Repeal Gun Free School Zones!?

[Phatscotty]

Obviously, making schools gun free zones does not prevent mass killers from getting guns into school, all it does is make sure there is no way the mass killer can be stopped until they run out of bullets.

Former NYPD Detective John Baeza says that it’s important to mourn, but we need to take action to see that schools are made safer. And to do it he says we need to repeal legislation making schools gun-free zones so that teachers can properly defend themselves and protect students.

Video interview here
http://www.therightscoop.com/nypd-detec ... ool-zones/

[keyborn]

I think that all teachers should spend at least one training day per year at the local gun range. Loaded weapons should be located in strategic places throughout the school in recessed, locked gun cases (like in the wall). These guns would only be accessible with a swipe pass key issued to the teachers. One swipe with the card and your in. Maybe even have safety measures like needing a fellow teacher to activate the lock simultaneously or something similar. This would at least make the Adam Lanza's of the world think twice about hitting the local school for publicity's sake.

[Nola_Lifer]

I hope your trolling on this one. Yall can't be serious about this. If anything needs to be, we need to look at our communities, our mental health institutions, and ourselves.

[keyborn]

I hope your trolling on this one. Yall can't be serious about this. If anything needs to be, we need to look at our communities, our mental health institutions, and ourselves.

I am completely serious. Never said I wanted those weapons to ever be used. On the contrary, my wish would be that those weapons would remain forever locked away and never be touched. But, I think that the criminals in these types of cases target the helpless and those who cannot defend themselves. Knowing that the weapons are there and that the teachers are trained to use them in such an emergency, might just deter a shooter from picking on the local elementary school.

[crispybits]

These shooters know that within minutes of starting to shoot armed cops will turn up in ever increasing numbers.

How is it a deterrant that they might get shot maybe 5 minutes quicker than they would without the guns in the school buildings?

[Phatscotty]

Gun-free zones provide false sense of security
Killers aren't stopped by these policies.

"After a shooting spree," author William Burroughs once said, "they always want to take the guns away from the people who didn't do it." Burroughs continued: "I sure as hell wouldn't want to live in a society where the only people allowed guns are the police and the military."

Plenty of people — especially among America's political and journalistic classes — feel differently. They'd be much more comfortable seeing ordinary Americans disarmed. And whenever there is a mass shooting, or other gun incident that snags the headlines, they do their best to exploit the tragedy and push for laws that would, well, take the guns away from the people who didn't do it.

There are a lot of problems with this approach, but one of the most significant is this one: It doesn't work. One of the interesting characteristics of mass shootings is that they generally occur in places where firearms are banned: malls, schools, etc. That was the finding of a famous 1999 study by John Lott of the University of Maryland and William Landes of the University of Chicago, and it appears to have been borne out by experience since then as well.

In a way, this is no surprise. If there's someone present with a gun when a mass shooting begins, the shooter is likely to be shot himself. And, in fact, many mass shootings — from the high school shooting by Luke Woodham in Pearl, Miss., to the New Life Church shooting in Colorado Springs, Colo., where an armed volunteer shot the attacker — have been terminated when someone retrieved a gun from a car or elsewhere and confronted the shooter.

Policies making areas "gun free" provide a sense of safety to those who engage in magical thinking, but in practice, of course, killers aren't stopped by gun-free zones. As always, it's the honest people — the very ones you want to be armed — who tend to obey the law.

This vulnerability makes some people uncomfortable. I teach at a state university with a campus gun-free policy, and quite a few of my students have permits to carry guns. After the Virginia Tech shooting a few years ago, one of them asked me if we could move class off campus, because she felt unsafe being unarmed. I certainly would have felt perfectly safe having her carry a gun in my presence; she was, and is, a responsible adult. I feel the same way about the other law students I know who have carry permits.

Gun-free zones are premised on a lie: that murderers will follow rules, and that people like my student are a greater danger to those around them than crazed killers. That's an insult to honest people. Sometimes, it's a deadly one. The notion that more guns mean more crime is wrong. In fact, as gun ownership has expanded over the past decade, crime has gone down.

Fortunately, the efforts to punish "the people who didn't do it" are getting less traction these days. The Supreme Court, of course, has recognized that under the Constitution, honest people have a right to defend themselves with firearms, inside and outside the home, something that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit recently acknowledged in striking down Illinois' gun-carry ban. Given that gun-free zones seem to be a magnet for mass shooters, maybe we should be working to shrink or eliminate them, rather than expand them. As they say, if it saves just one life, it's worth it

http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2 ... l/1770345/

[Metsfanmax]

But, I think that the criminals in these types of cases target the helpless and those who cannot defend themselves.

