***OFFICIAL GUN CONTROL DEBATE*** (3 Viewers)

[timschochet]

[This really has nothing at all to do with the point that I made. Which is that this government is in no place to be talking about gun control. I'm not even saying that there should be more gun proliferation, just a real system of accountability in police forces. They assault people, kill people, and even shoot their dogs seemingly every day. It's sickening.The reason I bring up the poor/black thing is that US has the highest incarceration rate in the world, mostly blacks. We're all keyboard warriors here and probably never had to deal with it, but you should be cognizant of #### like that when you downplay the idea of corrupt governments administering gun control.

I talk about this issue (Police and African-Americans) all the time; read my posts in the Zimmerman thread. But what does this have to do with gun control? The proposals being made are on a federal level, while the stuff you're talking about is by local police forces. Don't really see the connection.

 

[ren hoek]

[This really has nothing at all to do with the point that I made. Which is that this government is in no place to be talking about gun control. I'm not even saying that there should be more gun proliferation, just a real system of accountability in police forces. They assault people, kill people, and even shoot their dogs seemingly every day. It's sickening.The reason I bring up the poor/black thing is that US has the highest incarceration rate in the world, mostly blacks. We're all keyboard warriors here and probably never had to deal with it, but you should be cognizant of #### like that when you downplay the idea of corrupt governments administering gun control.

I talk about this issue (Police and African-Americans) all the time; read my posts in the Zimmerman thread. But what does this have to do with gun control? The proposals being made are on a federal level, while the stuff you're talking about is by local police forces. Don't really see the connection.

Federal law affects people at the state and local level too. Just look at the militarization of police departments. I don't think it's a good idea for gun control to be a one-way street.

 

[kentric]

You change things you have an ability to readily change. Altering death rates by educating people can only go so far. You will get more results (IMO) in situations like that which happened in CT by outlawing auto/semi/etc than trying to convince someone through educating them that their chemically imbalanced son needs to be medicated.

Really? A ban on auto/semiauto guns would have prevented the CT massacre??

I wouldn't go so far as saying that it "would" have prevented it, but if a ban had been in place there is the potential that the mother would never have had the gun in the house to begin with. If someone wants a "banned" gun, they will get a banned gun, but it will make it much more difficult and costly for that person to attain the gun in the first place if it was against the law to own it.

 

[kentric]

[This really has nothing at all to do with the point that I made. Which is that this government is in no place to be talking about gun control. I'm not even saying that there should be more gun proliferation, just a real system of accountability in police forces. They assault people, kill people, and even shoot their dogs seemingly every day. It's sickening.The reason I bring up the poor/black thing is that US has the highest incarceration rate in the world, mostly blacks. We're all keyboard warriors here and probably never had to deal with it, but you should be cognizant of #### like that when you downplay the idea of corrupt governments administering gun control.

I talk about this issue (Police and African-Americans) all the time; read my posts in the Zimmerman thread. But what does this have to do with gun control? The proposals being made are on a federal level, while the stuff you're talking about is by local police forces. Don't really see the connection.

I bet you just had lunch with an African-American Policeman.

 

[kentric]

I haven't been around in a while. We get this thing solved yet?

Yup. We've narrowed it down to somewhere between the gov't providing everyone 8 y.o. and up with a 90 clip autoamtic weapon or prohibiting firearms completely and arming them with pointy sticks or bananas.

 

[Henry Ford]

I haven't been around in a while. We get this thing solved yet?

Yup. We've narrowed it down to somewhere between the gov't providing everyone 8 y.o. and up with a 90 clip autoamtic weapon or prohibiting firearms completely and arming them with pointy sticks or bananas.

Also considering forcing all children to move to Canada until the age of majority.

 

[timschochet]

I haven't been around in a while. We get this thing solved yet?

We have. I'm happy to say I've convinced everyone here, and they all agree with me now.

 

[Glass Joe]

So are we arming firefighters now?

 

[5 digit know nothing]

So are we arming firefighters now?

No we are banning matches.

 

[5 digit know nothing]

Good thing the UK banned hand guns...

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2012/12/11/gun-crime-soars-in-england-where-guns-are-banned-n1464528

Does the anti-gun crowd know what the UK's gun-related death stats were in 1994 prior to the gun-ban? In 1994 the number of gun-related deaths per 100,000 inhabitants in the USA was 14.24, in England and Wales it was 0.41; in Scotland it was 0.54. Compare those figures to today's ~3 number and you can see how far we have come and how little change the handgun ban in the UK really did, it was a decision made based off of emotion due to the Dunblane incident in 1996, much like the emotion fueling the anti-gun crowd today due to Newtown.

where you get "~3" from? http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/files/2012/12/firearm-OECD-UN-data3.jpg

See that number from the left margin, the one that says 3?

