Michael Wolraich's picture

    What Should We Do to Stop Massacres?


    Maybe Wayne LaPierre is onto something. So suggests DF in his latest blog, What Can We Do to Stop Massacres? Isn't it at least worth considering, he asks, LaPierre's proposal to station armed "responders" at our schools?

    It is worth considering. An armed officer presents a defense and a deterrent. It seems indisputable that LaPierre's proposal would help protect our schools against violent attacks.

    But would it stop massacres? Not unless we placed multiple armed responders at every park, playground, pool, day camp, playing field, Sunday school, daycare center, shopping mall, or any other place where children gather.

    Perhaps we can set out sights a little lower, so to speak. If we cannot stop massacres, at least we can reduce the body count by stationing responders at the most vulnerable locations. The question then becomes a calculus. How do we apportion our tax dollars and tuition fees to save the most lives--get the most bang for the buck, so to speak?

    But when you start counting bodies and bucks, the proposal makes no sense at all. Statistically speaking, the average child has an infinitesimal chance of dying at the hands of a deranged killer. Better to spend the money on crossing guards.

    On the other hand, it's not really the body count that matters, is it? It's the flash of horror we feel when we read about child murderers--Is this the sick society we live in? It's the ache of fear we suffer when our children leave our of sight--What could happen to them?

    But I doubt that LaPierre's responders can help us with these troubles either. Employing armed guards only treats the symptoms of social dysfunction. The society that requires such protection is still sick. As for the fear, the guards may seem reassuring, but they remind us how vulnerable we really are. Imagine how secure you will feel when you send your children into that armed fortress. Now think about how you will feel when they leave that sanctuary for soccer practice. The more we entrust ourselves to the protection of firearms, the more we begin to see the world as Mr. LaPierre sees it: full of dangerous criminals, terrorists, and lunatics who prey on the defenseless. Armed guards offer a defense from violence, not a defense from fear.

    Not that liberal proposals to ban assault rifles and high-capacity magazines address these problems either. When it comes to horror and fear, it's not the body count that matters. Do you really feel safer knowing that a crazed murderer can only attack your children with a Glock instead of Bushmaster? China has suffered a rash of school attacks by knife, hammer, and boxcutter-wielding killers, the most recent one on the same day as the Newtown massacre. Are these acts less horrifying for being less deadly?

    When we ask "What can we do to stop massacres?" I suggest that we're not really looking for a world with smaller massacres. Nor do we seek a world in which children have to travel from gated communities to fortified schools in armored buses. What we really want is a world where massacres do not happen or at least do not happen so often, a world where the news does not regularly overcome us with horror and fear.

    To achieve that world, we would have to cure the disease itself--a much more formidable challenge. Most commentators who address the source of mass-violence focus on easy culprits--videogames, gun culture, bad parenting, SSRIs, movies, social isolation, moral decline, bullying, or the military industrial complex. Which culprit you select probably depends on your political and cultural biases, but there is little enough compelling evidence one way or the other.

    My own sense is that violence, like most cultural phenomena, is self-perpetuating. The killer creates the fear, and the fear creates the killer. In China, they use knives. In America, they use assault rifles. In either case, the murderers emulate one another and thrive on the negative attention these acts invariably attract.

    I cannot see how to reverse the cycle of viciousness, but I do suggest that we step back for a moment from the horror of Sandy Hook. In our headlong rush to find some way to avert or repress these acts of violence, it is worth asking: What exactly are we trying to achieve? What price are we willing to pay for it?




    "My own sense is that violence, like most cultural phenomena, is self-perpetuating. The killer creates the fear, and the fear creates the killer. In China, they use knives. In America, they use assault rifles. In either case, the murderers emulate one another and thrive on the negative attention these acts invariably attract.

    I cannot see how to reverse the cycle of viciousness, but I do suggest that we step back for a moment from the horror of Sandy Hook. In our headlong rush to find some way to avert or repress these acts of violence, it is worth asking: What exactly are we trying to achieve? What price are we willing to pay for it?"

    Ultimately, this is part of the human condition.  I don't know that it's curable. What is a war but a lot of spree killings, organized?  Have we ever cured war?  But, as individuals, we can, to some extent, choose our local environments.  Maybe that's an answer.  Live in a community that shares your risk tolerance for this kind of thing.  I rate New York City as safer than the suburbs in that regard.  But there are tradeoffs.

