Oh, I see. When seconds count, the police are only minutes away, right? Best to leave our elementary school children as sitting ducks for the next shooter who is sure to appear at a time and location unknown to anyone except the shooter. Glad we have such sane voices as yours in the debate, Eric. With people like you offering their sage input and deciding the issue, shooters will be free to open fire in any one of elementary schools without having to worry about facing an armed teacher or other staff! We must keep our schools as "gun free zones"!! Good thing there was no armed teacher, security guard, or other school personnel at Sandy Hook, that would have been a disaster!!

Sorry, DGeorge, I still don't agree. Who defines who is a good guy with a gun? I'm sure a lot of passionate NRA members think they are good guys with guns, but what if their definition of what is "good" doesn't match mine? If somebody who is a "good guy" misreads a situation and starts spraying the air with bullets and accidentally kills my kid, then that doesn't seem like such a great solution. Don't think that could ever happen? I know police officers train for "shoot, don't shoot" scenarios regularly, and even then encounter situations where they see a kid they think is carrying a gun, draw and shoot, and then find out it's a stapler and the kid was just playing. You put armed people everywhere and I believe there will be more accidental shootings than anything else. More guns are not the solution. We have to teach our kids ways to resolve conflict that don't involve weapons. We have to stop bullying, and start making our society more inclusive. We have to stop preaching hatred of things that are different (whether race, ethnicity, gender, or sexual orientation). Throwing more guns into the mix doesn't do a thing to improve the situation.

Ft Hood had a lot of good guys with a gun. Didn't stop the bad guy with a gun.

Columbine had armed security. Didn't stop the bad guy with a gun.

VTech had it's own campus police force. Didn't stop the bad guy with a gun.

26 people massacred in 2.5 minutes by a bad guy with a gun. NO amount of good guys with a gun could have saved them.

The only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is to make it really hard and expensive for them to get the gun.

And, BTW. All these 'bad guys" were NEVER identified as bad guys. They were neighbors, family, colleagues who experienced a psychotic break who had a gun. AND, the Columbine kids did not have a mental record, the Sandy Hook shooter did not have a mental record (autism is NOT a mental health issue, it is a learning issue) and the list goes on.

VA has really expanded upon access to mental health records since VT, even McDonnell said it has been little used.

So, tell me how, again, a good guy with a gun stops a bad guy with a gun? If you can kill as easily with a baseball bat, knife, or car - then why don't you go do so? Because killing humans en masse is easier with an assault rifle.

Locally involved and Sandra, I totally agree with you and am proud that our teachers are smart enough to know that guns in school are NOT the answer. Also, when folks say prayers have been taken out of the schools that's why these bad things happen...explain why shootings occur in churches? No one wants to take away guns just need to do a better job in background checks and registration. Schools do need some type of security and prevention.

Locally Involved, your lies must not be allowed to go unchallenged:

--Ft. Hood did NOT have "a lot of good guys with a gun"--the soldiers were completely unarmed, not permitted to carry any kind of weapon, and civilian police had to be called in from elsewhere to stop Hasan's rampage.

--The fact that the lone, out-of-shape security guard at Columbine was less than completely successful at deploying against the two shooters (he did engage them at a distance, but even the inadequacy of his eyeglasses prescription is being discussed to this day) is not a valid argument against armed security/staff presence in place to protect chidlren at school. Get real.

--The fact that Va. Tech has an armed police force is moot, when you revisit exactly why no one was able to stop Cho; he had chained the doors to the building shut, preventing the police from getting into the building(and anyone inside from getting out), and he knew that the then-recent campaign to have the campus-wide ban on concealed carry overturned had been defeated by politically-correct campus liberals, meaning that he knew there'd be no armed student or professor or other staff to bring countervailing force against him(as did students and school principals in other incidents, such as at Appalachian Law School in 2002 and at Pearl High School in Mississippi in 1997).

Face it and be honest, so-called "gun-free zones" are what allow murderers to pick soft targets. The Aurora theater shooter chose such a one.

