the public wants nothing to do with the costs we are speaking about and the truth is the idea that an armed guard WILL with certainty make a difference is probably not the way it would happen. In fact, someone who has thought enough to secure that kind of firepower, and knows there is an armed guard is probably looking to take that one out first thing.

 

I agree with Clyde, the sad and horrible truth is that in a free society there is always the chance of evil being done while manipulating the freedom of that society.

Many schools could find the manpower in their parents. I don't own guns, they make me nervous. However I would be more than happy to get trained and stand a watch.

Obviously this would carry it's own problems and risks, I'm just throwing it out there as an option.

 

To be honest, I'm much more frightened of acts of violence from some of the parents than I am a stranger. I've heard too many stories of custody issues, combative parents and out right lunacy from some adults with their children to feel that having some of them armed and in shifts is a legitimate course. I know checks would be in place but it seems difficult enough to get parental response in simple things.

 

Just my take.

For those of us advocating actual debate we must be prepared that the ONLY answer may be "there's nothing we can change that will have an impact."

 

It's a legit possibility.

 

Exactly what I was thinking. :thumb:

 

To be honest, I'm much more frightened of acts of violence from some of the parents than I am a stranger. I've heard too many stories of custody issues, combative parents and out right lunacy from some adults with their children to feel that having some of them armed and in shifts is a legitimate course. I know checks would be in place but it seems difficult enough to get parental response in simple things.

 

Just my take.

 

I agree. That would be terrifying...

As I've read through the comments on here & in other places, this thought keeps coming to my mind. I don't really have a position on gun control as of yet. Part of this, I'm sure, is due to the fact that I do not own a gun & it's doubtful that I ever will. I know nothing about guns. I hear a lot of conversation about hunting/guns & those people might as well be speaking a different language. I just have no knowledge of them.

 

I know for sure that I support the constitutional right to bear arms. I don't know, however, what I would define as "arms." I don't know if the creators of the Constitution had in mind that we should be legally permitted to own an AK-47. So even though I don't have a solid position on this, I'm pretty sure I could be convinced that some semblance of stricter gun control be put in place.

 

However, I really don't see how this event could have been thwarted with different laws in place. Does this mean we should resist any changing of the laws? No. But I'm not convinced such changes would have prevented this from happening.

 

This is a needed debate, but I'm not sure there are definitive right & wrong answers.

 

I agree that no gun control law would have prevented this crime. However, I think a magazine clip max of 5 would have saved lives. First of all, he blasted out a window to get in the building. He probably would have used all 5 bullets and had to reload. Every time he went to an area and began shooting, he gets five shots off and then has to reload. That time, as short as it may be while he reloads, is an opportunity for someone to jump him. Reports say the principal and perhaps the counselor in the front office tried to jump him. If he only had five shots, between blasting open the window to get in and then going to the office there may have been a chance of stopping him right there. All speculation on my part but worth looking into.

Front page of the Hartford Courant:

 

 

 

 

 

 

http://bit.ly/R25B6L

As I've read through the comments on here & in other places, this thought keeps coming to my mind. I don't really have a position on gun control as of yet. Part of this, I'm sure, is due to the fact that I do not own a gun & it's doubtful that I ever will. I know nothing about guns. I hear a lot of conversation about hunting/guns & those people might as well be speaking a different language. I just have no knowledge of them.

 

I know for sure that I support the constitutional right to bear arms. I don't know, however, what I would define as "arms." I don't know if the creators of the Constitution had in mind that we should be legally permitted to own an AK-47. So even though I don't have a solid position on this, I'm pretty sure I could be convinced that some semblance of stricter gun control be put in place.

 

However, I really don't see how this event could have been thwarted with different laws in place. Does this mean we should resist any changing of the laws? No. But I'm not convinced such changes would have prevented this from happening.

 

This is a needed debate, but I'm not sure there are definitive right & wrong answers.

 

I agree with pretty much everything you said.

 

But I just can't accept the defeatist attitude we're hearing from many that nothing will help. We need to at least try.

 

Did you see this on TV today? As about an hour ago on Fox News someone said the same thing. A very good idea, who better to protect schools than those who protect our country? You have many of them coming home who will need jobs, plus police departments have too much on their table as it is.

 

I did not but its a win win. Soldiers coming home to a dragging economy and teachers don't want to be put in the position of pulling the trigger. Hire the soldiers or former LE.