    Live in a community that shares your risk tolerance for this kind of thing.

    Do you mean we accept more risk in a tradeoff for more civil liberties  than the burbs? I would argue just the opposite!

    We are the land of "broken windows" policing, we have "stop and frisk," inspection of bags at random in subways, have long had metal detectors in schools as well as courthouses.

    And not only do we have concrete barriers in front of high-population buildings for adults, but many have ID checks and requirements to sign in and get a pass for any visit beyond the lobby.

    There are bag checks at as such varied places as the Metropolitan Museum of Art , the Cathedral of St John Divine, Columbia University Dental School and the Sony Building, where if you want to carry an un-inspected bag, you have the option of not going in.

    We have "if you see something, say something."

    There are cameras everywhere (some of them can give you a ticket for running a red light,) though not as many as in London (a London cab driver said to us in a trip a couple years back: yes, we are a certified police state.)

    I rate New York City as safer than the suburbs in that regard.

    See above. We weren't that way in the 70's and early 80's before all the above was enacted. It was just the opposite, the suburbs were much safer and we were a very dangerous place to live. We were instead the land of Bernard Goetz, with ordinary people packing and shooting on sensing danger.

    P.S. To be clear, I'm totally with the other Michael's general point of his post. Elsewhere on this forum, I was accused of being cold-hearted, because I couldn't see anything much being able make much of a dent in stopping spree killings, only a little amelioration of the body count. The real results of any gun control will be with crimes of passion, not with spree killings.

    I must say that I am a little uneasy with using the mass emotional reactions to spree killings to get to good cause of gun control because I have always been uneasy with using mass emotional reactions to anything to cause something else to happen, good or not. (Give me some coldheartedness if you want to call it that, when you are about to enact laws without much thought behind them, rule of the mob and all that.)

    After 9/11, I finally learned the lesson that anyone who wants to do a mass killing will work hard to work around the existing "rules." Sometime in the future, a guy could drive up to the Metropolitan Museum of Art steps on a nice sunny day and jump out with a machine gun and spray all the people there, just like when one could no longer smuggle weapons on airplanes so easily, some guys thought up training as pilots so they could use the airplane as a weapon. Do I like having the liquids carryon rule for air travel? No, I hate it, I curse the guys who caused it every time I fly. It's a continual cat-and-mouse game, this policing thing, you just have to try to make it a lot of hard work for the potential perps out there. Some will still put in the time and effort if they are determined enough, hopefully fewer.

    Likewise with school shootings. I just read of one where the kid who wanted to shoot somebody up for dissing his girlfriend, in a high school with metal detectors. He managed to do it by sneaking in a side entrance, when it was open for another reason, to hide a gun in the fire extinguisher box to use later, which he did the next day, in the school. Doesn't mean the metal detectors don't deter a lot more weapons from being brought into the school than if they weren't there.

    We simply don't know how much of a dent we have already made or how much of a dent we could make. Some of the mass shootings were preceded by the perpetrator telling someone he was going to do it but nothing was done because people thought he was joking. Since then I've seen several articles of teens talking about shooting up the school, being reported and being taken into custody. If that hadn't happened would we have instead seen an article about a dozen or more children being shot? That's difficult to determine.

    I don't have a problem with acknowledging that someone with a high level of determination will figure out a way. But not all mass murderers are equally determined or equally creative.

    "Do you mean we accept more risk in a tradeoff for more civil liberties  than the burbs? I would argue just the opposite!"

    We have the same take.  I'd argue that in a lot of ways I was more free in New Mexico.  Gun laws are lax there.  Surveillance is non-existent, unless you're near a military base.  You can very easily find a spot where there's not another person for miles.

    I think NYC has gone too far, for sure, in terms of Stop and Frisk, public surveilance and having a police force that's so well funded that it acts as a badly trained intelligence agency.  But, in a lot of ways, I think there are logical trade-offs.  New Mexico's gun laws, which are lax, seem to work for New Mexicans.  I don't think they would serve Manhattan as well.

    That is why Biden is heading a commission that will give us a report within the next five weeks or so (instead of two years from now).

    I mentioned that the Mayor of Las Angeles is sending a police car to every single school daily. I would argue that that is why we have police anyway. Their routes should be keyed to schools and courthouses and hospitals and malls and...

    I know that there has been demonstrated more of a rapid response to emergency situations in many of our urban centers.

