Subscribe Register Login

Wednesday, May 22, 2013, 3:05 p.m.
Top Picks - Capture Arkansas

NRA calls for armed guards in schools, taps Hutchinson to lead plan

By Bloomberg News

This article was originally published December 21, 2012 at 11:18 a.m. Updated December 21, 2012 at 2:56 p.m.

the-national-rifle-association-executive-vice-president-wayne-lapierre-gestures-during-a-news-conference-in-response-to-the-connecticut-school-shooting-on-friday-dec-21-2012-in-washington-the-nations-largest-gun-rights-lobby-is-calling-for-armed-police-officers-to-be-posted-in-every-american-school-to-stop-the-next-killer-waiting-in-the-wings

PHOTO BY EVAN VUCCI / AP

The National Rifle Association executive vice president Wayne LaPierre, gestures during a news conference in response to the Connecticut school shooting on Friday, Dec. 21, 2012 in Washington. The nation's largest gun-rights lobby is calling for armed police officers to be posted in every American school to stop the next killer "waiting in the wings."

The National Rifle Association called for stationing police officers in schools as the proper response to the Dec. 14 school shooting in Connecticut and blamed “blood-soaked films” and video games for the violence.

The NRA also announced a plan to develop a comprehensive school security plan for use nationwide, an initiative that is being headed by former U.S. Rep. Asa Hutchinson, an Arkansas Republican.

“The only thing stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun,” Wayne LaPierre, the organization’s chief executive officer, said Friday at a news conference that was twice interrupted by protesters. He urged Congress “to appropriate whatever is necessary to put armed police officers in every single school in this nation.”

Beyond paid security, LaPierre said school systems could tap into retired firefighters, police and military personnel to create school “security forces.”

Read tomorrow's Arkansas Democrat-Gazette for full details.

Comments on: NRA calls for armed guards in schools, taps Hutchinson to lead plan

To report abuse or misuse of this area please hit the "Suggest Removal" link in the comment to alert our online managers. Read our Terms of Use policy.

Subscribe Register Login

You must login to make comments.

JakeTidmore says... December 21, 2012 at 12:24 p.m.

Public response is already negative toward NRA after this LaPierre announcement. Bad, bad timing. Terrible idea, too.

( | suggest removal )

parabellum says... December 21, 2012 at 12:33 p.m.

This idea will never work, it makes too much sense ! We already have armed security guards at many schools in arkansas and there has never been a mass shooting at any of these schools.

( | suggest removal )

KCSAP says... December 21, 2012 at 12:39 p.m.

Go Asa. Someone that can elevate the discussion to something solution oriented. Tired of the Dems "all emotions" "no solutions" rhetoric.

( | suggest removal )

awh says... December 21, 2012 at 12:41 p.m.

This whole situation is awful but a predictable outcome of the increasingly violent culture in media and gaming. What are people putting in their heads these days, especially so many youngsters who live most of their free time plugged into a screen? Are curbs needed? I would say so...but there are a million opinions out there. I agree with NRA that it is the people doing the damage, who have become motivated by images and thoughts in their heads, and not the weapons themselves. How many have been murdered with machetes? Something like half a million in Rwanda a decade ago over a month? Did we cry to outlaw machetes? Don't think so. Nevertheless, some curbs need to occur. We are so eager to curb some gun ownership rights but are we willing to curb production of rampant violence on TV, games, online and in movies? Are we willing to do some serious revamping to our mental health system? If not, I'm not interested in any curbs on types of guns or magazines. Lets call the problem what it really is: US. And by the way, the ammo in a gun is held in magazines (or "mags"), NOT clips. People who say "clips" do not know guns, and as unknowledgeable persons they shouldn't demonize what they don't know.

( | suggest removal )

TomN says... December 21, 2012 at 12:54 p.m.

Let's think about this . . .
Bad guys don't care about the law.
Bad guys can always get guns, legal or illegal.
Bad guys are weaklings and cowards.
Bad guys prey upon the weak.
Bad guys prey upon weak targets.
Bad guys don't like it when good guys have guns too.
Even sick bad guys don't like it when good guys have guns too.
Bad guys stay away from places where the good guys have guns.
If we make places safe by putting good guys there with guns the bad guys will stay away.
Liberal: "Won't work. Too logical."

( | suggest removal )

RonalFos says... December 21, 2012 at 1 p.m.

The same people who are now pushing putting armed guards are the same ones who scream about paying taxes to support schools. Most schools can't even hire enough teachers and aids and buy supplies with the funding they have.

( | suggest removal )

TomN says... December 21, 2012 at 1:14 p.m.

Notice how liberals always have to duck and weave, avoiding the subject. But, but, . . .

( | suggest removal )

lazybar says... December 21, 2012 at 1:20 p.m.

if we could eliminate the wasted money on welfare we could afford to spend more money on schools

( | suggest removal )

Jackabbott says... December 21, 2012 at 1:32 p.m.

A hate mongering organization like the NRA should not even be mentioned in a newspaper. They are shills for the arms industry who make million on murder. They have not an iota of common sense. Their response re blood soaked films and video games has a lot of merit and should be considered right along with gun control and mental/civil rigths reform but otherwise they are worth about as much as sewer rats.

( | suggest removal )

Packman says... December 21, 2012 at 1:42 p.m.

Interesting how libs criticized the NRA for not speaking immediately, and now criticize it for speaking at all......Regardless in this cimate of high and irrational emotion fueled by self-serving politicians, it's going to take great courage to point out the obvious and also engage in an all-encompassing discussion that includes video games, music videos, movies, and a media that glorifies gun violence and murder. Stay strong. Mr. LaPierre, lots of us have your back and will do our best to honor your courage.

Honestly, I wish Feinstein, Obama, Shumer, Bloomberg and the rest would cut to the chase and propose a Constitutional Amendment to do whatever it is they want to do. Gut the 2nd Amendment (or at least give it your best shot, no pun intended) by not just banning military platform guns but ALL semi-autos and handguns. I'm all for putting it to a vote of the people of America. You libs all good with that?

Ronal makes a good point. About 50 years ago hunters and anglers supported a self-imposed tax on the sale of hunting and fishing equipment to fund fish and wildlife management activites nationwide. I would support a similar tax on the sales of guns and ammo, or a diversion of the existing tax on guns and ammo for wildlife management purposes, to fund armed guards in our schools. If supporting such a tax makes me a liberal, Hades just froze over......

( | suggest removal )

KCSAP says... December 21, 2012 at 2:16 p.m.

RonalFos says... Show me where it's the same people. Buffoonery, you don't know that. Besides, if we cut out the Dept. of Education that would more than cover the cost.

( | suggest removal )

PaulRevere says... December 21, 2012 at 2:44 p.m.

From a posting in Conway; Read the press release - Obama cut school safety funds

h**p://ww*.schoolsecurity.or*/media/releases/2009/Obama_school_safety_funding_cuts_20090511.html

"It is unbelievable that at the 10th anniversary of the Columbine attack, President Obama proposes cutting school safety funding rather than restoring massive school safety funding cuts by the past Administration and Congresses. It appears the only 'change we can believe in' is further cuts from pithy federal school safety dollars to small change for protecting our nation's school children and teachers," says Kenneth Trump, President of the Cleveland (Ohio)-based National School Safety and Security Services.

Using the same logic, one could say that the president killed these schoolchildren. That would be reckless and wrong, but it is the same logic he is using against guns.

( | suggest removal )

JakeTidmore says... December 21, 2012 at 2:45 p.m.

When one compares gun death rates in US vs European countries, the fact that the US rate is usually a 100 times higher leaps out immediately. In fact, combining ALL the European countries together still doesn't even begin to come close to the US number.

What's so different? Like us, those other countries don't have prayer in schools. Like us, they do have violent films, violent video games, alienated young people, disgruntled workers, domestic disputes, angry drivers, etc.
The difference is that they have tough gun laws and a responsible social attitude towards guns. We have neither. We have the easiest access to guns and the weakest gun laws. To argue that there's no connection between this and the gun death rate is irresponsible and reflects a major, illogical form of denial.
There is one other difference and probably the most significant: they don't have a gun lobby propagandizing for the gun companies. So, yes, the NRA has a significant role in the shedding of innocent blood in this country.
You talk about obvious facts. The key fact is that the US has the highest death rate by guns and is the only nation that has a dominant gun lobby. That is the main difference, if not the only difference, that drives this problem in our country.
It's time for the NRA to take responsibility for its role in our nation's crime. You wanted more and more guns. Now, you need to shoulder the consequences of those actions.