Oh, you're talking about the US.The 1994 number you're citing is gun-related deaths. The number from that Washington Post link is gun-related homicides. The subset is smaller than the whole. Shocker.

If you follow the link from my last post, the US is currently around 10.2.

So the US murder rate dropped from 9 per 100k in 1994 to 4.7 in 2011 or 48% compared to the UK that had 632 murders in 1994 compared to 636 in 2011 for a 1% increase after banning handguns, does this sound right? I believe both these sources disregard the weapon used in the murder.You can focus all you want on the US stats that I goofed up on, but you are just ignoring the point I am making.

 

[5 digit know nothing]

Good thing the UK banned hand guns...

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2012/12/11/gun-crime-soars-in-england-where-guns-are-banned-n1464528

Does the anti-gun crowd know what the UK's gun-related death stats were in 1994 prior to the gun-ban? In 1994 the number of gun-related deaths per 100,000 inhabitants in the USA was 14.24, in England and Wales it was 0.41; in Scotland it was 0.54. Compare those figures to today's ~3 number and you can see how far we have come and how little change the handgun ban in the UK really did, it was a decision made based off of emotion due to the Dunblane incident in 1996, much like the emotion fueling the anti-gun crowd today due to Newtown.

where you get "~3" from? http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/files/2012/12/firearm-OECD-UN-data3.jpg

See that number from the left margin, the one that says 3?

Oh, you're talking about the US.The 1994 number you're citing is gun-related deaths. The number from that Washington Post link is gun-related homicides. The subset is smaller than the whole. Shocker.

If you follow the link from my last post, the US is currently around 10.2.

So the US murder rate dropped from 9 per 100k in 1994 to 4.7 in 2011 or 48% compared to the UK that had 632 murders in 1994 compared to 636 in 2011 for a 1% increase after banning handguns, does this sound right? I believe both these sources disregard the weapon used in the murder.You can focus all you want on the US stats that I goofed up on, but you are just ignoring the point I am making.

Here's a hint: if you want to compare like things, find a data source that reports both things.For example, here's a link here to murder rates by nation for 1995 - 2011.

In 1995, the US murder rate was 8.1 per 100,000 pop.

In 1995, the UK murder rate was 1.6 per 100,000 pop.

In 2009, the US murder rate was 5.0 per 100,000 pop.

In 2009, the UK murder rate was 1.2 per 100,000 pop.

So the UK murder rate dropped slightly. Maybe it went up slightly in the last two years, I don't know. But your overall point is just as misguided as your earlier facts. You're acting as if the 1994 UK gun legislation are their only ones on the books. They actually have pretty severe gun regulations and have had for a while. See the wiki article here on the history of gun regulation in the UK. So it's not like that should represent some seminal event to cause drastic change. You have to look at their whole history, all of their regulations, and what their rates were before.

And they still have a murder rate 4x lower than we do in the US. So trying to say, "Well, they regulated guns but we're doing so much better" is like being a student with an F at midterms who improves to a D and then laughs at the guy who "only stayed at an A".

You can come across being the biggest ######## in every post that you make if you want, it doesn't prove your case.The 1997 handgun ban as I previously mentioned was the anti-gun legislation I am talking about and you chose two different years which still does not disprove my point that banning handguns in the US does not predicate UK levels of homicide. There are many more factors that differentiate the US from the UK.

 

[Otis]

Do we start arming firemen now?

 

[Otis]

Wayne LaPierre> Thanks pal.

 

[jonessed]

So are we arming firefighters now?

This one is on the criminal justice system. The guy beat his grandmother to death with a hammer. How does somebody like that get out of prison in less than 20 years? He should have had life for that.

 

[Otis]

So are we arming firefighters now?

This one is on the criminal justice system. The guy beat his grandmother to death with a hammer. How does somebody like that get out of prison in less than 20 years? He should have had life for that.

Anything but guns. Has to be the mental health system, or the criminal justice system, or the color of my scarf -- really anything but guns. Just make sure there are plenty in circulation so folks just have them lying around and can do something awful on a whim. Great plan.

 

[jonessed]

So are we arming firefighters now?