    I still think that WMD's should be banned and banned immediately and these would include automatic weapons, semi-automatic weapons, certain types of magazines and certain types of bullets.

    Again, LaPierre is a salesman who has managed to set new records as far as gun sales over the last ten days and his 'message' is comical and tragic.

    LaPierre is a man with no socially redeemable qualities.

    And he has blood on his hands!

    And he has blood on his hands!

    Don't we all?

    When we stand idly by and watch our young men and woman being sacrificed, on the altar of fire, slaughtered on the battlefields, as we slaughter others.

    Our nations children, are fed on a steady diet of hate and violence. They are bred to hate and it appears the breeding has worked.

    Surprise, Surprise

    Children constantly bombarded with violence and hate; and what should a nation expect would be the outcome. More violence? 

    Do not be misled; You reap what you sow and nurture.   

    Sow love and reap love .......... Sow violence reap violence

    The Sandy Hook massacre stuck a nerve, because the victims had a face and a name.

    When legislatures cut funding that cares for others, there is no name or face associated.  The victims are but a number

    We cry because the shooter was callous and yet our political leaders are just as calloused, when their actions, affect innocent children.  

    Money for War ( hate and violence)  but cries of deficits, when it cuts programs for love and charity. 

    It isn't just the shooter who is sick, it's our nations leaders who are mentally deficient too.

    Do you want a nation of loving, caring citizens or one of selfish, spite filled, vengeful citizens, lacking compassion?

    It isn't just the Republicans; the democrats also authorized the use of military force, without first considering the cost, to the Nation and it's conscience.  

    They all sowed the seeds of war, now reap the affects of war and hate. 

    You get what you pay for.

    Biden's report-- that congress will more or less IGNORE.

    I agree with the exception that I see both the violence perpetuating violence 'and' the tendency for the mentally ill to be committing many of these acts as important to note.  We cannot keep sweeping the issues of mental illness under the rug and find ourselves in a safer environment.  And looking at how much violence we tolerate in our culture is very important.

    I love it anytime we can step back and take a 'big view' look at what is really going on because it takes a thoughtful community to be able to make that possible.  And though I am not sure who said this first but 'a problem cannot be solved by the same mind that created it'.  In other words we must step outside of, beyond, etc to actually see clearly what is going on and how all things interplay, or do so to the greatest extent that we can, in order to respond in a truly meaningful way.  Otherwise we are tending to react and put a patch here, plug a hole there, while the challenge carries on.

    I hope in our future we became more able to move beyond paradoxes and collectively share larger views of what is really going on.

    NO SHOT FIRED,  in both mass murders

    The Oklahoma City bombing was a terrorist bomb attack on the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in downtown Oklahoma City on April 19, 1995. It would remain the most destructive act of terrorism on American soil until the September 11, 2001 attacks. The Oklahoma blast claimed 168 lives, including 19 children under the age of 6,  and injured more than 680 people.

    Excerpt from Oklahoma City bombing, From Wikipedia

    Deranged people, kill people.  

    Ban the guns and the deranged individual(s) will use something else.

    What’s to stop a killer, from mixing two commonly found chemicals and making a mustard gas bomb? A method used in World War 1 and no one thinks to ban, chlorine use.

    Make the schools as safe as a prison visitation room, with a Sally Port (one entrance) and the police officer hidden behind a wall of bullet proof glass.  Use drug/explosive sniffing dogs to make the schools drug and gun free.

    No one gets into the school or school yard, without first being herded through the

    Sally Port; a secure, controlled entryway, as of a fortification or a prison. The entrance is usually protected by some means, such as with a fixed wall blocking the door which must be circumvented before entering, but which prevents direct enemy fire from a distance. It may include the use of two doors such as with an airlock.

    Sally port From Wikipedia,

    All future schools to be designed with security measures incorporated and the older ones, retrofitted

    This is what I would do.

    But you just answered your own question - disgruntled civilians bombing schoolyards & classrooms? Hasn't been happening in America. Most Travis Bickle types just seem to want to grab a gun. Or three.

    So should we fight a problem that doesn't exist? (yet or never?) Or discuss the elephant in the room? Would this last guy have gone out to buy fertilizer to make a bomb? Or was it just super easy to grab Mom's gun instead?

    If every single gun was banned,  you'd still have deranged people killing others.

    So the root cause of violence, is motivation to harm another.

    Instead the gun banners want to take the guns away from sane folks, in hopes the deranged will not use guns, never mind the deranged will use another instrument to cause harm.  