( | suggest removal )

BillSmith says... December 21, 2012 at 2:58 p.m.

I knew their answer would be more guns. The gun lobby has them and congress by the balls.

( | suggest removal )

lazybar says... December 21, 2012 at 3:08 p.m.

jake what is the death rate from autos in other nations?what is the number one cause of death in the usa?

( | suggest removal )

T6 says... December 21, 2012 at 4:06 p.m.

Why is it the government doesn't want the law abiding U.S. citizen to have guns and ammo but they need to buy 1.6 billions rounds of ammo in 2012?

( | suggest removal )

Packman says... December 21, 2012 at 4:22 p.m.

Hey Jake - Great job with the inflammatory rhetoric. Now, tell us how you propose to fix it? And be mindful a ban on military platform rifles and high capacity mags will NOT bring back those kids in Newtown and there is NO evidence a future ban will prevent or even necessarily hinder similar events in the future. How did all those gun laws work for the 91 people killed by a crazed gunman on that island in Norway????? Unless your solution is confiscation of all existing semi-automatic firearmsin America as well as a ban, you are wasting everybody's time. As to shedding innocent blood, you still good with abortion on demand?

( | suggest removal )

jjordan says... December 21, 2012 at 4:34 p.m.

It's not about the 2nd amendment - it's about money. Plain and simple.

( | suggest removal )

BillSmith says... December 21, 2012 at 4:54 p.m.

Packman....not confiscation but manditory buyback.

( | suggest removal )

BillSmith says... December 21, 2012 at 4:57 p.m.

T6.....That is to supply homeland security that GW Bush established.

( | suggest removal )

T6 says... December 21, 2012 at 5:52 p.m.

BillSmith..... Did DHS under George Bush buy all that ammo?
~~
dailymail. co.uk/news/article-1223193/Culture-violence-Gun-crime-goes-89-decade.html#ixzz2FKN4jLoZ

( | suggest removal )

HotSpringsLawyer says... December 21, 2012 at 6:07 p.m.

Typical right winger solution - always asking Big Government to spend more to solve every problem.

( | suggest removal )

T6 says... December 21, 2012 at 6:24 p.m.

BillSmith.. You do realize that's enough ammo to carry on a war for several years? Why would homeland security within the US need that amount of ammo? Since you are an expert on the Obama administration maybe you could tell us why the DHS bought 450 millions rounds of .40 caliber hollow points, hollow point bullets have been illegal in international warfare since 1899. Or why the National Weather Service needs ammo
In my opinion our government is supplying ammo to the illegal guns they are running in other countries. Illegal guns Obama was running in Benghazi Lybia comes to mind. Obama supplying ammo to the guns he's furnishing Al Qaeda. Bet I'm not far from wrong.
Care to comment?

( | suggest removal )

Smash says... December 21, 2012 at 6:27 p.m.

Since the dawn of man there always existed men who were evil and committed to harming others. Today we have provided those individuals with assault rifles and ammo clips that allows them to shoot a gun with multiple rounds. The answer by the NRA to make our schools Beirut style villages is not surprising. They are funded by the very same gun manufacturers that these evil men use to harm others. The NRA also preys on individuals with the fear that Uncle Sam is going to take away their hunting rifles and hand guns and will profit greatly asking these "plain folk" to contribute to the cause.

We don't need any assault rifles on the street and also don't need those guns that use those extended ammo clips. I have yet to see a hunter in the woods armed with one for the purpose of hunting. We will never be able to completely keep terrorist from harming another school, mall or church but hopefully we will stop making it easy for them to shoot dozens of people in a few seconds!

( | suggest removal )

tenpoint says... December 21, 2012 at 6:44 p.m.

I think the NRA is right about the guns . The people that will kill you is going to have their guns after the good guys have them taken away from them T only thing that is going to stop this is for mom and dad to raise their children about the gun safety.When i was a young child my dad and mom spanked me the second time i touched my dad's gun and the third time . I DIDN'T touch it any more.

( | suggest removal )

BillSmith says... December 21, 2012 at 6:54 p.m.

T6 says "maybe you could tell us why the DHS bought 450 millions rounds of .40 caliber hollow points, hollow point bullets have been illegal in international warfare since 1899."
My answer:
Firstly, US law enforcement have ALWAYS use hollow-point bullets. They use them specifically for A) Stopping power, and B) to minimize collateral damage. Regular bullets pass through the body leaving a relatively small hole, and do not immediately disable an attacker. They also don't slow down very much, and also similarly pass through walls, and so are much more likely to hit someone else. But the key thing here is the numbers. The suggestion being that this is an unusually large number of bullets. The number comes from the company that was awarded a contract:So the first thing to notice here is that it's not an order for 450 million bullets. It's a contract to supply, with a MAXIMUM volume of 450 million rounds over FIVE YEARS. So really it's a contract to supply up to 90 million bullets a year. It's also not just the DHS. It's the DHS and the Immigration and Customs Enforcement. But the thing that this hoax ignores is that the vast majority of rounds fired are NOT fired at people. They are fired during training and practice. A DHS officer going through basic firearms training will fire over a thousand rounds. Officers are also required to qualify with their weapon every year accounting for a few hundred rounds, and will often go though additional firearms training programs, each of which can use over a thousand rounds.
Here's a DHS slide on just some of their ammunition usage:
FLETC Range & Amunition
16.2 million rounds of ammunition fired at Glynco in 2008-14 ranges > 100,000 rds/day.
83% of ammunition used is RHA
14.7 million rounds fired at Artesia-20 ranges.
2.7 million rounds used at Cheltenham- all lead- 7 ranges
4 ranges at Charleston -3 lead & 1 RHA
*
T6, I know facts really get in the way of your rumors and lies, and I know your type just can not help themselves. But you should really try to supply reliable sources for you spin, but I know also, it is hard for brains that have been washed by Fox News and World Net Daily to do so, but surley you know what the bible says about spreading rumors and lies, don't you?

( | suggest removal )

BillSmith says... December 21, 2012 at 6:59 p.m.

T6.......Care to tell us your source from where you got the information about the Illegal guns Obama was running in Benghazi Lybia and Obama supplying ammo to the guns he's furnishing Al Qaeda. Shurly you can do something as simple as that, right?

( | suggest removal )

BillSmith says... December 21, 2012 at 7:46 p.m.

KCSAP,parabellum,TomN,lazybar,packman,T6,awh,tenpoint............
Something from the past for you guys and Lapierre to comment on:
*
In 1999, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold killed 15 people and wounded 23 more at Columbine High School. The destruction occurred despite the fact that there was an armed security officer at the school and another one nearby -- exactly what LaPierre argued on Friday was the answer to stopping "a bad guy with a gun."

( | suggest removal )

BillSmith says... December 21, 2012 at 7:48 p.m.

If a nut case blows his own brains out after a shooting, why would he be afraid of the security guards?In 1999, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold killed 15 people and wounded 23 more at Columbine High School. The destruction occurred despite the fact that there was an armed security officer at the school and another one nearby -- exactly what LaPierre argued on Friday was the answer to stopping "a bad guy with a gun."

( | suggest removal )

BillSmith says... December 21, 2012 at 8:09 p.m.

pobunker.packman.kcsap.T6.......NRA says put security guards in schools, that has been done:
In 1999, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold killed 15 people and wounded 23 more at Columbine High School. The destruction occurred despite the fact that there was an armed security officer at the school and another one nearby -- exactly what LaPierre argued on Friday was the answer to stopping "a bad guy with a gun."
If the nut case of a shooter is going to blow his own brains out after, is he really going to be deterred by security guards, that have to go to the bathroom, office maybe even eat lunch somewhere. Will they be in the right place at the right time in every school? Where will the police officer be stationed at recess and lunch time. Have you ever been at a school yard at recess or lunchtime, do you see kids outside and inside at the same time? Come on guys just tell us how this is going to work out?