This one is on the criminal justice system. The guy beat his grandmother to death with a hammer. How does somebody like that get out of prison in less than 20 years? He should have had life for that.

Anything but guns. Has to be the mental health system, or the criminal justice system, or the color of my scarf -- really anything but guns. Just make sure there are plenty in circulation so folks just have them lying around and can do something awful on a whim. Great plan.

I'm pretty confident this guy did not obtain his gun legally.

 

[timschochet]

I'm pretty confident this guy did not obtain his gun legally.

The whole purpose of the laws I am in favor of is to make the illegal purchase of firearms more difficult. That's why we need a national database with all guns registered in it, and who owns them, in order to help law enforcement isolate the illegal ones that aren't on the list. Why is this so difficult for people to understand?

 

[jonessed]

I'm pretty confident this guy did not obtain his gun legally.

The whole purpose of the laws I am in favor of is to make the illegal purchase of firearms more difficult. That's why we need a national database with all guns registered in it, and who owns them, in order to help law enforcement isolate the illegal ones that aren't on the list. Why is this so difficult for people to understand?

It's not difficult to understand, but it is difficult to see how it will work. We can't even properly update our current exclusion lists and those should be infinitely easier to maintain.I think we can do some things to limit accidental deaths, but this guy was a homicidal maniac. I doubt even an all out ban would keep guns out of the hands of someone like this.

 

[Mr Two Cents]

National Association of School Resource Officers Endorses NRA Stance

A well-trained, armed, school-based police officer is one of the best defenses against an active shooter in a school. NASRO agrees that placing school-based police officers in every school that wants one would greatly enhance the safety of children, if such officers are selected carefully and properly trained.

School-based policing requires specialized training not covered in most law enforcement academies. Because school resource officers are much more than armed guards, they need training in teaching, counseling and the special skills required to act as a law enforcement officer in a school setting. In addition, we recommend that all school resource officers receive special training to assure that their responses to an active shooter will be safe and effective.

 

[Mr Two Cents]

Boy Uses Dad’s AR-15 to Shoot Home Invaders

 

[tommyGunZ]

National Association of School Resource Officers Endorses NRA StanceA well-trained, armed, school-based police officer is one of the best defenses against an active shooter in a school. NASRO agrees that placing school-based police officers in every school that wants one would greatly enhance the safety of children, if such officers are selected carefully and properly trained.School-based policing requires specialized training not covered in most law enforcement academies. Because school resource officers are much more than armed guards, they need training in teaching, counseling and the special skills required to act as a law enforcement officer in a school setting. In addition, we recommend that all school resource officers receive special training to assure that their responses to an active shooter will be safe and effective.

I'm stunned by this development.

 

[tommyGunZ]

So are we arming firefighters now?

This one is on the criminal justice system. The guy beat his grandmother to death with a hammer. How does somebody like that get out of prison in less than 20 years? He should have had life for that.

Anything but guns. Has to be the mental health system, or the criminal justice system, or the color of my scarf -- really anything but guns. Just make sure there are plenty in circulation so folks just have them lying around and can do something awful on a whim. Great plan.

I'm pretty confident this guy did not obtain his gun legally.

All the more reason to bypass this crap Feinstein is proposing and get to a real ban on guns.

 

[ren hoek]

http://i.imgur.com/fzYl1.jpg

 

[ren hoek]

All the more reason to bypass this crap Feinstein is proposing and get to a real ban on guns.

Terrible, terrible idea.

 

[cosjobs]

National Association of School Resource Officers Endorses NRA StanceA well-trained, armed, school-based police officer is one of the best defenses against an active shooter in a school. NASRO agrees that placing school-based police officers in every school that wants one would greatly enhance the safety of children, if such officers are selected carefully and properly trained.School-based policing requires specialized training not covered in most law enforcement academies. Because school resource officers are much more than armed guards, they need training in teaching, counseling and the special skills required to act as a law enforcement officer in a school setting. In addition, we recommend that all school resource officers receive special training to assure that their responses to an active shooter will be safe and effective.

You mean a National training organization for school based police and district personnel endorses a plan that will provide them jobs? I'm SHOCKED,What's next? Elves lobbying for more toys?

 

[5 digit know nothing]

The 1997 handgun ban as I previously mentioned was the anti-gun legislation I am talking about and you chose two different years which still does not disprove my point that banning handguns in the US does not predicate UK levels of homicide. There are many more factors that differentiate the US from the UK.