    Should we ban automobiles, because the deranged might ram a school bus, filled with children?

    A deranged person high jacks a gasoline transport truck and runs it into a school, and maybe we should ban gasoline transport trucks?  

    Sane people don't kill other human beings, only those filled with hate, kill another soul .

    Thou shalt not kill or murder.

    Or was it just super easy to grab Mom's gun instead?

    It appears you are so correct; it is easier for the "Ban the Guns"  crowd to grab everyone else's guns, including moms and grandmas and every other law abiding citizens right, to defend themselves; rather than address the real problem; mental healthcare and get the deranged off of the streets

    Sane people don't kill others. Insane people will use any instrument to inflict harm against his neighbor.   Go after and treat the insane. 

    We keep dangerous animals behind bars and in cages to protect souls from harm.

    We don't tell people, stay inside your homes for fear you might become a victim. We keep the insane, those who would do harm to others locked away and if they are manslayers, we deal with them, so they can never harm another. 

    Instead the gun banners want to take the guns away from sane folks

    I'm one of those sane folks. I own a Savage Mark II 22 L.R. as well as a very old Harrington 12 gage I inherited from my father. I'm a very careful and responsible gun owner. I am just so sick and tired of people using me and other responsible gun owners to fight against reasonable gun regulation.

    Should we ban automobiles, because the deranged might ram a school bus, filled with children?

    Many drunk drivers have killed children with their car. But my father was a responsible drunk driver. He wasn't an alcoholic, he rarely drank, but every Saterday he went out drinking and dancing with my mother and their friends. I'm sure he was usually over what is now the present legal limit. Yet after at least 40 years 52 weeks a year of this he never had an accident while driving home drunk or, never had a car accident at all.

    Here's the reality, like gun ownership, most people who drive drunk don't get into accidents and don't kill anyone. But enough people do get into accidents and do kill someone that we as a society had to do something about it. Did we ban automobiles? No! Did we return to the prohibition of alcohol? No! We didn't ban anything, We simply regulated drunk driving.

    Since most drunk drivers are responsible enough to not get into accidents while driving drunk and don't kill anyone with their car should we then not regulate drunk driving?

    Personally I don't care that most people are responsible drunk drivers or that most gun owners are responsible. There are enough problems with irresponsible drunk drivers and irresponsible gun owners that we need to regulate both guns and driving under the influence of alcohol. So as a sane and responsible gun owner spare me your dumb ass rants about banning guns.

    Talk about rants?

    We simply regulated drunk driving.

    BS..... driving while impaired, is illegal

    The car is legal, the alcohol is legal

    Drinking and driving while impaired, is illegal

    The gun is legal, shooting people is illegal

    A supercharged, high horse powered car is legal, running over pedestrians or killing others, is illegal

    It is illegal for a mentally impaired person to own a gun. 

    What's next, the gas station attendant must give you a breathalyzer, before you fill your tank with gas. because some impaired driver today or tomorrow,  might kill or maim someone?

    Had Adam Lanza, seen, that the school was protected by security, he wouldn't have attacked the school.

    The school was unprotected,  He killed himself, when he saw the officers coming.

    He feared the officers, ...... GET IT? 

    No one stops people from drinking their preferential, alcoholic drink at home, just as the Second amendment doesn't prevent you from owning a firearm of your choice.

    It's only when people violate the law. that they can face arrest, for being impaired outside the privacy of their home.

    If while away on vacation, someone were to break into your home and breaks into your liquor cabinet, drinks up the bottle, to the point of intoxication and drives away impaired, in your now stolen car, with your TV and stereo and kills someone, do you blame the homeowner, because it was his liquor that impaired the thief and it was your car that was involved in the deadly incident.

    Wheres the law in securing a mentally impaired person?

    The thief steals the liquor or he steals the gun, why should the law abiding citizen be told, You cannot have liquor or guns in you possession, because some stranger might do something bad?  

    The scenario you misconstrued and purposely ignored, is that if Lanza wanted to harm the school kids, he could have chosen any number of ways.

    He chose to go to an unsecured, unprotected school.

    He could have just as easily, had driven a car filled with propane gas, crashing into a school bus, creating a spark and countless injuries occur.

    Is it now going to be illegal to have a propane gas container, because someone could get killed?

    We take impaired drivers off the road, because they could kill someone.