Furthermore, Locally Involved, you asked to be informed as to how "a good guy with a gun stops a bad guy with a gun." Just look to the countless examples where personnel posted with guns are a deterrent to those that would assassinate or kidnap politicians and various other prominent people, rob banks and armored cars, illegally enter various government buildings and other restricted areas/properties, create mayhem at public events, and so on. Are you capable of common sense at all? NUMEROUS mass shooters have been stopped by armed citizens and other security/police personnel with guns--I cited two examples above, and I'll add the recent mall shooter in Oregon, who saw an armed citizen draw his concealed pistol on him and then promptly committed suicide. Do some research before spewing garbage anymore. There was another recent theater shooter stopped by an off-duty police officer with a concealed weapon; there was a church shooter who was stopped by a churchgoer with a concealed weapon; the list goes on and it is literally endless...you said "NO amount of good guys with a gun could have saved them." Your comment truly is the epitome of stubborn ignorance. You fail to even recognize that your own prescription involves deploying men with guns to keep guns out of the hands of bad/crazy people! Otherwise, how do you propose to enforce it?

Locally Involved, you also typed "If you can kill as easily with a baseball bat, knife, or car - then why don't you go do so?"

In fact, FBI stats show that the overwhelming majority of homicides are committed exactly by those means, and that firearm homicides are but a tiny fraction compared to those done by other means. Now please do some basic research before posting more false garbage.

The ATF classifies many of the armaments you discuss into different classes which are highly regulated. The rest are so out there they are unobtainable for obvious good reasons. Your statements clearly show that you are ignorant to current gun laws and what the NRA actually does. Please have the slightest grasp on the subject matter before you claim to have some sort of knowledge of it.

James, I think "another patriotic liberal" is being facetious. Sort of like the NRA saying that the answer to guns is more guns.

DGeorge, I keep saying it, but you just don't get it. Let me phrase it as simply as I can: No guns, no shootouts. Obviously this is too simplistic a solution to work, but I believe that by implementing better, common sense gun control regulations, we can make things safer. No, I do NOT want guns in schools. Right now, our schools are basically very safe - the likelihood of a shootout happening at our local schools is very small. Put a boatload of guns in each school, and in my opinion, the likelihood of a disaster happening (accidental or not) increases exponentially.

Sandra's answer is to just let the bad guys shoot everyone they can until the police arrive minutes later, as with the Sandy Hook massacre. Wouldn't want a "shoot-out" or anything...actually, what she is saying is that she wants to call the police, and have the shoot-out minutes AFTER the murderer begins his rampage when the police finally get there. Yes, liberals really are that brilliant.

I'd say the "gun free zone" policies we've BEEN following all along are what have been disastrous. Obama's agenda will make things only worse. All the NRA is saying is protect our kids, and protect our 2nd amendment rights.

Every single thorough study shows that the single most effective policy in reducing illegal gun violence is the availability of concealed carry permits for law-abiding citizens!

Arming teachers is better than arming nobody on staff. It is best to have SROs in the elementary schools, I agree, but if that is not done, let teachers concealed carry.

Fire these leftist commie union scum if they are so brainwashed against protecting our children that they won't even step up to the plate and get the training; FIRE THEM and replace them with actual adults who know what is at stake and are willing to face reality.

Everything else you said is accurate. There is no such thing as 100% failsafe, perfect security--but there is such a thing as common sense and realistic measures.

DGeorge, in countries where they have very strict gun laws and most guns are not allowed, you find very few numbers of shooting deaths. Many criminals get their guns because of our lax gun laws. Virginia has very loose gun laws, and consequently states such as New York have found that a number of the guns used in crimes in their states were originally bought in Virginia. The easier we make it to buy guns, the more guns will be found on the streets. Nothing you say will convince me that more guns in schools will result in safer schools. The more guns in schools, the more accidents there are waiting to happen. Plus you have failed to explain just how putting guns in schools makes them safer. Can you promise that no child will be able to inadvertantly obtain a gun and shoot someone? Can you promise that a gun-toting person in a school will not get upset about something and start shooting? (Think that is far-fetched? How many workplace shootings have you read about recently?). DGeorge, I am far more afraid of the damage that guns can do, than I am about some very small possibility that a bad guy will break into my child's school. If by doing nothing you mean not putting guns in schools, then yes, I would rather do nothing. I have faith in the President's suggestions for gun control and regulation. I do NOT have faith in the NRA, as they are geared mainly towards increasing profits for firearms companies through fear.