( | suggest removal )

inquire says... December 21, 2012 at 8:42 p.m.

Bill, every time T6 says something REALLY crazy and I try to check it out, it will be something mentioned absolutely nowhere except on extreme far, far right fringe web sites, but not on any real news site.

( | suggest removal )

BillSmith says... December 21, 2012 at 9:48 p.m.

Hey right wing gun nuts.....If Wayne LaPierre says the solution to the problem is an armed guard in every school in America, please answer this question:
*
The Fort Hood shooting was a shooting that took place on November 5, 2009, at Fort Hood, the most populous U.S. military installation in the world, located just outside Killeen, Texas.[1] In the course of the shooting, a single gunman killed 13 people and wounded 29 others.[1] It is the worst shooting ever to take place on an American military base.
If the most populous U.S. military installation in the world, and with out a doubt with best trained soldiers and the thousands of full automatic rifles could not take out a nut case with a rifle, WHY do you think 1 armed guard at a school will fare much better? Please make logical comments if that is possible.

( | suggest removal )

Populist says... December 21, 2012 at 10:01 p.m.

Bill Smith,

If you have an assault rifle and want to do damage, you simply take out the security guard before you go on your spree. We need to restrict really dangerous weapons. I'm not saying that certain schools could not benefit from an armed presence, but if we need a security guard in the schools, we need one in the movie theaters, zoos, etc etc. Let's just work on restricting assault weapons, limiting violent video games. and providing more services for mental health.

( | suggest removal )

Packman says... December 21, 2012 at 11:09 p.m.

Hey BillSmith - "Packman....not confiscation but manditory buyback." Now we're getting somewhere. Care to explain the difference between manditory buyback and confiscation? If I refuse the manditory buyback, what happens next? Hitler had the answer in the early 1940's in case you missed it.

Hey Populist - Care to define "really dangerous weapon" and then explain how it differs from my favorite squirrel rifle or newly acquire hog gun (Colt AR 15)?

Hey BillSmith - Are you saying a silly law would be more of a deterrent to what happened at Newtown than an armed security guard on site at the school? Really? Seriously? Bless your heart.

( | suggest removal )

BillSmith says... December 21, 2012 at 11:56 p.m.

Packman you have not addressed my question of the armed security guard at Colunbine High School is that what you are referring to about armed security guards? Mandatory buyback of LCM and assault type rifles only, was what I was talking about. I own guns myself and would not be concerned about them being taken.

( | suggest removal )

HotSpringsLawyer says... December 21, 2012 at 11:58 p.m.

BillSmith I generally agree with you but the Fort Hood shooting was really the Killeen, TX shooting and was in a cafeteria. Actually helped lead to concealed carry on the (probably wrong) argument that then someone would have stopped it.

( | suggest removal )

HotSpringsLawyer says... December 22, 2012 at 7:44 a.m.

My bad, the cafeteria shooting was earlier. 50 shot killing 23.

( | suggest removal )

jjordan says... December 22, 2012 at 8:23 a.m.

You hard liners are just like your awesome "party-of-no" congressman. Let's not change anything, let's shoot down any type of suggestions for change, and in fact, let's double down on the same things that got us in this mess. The companies backing the NRA are loving this and so are there shareholders. Ever talked to a cop for his or her opinion when they have to respond to this chaotic situation? I have some feedback and arming every "good guy" with an assault rifle with an extended clip is not at the top of their list.

( | suggest removal )

lazybar says... December 22, 2012 at 9:21 a.m.

ok the subject is about making it safer but you libs attack something like high cap mags and assualt rifles which count for a extremely low number of deaths.most gunshot deaths come from a single round.why do you feel guns are so bad but refuse to look at how many injuries and deaths come from hs sports and auto accidents?yes a high cap mag serves little purpose hunting or on the range but please explain to me the purpose of the 580hp in the 2013 camero zl1?if a kawasaki ninja 250 can easily go the speed limit why is the zx-14r needed?multiple deaths or a single death anything above zero is to much but if your going to attack my rights to spend my money on every needless thing i can afford then attack everyones rights on everything.

( | suggest removal )

T6 says... December 22, 2012 at 12:27 p.m.

BillSmith.... Columbine was intended to be a bombing and the security guard wasn't at Columbine School when the shooting started.
Inquire why would I waste my time when you Libs don't accept any info from any sites other than your propaganda networks? Which is why it's hard for you to believe what's going around you. I know it's sooooo hard to see when you've got your head up your backside.
Guess you'll have to wait until You propaganda rags decide to tell you about what's going on in the world.

( | suggest removal )

BillSmith says... December 22, 2012 at 1:13 p.m.

T6.....Do you get World New Daily News feeds from their website or read the site? Yes or No.

( | suggest removal )

inquire says... December 22, 2012 at 1:17 p.m.

jjordan, the police lost all patience with the NRA when they didn't want to ban the "cop killer" bullets that can breach a vest.
T6, CBS, NBC, ABC, Reuters, etc., are not partisan news sites. I don't live in a bubble. I get news from many sites and many newspapers, books and magazines. Extreme right wingers tend to bury themselves in Fox, Rush, and their kind, never paying any attention to legitimate main stream news services.
You think MSNBC is just a left wing Fox. That is not true. Editorially, they are pretty left, but the difference is that they have actual proof on film and in documents for what they say, while Fox has been caught lying several times, to the point that the Canadian government will not allow them to operate in Canada. Much of what is said on FOX should be clearly labeled editorial, but it is presented, falsely, as news.
It is the right wing that has a very narrow focus of where they get their "information."

( | suggest removal )

T6 says... December 22, 2012 at 1:18 p.m.

Inquire.... Do you know that the Pentagon didn't move all troops out of Iraq when Obama said they did?
You do know that Special Ops were deployed back to Iraq? So why is it hard to believe that Obama is redeploying troops there for the coming war he's going to get us into with Syria?
Billsmith.....
I didn't know you train with hollow points I thought you kill with hollow points! Nothing to see here, move along folks!

( | suggest removal )

T6 says... December 22, 2012 at 1:37 p.m.

BillSmith..... No I do not
Inquire.... HOW many times have your mainstream media been caught lying and doctoring videos?

( | suggest removal )

BillSmith says... December 22, 2012 at 1:56 p.m.

T6....regarding Columbine:
At 11:19 a.m., a witness heard Eric Harris yell "Go! Go!" At that moment, the two gunmen pulled out their guns from beneath their trenchcoats and Harris began shooting with his 9 mm semi-automatic carbine at two 17-year-old students who had been sitting upon a grassy knoll next to the West Entrance of the school
At approximately 11:24 a.m., a Jefferson County deputy sheriff arrived and began shooting at Harris and Klebold, distracting them from the injured Brian Anderson.[4] (Anderson escaped to the library and hid inside an open staff break room.) Harris fired a total of ten shots at the officer, who reported a Code 33 (officer in need of emergency assistance) to his colleagues
Two SWAT teams entered the school at 1:09 p.m
The armed policeman was there 4 minutes after the shooting started. The Swat teams did not enter the school until 1:09 fifty minutes after the shooting started. What took the swat teams so long to enter the building, this is what they are paid to do. So yes, there was good guys there with guns, but they still did not take out the killers.

( | suggest removal )

aimee says... December 22, 2012 at 3:40 p.m.

Ban assault weapons and high-capacity clips... It's the only sane answer..!!!
.
The NRA has proved it's own irrelevance..!!!

( | suggest removal )

BarichMilhusseinObamaNixonPOTUS says... December 22, 2012 at 3:46 p.m.

I don't own a gun but the fact BillSmith and inquire are peeing in their pants makes this statement from the NRA worth it

( | suggest removal )

T6 says... December 22, 2012 at 3:58 p.m.

BillSmith.... Soooooo what's your point?

( | suggest removal )

lazybar says... December 22, 2012 at 4:03 p.m.

inquire,the black talon otherwise known as a cop killer was a hollowpoint designed to expand on impact.