    We need to get the mentally impaired help,  Just as we do the alcoholics  

    If you are of legal age, purchasing a bottle of booze from the store, is not illegal. 

    Having an weapon at home is not illegal, unless your rights have been revoked.

    Should legal ownership be denied, because someone else might do something illegal?  

    "Should legal ownership be denied, because someone else might do something illegal?"



    Whats next; take away our rights to free speech because YOU find parts of it objectionable?  

    "No, you cant buy that radio station or newspaper company."

    "No you cant own that gun"

    The goal is to take away the automatic weapons and the magazines that give any the ability to fire dozens and dozens of bullets repeatedly in seconds.  The other goal is to stop the ability to purchase/own guns without a background check and registration.

    Per the second amendment, it does not state that you can have WMD's, tanks, grenades, etc. anymore than it delivers the right to possess and use these type of automatic weapons.

    People can still have their guns for hunting and personal protection if needed, but how about some common sense and doing what we can to at least reduce the ability of those who use these automatic weapons and magazines to harm/maim/kill as many innocents as quickly as possible.  It's the least we can and need to do IMO.

    "No, you cant (sic) buy that radio station or newspaper company."

    Funny you should mention that.  We do actually regulate such matters, particularly when it comes to the acquisition of media companies.

    In many jurisdictions, alcohol sale is restricted and controlled by the liquor board or other local council.

    There was no 7-11 beer sale in Maryland and 7-11 was denied a permit in Echo Park, while 3.2% only is allowed at many gas stations, etc. (many dry counties in the South as well) Most of this is about limiting easy availability to drivers to lower the chance that someone driving will grab hard alcohol and continue driving. It's not a cure-all, but it's exactly the principle of restricting easy access to someone who might then commit a crime, such as a legal gun in the hands of someone in a maniacal mood

    This bit about the mentally impaired is nonsense - most gun killings are via accidents (kids playing with dad's gun? the old "I didn't think it was loaded" mistake?), domestic violence escalating out of control, people carrying guns at sports events and in the car when accidents happen, and petty armed criminals and "tough guys". 

    There's no way to pre-emptively get the wrong guys locked up. Who knew Dick Cheney was going to shoot someone in the face? Who knew George Zimmerman was gong to get carried away with his neighborhood watch gig and shoot someone? Perhaps an asshole like Phil Spector could have been locked up early, but our system protects the rich, famous, well-connected, and that won't change in the next millenium.

    "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

    Where in the Bill of Rights, does it say you have a right to alcohol?

    According to a chart from the CDC-  2009

    How do injury deaths occur?

    Poisonings were responsible for 24 percent of injury deaths, followed by motor vehicle traffic crashes (19 percent), and firearms (18 percent)

    Even with all the automobile regulations, the death rate is higher.

    If you have a swimming pool without a fence, you can be sued for negligence if a neighbor kid sneaks in drowns. We didn't ban swimming pools, we secured them.

    We have mandatory seatbelts for cars. We didn't ban cars, we made the obligation in running them a bit safer. We also have restrictions on driving if you have poor eyesight, a medical condition that precludes driving or can set in at any moment to be a danger.

    Airlines no longer serve peanuts because too many people had nut allergies in a closed space. We didn't stop flying, or ban allergenics from flying.

    Even in the Old West, they often banned guns inside the saloon - when people drink, they're easier to anger and if there's a gun handy, they're more likely to shoot to kill.

    You seem to be against any reasonable precaution involving how most shootings historically happen. In a domestic dispute, the partner is unlikely to go figure out a home-made bomb to blow up the lover, and the chance of surviving a knife attack are much greater than a gun attack - it's just much easier for the average person to kill with a gun.

    We've passed the age of just locking up the insane. We have different types of treatment for different levels of functioning. Very few of the insane are homicidal. Probably more members of the White House and Congress are homicidal than occupants of a madhouse, but they wear suits and are treated as serious when they come up with new plans to go out and start irresponsible wars.

    If you have a swimming pool without a fence, you can be sued for negligence if a neighbor kid sneaks in drowns.

    Minnesota would go broke, if it had to secure it's 10,000 + lakes, from kids sneaking into them.

    Can Minnesoa get sued, because some parent, fails to watch or teach their kids about water safety? 

    The NRA has classes, to teach the young about firearms; but that's not good enough, for those who want to ban guns.   

    Each accident, each atrocity, is a another opportunity to infringe.