Sandra, I defy you to come up with one single example of where having armed personnel assigned to schools protecting our children has resulted in "accidents" or "shootouts" or any of the other scaredy-cat liberal hand-wringing nonsense you have continually posted about this topic. GIVE ME ONE SINGLE INCIDENT, DATE, PLACE, ETC.

The fact is, you don't know the first thing about security or law enforcement work, you don't know a single thing about the proper use of force or about guns at all. I'm not talking about deranged people who shoot up a workplace because they got fired or were distraught over a divorce or whatever, I'm talking about people who are actually assigned at a school and either carrying concealed according to their permit and training, or are law enforcement/security personnel stationed at a school. DESCRIBE ONE SINGLE SPECIFIC INCIDENT.

The Communist Manifesto goes on and on and on about public education, insists that public education is utterly necessary and is part and parcel of the wholesale destruction of the family/replacement of the family with the state, etc. Think I'm joking? Go read it.

@DGeorge, your arguments are non-sensical... but let me ask, on the off-chance I am off topic... when the sink is overflowing do you mop the floor or do you turn off the faucet? Well, this situation is not so different - we have a situation here in the US where the country is flooded with weapons and what you are suggesting is basically this - to stop the killing we have to get a gun of our own to defend ourselves AND to defend the public at large. That is like mopping the floor!
Further, you are generalizing other shootings and lumping world history into your argument - definite signs of delusion and paranoid schizophrenia. The 4% of teachers that agree with your right to bear arms in the classroom most likely fall into the same category... and if they do maybe they can find a job in Utah working one of those armed compounds where the community is preparing for global meltdown.

DGeorge, don't let up on these liars. Keep it up and don't let them get away with their disinformation campaign. They are not interested in protecting our kids; they are about pushing a leftist agenda, period.

Skip, use your own metaphor and apply it to situations like Sandy Hook--if you could go back in time to just before the incident took place, would you put an armed teacher, principal, or security guard there to thwart Lanza, or would you just leave the school unprotected as it was, and call police after the fact? Wake up and smell the coffee. You are never going to get guns away from bad people without enacting a tyrannical police state, and even then only bad people will have them. DGeorge is right, the answer is not a totalitarian government with a monopoly on the use of force, monitoring and tracking every single citizen who might want to own firearms, registering them all, using the registry to confiscate them arbitrarily according to the corrupt powers which arise--you are deluding yourself badly if you think the nature of government has changed at all, ever--the founders were wise enough to put the 2nd Amendment in there as a check against people like you, who would achieve office and would disarm the population.

I recall the incident well, I even worked with a retired Fairfax County cop who had arrested the kid's father at least once--very messed up criminal family. The mother actually jumped onto my buddy's back as he was handcuffing the father in the front yard on one occasion.

The solution, for the liberals on this thread, is for those police to have been unarmed--because their being armed in the first place is just such a scary proposition! Guns are bad! According to the libs, there should have been a "gun-free zone" sign at the entrance to the Sully police station, with no armed staff or scary guns to jeopardize the utopia that would have been in place due to the laws and the sign declaring it so. Yes, that's how they actually think.

The kid had the element of surprise because he ambushed the first officer in the parking lot, and he himself took cover behind vehicles and barriers as others responded. The chain that was supposed to have been across the entrance to the lot was not secured, allowing him to access the lot more easily.

Dgeogey -- grow some.

That is my point exactly! Ordinary people might know how to operate and fire a gun, but they are not specially trained on what to do in emergencies. There is a great deal of difference from hunting game, or shooting at targets to knowing when to fire in a roomful of kindergarten children. This is not a game. Police are trained to know what to do and when to do it. Even so, they often are not sure and have to make split second decisions.