( | suggest removal )

BillSmith says... December 22, 2012 at 6:50 p.m.

T6..... the point is YOU pointed out there was not an armed guard at Columbine School when the shooting started. BUT, he got there 4 minutes after it started called for backup and it was 50 minutes later when 2 swat teams entered the building. THE POINT IS THAT THE POLICE DID NOT ATTEMPT TO TAKE OUT THE KILLERS FOR 50 MINUTES. DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT? THE POINT OF THIS ARTICLE IS THE NRA CALLS FOR ARMED GUARDS IN SCHOOLS. The point is that if an officer and two SWAT teams can not take out 2 killers, what do expect 1 armed guard to do?

( | suggest removal )

BillSmith says... December 22, 2012 at 11:28 p.m.

If more guns will make us safer as the NRA promotes, why are we not the safest country in the world since we have more guns than any other country in the world? Need some logical comments on this.

( | suggest removal )

lazybar says... December 23, 2012 at 9:29 a.m.

bs if there is a armed guard the offender will be less likely to attack.here is some logic for you,if we used our names and addresses on this thread and a criminal used this thread as a search for victims who`s house are they likely to break into all yours on the left or those of us on the right?i hope it never comes to it but even though i own a great number of these guns you want to ban it will not be the one i use for my selfdefense.they will be met at the door with a pump shotgun but i do and will always support any law abiding american without mental defect the right to spend thier money on what they choose.some will buy up thousands of dollars of guns and ammo while some will invest thier money in a streetrod both as americans we should be allowed to do.it only takes one glass of wine to put you over the legal limit but we as americans can collect and drink as much wine as we want.you can`t be for limited one item without limiting all items.if we loose our gun rights whats next?thats the only right we have that protects the others.

( | suggest removal )

T6 says... December 23, 2012 at 10:44 a.m.

COPS Quick Facts for the State of Connecticut
To Date, $129,469,909 in COPS grants were awarded to law enforcement agencies in the State of Connecticut
● COPS grants have funded 1,366 additional police officers and sheriffs deputies to engage in community policing activities, including crime prevention, in Connecticut.
● 126 local and state law enforcement agencies in Connecticut have directly benefited from funding made available through the COPS Office.
● $9,000,000 has been awarded to add 72 school resources officers to improve safety for students, teachers, and administrators in primary and secondary schools throughout Connecticut.
● $34,542,639 has been awarded for crime-fighting technologies. This funding has allowed officers to spend more time on the streets of Connecticut fighting and preventing crime through timesaving technology, information-sharing systems, and improved communications equipment.

( | suggest removal )

BillSmith says... December 23, 2012 at 11:13 a.m.

lazybar,T6.KCSAP.packman.......need some comments on this, you guys skip this one.
If more guns will make us safer as the NRA promotes, why are we not the safest country in the world since we have more guns than any other country in the world? Need some logical comments on this

( | suggest removal )

T6 says... December 23, 2012 at 11:55 a.m.

Ok BillSmith... Here ya go, don't know about lazybar,KCSAP,packman but this pretty much sums it up.
youtu. be/tMso12zeYDQ

( | suggest removal )

23cal says... December 23, 2012 at 2:51 p.m.

Q: How many NRA members does it take to screw in a light bulb?
*
A: More guns!
*
*
Q: Why did the NRA chicken cross the road?
*
A: More guns!

( | suggest removal )

ugoddabkiddingme says... December 23, 2012 at 5:18 p.m.

I though it perhaps insensitive to place blamefor Newtown at this stage but the NRA statement on Friday and the assinine follow on by Asas Hutchinson and his ilk renders it impossible to withhold: Nancy Lanza is to blame for the deaths of 20 innocent children and 6 courageous adults who tried to shield them.

She appears to have been - based on what we know to date - the walking, talking, shooting embodiment of all that which the NRA holds dear. She owned MULTIPLE high-powered automatic weapons out of, if not fear of, a skepticism that authorities could/would not defend her liberty - not in and of itself a crime or even noteworthy. She was the perfect rube for the FUD (fear/uncertainty/doubt) shoveled by the NRA and it's purveyors of death on its 4million dues-paying members. Was Nancy Lanza among them?

Her crime - and yes, I mean CRIME - was exposing an individual whom she knew to be volatile and potentially dangerous to others, to weapons capable of such destruction. She not only exposed her son to them, she did so claiming - possibly even believing - that it would teach him 'responsibility.' And she not only exposed him to them, she made them - and ammunition - READILY AVAILABLE to him.

It's too bad she didn't live to be prosecuted - and persecuted - for her role in such an unimaginable - and preventable - atrocity. If those children had to die such a heinous death as the result of her actions, however; then there is a certain, albeit minimal, justice in that she did so as well. If only those who continue to support her and actions of those like her would so so as well.

( | suggest removal )

aimee says... December 23, 2012 at 5:28 p.m.

lazybar:
.
Why don't you try using some punctuation..??? Or are you imitating an assault rifle with your writing..???
.
IF the shooter in Newtown had "paused" to reload, some of the children may have escaped... Is this assault on your readers to keep THEM from escaping..???
.
Here's a NEWS FLASH..!!! I didn't even attempt to read your comment when it appeared to have NO END..!!!
.
HAH, ya MISSED me..!!!

( | suggest removal )

BarichMilhusseinObamaNixonPOTUS says... December 23, 2012 at 7:07 p.m.

Aimee you trying to talk to anyone about punctuation is so laughable. Anyone who uses multiple ??? and !!! In their sentence structure is just a moron or starved for attention. I think you are both.

( | suggest removal )

aimee says... December 23, 2012 at 11:49 p.m.

Redwing:
.
At least I HAVE punctuation, albeit my own style..!!!
.
27 days to President Obama's second term....

( | suggest removal )

Whippersnapper says... December 24, 2012 at 8 a.m.

BillSmith says: "If more guns will make us safer as the NRA promotes, why are we not the safest country in the world since we have more guns than any other country in the world? Need some logical comments on this"

The fact is that other countries have lower rates of violent crime and homicide overall (with or without guns). The other fact is that even after gun law changes that resulted in massive gun seizures in Australia and Great Britain, the rates of intentional homicide and violent crime didn't go down. Gun homicides went down, but not total homicides. The rate of gun crime actually went UP after the tough new gun laws were enacted. If strict gun laws are the panacea you claim, why wouldn't they have caused a reduction in the rates of violent crime and intentional homicides? Need some logical comments on this.
~
You see, in the scientific method, we can research previous experiments that have been done similar to what is being proposed and learn what to expect. In this case, we have seen two island nations (Australia and the U.K.) pass really strict gun laws in the past 30 years and neither one has seen a drop in violent crime or murder. We are not an island nation and already have a serious problem with banned items (drugs) being smuggled across our borders by violent criminal gangs. Why should we think that an unconstitutional experiment in gun prohibition would yield better results for us?

( | suggest removal )

RonalFos says... December 24, 2012 at 8:17 a.m.

Hutchison isn't very smart to take up this cause since virtually every other congressman with an A rating by the NRA is hiding from the press right now because they understand that standing with the NRA at this moment could be a career ending move. There aren't going to be wide spread adoption of armed teachers and guards in schools because teachers, administrators and education professionals don't want it. The NRA is wasting its time trying to promote this. This is just a part of their smoke screen as they hope this will just blow over.

( | suggest removal )

lazybar says... December 24, 2012 at 8:54 a.m.

aimmee who says he would have to reload if there was in fact a ban limiting handguns to 10rds?its my understanding that he used 2 glocks with 32rd mags,with one in the chamber thats 66rds and at street value of $1300.a high point cost less than $200 with a 10rd mag+one in the chamber.he could have very easily used 7 high points with 77 rds and never took his eye off the targets as he changed guns.
a general once said its wise to know your enemy,if your going to bring a good arguement you better know your subject.bs does not know the differance between a hawken and a musket,inquire does not know what a bullet with a low expanded rate vs a fast expanding rate does when it hits a said target,and aimme hows no clue how fast one can change firearms or reload.get a little knowledge about your subject before you come back to argue about guns.
ok,bs i`ll answer your question with a question.when japan bombed pearl harbor why did they not go ahead as planned attacking the us mainland?

