NRA: Armed guards for schools is the answer (Page 4)

At Columbine they were also carrying pipe bombs and large knives.  I don't recall if they used the knives at all but they did attempt to use the pipe bombs.  My point: If someone desires to create a mass casualty incident that can chose a variety of weapons.  Firearms are not the only weapon that has been used.  In 1927 a man in Michigan killed 38 children, 2 teachers, 4 other adults and injured 58 other people with a bombs and incendiary devices.

Arming guards at schools would be a positive deterrent to those intent on creating another killing field.  Is it possible that the POS that murdered the kids in Connecticut chose Sandy Hook because the local HS had a police officer on duty?

do you know why he didn't? He wasn't on campus when they attacked.

Their plan was to be killed by LE, they never planned on coming out of Columbine alive. They wanted to be gunned down by LE. Someone with a plan to kill is going to kill unless they are stopped

On an informational note... rulings by the SCOTUS are used to prove both sides right... never the less.... Miller was about a sawed off shot gun and laws passed on full automatic weapons after the Valentine's Day massacre. The court ruled that the tax imposed on automatic weapons was OK, and banned a sawed off shotgun because "it was not a normal weapon used by militia/military". So they did not ban full auto weapons, and they still are not "banned" today. I just have to pay a hefty tax and fill out a bunch of paper work. A gun was banned because it was not a normal weapon of war.

If they outright ban semi-automatic rifles... I'm not so sure that will stand up. They most certainly are common personal weapons of the type granted by the 2A. That's really my problem with all this... you want to know why I want one.. .because it is a common weapon good for it's intended purposes. It is not "unusual" in any way, and if full auto weapons are not banned... then why ban semi-auto ones?

do you propose any solution?

I definitely felt more comfort seeing two armed police at my son's school yesterday. If there was a way to have a security officer, paid for by the NRA at schools who is trained and who can train the teachers and administration, that's a good thing.

Joe Biden will come out with an assault weapons ban and tougher handgun restrictions in late January, but this plan covers those who will break those laws.

Yes he was.  He was sitting in his patrol car in one of the school's parking lots.  He even got in a shootout with Harris.   

he was at lunch outside

Yeah, our school has a resource officer. He carries a gun and a tazer. Our town is so small that all grades are in one building k-high school. My little one (1st grader) is not afraid of the resource officer. We are actually discussing it right now. He says "Officer X teaches me about bullies and makes me feel safe". No associations with Officer X blowing the bad guys up or anything like that. He sees a friendly officer who is there to help.

I'm not sure what the right answer. I don't own a gun and I'm not comfortable around guns but those are my issues. I'm trying to keep an open mind and not transfer my issues to my children. But from our personal experience the argument that our children won't feel safe if they see an officer with a gun is not valid.

Not to mention the homemade bombs that never went off like they planned! They were going to cause destruction, they wanted to hurt and kill people regardless of who was there

He was eating lunch with another school security officer as they sat in his patrol car in a campus parking lot adjacent to the tennis courts where students frequently smoked.  

http://edition.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2000/columbine.cd/Pages/DEPUTIES_TEXT.htm

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=47AQ-rzqYsY

Not arguing your point.. but it was different back then. Back then police waited for back up and SWAT. The police were terribly criticized for waiting to enter while kids were bing killed. Columbine changed all that and every police force in the country now has "active shooter" procedures to not wait and go in and engage. He wasn't incompetent. He returned fire, called for back up, and followed department procedures.

In this day and age, and as a parent, if it keeps my kids safer and make the bad guys think to not go to a school that has police presence, then I would be all for it.

Virginia Tech, like most universities, has it's own armed police department.  It didn't stop what happened.  If an armed officer at your kid's school makes you sleep better at night, great.  But it's a knee jerk reaction to a horrific crime.

There are already police officers assigned to schools here, this is not something new in Memphis!

A knee jerk reaction is exactly my opinion on banning weapons of any sort.  If it hasn't worked in the past (and this is proven correct) what possible benefit could there be on banning them now?

I want to know what everyone thinks the root cause of these shootings are?  No one is dealing with the root cause.  Everyone seems to be worried about the symptoms of the problem, not the root cause.

I haven't read but the first couple of posts and I did listen to the NRA speech, well until MSNBC cut if off when the x-homeland security guy started talking.

What I heard them say, in a nutshell if the government is going to forbid teachers from having the ability to defend themselves then it should be an obligation of the government to provide protection to the teachers and children.

What would make the most sense to me would be to remove the ridiculous designation of a gun free zone and allow school employees who are willing and able to legally carry a concealed weapon to do so.

Exactly... just like more knee jerk gun laws that do nothing. Just like more knee jerk penalties that do nothing. Just like more knee jerk commitments for mentally ill.Just like more knee jerk speeches about getting tough on crime. And more knee jerk reactions like TSA and Homeland defense and the Patriot Act.

Why are we even bothering? Let's just do nothing. Think of all the money we would save.

Understandable Tony... but that ids what he signed up for. He signed up to protect the public even if that means he puts him self in danger.

The Principal of SH never signed up to a be an unarmed human shield. She just did all she could with what she had. I'm not saying she should have been armed, I'm just saying that when people start dying, others rush to help how ever they can. At least police know what they are signing up for.