    You don't think so? .... Within an hour,  Feinstein and others were pushing for a ban

    "Let the felonious criminals out of jail"  cries the bleeding hearts. Then wonder why theres so much violent crime. "We must make sure the criminals don't get guns"

    How about we make sure they can't...... keep the criminals locked up, so our right to bear arms won't be infringed.

    Get tough on criminals. Not on law abiding citizens, who have a right to bear arms.


    Richard Day is the only one I can find on this page with an clear opinion on the massacre and gun control. I agree with him. One problem with our society is by and large the pro-gun crackpots seem to be the ones absolutely sure of their position on issues, be it guns or climate change.

    The argument made by some that killers would just resort to McVeigh's fertilizer bombs if they were denied 100 round drum magazines and AR-15's is vacuous nonsense. Lanza'a Mom did not have a ton of chemical fertilizer in a truck in the driveway. Assembling such a device would take time and might draw attention, and time and tips are what authorities need to stop such an act. She had guns which could be put to use in seconds.

    What The killer creates the fear, and the fear creates the killer. is supposed to mean is beyond me. And What exactly are we trying to achieve? If one doesn't know that at this point, you are part of the problem.

    This society isn't totally sick, but many in this society are:


    Oh sometimes I think that we are nothing but talking monkeys as Christopher Walken calls us in those Prophecy flicks. hahahaha

    Monkey Face Gregory does not even get into the number of WMD's sold in America once the Assault Weapons Ban of the Clinton Era went by the wayside when he 'confronted' LaPierre today.

    And when w bush signed into law the ban preventing civil suits against the WMD makers; LaPierre and his lot just gained ungodly amounts of monies.


    I am angry just thinking about this once again!

    Hopefully, Our President and VP Biden will come up with some real legislative initiatives over the next five weeks.

    the end 

    That's easy. Shoot all the gun owners. But then who would shoot them ? Or would they have to shoot each other. But then the last one would have shoot him/her self.


    This all so confusing.


    Move to Antarctica.

    Moving to Antarctica would only be temporary and as the multitude, that sought refuge there, would eventually fight and kill one another, for the last square foot of available land.

    Start making arrangements for a place to reside when NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) looks at the models and determines 40 days of flooding are in the forecast. 

    If the NRA takes its proposal a bit farther, like the only firearms available to anyone would be the same caliber size, shot count, and stopping power as those carried by teachers, principles and school guards ( hand guns). That the only ammunition manufactured & allowed for sale would be of the same type, have the same accuracy and damage characteristics, then a reasonable conversation could be had considering their ideas on protecting our schools. That under extreme legal consequence any firearms not fitting into this category would be turned in and destroyed with all information about their known distribution and ownership at purchase would be available to authorities for assist in search and seizure roundup of existing firearms. An exception for a, one per person, rifle 3 shot  maximum before reload, for hunting could also be discussed.

    With the GOP hell bent on having my 60 plus year old, 4'10" 100 lb. wife/school principle required to work till she is 70 for retirement Social Security and Medicare, she and her staff, most of like age could handle perhaps a 22 at most. The overall destruction power of guns would drop severely even as the amount of guns might stay the same or increase a bit. 

    But would it stop massacres? Not unless we placed multiple armed responders at every park, playground, pool, day camp, playing field, Sunday school, daycare center, shopping mall, or any other place where children gather.

    Having responders in areas like movie theaters and schools doesn't really sound that crazy. Isn't that actually what police exist for in the first place? If the world wasn't like this to begin with, they wouldn't be there to begin with. We had to take our shoes off at the airport after 9/11 - it seems like this is actually a bit more serious than the threat of terrorism, to be blunt.

    What is insane is the idea of giving teachers guns. What conservative came up with something so ridiculous? Some teachers have been known to molest, abuse and harass students. Give them guns and you will have a teacher inflicting a massacre on some school down the line. I'm not sure if conservatives who propose that also realize they'd be arming teacher's unions, haha.

    Couple of things:

    Let's first stop the nonsense that "rampage killings can't be stopped".


    The other nonsensical notion perpetrated by the "austerity" frauds is "we can't afford more/better security in our schools/universities".

    What a load. at it's peak, congress was spending at least $8 BILLION per month on the Iraq fiasco. I guarantee you putting 1-2 armed security guards in our schools and vastly improving their security systems does not cost $8 Billion per month.. nowhere near that.

    Also, read Bamford's piece if you've not already done so:



    Latest Comments