( | suggest removal )

lazybar says... December 24, 2012 at 9:26 a.m.

logic dictates that if pro-gunners were as violent a anti-gunners say then there would be no anti-gunners left

( | suggest removal )

jjordan says... December 24, 2012 at 9:55 a.m.

Doubtful that all lunatics know how to change a mag in record time for max killing efficiency, but let's enable them (just in case they don't know how) with a high-capacity mag and a damn assault rifle. So now let's debate about the lunatics efficiency in changing mags. Yes, while we're at it - let's pontificate about fast cars, alcohol, deaths caused by unicorns, the color of the sky and any other shiny things in the corner of the room to divert attention so this blows over until the next mass murder occurs. Heaven forbid your rights be infringed upon to enable a kid a little extra time to maybe escape a rampage! The infatuation with pushing the limits in this country while claiming the preservation of freedom is truly astounding. I own several guns, but I am not concerned that anyone will be showing up to take them since I don't have a max arsenal for killing a small army.

( | suggest removal )

BillSmith says... December 24, 2012 at 10:04 a.m.

whippersnapper........no one is talking confiscating any guns, but here are a few facts:
In a list of countries by firearm-related death-rate per 100,000 population in one year
Total firearm-related death rate ---- Homicides
US 10.2 ----- 3.7
Canada 4.78 ----- .76
Australia 1.05 ----- .09
UK - .25 ---- .04
What you will never see is statistics about deaths prevented by banning assault type rifles, pistols and LCM. The nut case that thinks about it but can not get one because it is harder.
The kids in the other countries in the list play the same video games, listen to the same music, watch the same movies and look at the same internet as we in the US do. Yet, they have 50% or less firearm related deaths and homicides than we do.

( | suggest removal )

Packman says... December 24, 2012 at 10:22 a.m.

Hey BillSmith - The police response policy used at Columbine has changed. That's the answer to your question. Now, the policy is to engage the bad guy IMMEDIATELY........ An economist named John Lott wrote a book a few years ago titled "More Guns Less Crime". I understand the two greatest fears of a liberal are fact and common sense, but you really need to do yourself a favor and review Lott's research. In a nutshell, it shows conclusively bans on large capacity mags and military platform rifles have NO statistical impact! You libs refuse to show how the ban will solve the problem, simply because you can't. In typical liberal fashion it's a proposal that only make you feel better about yourselves for promoting it, and nothing more. In liberal la-la land symbolism always trumps substance.

Let's cut to the chase and you give it your best shot (no pun intended) at doing away with the 2nd Amendment. Let's get it on. All you are doing now is wasting everyone's time for no useful purpose whatsoever. Stop whining and start saying what you really think. Man up and go for it. I relish the debate.

It's also telling that a white kid kills 20 other white kids and its a national horror for liberals and the mainstream media, but 500 black kids are killed in Chicago last year in black on black crime and you hear nary a peep. At their core liberals and the mainstream media are patent racists.

( | suggest removal )

lazybar says... December 24, 2012 at 11:45 a.m.

again jjordan know a little about your subject before popping off.for max efficiency at that close of range one would not use a 223rd in a military platform rifle.a 9mm or larger in a handgun would be more lethal or better yet a shotgun.you call it chasing unicorns but still you have no problem restricting gun rights while you never even question the number one killer in our nation.

( | suggest removal )

lazybar says... December 24, 2012 at 11:54 a.m.

bs what are the ratios of autos and auto related deaths in those countries?do you honestly believe by banning certain guns you will curve evil people from doing evil things?i`m surprised there are not more crazies building bombs,its a lot easer to build a bomb than get a ar-15.if there is a will there is a way,people are people and there is nothing you can do to change them.evil has been around since of the first recorded history and i doubt by making laws that mostly effect legal law abiding citizens will fix that.

( | suggest removal )

BillSmith says... December 24, 2012 at noon

packman,lazybar......you will be on the losing side of this argument sonner or later, just like you were in the election, because views are changing. Why no comments on the post about other countries statistics?

( | suggest removal )

Jjackk says... December 24, 2012 at noon

You guys have a merry Christmas and be careful tomorrow if you hit the roads.

( | suggest removal )

aimee says... December 24, 2012 at 1:33 p.m.

lazy:
.
Limiting the number of bullets in a clip would force the shooter to reload, or else leave..!!!

( | suggest removal )

BillSmith says... December 24, 2012 at 11:47 p.m.

Packman..........The Fort Hood shooter used this pistol:
The Five-seven pistol was developed in conjunction with the FN P90 personal defense weapon and the FN 5.7×28mm cartridge.[15] The P90 was introduced in 1990, and the Five-seven was introduced in 1998 as a pistol using the same 5.7×28mm ammunition.[7] Developed as a companion pistol to the P90, the Five-seven shares many of its design features: it is a lightweight polymer-based weapon with a large magazine capacity, ambidextrous controls, low recoil, and the ability to penetrate body armor when using certain cartridge types.[16]

Sales of the Five-seven were originally restricted by FN to military and law enforcement customers, but since 2004, the pistol has also been offered to civilian shooters for personal protection, target shooting, and similar uses. Although offered only with sporting ammunition, the Five-seven's introduction to civilian shooters was met with vocal opposition from gun control organizations such as the Brady Campaign, and the pistol has been subject to ongoing controversy in the United States.
You gun nuts have no problem at all with a pistol that will shoot Cop Killings Bullets that penetrate body armor. What about the shooter that wears body armor and goes to the school to shoot 6 year old's with their designer youth body armor on, he will have to make sure he has the right amunition, right. A company in Utah (Amendment II) is making body armor for kids. Wake up people! Is this what you want schools in America to be like?
Locked Down, bars, armed guards, kids wearing body armor, maybe the armed guard holding his Bushmaster when the bell rings to welcome the 1st grader to the battle ground instead of the school ground. We don't want our guard to be out gunned by the shooter do we. Is this what you want in order to protect the right of the wanabe Rambo's of the world so they can get their jollies by shooting their Bushmasters, FN Five-seven's and Tec 9's with LCM. The kids will have to have their personal shrink's from the 2nd grade on.

( | suggest removal )

ArkansasHawk says... December 25, 2012 at 7:41 a.m.

One armed guard with a hand gun is no match for someone with a AR-15 or any other assault rifle, just saying.

( | suggest removal )

Jjackk says... December 25, 2012 at 8:53 a.m.

Have school entrance similar to a factory entrance, electronic locks. Use the homeland security money for actual security. Have a security officer, not someone with day to day school responsibilities, a deputy or even military.

( | suggest removal )

Whippersnapper says... December 25, 2012 at 9:08 a.m.

Bill:
Nice try, but you ignored the facts. Violent crime didn't go DOWN after the gun ban, nor did the murder rate. The simple fact is that guns were widely banned and seized and the murder and violent crime rates stayed roughly the same. That is proof positive that banning and seizing guns does NOT lower the rate of murder or violent crime. Simple enough for you?

( | suggest removal )

RonalFos says... December 25, 2012 at 9:43 p.m.

Americans aren't going to wholesale arm their schools just to protect the privilege of some people to own military style weapons. All arguments to the contrary will make no difference. The US government has the right to express the will of majority of Americans on this issue. The 2nd amendment does not give the right to own any weapon you want. It gives you the right to own something and that something may be defined by the government.

( | suggest removal )

aimee says... December 25, 2012 at 11:23 p.m.

Snopes pointed out the error in thinking that violent crime increased after the gun ban:
.
snopes. com/crime/statistics/ausguns.asp
.
and this article goes into more detail about the role of guns in Australian society:
.
niemanwatchdog. org/index.cfm?fuseaction=ask_this.view&askthisid=491

( | suggest removal )

Whippersnapper says... December 26, 2012 at 8:27 a.m.