Not least of which would be a history of other severe gun regulations in the UK. My point is that choosing the most recent legislation is arbitrary and misleading if you're going to act as if, "Look, they banned handguns and their murder rate stayed roughly constant. Therefore, banning handguns in the US won't do much either."You're ignoring that they were already at an extremely low murder rate and they already had a number of laws restricting gun ownership and use on the books. So you would expect the improvement to be rather incremental. We, on the other hand, have a fairly high murder rate and can't get much in the way of gun regulation on the books at all without a 2nd Amendment challenge. So to attempt to syllogize and say, "Well, they banned handguns and not much happened. There's no reason to expect it would do much for us, either" is myopic.

You, and others, also seem to like linking to articles that cite year-over-year percentage changes in the UK to feign shock that they have gotten so much worse while not citing to level per population statistics which show that the UK has one of the lowest gun murder rates in the world.

No I am not ignoring that, that is precisely my point. The people pointing at the UK saying "why can't we be more like them? They banned handguns and now their gun-homicides are so low. They are ignoring the other variables in play here and focusing solely on guns as the problem, the UK (and Canada for that matter) is geographically isolated from the drug issues the US is facing between Mexico and South America, and the war on drugs that our government is making a priority to fight. There were about 9k gun-homicides in the past year, and tack on another 50% of non-gun homicides. My original point is you remove one type of weapon from the criminals, which in and of itself is so far-fetched to think they can get the 300 million guns removed from the US that I don't even know why we are discussing it, that the violence will still be there - you are not going to be able to just subtract all of those homicides from our society - unicorns and rainbows fantasyland.tl;dr; USA ≠ UK so stop making ludicrous comparisons

 

[tommyGunZ]

The 1997 handgun ban as I previously mentioned was the anti-gun legislation I am talking about and you chose two different years which still does not disprove my point that banning handguns in the US does not predicate UK levels of homicide. There are many more factors that differentiate the US from the UK.

Not least of which would be a history of other severe gun regulations in the UK. My point is that choosing the most recent legislation is arbitrary and misleading if you're going to act as if, "Look, they banned handguns and their murder rate stayed roughly constant. Therefore, banning handguns in the US won't do much either."You're ignoring that they were already at an extremely low murder rate and they already had a number of laws restricting gun ownership and use on the books. So you would expect the improvement to be rather incremental. We, on the other hand, have a fairly high murder rate and can't get much in the way of gun regulation on the books at all without a 2nd Amendment challenge. So to attempt to syllogize and say, "Well, they banned handguns and not much happened. There's no reason to expect it would do much for us, either" is myopic.

You, and others, also seem to like linking to articles that cite year-over-year percentage changes in the UK to feign shock that they have gotten so much worse while not citing to level per population statistics which show that the UK has one of the lowest gun murder rates in the world.

No I am not ignoring that, that is precisely my point. The people pointing at the UK saying "why can't we be more like them? They banned handguns and now their gun-homicides are so low. They are ignoring the other variables in play here and focusing solely on guns as the problem, the UK (and Canada for that matter) is geographically isolated from the drug issues the US is facing between Mexico and South America, and the war on drugs that our government is making a priority to fight. There were about 9k gun-homicides in the past year, and tack on another 50% of non-gun homicides. My original point is you remove one type of weapon from the criminals, which in and of itself is so far-fetched to think they can get the 300 million guns removed from the US that I don't even know why we are discussing it, that the violence will still be there - you are not going to be able to just subtract all of those homicides from our society - unicorns and rainbows fantasyland.tl;dr; USA ≠ UK so stop making ludicrous comparisons

No one is suggesting that a gun ban will instantly end violence. If criminals have to use other tools, inevitably some will be deterred altogether, and some will end up using a knife, or fists, or a baseball bat, etc. All of which are less lethal than a Bushmaster ,223

 

[parasaurolophus]

The 1997 handgun ban as I previously mentioned was the anti-gun legislation I am talking about and you chose two different years which still does not disprove my point that banning handguns in the US does not predicate UK levels of homicide. There are many more factors that differentiate the US from the UK.

Not least of which would be a history of other severe gun regulations in the UK. My point is that choosing the most recent legislation is arbitrary and misleading if you're going to act as if, "Look, they banned handguns and their murder rate stayed roughly constant. Therefore, banning handguns in the US won't do much either."You're ignoring that they were already at an extremely low murder rate and they already had a number of laws restricting gun ownership and use on the books. So you would expect the improvement to be rather incremental. We, on the other hand, have a fairly high murder rate and can't get much in the way of gun regulation on the books at all without a 2nd Amendment challenge. So to attempt to syllogize and say, "Well, they banned handguns and not much happened. There's no reason to expect it would do much for us, either" is myopic.You, and others, also seem to like linking to articles that cite year-over-year percentage changes in the UK to feign shock that they have gotten so much worse while not citing to level per population statistics which show that the UK has one of the lowest gun murder rates in the world.