If that is the case, why don't they go and shoot up hospitals every single time?

[Phatscotty]

But, I think that the criminals in these types of cases target the helpless and those who cannot defend themselves.

If that is the case, why don't they go and shoot up hospitals every single time?

Are you asking why wouldn't a mass murderer target a place where a bunch of people are already sick and dying?

btw, many hopsitals have armed guards....so that takes out the "helpless and cannot defend themselves" part.

But by all means, continue reserving helpless and defenseless for our schools

[Metsfanmax]

But, I think that the criminals in these types of cases target the helpless and those who cannot defend themselves.

If that is the case, why don't they go and shoot up hospitals every single time?

Are you asking why wouldn't a mass murderer target a place where a bunch of people are already sick and dying?

btw, many hopsitals have armed guards....so that takes out the "helpless and cannot defend themselves" part.

But by all means, continue reserving helpless and defenseless for our schools

Then have armed guards (e.g. police officers) patrolling schools. Unless you also think that nurses should start wielding pistols on their rounds too.

[keyborn]

These shooters know that within minutes of starting to shoot armed cops will turn up in ever increasing numbers.

How is it a deterrant that they might get shot maybe 5 minutes quicker than they would without the guns in the school buildings?

Problem is, they NEVER get shot by the armed cops...

Seems to me that these cowards are trying to kill as many innocent and defenseless people as they can before they take their own life. They don't ever let the armed cops get a chance at them. Their main objective is to take as many people young or old with them before they take the cowardly way out and kill themselves. Their knowledge of the weapons in the schools puts a kink in their plan to create as much mayhem and death as possible by taking out the defenseless.

And besides....with the weapons available to the adults who are charged to protect these kids...

Maybe the cowards won't get in the school building...

Maybe the cowards would be taken down before they took out the next classroom full of kids...

[Nola_Lifer]

Just means yall are giving more chances that another crazy person can gain access to guns. This isn't a gun issue it is a mental health issue.

[swimmerdude99]

Just means yall are giving more chances that another crazy person can gain access to guns. This isn't a gun issue it is a mental health issue.

No it doesnt. If there are guns allowed in a school zone then the chance of someone who is a "good person" having a concealed carry on the school grounds who could put a stop to the shooting is going to exist. If schools are gun free and someone comes in with a gun with bad intentions then they have free reign to just shoot people. I don't get LOGICALLY how the view of gun-free makes sense. . . To me it makes so much more sense to have people need a license and training to legally carry. If you make a law against it, is the law abiding citizen going to follow the law and not bring a gun? yes. Is a non-law abiding citizen going to follow the law and not bring their gun? No. So all you do is keep the people who could protect from bringing the gun in, while the law breakers can still break the law. Just twice this time. They will bring a gun illegally (why do they care if its legal or illegal?), and then kill people.

Allow guns, or at least traiin someone on campus or each teacher, and then there would be someone on location to help take care of the situation. Also, if criminals knew that someone may have a gun as well, I think that might cause people to be deterred. But DISALLOWING guns will not discourage criminals. They will still illegally kill people. They don't care. Its also illegal to kill people. They still do it.

[crispybits]

Because if you go gun free the looney tunes would have their access to guns virtually eliminated. The fucker from connecticut certainly wouldn't have been able to just get them from inside his family home, he'd either have to overcome his aspergers and autism and develop black market contacts or raid a police station or similar.

[Nola_Lifer]

Yall are just looking for a solution in the wrong spot. Or looking for a solution to solve the short term problem. The key here is these people have mental health problems. Society may have a gun problem but the bigger problem is taking care of those around us. Making sure that those who have issues get help and continue to get help. They obviously knew he had a problem, and let us not mention how the media glorifies these killers. Its a ticket to the big time, ya heard me.

[crispybits]

I agree Nola

I would ask why we can't do both though. Dealing with mental health issues on a societal level and dealing with a culture that allows ANYONE that has not yet been convicted of a serious crime or diagnosed with a mental health issue to own and carry a device that's only purpose is to injure or kill are not exclusive. Not all spree shooters are even noticed as being mentally unsound until after the event, and there is no indication from other countries with better systems and tighter cultures that 100% advance detection could ever be the case.