Aimee, Bill, according to the UN Office on Drugs and Crime statistics on violent crime and murder, if you look at those rates for Australia and the U.K., they stayed flat (as rates per 100,000 people, not as total incidents) in the years immediately following the bans. Of course, if you want to cherry pick one year here and one year there we can declare that they went either up or down, but that is not what I am doing.
~
The key point to remember is that the Australian gun ban began in late 1996 (with the buyback running from October 1996 through September 1997) and the British ban was passed in 1997. Any use of data from 1989 as a "starting point" is flawed.
~
According to the UN, the murder rate in Australia in 1995 (the year before the ban) was 1.8 per 100,000. In 1996 (most of which had happened before the ban) the murder rate had dropped to 1.7 per 100k. In 1997 it was also 1.7 per 100,000 but in 1999 it was back up to 1.8 per 100,000. It has fluctuated slightly downward since then and is currently at 1.2 per 100k, but that is not necessarily attributable to the ban on guns. Their island neighbor New Zealand (which has no gun ban whatsoever) has seen their homicide rate start at 1.1 per 100k and rise to 1.6 per 100k in the late 90s before dropping back as low as 1.0 per 100k today. Since there was no gun ban there, to what do you attribute their changes in homicide rate? They have a similar culture, environment, etc.?
~
The U.K. had a murder rate of 1.5 per 100k before their current ban. That gradually increased (but never decreased) to 2.1 per 100k in 2002 before tapering off to 1.5 per 100k again in 2007 and down to 1.2 per 100k today.
~
What was happening in the U.S. during that time? Oh yeah, the 1994 assault weapons ban that ran from then until 2004. Let's look at some statistics then. In 1995 the murder rate was 8.1 per 100k (the U.N. doesn't have the statistics for before then in their table). During the ban, it fluctuated and dropped to 5.5 per 100k in 2004 (the last year of the ban). Sounds good at first, but then you look at what happened after the ban expired and you see that once the weapons were legal again, it fluctuated some more and dropped even further until it hit 4.8 per 100k.
~
What does all of this mean? It means that crime rates go up and crime rates go down. In countries with bans they go up and down and in countries without bans they go up and down. There is not a statistically significant correlation between the gun bans and the murder rates either way. There is as much of a correlation between the expiration of such a ban and a drop in murder rates as there is in an imposition of such a ban and the drop in murder rates, but don't let the facts get you down, you keep on spouting your opinions.

( | suggest removal )

BillSmith says... December 26, 2012 at 9:16 a.m.

whippersnapper..............go here:
hsph.harvard. edu/news/press-releases/2007-releases/press01112007.html

( | suggest removal )

lazybar says... December 26, 2012 at 10:49 a.m.

hawk thats as dumb as saying a assualt rifle is no match for a sniper rifle.one most of these shots are done at close range,a handgun is more user friendly at this yardage.two most ammo you will find for the ar-15 is a military type fmj that does not expand where it is very easy to buy or make hollow point ammo for the larger caliber handgun.
yes aimmee one can randomly shoot 30rds out of a military styled rifle quickly but i could shoot 30rds out of 3 handguns just as quick and be more effective because of point of aim and bullet design.
bs if those other countries are so great why don`t you move there?

( | suggest removal )

Jjackk says... December 26, 2012 at 11:54 a.m.

Lets see the gun death rate of Australia and GB compared to USA. Or even Canada, for some reason those gun owners haven't figured out what guns are for.

( | suggest removal )

BillSmith says... December 26, 2012 at 4:17 p.m.

lazybar...... if your scenario of handgun better than assault rifle at close range, why did Seal Team Six Carry assualt rifles on the raid to get OBL. Just asking. Let us know.

( | suggest removal )

Whippersnapper says... December 27, 2012 at 8:28 a.m.

Bill:
First, you ignored the point that gun bans haven't lowered homicide rates here or abroad, second, you pointed out a press release that is a correlational, not causative analysis. The study you linked to simply says that gun ownership is higher in states with higher homicide rates (though they phrase it as homicide rates being higher in states with higher gun ownership). Please note that it doesn't claim to establish that gun ownership leads to homicides, nor does it claim to establish that people in dangerous areas like to own guns for self-defense (that would never happen, would it?). Your big press release was very careful to say “Our findings suggest that in the United States, household firearms may be an important source of guns used to kill children, women and men, both on the street and in their homes,” when it could have just as easily said “Our findings suggest that in the United States, household firearms may be purchased to protect the owner of guns from attacks on children, women and men, both on the street and in their homes.” Nothing in the study claims to be a causative analysis. The authors did a correlational study and then carefully said that it MAY be indicative of a causative relationship one way (and avoided the intellectually honest approach of admitting that it MAY be indicative of a causative relationship the other way.
~
They proved the correlation, and in their press release suggested what might be the causative relationship (if any) without having actually studied it. A valid way to do that would have been to track the homicide rates and ownership rates over time and see if one led or trailed the other.

( | suggest removal )

lazybar says... December 27, 2012 at 8:59 a.m.

bs your knowledge of firearms is little to none.were you there to know exactly which firearm team six used ? if they did in fact use thier rifle instead of thier sidearm thier rifles are fully automatic.still comparing apples to oranges.
one of you libs said for us gun owners be prepared changes are coming.people want changes and the election proved it.i`m sorry to say i feel your right,our election proved that 50% of our americans believe in drawing a free check every month.our nation has been headed downhill for several years and its gaining speed everyday.

( | suggest removal )

jjordan says... December 27, 2012 at 9:58 a.m.

Bill, you are wasting your breath. Every t-bagging Joe Blow on here is an expert on the economy, energy, education, healthcare and especially why it's beneficial to the public to have cop killers, assault rifles and high-capacity mags. Heck, they'll even tell you how to kill someone much more effectively and efficiently than what we've seen at Sandyhook and with firefighter ambush (which is a little scary if you think about it). There are gun owners that believe in the 2nd amendment (such as myself) that see no place or reason for these things. Now, I'm through wasting my breath.

( | suggest removal )

lazybar says... December 27, 2012 at 10:46 a.m.

yes punk and every liberal like yourself thats claims to be a gunowner is a lying pos mostly drawing a check.

( | suggest removal )

jjordan says... December 27, 2012 at 11:52 a.m.

Dirty Harry - If someone tried to break into my house, they would know the truth as to whether I own a gun. Just because opinions vary doesn't mean we are liberals or drawing a check which is a typical response on this blog. Have a nice life.

( | suggest removal )

lazybar says... December 27, 2012 at 12:34 p.m.

so what your saying its within your rights to kill someone for breaking into your house but its not within my rights to freely spend my money on things because you personally have no use for them?its not about if you do or do not own or use them its about them right of someone thats not giving up thier rights not having the right to do as they please.

( | suggest removal )

jjordan says... December 27, 2012 at 3:13 p.m.

You automatically labeled me as lying about owning guys and I responded. Fact is you and all the other extremist (both left and right) need to remember that those of us in the middle still determine the elections - like it or not. Our opinions are typically more moderate and not so damn counterproductive. I say that because you automatically think I'm a liberal just because I disagree with you on this issue. So to clarify, I'm saying you can't have a freakin' arsenal in your house of things that are meant for maximum kill power just because you think it's your right to have them and because you want to spend your money on them. You may be a normal good, law-abiding person, but others are spoiling it for you - so deal with it. At some point, public safety outweighs whatever gets your rocks off with these weapons. It's not good enough any more that people value their rights over those kids that were slaughtered. I haven't heard one good reason as to why assault rifles, cop killers and high-capacity mags have a purpose for the common person other than you think it's your God given right... And no, I don't feel my right to own a gun will be eroded just because I can't go out and by a tank, AR, grenades, high-capacity mags, etc... This "my way or the highway" mentality is really what is dragging this country down - even more so than the welfare checks that you so incorrectly accused me of receiving just because my opinion differs from yours...

( | suggest removal )

lazybar says... December 27, 2012 at 4:39 p.m.

you can`t inforce the gun laws on the books now nor driving and driving or speeding so why make criminals out of law abiding citizens?if a person can buy a car with 500hp from the factory why should another who collects guns not be able to buy all the high cap mags and military styled firearms they want?if we are turning our culture into socialism lets revoke all rights.that means we need to ban everything that can cause harm to others starting with hs football,fast cars,liquor,golf clubs,and baseball bats

( | suggest removal )

jjordan says... December 27, 2012 at 5:10 p.m.