Can you explain why gun related crime went up so much after the ban in the UK? Doesn't that strike you as very odd and perhaps at least put the possibility out there that the bans really have nothing to do with the current decrease? Isn't that at least discussion worthy?

 

[Mr Two Cents]

For those of you that think having armed security at your kids schools, think again.

School Obama's Daughters Attend Has 11 Armed Guards Some interesting news has broken in the wake of the latest push for gun control by President Obama and Senate Democrats: Obama sends his kids to a school where armed guards are used as a matter of fact.The school, Sidwell Friends School in Washington, DC, has 11 security officers and is seeking to hire a new police officer as we speak. If you dismiss this by saying, "Of course they have armed guards -- they get Secret Service protection," then you've missed the larger point. The larger point is that this is standard operating procedure for the school, period. And this is the reason people like NBC's David Gregory send their kids to Sidwell, they know their kids will be protected from the carnage that befell kids at a school where armed guards weren't used (and weren't even allowed).Shame on President Obama for seeking more gun control and for trying to prevent the parents of other school children from doing what he has clearly done for his own. His children sit under the protection guns afford, while the children of regular Americans are sacrificed.

 

[Apple Jack]

For those of you that think having armed security at your kids schools, think again.

School Obama's Daughters Attend Has 11 Armed Guards Some interesting news has broken in the wake of the latest push for gun control by President Obama and Senate Democrats: Obama sends his kids to a school where armed guards are used as a matter of fact.The school, Sidwell Friends School in Washington, DC, has 11 security officers and is seeking to hire a new police officer as we speak. If you dismiss this by saying, "Of course they have armed guards -- they get Secret Service protection," then you've missed the larger point. The larger point is that this is standard operating procedure for the school, period. And this is the reason people like NBC's David Gregory send their kids to Sidwell, they know their kids will be protected from the carnage that befell kids at a school where armed guards weren't used (and weren't even allowed).Shame on President Obama for seeking more gun control and for trying to prevent the parents of other school children from doing what he has clearly done for his own. His children sit under the protection guns afford, while the children of regular Americans are sacrificed.

The targets on the president and his family are a little bit different than the targets on you and yours. That really needs to be explained?

 

[Mr Two Cents]

For those of you that think having armed security at your kids schools, think again.

School Obama's Daughters Attend Has 11 Armed Guards Some interesting news has broken in the wake of the latest push for gun control by President Obama and Senate Democrats: Obama sends his kids to a school where armed guards are used as a matter of fact.The school, Sidwell Friends School in Washington, DC, has 11 security officers and is seeking to hire a new police officer as we speak. If you dismiss this by saying, "Of course they have armed guards -- they get Secret Service protection," then you've missed the larger point. The larger point is that this is standard operating procedure for the school, period. And this is the reason people like NBC's David Gregory send their kids to Sidwell, they know their kids will be protected from the carnage that befell kids at a school where armed guards weren't used (and weren't even allowed).Shame on President Obama for seeking more gun control and for trying to prevent the parents of other school children from doing what he has clearly done for his own. His children sit under the protection guns afford, while the children of regular Americans are sacrificed.

The targets on the president and his family are a little bit different than the targets on you and yours. That really needs to be explained?

You didn't even read it did you, not too bright are you.

 

[Apple Jack]

My high school girlfriend went to sidwell. They have security because half of the students are children of people who make important decisions.

 

[3C's]

For those of you that think having armed security at your kids schools, think again.

School Obama's Daughters Attend Has 11 Armed Guards Some interesting news has broken in the wake of the latest push for gun control by President Obama and Senate Democrats: Obama sends his kids to a school where armed guards are used as a matter of fact.The school, Sidwell Friends School in Washington, DC, has 11 security officers and is seeking to hire a new police officer as we speak. If you dismiss this by saying, "Of course they have armed guards -- they get Secret Service protection," then you've missed the larger point. The larger point is that this is standard operating procedure for the school, period. And this is the reason people like NBC's David Gregory send their kids to Sidwell, they know their kids will be protected from the carnage that befell kids at a school where armed guards weren't used (and weren't even allowed).Shame on President Obama for seeking more gun control and for trying to prevent the parents of other school children from doing what he has clearly done for his own. His children sit under the protection guns afford, while the children of regular Americans are sacrificed.