When seconds count, the police are only minutes away...

DGeorge, for every story where someone uses a gun to protect themselves, there are more stories where guns have caused tragedies for well-meaning people. Too often it is the teen son who is sneaking out of the house, or who has forgotten his key and is trying to climb in the window and is shot by his dad or the inebriated person who accidentally tries to get into the wrong house and is shot by a neighbor. I've seen lots of stories about parents who keep loaded guns in their homes and their kids find it and start playing with it and shoot themselves. You can keep talking all you want about guns saving people, but there are just as many, if not more, instances where they have caused needless deaths. You want a society where everyone carries a gun, and I think that is a very sad view that you have of society. You seem to believe that there are monsters lurking around every corner, and that is not a very healthy way to view the world. Yes, there are bad guys, but we should be coming up with ways to prevent them from getting guns, rather than trying to arm every man, woman, and child in the nation.

Twice in the last 15 years I have thwarted men who were breaking into my home in the middle of the night, and both times I had a pistol handy. Both times, the criminals in question fled as soon as I woke up to what was happening and began yelling at them as I reached for my weapon(I told the second guy I had a gun). The second guy was caught by a police detective days later based on after-the-fact gumshoe work.

Bravo, DGeorge, keep up the good work here.

The founders wrote the 2nd Amendment for just this very reason--they knew the dangers of a standing army oriented toward being used against the population, and toward disarming it. Shame on anyone who fails to grasp this fundamental fact about our Contitution and natural rights. The "militia" they wrote of happens to be every single adult male in the population, NOT the national guard, or police, or any other kind of government organization.

It was a civilian female police officer who finally arrived at the scene on Ft. Hood and took Maj. Hasan down with her pistol, it was not any military police. The soldiers were completely disarmed to begin with.

Seung-Hui Cho chained all the doors to the building shut so that he could go room-to-room and prey upon his disarmed, obedient victims(an attempt by a student to get the ban on concealed carry overturned was defeated while Cho was a matriculating student at Va. Tech) uninterrupted by any responding police.

The fact that the security guard at Columbine was defeated by the shooters is not an argument against armed security at schools; if anything it is an argument for more armed security at schools.

Locally Involved, if you lived in North Korea you'd cite the official military academy there, too, as a means of trying to counter any argument that their citizens should have access to private means of armed protection against bad guys (official and unofficial) with guns. You fail to recognize the nature of government, and why an armed citizenry is necessary as a counterbalance:

"Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master." ~ George Washington

So, no comment on the West Point study? Or is that another one of those loonies on the left organizations?

It never ceases to amaze me how dense these libs are, when they argue against having personnel with guns on staff at the scene, yet they invariably dial 911 to summon more guns to the scene when trouble happens. Their mantra is, "keep good guys with guns at a distance (until the shooting starts--then have them start their engines), but allow bad guys with guns to walk into 'gun-free zones' unchallenged by anyone who could thwart them."

Another Patriotic LIberal - your comment resonates with the findings of the West Point study (link provided earlier), one passage in particular that states:

“While liberal worldviews are future- or progressive -oriented, conservative perspectives are more past-oriented, and in general, are interested in preserving the status quo.” the report says. “The far right represents a more extreme version of conservatism, as its political vision is usually justified by the aspiration to restore or preserve values and practices that are part of the idealized historical heritage of the nation or ethnic community.”

The last laugh will be with those that get to pry the far right's guns from their "cold, dead hands".

A overwhelming majority of parents and teachers agree: We don't want gun totin' teachers. We do not want to turn our schools into lock-down mini-military police states. We are better than that.

I would just like to add that I would be far more scared of having "good guy with a gun" gunslingers like DGeorge in our schools providing "security" than I would be of any potential bad guy invading our schools. Just because you own a gun doesn't necessarily mean you know what to do when a situation occurs. I don't want someone who believes gunfire is the answer to everything handling problems in my school.

