<p>I believe that the recent increase in gun sales does not reflect thousands of previously gunless citizens rushing out to arm themselves.</p>
<p>I believe it is the people who already own a small arsenal rushing out to buy more so that when the zombies attack they’ll be… No wait a minute, wrong scenario… So that when The Soviet Union drops troops into Nebraska… No, that’s not it either… So that when our government attacks its own countrymen they’ll be ready.</p>
<p>But I may have been watching the wrong movie…</p>
<p>As others have said, this isn’t an either/or or all or nothing proposition. We can increase security in schools and other public places AND tighten restrictions on gun ownership AND improve mental health screening. We can make it more difficult to obtain assault rifles even knowing that a sufficiently dedicated criminal will still manage to get his hands on one. We can also take steps to reduce (although, sadly, not eliminate) spree killings AND other steps (ie, taking a good, hard look at the drug wars) to reduce (although not eliminate) gang violence.</p>
<p>The truth is, none of us can know what Adam Lanza would have done if his mother hadn’t had any guns at home, or if she had just had a handgun. Maybe he would have gone through illegal channels, as drug dealers do, but it is also possible that this very disturbed suburbanite wouldn’t have had the wherewithal or patience to figure out how to obtain those weapons, and would have found a less deadly way to act out his rage. Maybe killing his mother and killing the many fewer people he would have been able to murder with a single handgun would have been enough. Probably, in some cases of mass violence, the murderer would take the more difficult route, in some, he wouldn’t have.</p>
<p>I agree, reluctantly, that given the current climate, it is impossible and irresponsible to ban guns entirely. That doesn’t mean taking measures - like limiting magazine sizes - is worthless.</p>
<p>I question whether any of these measures will make out schools any safer, or if they will just make us feel safer. Some are things we should do, because they are the right thing to do (mental health comes to mind). But armed guards in schools, teachers carrying weapons… on the one side, it might scare away some criminals, if they know there is some form of “defense” but when it doesn’t scare them away, it may escalate the situation - in the end I don’t think it makes schools any more or less safe. It perhaps will make some feel safer (a false sense of security - is that a good thing?) while at the same time making others feel less safe. I chose the town we life in because the schools don’t need armed guards and metal detectors. Do we want little children worrying that the armed guard patrolling the hallway is there because we think someone “bad” might try to harm them? Are we taking “stranger danger” to the next level? </p>
<p>Armed guards may be an appropriate response in some schools, but I don’t think it is appropriate as a matter of course.</p>
<p>"In the late 60’s, most of the boys in my 6th or 7th grade class took gun safety and left their guns (shotgun/rifle) leaning in the corner of the cloak room until after school. Since the course was taught by a teacher, I assume that he also had a gun at school.</p>
<p>Almost everyone we knew had easy access to a hunting gun & ammo. All we had to do was break the cheap glass in dad or grandpa’s gun cabinet. We wouldn’t even think of doing so. I am not opposed to gun safety being taught at school (to both students and teachers. I’d rather have my kids familiar with handling guns in case of an emergency or if they stumbled upon one at a friends house."</p>
<p>There has been such a shift in our culture, overall, over the past 30 years. I remember as a kid that all the boys in high school had gun racks in their trucks, often with guns on the racks. No big deal. By the same token, violent video games would have been considered shocking and unnacceptable, especially for children. I knew NO kids that had the guts to cuss in FRONT of an adult, much less AT an adult. There was more respect for others, more respect for life. It’s a shame the direction things have gone.</p>
<p>It’s a shame that they are considering further hindering the constitutional rights of law abiding citizens in the name of protecting all of us from the criminally insane.</p>
<p>At the school where I work as a nurse, we have Pre-School through eighth grade classes with almost 1,000 students. We are a single-level school and each classroom has a door that leads outside. At my end alone (pre-school through 4th grade), I can count in my head 39 doors that lead outside. Considering the middle school side is an exact duplicate of our end, that means at least 78 doors that lead outside. We have a full-time armed SRO but, if someone wanted to break in during school hours, there’s not much that could be done to stop them considering all classroom doors that lead outside are fully glassed. Logistically, as a school employee, I can tell you that arming a few faculty and staff members is an unrealistic and, IMO, stupid idea. We did have a faculty/staff meeting the other day in which our SRO addressed safety issues. No one wants to think something so horrible as what happened at Columbine, Sandy Hook and other schools could happen at their school, but we all need to be vigilant and prepared. </p>