The targets on the president and his family are a little bit different than the targets on you and yours. That really needs to be explained?

You didn't even read it did you, not too bright are you.

It's a private school that charges $32k per student per year. And has over 1000 students. Do the math.

 

[Mr Two Cents]

So it is okay for private schools to have armed security but not for your kids. Just strikes me as kind of interesting that you are so against it for everyone else and think it is the stupidest idea in the world but yet approve of it here.

Tim would never send his kid into this "dangerous" environment. Loaded guns in school with little children, how dare they do this to the children.

 

[Mister CIA]

 

[Mr Two Cents]

For those of you that think having armed security at your kids schools, think again.

School Obama's Daughters Attend Has 11 Armed Guards Some interesting news has broken in the wake of the latest push for gun control by President Obama and Senate Democrats: Obama sends his kids to a school where armed guards are used as a matter of fact.The school, Sidwell Friends School in Washington, DC, has 11 security officers and is seeking to hire a new police officer as we speak. If you dismiss this by saying, "Of course they have armed guards -- they get Secret Service protection," then you've missed the larger point. The larger point is that this is standard operating procedure for the school, period. And this is the reason people like NBC's David Gregory send their kids to Sidwell, they know their kids will be protected from the carnage that befell kids at a school where armed guards weren't used (and weren't even allowed).Shame on President Obama for seeking more gun control and for trying to prevent the parents of other school children from doing what he has clearly done for his own. His children sit under the protection guns afford, while the children of regular Americans are sacrificed.

The targets on the president and his family are a little bit different than the targets on you and yours. That really needs to be explained?

You didn't even read it did you, not too bright are you.

It's a private school that charges $32k per student per year. And has over 1000 students. Do the math.

So what is the dollar number you put on your kids life? You would think that is something is WRONG it would be wrong for everyone.So what value do all you guys put on your kids lives? At what price are your kids worth being protected?

 

[Apple Jack]

This isn't your garden variety private school, these aren't your garden variety children of the rich, and these are not your garden variety security people. Bthe threat to these kids isn't a mad gunman, it's kidnapping and ransom demands. Does that makes sense now? And sidwells elementary school isn't even at the same location, so there's probably even more than 11. Plus the Obama girls ss detail.

 

[tommyGunZ]

So it is okay for private schools to have armed security but not for your kids. Just strikes me as kind of interesting that you are so against it for everyone else and think it is the stupidest idea in the world but yet approve of it here. Tim would never send his kid into this "dangerous" environment. Loaded guns in school with little children, how dare they do this to the children.

I'm guessing the security force at Friends is a bit different than giving Shooter from Hoosiers a .22 and telling him to patrol the parking lot.

 

[Mister CIA]

For those of you that think having armed security at your kids schools, think again.

School Obama's Daughters Attend Has 11 Armed Guards

Some interesting news has broken in the wake of the latest push for gun control by President Obama and Senate Democrats: Obama sends his kids to a school where armed guards are used as a matter of fact.

The school, Sidwell Friends School in Washington, DC, has 11 security officers and is seeking to hire a new police officer as we speak.

If you dismiss this by saying, "Of course they have armed guards -- they get Secret Service protection," then you've missed the larger point.

The larger point is that this is standard operating procedure for the school, period. And this is the reason people like NBC's David Gregory send their kids to Sidwell, they know their kids will be protected from the carnage that befell kids at a school where armed guards weren't used (and weren't even allowed).

Shame on President Obama for seeking more gun control and for trying to prevent the parents of other school children from doing what he has clearly done for his own. His children sit under the protection guns afford, while the children of regular Americans are sacrificed.

The targets on the president and his family are a little bit different than the targets on you and yours. That really needs to be explained?

You didn't even read it did you, not too bright are you.

It's a private school that charges $32k per student per year. And has over 1000 students. Do the math.

So what is the dollar number you put on your kids life? You would think that is something is WRONG it would be wrong for everyone.So what value do all you guys put on your kids lives? At what price are your kids worth being protected?

Cage recommendations...

 

[Henry Ford]

For those of you that think having armed security at your kids schools, think again.