APL, some of us have seen & heard enough solid, irrefutable evidence of rigged voting machines and widespread chicanery in key states/districts to believe the election was stolen, or at least have reasonable cause to distrust the media and official results. Do you think we should ignore the evidence, and just submit to people who are on record throughout their careers advocating and practicing underhanded means of gaining power?

The study was commissioned by West Point Combating Terrorism Center and is endorsed by West Point. The fact is all those groups are the far right. It is also true that the far right clings to the past while those with a worldviews do not and are not part of the terrorist groups stated.

Your point is irrelevant. Go away.

Locally, you are so right! You are correct in your dismissal of Kathy Keith's point. Those "progressives with a worldview" would NEVER dream of such things! Oh wait...

Greenwich Village couple busted with cache of weapons, bombmaking explosives: sources "The privileged daughter of a prominent city doctor, and her boyfriend — a Harvard grad and Occupy Wall Street activist — have been busted for allegedly having a cache of weapons and a bombmaking explosive in their Greenwich Village apartment."
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/manhattan/bombmaking_in_the_village_LoRDqNzP02SDZyfC1pLVXN

So what we have here is another liberal doing that which is natural-being a complete hypocrite.

Kathy, keep up the good work and don't take any guff from these swine.

I served enough years on actice duty and national guard to know that our armed forces and entire government has been taken over by the 5fth column enemy within of Marxist, anti-American political correctness.

Oh, the irony! Have to say the first (and hopefully last) of Gun Appreciation Day was an epic failure.

Locally, do you miss the your good ole days?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z6b1VOAATNk

Which sign were you holding?

DGeorge, obviously you haven't been on Patch often enough, or else you don't see it. Conservatives have made just as many personal attacks and engaged in name calling as liberals. Both sides are guilty of not maintaining in civil discussion. Joe Brewer, you know that this is true - calling someone's opinion "blather"? "loonies on the left"? Really? Is that not name calling? Disagree all you want but know that attacks and name calling come from both sides. Please respect others' opinions.

Carol, again, we have the illustration of the cognitive dissonance of the extreme far right. We can always count on their evasion of the topic and name calling when they have no well-reasoned argument. Only by using demeaning language can they 'elevate' themselves.

One cannot have a civil discussion with those who refuse to engage civilly. Thankfully, as yesterday proved, saner, rational voices have prevailed. All that is left are the gasps of the extreme. 2014 elections look like the House goes blue - so keep talking far right, we appreciate your help on behalf of the American people! LOL

Carol, I have been on the patch and other forums as well. It would seem to me that it is a common liberal form of discussion that uses personal attacks, vulgarity, and when permitted, obscenity. If we objectively look at violence in society and in political discourse we will find that it emanates from the left. Most assassinations are committed by left leaning people. The occupy movement compared to the Tea Party tells you what? The Tea Party compared to the lefty anarchists tells you what? I am not a republican or a right winger, in fact in much of my thinking I would be accused of being a lib. I am pro-choice, an atheist, I am concerned with the environment and the list goes on. No, Carroll, it is the left that enjoys the name calling.

Sandra is on record here, saying she is more worried about good guys with guns than bad guys with guns. Does any more need to be said about her judgment?

DGeorge, you missed the time when Don Joy's participation on Patch was suspended. Name calling exists on both side. You'll never convince me otherwise.

Carroll, Don Joy is one example. On this thread alone I have been attacked or called names at least four times. Really sweet. And that is just this thread, there have been others. I have come to expect that behavior from the left, it is their signature.

Carroll, please go over to the " Blacks from the civil war to civil rights " thread. Another sweet liberal . No matter where you go it is the same.

DGeorge, my name is Carol, not Carroll. While you were counting the attacks on you in this tread, did you count the ones you made on others? Did you count the attacks from conservatives on liberals? The attacking is equal opportunity. If you've been attacked, perhaps it is because you have done so to others.

You should express your concerns directly with the Combating Terrorism at West Point. Given West Point's immaculate educational and thought leadership record, the odds are with them. However, please feel free to share with us your findings after a dialogue directly with West Point.