<p>On a personal level, if I were a parent of a school-aged child, I know I wouldn’t want my child’s teacher wearing a gun holster. And, if the gun isn’t in a holster on the hip of the teacher, where would it be … in a locked cabinet out of a child’s reach? Wonder where the key to the locked cabinet would be? Probably in the teacher’s desk. If that’s the case, if an announcement regarding an intruder is made, how much time would it take for the teacher to lock the classroom door, get the children to safety, get to her desk, get the key to the cabinet and then get the gun from the cabinet? I’m telling you, it’s a bad, BAD idea.</p>
<p>Sally, I don’t know anyone personally that has had that experience. I know that it happens, but the implication that it goes on in every community regularly is more than a bit off. Plus, I have to tell you that killing a spouse and yourself if you’re angry can easily be done without a gun, and often is.</p>
<p>Again, taking away my right to protect everyone from the criminally insane is wrong. Let’s also ban carving knives and motor vehicles and for goodness sake, let’s ban rope and anything else that can be used to hurt someone else…or let’s limit the size of knives and let’s make you have a background check and blow into a breathalizer before you can drive…let’s just go ahead and make it a complete nanny state all in the interest of making sure that everyone is completely safe.</p>
<p>Do you think that would be effective? No. No it wouldn’t. Where does it stop? It stops with my constitutional rights. Or at least it should.</p>
<p>I honestly don’t personally know anyone in my community that DOESN’T have a gun. I also don’t know anyone personally who has shot another person, on purpose or by accident. I also don’t know anyone who has had a child accidentally shot by a firearm, and many of my friends and family teach their children how to use a gun…properly of course. And MANY of these firearms have magazines that shoot more than 10 rounds.</p>
<p>The notion that a gun, an inanimate object is evil is absurd. Some people are evil…or messed up. So we should address that, and those people.</p>
<p>Bay/cromette, for the umpteenth time, no one is trying to take away your right to own firearms. But it is disingenuous to suggest that they need less regulation than motor vehicles or that they are no more dangerous than ropes or knives. Seriously.</p>
<p>I haven’t read the whole thread, but I’m sure the point has been made by other gun advocates: I don’t really need to be patronized. I understand that many see gun advocates as paranoid people who automatically assume that all folks who want further gun regulation as people who actually want to take all guns away.</p>
<p>This is the deal…I don’t see it as any of the government’s or anyone else’s business what type of guns I have, how many, etc. It’s my constitutional right for a reason. I do not wish to be regulated in this regard. I do not wish for any law abiding citizen to be regulated in this regard. My right should not be INFRINGED because of a crazy person, or even multiple crazy people. I also believe that most advocates of various types of gun control have very limited exposure to the proper use and care of firearms, and are also responding out of fear, as they often accuse gun advocates of doing.</p>
<p>Really and truly, there’s nothing anyone can say that will change my mind about that. And that is why most gun advocates have abandoned this thread - I’m sure they see it as a pointless and fruitless argument where there will be no compromise from either position.</p>
<p>Not extremely appreciative of your flawed characterization. I’m not a nut, and neither are most Texans, despite your assertion. I, like most Texans, also do NOT wish to secede and am an extremely proud American.</p>
<p>And to suggest we would like to give teachers hand grenades is as big a leap as many gun control advocates accuse gun rights advocates of making, maybe larger.</p>
<p>Last week’s NYT magazine section included an article about a case in which a nineteen year old, after fighting with his girlfriend for hours, took out his father’s gun - initially intending to shoot himself - and wound up killing the girlfriend. Very soon after, he turned himself in to the police. So there’s one example of a death that would have been highly unlikely without the easy availability of a gun. I don’t think that means we should ban all guns, but it does demosntrate the very real risks involved.This article, by the way, was not about gun control, which was only mentioned in passing.</p>
<p>I’m not sure how limitations on guns are a violation of anyone’s constitutional rights. Even if we assume that the right to bear arms is as broad as first amendment protections - which I don’t - right to, say, free speech still allows for reasonable restrictions on the place, time and manner of that speech, and doesn’t protect slander, profanity, incitement, etc. </p>
<p>If we wanted to go back to the assumptions of the founders, however, it would be fine by me: let’s offer an unlimited right to bear any type of arms and ammo available in 1789.</p>