There goes the Socialism argument... Back to liquor, fast cars and unicorns. Same tired arguments because you can't give a good reason for cop killers. What if someone likes to collect small nuclear weapons or any of the other preferred weapons of a terrorist? Is that ok? Should be a God given right by your thought process - afterall, he or she is just another law abiding collector (until he or she decides to use them). Wouldn't want to feel like we're living in a Socialist society. Why try to improve anything with the gun issue? You don't get it and never will. God help us.

( | suggest removal )

lazybar says... December 28, 2012 at 9:17 a.m.

back to your lack of knowledge about firearms.the black talon was labeled as a cop killer by the gangs.yes if shot with one it makes a big nasty hole as would any hollow point.i have shot a number of this type bullet and seen very little differance in them but the one thing they have in common is they will not shoot through a vest.back in the the day we tested several vest that were made of kevlar much like the iba the military uses today with plates removed,the only handgun round with could get to shoot through the vest was a hot loaded 357 mag with a jacketed solid nosed bullet.in todays world those vest would be labeled as a level 2 and most police will not be wearing those outdated vest,so by labeling black talons as police killers you are the one chasing unicorns.my family used to own a company that wholesaled tactical equipment so we tested a number of items,i wish the fn5.7 had of been around back then so i could have tested it.
as far as nuclear weapons,i don`t know of any that have been released to the public.there are some truly military grade firearms like fully automatics that are sold but you have to have a class 3 firearms dealer sell them and you have to pass a extensive back ground check to own them.i personally have no use for a 50bmg because it cost so much to shoot and my range is only 600yards.i also have no use for a fully auto because i prefer long range shots and hate loading mags.although i own a number of high cap mags they set and collect dust.i commonly carry a kimber compact and for home defense i have a pump shotgun which neither are high caps but i still reserve the right to own as many high caps as i choose.i`m just glad i bought up all i wanted before the antigun crowd drove the prices shy high.
you call it chasing unicorns but still yet you will not address the number one child killer in the usa.something keeps getting mentioned about gun deaths in the usa vs other countries,how many road rage deaths are recorded in those countries?

( | suggest removal )

Packman says... December 28, 2012 at 4:24 p.m.

After a week's worth of debate the anti-gun nuts cannot provide even a shred of evidence banning military platform rifles or high capacity mags would either a) decrease the murder rate or b) have prevented what happened at Columbine, Newtown, or any other notable places where madmen with guns killed multiple people. The "ban" hysteria is being used purely for political purposes to stock the non-intellect of the typical useful idiot. To the contrary, all objective studies show bans DO NOT work. What the anti-gun nuts always conveniently omit from their arguments is a simple economic principle - the law of substitutes. Any ban other than total confiscation ignores the reality that the madmen could have easily used substitutes to kill multiple people. Everything from a squirrel rifle with numerous mags to a shotgun loaded with double OO buck to a pipe bomb could have been equally devastating. If the anti-gun nuts were serious, they would advocate for a total ban and repeal of the 2nd Amendment. Anything less and they are just being played for fools.

HeyJjordan - "I haven't heard one good reason as to why assault rifles, cop killers and high-capacity mags have a purpose for the common person other than you think it's your God given right..." Please allow me to de-bunk this particularly favorite DNC talking point. I bought a Colt AR from a guy who used it as his preferred gun for hog hunting. He preferred its size and weight for manuervability (sp?) and the high capacity mags allowed him to carry large amounts of ammo needed for hogs without having to lug around extra boxes of cartridges. He preferred it that way. He said he had friends who did the same, as well as using military platform guns and high capacity for varmints. As to cop killer bullets, all bullets that have killed cops going back to the days of Eliot Ness, are cop killers. Would you mind explaining how your "cop killer" bullet differs from what I use for white-tailed deer in my Browning BAR 30-06? I would also be interested to hear EXACTLY how many cops have been killed by that partiular round versus any other. I look forward to hearing from you. That law of substitutes is a real bummer to your argument, isn't it. Dadgummit.

( | suggest removal )

inquire says... December 28, 2012 at 6:11 p.m.

What about this, what about that? We are sick of hearing these snide ignorant comments. It is nothing but a delaying tactic of the gun nuts. When is the last time someone mowed down twenty or thirty people military style in just a few minutes with a baseball bat or a golf club? Despite tragic accidents, and the occasional on purpose killing, with cars, cars are not used to kill as many random people as quickly as possible the way assault weapons are. You people are grabbing at straws. You would rather the random carnage continue than have any change.
The constitution provides for "A WELL REGULATED MILITIA......." There is nothing well regulated about these weapons or the people who use them. We don't need this kind of "militia."

( | suggest removal )

Whippersnapper says... December 28, 2012 at 9:24 p.m.

Inquire - what about facts? What about the fact that the gun bans in the U.K. and Australia had no provable effect on the overall murder rate? What about the fact that the "Assault Weapons Ban" in the U.S. had no provable effect on the murder rate here? The burden of proof is on anybody that wants to change the status quo (such as you) to establish that their proposed changes would accomplish the intended results. Having looked at what similar programs have done here and abroad in the past, that burden has not been met.

( | suggest removal )

BillSmith says... December 28, 2012 at 11:06 p.m.

Whippersnapper.........US vs Canada
Gun homicides per 100,000 people: US 2.98 Canada .5
The stated intent of Canadian firearms laws is to control firearms so as to improve public safety. Canadians have a somewhat limited access to firearms, but are still able to purchase them with relative ease. Licensing provisions of the Firearms Act endeavours to ensure proper training and safe storage.

1. Non-Restricted: Long guns with an overall length greater than 26 inches and, if semi-automatic, a barrel which is 18 1/2 inches or longer. These can be possessed with an ordinary PAL, and are the only class of firearms which can be used for hunting, due to the ATT (Authorization to Transport) requirement for Restricted and Prohibited weapons, as well as provincial regulations. This class includes most popular sporting rifles and shotguns.
2. Restricted: This includes handguns with barrel lengths greater than 4.1 inches (105mm), and long guns which do not meet the length requirements for non-restricted, and are not prohibited. These guns require ATTs, and as such can only be shot at ranges. These arms can be possessed with an RPAL, which is similar to the PAL course, but covers restricted weapons and the increased storage requirements. One must pass the CFSC as well as the RCFSC in order to obtain their RPAL. Examples in this class include all AR-15 variants.
3. Prohibited: These weapons generally cannot be possessed by civilians. Normally, the only way to possess these is by being grandfathered in or inheriting a pistol with a barrel length at or under 4.1 inches (105mm), in which case the individual may receive the Class 7 endorsement. This class also includes prohibited devices. Many military arms fall under this classification, including all AK variants, and the FN-FAL. All handguns with a barrel length equal to or under 4.1 inches (105mm) are prohibited, as well as those chambered in .25 or .32 caliber cartridges, presumably to prevent the manufacture of "Saturday Night Specials". Also prohibited are fully automatic weapons and suppressors. Magazines for automatic long guns capable of holding more than 5 centerfire cartridges or 10 rounds for handguns, are prohibited, with the exception of the M1 Garand, as well as carbines which use pistol magazines, such as the Beretta CX4 Storm.
*
Canada 3 school massacres
US 17 total 15 with firearms
WHERE HAD YOU RATHER YOU KID GO TO SCHOOL?

( | suggest removal )

RonalFos says... December 29, 2012 at 8:03 a.m.

People who don't want military grade weapons in their communities don't have to prove anything. If enough people want them out they will be out. The 2nd amendment doesn't protect the right to own anything you want.

( | suggest removal )

lazybar says... December 29, 2012 at 9:22 a.m.

ronal,exactly what military grade weapons do you have in your community?one if we are talking military grade as in a ar styled firearm then it should be able to shoot atleast 3rd burst if not fully auto.two for it to be a weapon it has to be intended to hurt someone,i have owned a number of the firearms you fear and the only things i`ve known of them hurting are paper targets,golf balls,couple hogs,several coyotes,and once cleaning i pinched my finger.

( | suggest removal )

RonalFos says... December 29, 2012 at 11:14 a.m.