West Point (my brother graduated from there before it became completely Marxist) has become an incubator of anti-American political-correctness.

Barbara, did you read Joes' suggestion? There are many, many ways to secure firearms to keep them safe.

DGeorge,

Yes I did read it.

Do you think he was suggesting the school system would buy safes to store all the teachers’ fire arms? That will never happen. Or was he suggesting teachers provide their own safes in their rooms? Many teachers share rooms with other teachers or rotate to different rooms for different periods. Would these personal safes be small and transportable? What would keep someone from stealing the safe itself? Even if you chain it down, you would be surprised how many people in a school building have access to bolt cutters – custodians, PE teachers, coaches, administrators, security, etc. And you would also be surprised how often bolt cutters are stolen.

Schools typically have one secure room, sometimes with a vault it in. At the very least, a few people (like administrators, security, the principal’s secretary, and maybe the school engineer or head custodian) will have a key to that room. Probably fewer will have access to the vault itself. But teachers with firearms would not be able to get into that room/vault every morning to secure their weapons and then check them out again at the end of each day. That would not happen. No one with access would be able to stand at the vault each day to let them in and out, nor would teachers be allowed to have access to the secure room or vault on their own.

You just can’t imagine how difficult it is to secure anything in a school – a pen, a purse or a laptop – much less a firearm.

Oh Barbara - you tried logic and ran through the scenarios to help try to elucidate a subject for the, well, not so lucid.

Joe B and others of his belief KNOW they are right. They in fact KNOW all. We need to simply learn to supplicate ourselves to their great wisdom. How they never rose to such prominence to protect all with their delusional paranoia is one of those great mysteries of life SMH

Now, let's celebrate a wonderful inauguration day. Obama won again. "They" will need to get over it - again. Sanity and reason prevailed.

Joe,

You said it would cost about $50K per elementary school. Fairfax County Public Schools alone has about 139 elementary schools. You do the math.

Well-said.

High capacity ammo? Hmm, what kind of ammo is that? What weapon was used at Sandy Hook? Do you know?

L.I., I refuted your falsehoods in my comments further above on this thread, point-by-point. When someone is instructing you, it is best to take heed.

Locally, I invite you to watch the results of TX having restrictive conceal carry laws, specifically around 21:10.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dhXOuuHcjbs

L.I., it's a college campus, which like Va. Tech is probably a "gun-free zone" which has banned concealed-carry.

Again, your argument is to disarm good people, leaving them prey for those who take as long as they need to waste as many as they can until police get there. Insane.

Interesting that the author of the study in discussion joined the Center in 2010.

Remember, Obama's buddy/political sponsor(and ghost-writer of his memoir) Bill Ayers' intention was to kill off the estimated 25 million or so Americans who they figured would refuse to be "re-educated" in the camps the Weathermen planned to set up in their communist revolutionary overthrow of our Constitutional republic...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HWMIwziGrAQ

I agree! Conservatives are always complaining about taxes, and I see no solution that they have suggested (i.e. installing safes in every room in schools, adding armed security guards in every school) that will not add millions of dollars to school budgets. They seem to forget that by reducing the numbers of assault weapons and high capacity magazines, we reduce the risk of armed assaults on schools. Funny how adamant they are about reducing budgets, and yet when it comes to anything that relates to increasing the numbers of guns and armed citizens, they are all for it. Still, I would like to see how many of them would approve of the millions of tax dollars that will be needed to be added to school budgets to do what they suggest.

Sandra - they'll do what they seem to have a habit of doing - mandate the spending then don't fund or pay for it! (ie: raising taxes). Hmmmm, debt ceiling comes to mind. Congress decides what they spend - the President is constitutionally required to pay for it - then Congress says, no we don't want to pay for it. Leaving America in a bind.

It does get tiresome.

Yet here we have the very topic of the article, which would involve no expense to the taxpayer at all, and you liberals drone on and on with your falsehoods ad nauseum. Typical.