School Obama's Daughters Attend Has 11 Armed Guards Some interesting news has broken in the wake of the latest push for gun control by President Obama and Senate Democrats: Obama sends his kids to a school where armed guards are used as a matter of fact.The school, Sidwell Friends School in Washington, DC, has 11 security officers and is seeking to hire a new police officer as we speak. If you dismiss this by saying, "Of course they have armed guards -- they get Secret Service protection," then you've missed the larger point. The larger point is that this is standard operating procedure for the school, period. And this is the reason people like NBC's David Gregory send their kids to Sidwell, they know their kids will be protected from the carnage that befell kids at a school where armed guards weren't used (and weren't even allowed).Shame on President Obama for seeking more gun control and for trying to prevent the parents of other school children from doing what he has clearly done for his own. His children sit under the protection guns afford, while the children of regular Americans are sacrificed.

The targets on the president and his family are a little bit different than the targets on you and yours. That really needs to be explained?

You didn't even read it did you, not too bright are you.

It's a private school that charges $32k per student per year. And has over 1000 students. Do the math.

So what is the dollar number you put on your kids life? You would think that is something is WRONG it would be wrong for everyone.So what value do all you guys put on your kids lives? At what price are your kids worth being protected?

Maybe I'm missing something. Hasn't essentially everyone in here said that it would be okay to hve armed police officers or military at schools?

 

[tommyGunZ]

For those of you that think having armed security at your kids schools, think again.

School Obama's Daughters Attend Has 11 Armed Guards Some interesting news has broken in the wake of the latest push for gun control by President Obama and Senate Democrats: Obama sends his kids to a school where armed guards are used as a matter of fact.The school, Sidwell Friends School in Washington, DC, has 11 security officers and is seeking to hire a new police officer as we speak. If you dismiss this by saying, "Of course they have armed guards -- they get Secret Service protection," then you've missed the larger point. The larger point is that this is standard operating procedure for the school, period. And this is the reason people like NBC's David Gregory send their kids to Sidwell, they know their kids will be protected from the carnage that befell kids at a school where armed guards weren't used (and weren't even allowed).Shame on President Obama for seeking more gun control and for trying to prevent the parents of other school children from doing what he has clearly done for his own. His children sit under the protection guns afford, while the children of regular Americans are sacrificed.

The targets on the president and his family are a little bit different than the targets on you and yours. That really needs to be explained?

You didn't even read it did you, not too bright are you.

It's a private school that charges $32k per student per year. And has over 1000 students. Do the math.

So what is the dollar number you put on your kids life? You would think that is something is WRONG it would be wrong for everyone.So what value do all you guys put on your kids lives? At what price are your kids worth being protected?

I thought you wanted the govt to cut spending?

 

[Mr Two Cents]

This isn't your garden variety private school, these aren't your garden variety children of the rich, and these are not your garden variety security people. Bthe threat to these kids isn't a mad gunman, it's kidnapping and ransom demands. Does that makes sense now? And sidwells elementary school isn't even at the same location, so there's probably even more than 11. Plus the Obama girls ss detail.

So these kids are worth more than your kids or the kids in Conn. If that is what you believe, so be it. I guess every kids of every Senator, or Congressman or Governor has their children in private schools? Or are just some worth more than others, where is that line you draw on which kids have value and which do not.

 

[Mister CIA]

For those of you that think having armed security at your kids schools, think again.

School Obama's Daughters Attend Has 11 Armed Guards Some interesting news has broken in the wake of the latest push for gun control by President Obama and Senate Democrats: Obama sends his kids to a school where armed guards are used as a matter of fact.The school, Sidwell Friends School in Washington, DC, has 11 security officers and is seeking to hire a new police officer as we speak. If you dismiss this by saying, "Of course they have armed guards -- they get Secret Service protection," then you've missed the larger point. The larger point is that this is standard operating procedure for the school, period. And this is the reason people like NBC's David Gregory send their kids to Sidwell, they know their kids will be protected from the carnage that befell kids at a school where armed guards weren't used (and weren't even allowed).Shame on President Obama for seeking more gun control and for trying to prevent the parents of other school children from doing what he has clearly done for his own. His children sit under the protection guns afford, while the children of regular Americans are sacrificed.

The targets on the president and his family are a little bit different than the targets on you and yours. That really needs to be explained?

You didn't even read it did you, not too bright are you.

It's a private school that charges $32k per student per year. And has over 1000 students. Do the math.

So what is the dollar number you put on your kids life? You would think that is something is WRONG it would be wrong for everyone.So what value do all you guys put on your kids lives? At what price are your kids worth being protected?

