So, you want theater popcorn vendors and ushers to have guns? What about the Aunt Annie's pretzel vendor? The Macy's make up girl? What about the Wal-mart stock person? Your server at Appleby's? The McDonald's counter person?

 

Which of those places are gun free? Pretty sure I've carried a gun to all of those places.

^many of those places are gun free for employees but not for their customers.

You're not really making any sense in this debate RM. Seriously.

 

Felt like I was reading an article from MSNBC.

My dog protects my family and I have to register him and license him. Some types of dogs are banned because they are too dangerous. And we require that owners of dogs are responsible or face criminal charges for their mishandling that leads to injury of another.

 

Guns don't belong in schools.

 

I do support the last statement as a mater of culture and environment for learning. Guns and firearms do not need to a 'fixture' in schools with teachers in open carry mode and the such. Schools are places of learning and bring focus to the issue of self defense would likely be detrimental in various ways.

 

However, if schools will be 'gun free' zones they need better protection. Is it armed guards at every school? It seems like a tall (and expensive) order. But better multi-peremiter security zones may be in order. And some teachers should have access to non-lethal self defense weapons such as tasers. And there even may be be a place for a few, very few teachers to have self defense fire-arms with formal, specific training and with weapons well locked or secured.

 

The article at this tread indicates there are usually some teachers who are good candidates - here. It does not take every teacher being armed to be a deterrent. And the majority should not be armed.

 

From the article:

"Don’t make it mandatory. In my experience, the only people who are worth a darn with a gun are the ones who wish to take responsibility and carry a gun. Make it voluntary. It is rather simple. Just make it so that your state’s concealed weapons laws trump the Federal Gun Free School Zones act. All that means is that teachers who voluntarily decide to get a concealed weapons permit are capable of carrying their guns at work. Easy. Simple. Cheap. Available now."

 

Emphasis added.

 

Schools should be places of learning with not much emphasis on security on a day to day basis. But there will now be a nation focus on securing the most well known 'gun free zones' - schools.

 

Schools should also teach firearms safety to students just as they teach sex-ed and drug-ed. Most kids have a high probability to interact with firearms before they graduate. Just like drugs, just like sex they should know what to do be safe around something that when misused, or misunderstood can be deadly.

 

Bottom line is that 'eliminating' guns is not desirable nor viable. Thus other actions are definitely required.

President Obama sends his kids to a school that is protected by 11 armed guards.

 

School Obama's Daughters Attend Has 11 Armed Guards

 

If it's good enough for his kids maybe some other schools can try it out too.

Flashback: Clinton Requests $60 Million to Put Cops in Schools

The media also doesn’t care how wildly hypocritical they look.

 

In their zeal to rampage this left-wing agenda, the media has apparently forgotten that back in 2000, on the one-year anniversary of the Columbine shooting (which occurred with an assault weapons ban in place), President Clinton requested $60 million in federal money to fund a fifth round of funding for a program called "COPS in School," a program that does exactly what the NRA is proposing and the media is currently in overdrive mocking:

Flashback: Clinton Requests $60 Million to Put Cops in Schools

 

^ Nice find.

So did he use a rifle or not?

 

From December 15 NBC.

 

Go to 48 - 51 second mark.

 

4 handguns. AR-15 left in car. "From multiple sources"

 

Also, it was not his mother's car he drove.

 

Investigation is 'very complex' - Video on TODAY.com

I notice on many of these gun debates, no one is talking about smart guns any more. Smart guns use biometrics (fingerprints) to identify and authorize the shooter. This way, only the registered owner of the gun would be able to discharge it. Seems to be an obvious solution. What are the objections????

^ Interesting idea. But there are 300 million guns out there that would have to be replaced, and that isn't going to happen.

Flashback: Clinton Requests $60 Million to Put Cops in Schools

That crazy right-wing lunatic! Does he not care about the kids?!

I notice on many of these gun debates, no one is talking about smart guns any more. Smart guns use biometrics (fingerprints) to identify and authorize the shooter. This way, only the registered owner of the gun would be able to discharge it. Seems to be an obvious solution. What are the objections????

 

 

Because anyone wanting to own an iconic and functioning piece of history would be unable to have one. One of my rifles was originally designed in the 1890's and used through WWII, it has never been indicted as one of the models used in any school shootings. Mine in particular was built in 1943, if we went the biometric route then mine would be an illegal firearm even though it fits none of the categories that people rant about.

Flashback: Clinton Requests $60 Million to Put Cops in Schools

 

That crazy right-wing lunatic! Does he not care about the kids?!

 

:lol: I was getting ready to post something very similar ...

 

That Clinton, what a liberal!

Feinstein legislation:

 

Assault Weapons - Issues - United States Senator Dianne Feinstein

 

 

• Bans the sale, transfer, importation, or manufacturing of:
  
  • 120 specifically-named firearms
    
  • Certain other semiautomatic rifles, handguns, shotguns that can accept a detachable magazine and have one military characteristic
    
  • Semiautomatic rifles and handguns with a fixed magazine that can accept more than 10 rounds
    

 

Bans large-capacity ammunition feeding devices capable of accepting more than 10 rounds.

I notice on many of these gun debates, no one is talking about smart guns any more. Smart guns use biometrics (fingerprints) to identify and authorize the shooter. This way, only the registered owner of the gun would be able to discharge it. Seems to be an obvious solution. What are the objections????

 

I would think the cost would be the biggest objection. Could be doubling the price of some guns.