I see military type weapons everywhere - Walmart, Target, Academy Sports, hell even a grocery store near by has them. I'm talking about any weapon based on a military platform that can take a high capacity magazine.

( | suggest removal )

Jjackk says... December 29, 2012 at 1:05 p.m.

Washington DC went from 43.9 to 24.0. That isn't "no provable effect on the murder rate" Whipper?

But its still 6 times higher than the national average thats where you should be arguing your stance. That number just shows that you will ignore any number that disproves your stance.

( | suggest removal )

lazybar says... December 29, 2012 at 1:19 p.m.

ronal,a dodge neon with spoiler is a type of sports car but it really isn`t.

( | suggest removal )

Clarksville says... December 30, 2012 at 8:36 a.m.

I think Asa and LaPiere are a perfect match.Enough said.

( | suggest removal )

BillSmith says... December 30, 2012 at 11:57 a.m.

Yep, two radicals in a pod.

( | suggest removal )

inquire says... December 30, 2012 at 1:01 p.m.

We have a clear idea of who will fund Asa's expected run for governor, don't we?
I met Asa some years back when he agreed to speak and take questions at a union hall. At least he had the guts to show up. Tim didn't. Asa went on and on about family values, but when the members asked he why he didn't think decent wages and insurance to care for your family were family values, he had no answer.

( | suggest removal )

Packman says... December 30, 2012 at 5:46 p.m.

Hey inquire, ronal, BillSmith - How many people, including innocent children, did Timothy McVey kill in Oklahoma City with a little fertilizer and diesel fuel? If Adam Lanza could not have accessed a semi-automatic firearm and instead substituted a backpack full of homemade pipe bombs that killed 10 times more kids, who's hands would that blood be on?

( | suggest removal )

BarichMilhusseinObamaNixonPOTUS says... December 30, 2012 at 6:46 p.m.

So when we outlaw these guns they will disappear? Please explain how this will happen. We sure as hell don't prevent illegal drugs from coming into our country. I guarantee you there are illegal guns coming in with many of the drug shipments. Don't be stupid and try to argue against that point.

( | suggest removal )

BillSmith says... December 30, 2012 at 7:37 p.m.

Packman....Your illogical statement is saying you know the mind of a nut case, you do not know what he woauld have done, but keep it up it is getting you nowhere.

( | suggest removal )

RonalFos says... December 30, 2012 at 10:12 p.m.

No law restricting human actions has ever been 100% successful in stopping the restricted activity but that doesn't mean that there is no use in writing laws. Of course laws restricting military platform weapons from civilians will not be 100% successful but it will cut down on the number of those types of weapons and it also will stigmatize them and that alone may keep the average person from even wanting them. Those types of guns have no purpose in civil society and it's time to begin putting limits on them.

( | suggest removal )

inquire says... December 31, 2012 at 12:12 a.m.

This foot dragging at changing the laws is just grabbing at straws. They don't think it's worthwhile because it won't be 100% effective. Laws against murder aren't 100% effective, either, but they don't propose just giving in and making it legal.

( | suggest removal )

Whippersnapper says... December 31, 2012 at 8:58 a.m.

BillSmith says:
Canada 3 school massacres
US 17 total 15 with firearms
~
Neither, actually. We homeschool. Aside from that, I think you have just proved my point by switching measures. Canada has a population that is a tenth the size of the U.S., yet the U.S. has only 5 times as many "school massacres" (using the information you provided). So, using your logic, school massacres are twice as likely to occur in Canada as in the United States.

( | suggest removal )

Whippersnapper says... December 31, 2012 at 9:15 a.m.

In Washington D.C., the murder rate was 38 per 100k in 1974 (the year before the ban) and rose as high as 80 per 100k during their gun ban in the 1990s. Is that safer? Really? During the same period the murder rate in the nation as a whole went from 9.8 per 100k to (wait for it) 9.8 per 100k. While it is true that from 1974 to 1976, the murder rate dropped from 38 per 100k to 26.8 per 100k in D.C., at the same time the national murder rate also dropped by over 10%. While the murder rate in D.C. dropped to 17.5 per 100k in 2011, the murder rate in the rest of the country dropped to 4.7 per 100k in 2011. So, in 1974 (before the ban) the murder rate in D.C. was roughly 4 times the national average (3.9 times, actually). In 1976 (imediately after the ban) the murder rate in D.C. was roughly three times the national average. During the ban, the murder rate in D.C. rose to as much as 8 times the national average, and currently it sits at roughly 4 times the national average (3.7). So, since the murder rate has not dropped appreciably there compared to the rest of the nation and has in fact been far greater, how has it "worked" again?

( | suggest removal )

BillSmith says... December 31, 2012 at 9:24 a.m.

Whipper..........This is the stat that counts.......Gun homicides per 100,000 people: US 2.98 Canada .5

( | suggest removal )

lazybar says... December 31, 2012 at 9:48 a.m.

bs,why don`t you break down the stats and post how many deaths in the usa per year can be blamed on multiple rounds vs a single shot?

( | suggest removal )

Pobucker says... December 31, 2012 at 11:35 a.m.

BANS WORK!!!
But the government must be SERIOUS about them!
~
Hunting rifles must be stored in a police armory and checked in and out for the hunt. Ban and confiscate all handguns. Ban and confiscate all large capacity magazines and the weapons they fit, not just the scary looking ones. Strictly controll access to and limit the types of ammunition available to the public. These measures WILL REDUCE gun-related violence, there is no doubt. Just ask the Syrians or the Bosnians.
~
Once we have confiscated all non-hunting firearms and locked down hunting rifles, we can all breath a big sigh of relief that no more mass baby killings will take place. I am not sure what we will do when the home invaders kick down our doors and start raping our wives and daughters at knife point. Not sure at all...maybe Plelosi knows - her being so damned smart and all. Maybe BS or RF or TT or Inquire or Aimee knows what to do - them being fully as bright as Pelosi.

( | suggest removal )

Whippersnapper says... January 1, 2013 at 11:27 a.m.

BillSmith says:
"Whipper..........This is the stat that counts.......Gun homicides per 100,000 people: US 2.98 Canada .5"

Yes, that is an excellent apples to orangutans statistic. How about the fact that the rate per 100k is actually 2.75, not 2.98 for the year 2011 (the most recent year for which there are statistics) and then look at the fact that the murder rate in Canada is roughly a third that of the U.S. and even in Canada with much stricter laws, a third of murders are done with guns. Does that mean they are safer? Well, the criminals apparently are, because their violent crime rate is TWICE that of the United States. So, they are full of violent criminals and the citizens can't defend themselves.

( | suggest removal )

Packman says... January 1, 2013 at 6:17 p.m.

Hey BillSmith - Would you mind explaining how the law of substitutes is "illogical"? This will be a great surprise to economists around the globe. Thanks to Whipper for pointing out the obvious about those statistics.

( | suggest removal )

BillSmith says... January 6, 2013 at 9:02 p.m.

Pobunker,whippersnapper,packman........ After all the blather the facts are the liberals had rather be able to walk down in any alley in America, meet someone and say "Hi Brother hows' it going" as oppeosed to the conservatives checking out the color of their skin, the slant of their eyes, their accent, their length of their hair, the car they drive, the neighborhood they live in, the clothes they wear, before speaking to them. This is the real culture wars in America today.

( | suggest removal )

Click here to make a comment

To report abuse or misuse of this area please hit the "Suggest Removal" link in the comment to alert our online managers. Read our Terms of Use policy.

TOP JOBS

  • Delivery driver needed for major

    manufacture competitive pay with excellent benefits. Home m...
    LITTLE ROCK, AR

  • Lpn

    s All ShiftsPrevious exp. required. Apply in person, no phon...
    LITTLE ROCK, AR

  • Infant toddler teacher w/cda also

    infant toddler Teacherw/CDA also need cook w/experience. Med...
    NORTH LITTLE ROCK, AR

  • Driver

    -TrainingClass A CDL TrainingTrain & Work for Us!Professiona...
    LITTLE ROCK, AR

  • A sales career

    a sales careergreat people looking for top pay!overnight tra...
    LITTLE ROCK, AR

Search 643 jobs >

Top Picks - Capture Arkansas
Arkansas Online