Maybe I'm missing something. Hasn't essentially everyone in here said that it would be okay to hve armed police officers or military at schools?

Not a regular reader in this thread. I'm okay with locally grown organic cops in schools. ABSOLUTELY NOT OKAY with random military vets carrying weapons in public schools. That's insane!

 

[Mr Two Cents]

For those of you that think having armed security at your kids schools, think again.

School Obama's Daughters Attend Has 11 Armed Guards Some interesting news has broken in the wake of the latest push for gun control by President Obama and Senate Democrats: Obama sends his kids to a school where armed guards are used as a matter of fact.The school, Sidwell Friends School in Washington, DC, has 11 security officers and is seeking to hire a new police officer as we speak. If you dismiss this by saying, "Of course they have armed guards -- they get Secret Service protection," then you've missed the larger point. The larger point is that this is standard operating procedure for the school, period. And this is the reason people like NBC's David Gregory send their kids to Sidwell, they know their kids will be protected from the carnage that befell kids at a school where armed guards weren't used (and weren't even allowed).Shame on President Obama for seeking more gun control and for trying to prevent the parents of other school children from doing what he has clearly done for his own. His children sit under the protection guns afford, while the children of regular Americans are sacrificed.

The targets on the president and his family are a little bit different than the targets on you and yours. That really needs to be explained?

You didn't even read it did you, not too bright are you.

It's a private school that charges $32k per student per year. And has over 1000 students. Do the math.

So what is the dollar number you put on your kids life? You would think that is something is WRONG it would be wrong for everyone.So what value do all you guys put on your kids lives? At what price are your kids worth being protected?

I thought you wanted the govt to cut spending?

I know it doesn't matter to you since you will never have kids but maybe some might think theirs are as important as everyone's. I guess being in the 1% does have its privileges.

 

[tommyGunZ]

This isn't your garden variety private school, these aren't your garden variety children of the rich, and these are not your garden variety security people. Bthe threat to these kids isn't a mad gunman, it's kidnapping and ransom demands. Does that makes sense now? And sidwells elementary school isn't even at the same location, so there's probably even more than 11. Plus the Obama girls ss detail.

So these kids are worth more than your kids or the kids in Conn. If that is what you believe, so be it. I guess every kids of every Senator, or Congressman or Governor has their children in private schools? Or are just some worth more than others, where is that line you draw on which kids have value and which do not.

Yet you value a hobby over kids.

 

[Apple Jack]

This isn't your garden variety private school, these aren't your garden variety children of the rich, and these are not your garden variety security people. Bthe threat to these kids isn't a mad gunman, it's kidnapping and ransom demands. Does that makes sense now? And sidwells elementary school isn't even at the same location, so there's probably even more than 11. Plus the Obama girls ss detail.

So these kids are worth more than your kids or the kids in Conn. If that is what you believe, so be it. I guess every kids of every Senator, or Congressman or Governor has their children in private schools? Or are just some worth more than others, where is that line you draw on which kids have value and which do not.

Are you drunk? Nobody wants to kidnap your kids. You have nothing anybody wants. People with political power and tens or hundreds of millions of dollars do have something people want. Please stop running around with loaded weapons.

 

[Apple Jack]

Here's an afterschool special style explanation of one of the reasons why obamas kids are different than yours.

http://www.youtube.com/watch%3Fv%3D4Wg-ey0u9I0

 

[jonessed]

My high school girlfriend went to sidwell. They have security because half of the students are children of people who make important decisions.

 

[Apple Jack]

My high school girlfriend went to sidwell. They have security because half of the students are children of people who make important decisions.

It seems necessary to talk in big terms for this guy. Hopefully you know I'm not suggesting that there are 500 kids in this school who are children of Obama and his cabinet.

 

[timschochet]

So it is okay for private schools to have armed security but not for your kids. Just strikes me as kind of interesting that you are so against it for everyone else and think it is the stupidest idea in the world but yet approve of it here.

Tim would never send his kid into this "dangerous" environment. Loaded guns in school with little children, how dare they do this to the children.

You really didn't read what I wrote on this subject, did you? For the record:1. I have no problem with trained professionals armed to protect students. However, I don't see this as the answer for every school, because we can't afford it.

2. What I DON'T want is either teachers armed, or the elimination of schools as gun-free zones, which would mean that any idiot with a gun and a concealed carry permit could be around my kids. No offense, Mr. Two Cents, but I don't want YOU around my kids, given your paranoia and the way you approach answering your front door.