If we truly cherish our kids more than our money or our celebrities, we must give them the greatest level of protection possible and the security that is only available with a properly trained — armed — good guy.

Just an anecdote...I've *had* a child attacked in school by an autistic kid that apparently was fascinated by her long blonde hair. It was a bit traumatic for her at the time...and yet, you know, we have to consider the feelings of the mentally challenged children before the ones that are in the classroom learning. Yes...that sounds rather snotty and sarcastic of me...but let me know how you feel when *your* child is attacked by someone that *really* doesn't belong in a classroom...

Part of the problem with our schools is that we have made this insane attempt to "normalize" abnormal children. We put them in regular classrooms and pretend they are learning with the other kids, then we (wink, nudge) pass them along to the next grade...

It's all fine and dandy - makes the *parents* feel good....but it is a gross disservice. The mentally challenged kids are not realyl getting an education aligned with their abilities - which in some cases may be extraordinary in some areas and horrible in others. It exposes them to a fake camaraderie, but if they are perceptive at all, they will recognize it as such, and understand they are actually outcasts in the cruel, well-defined social norms of a public school.

From what I understand of the shooter in CT, he was possibly autistic...he had some issues...and so one has to wonder - was he "mainstreamed", and placed in an environment in which he would be subjected to unnecessary ridicule, and in the name of good-intentions actually have a cruel disservice done to him?

I don't know...just putting the thought out there.

But the original post mentions a "national database for the mentally ill" and seems to be mocking the idea identifying people with potetnial issues...and while obviously a national database is a moronic idea, our nation *needs* to look at how we handle kids with social issues - because the anti-bullying campaigns and such aren't working at all...and in fact *can't* work because they fly in the face of the reality of growing up. They teach kids to be weak and tell them they *must* be offended at words, instead of telling them to be strong and learn what's important and what's not. Putin calling me a name...is not important, and can *not* hurt me....yet according to our schools, it is and will...

So guns aside, there is a huge dialogue needed in our schools and it starts with all of the *failed* programs that have been implemented since Columbine that haven't done a single thing to stop anyone...and you could argue have prompted more...

A funny thing about the political discussion/arguing/trolling on this site...

If you ignore the user names (often the biggest clue toward their true stance on the subject), it's sometimes hard to distinguish between when someone is trying to be taken absolutely seriously or speaking in a satirical manner.

So tell me...what is my true stance on the subject at hand...assuming you might be targeting that comment at me. I suspect you really have no clue what my *true* stance is.

Nigee is right. We should get our kids used to seeing armed guards everywhere. Prepare them for the future.

@yebbelz - That's exactly what makes a good diplomat, isn't it?

@yebellz - Sorry for misspelling your name!!

@krellin, I took yebellz's comment as a reference to NB's post just above yours.

There are plenty of cultures out there where armed personnel are a common sight, and in "industrialized" countries. We don't mind them in our airports, our federal buidlings, our court houses, protecting our politicians...I'm not sure why the idea of an armed guard in a school is such a bad idea or should be offensive. We're not talking robo-cop...how about a few unemployed veterans?

"If we truly cherish our kids more than our money or our celebrities, we must give them the greatest level of protection possible and the security that is only available with a properly trained — armed — good guy. "
Apologies I should have stated my source, this is a quote taken directly from a speech by an NRA spokesman. The kind of guy they need in Afghanistan because despite 10 years and far superior weaponry and numbers of highly trained and skilled soldiers the Taleban are still proving elusive.
Maybe if we could send more 'good guys with guns' over to Afghanistan they could sort that situation out once and for all. Maybe some well armed janitors and head mistresses could help out also. I'm sure with that 'Dad's Army' approach we would have the 'bad guys' (i.e. the senior teachers kids) on the run in no time.

"When I finally realized what was occurring, I thought 'I got him!' And I reached for my purse. He was maybe 12 feet away... But then I realized months earlier I'd made the stupidest decision of my life. I took my gun out of my purse and left it in my car, because as you well know, in the State of Texas it's a felony offense to carry a gun in your purse [in 1991]."

Suzanna Hupp - survivor of the Luby's Massacre. 24 people were killed - including Hupp's parents. How many lives would have been saved if Hupp's gun had been in her purse instead of her car? We will never know.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M1u0Byq5Qis

If "good guys with guns" is not a solution to protect someone from a madman with a gun, then why does Obama surround himself with good guys with guns? Why is the White House, Congress, Federal Buildings, Courts, etc all protected by "god guys with guns".

<sigh...> Such hypocrisy...

Comparing a war zone to protecting a building is ludicrous and naive as best...intentionally stupid at worst. If you want to compare Afghanistan to a school...then fill a school with armed crazy nutjobs that have openly declared they want to kill kids FIRST, and then throw the kids into the school. THAT is the fair comparison.

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

protecting my freedom, to be assaulted by a human carrying a firearm.

I am so glad i am free.... to not live in a country where the NRA exists.

If we took proper care of the mentally infirmed, than we would not have mass shootings. Period. Taking away guns or posting armed guards in schools are both terrible solutions.

Really? So, you think there is some 100% accurate test that can detect and predict all violent behavior? You live in a fantasy world, my friend. Besides, neither political party has the intestinal fortitude to, say, lock up and restrain the "mentally infirm". Because banning them from acquiring guns will not prevent them from acquiring guns.

Bottom line, you can *never* prevent mass murder when someone sets about to plan it unless you catch them in the act of planning. Otherwise, the best you can do is mitigate the damage done...unless you truly want schools, mall, well, essentially *any* public place to become locked-down fortresses.

The kid had a mild form of Aspergers. Pretending like he was "mentally infirm" is just plain ignorant and is typical of the kind of nonsense people are spouting about people on the Autism Spectrum. If the kid wasn't trained to use automatic weapons by his mother, maybe this wouldn't have happened.

I like how the gun nutters are acting like they're mental health experts now.

How do those who see guns as the solution view deaths by accidents caused by guns? They are clearly the direct result of the technological sophistication of such weaponry and cause thousands of deaths each year in the U.S. Also, I am not too sure that having armed patrols around schools would necessarily protect against atrocities. Wouldn't those who wanted to cause as much death as possible just go to less protected areas? So instead of a school a shopping centre.

So what cost a shooter at every school:
1 full time employee, possibly two depending on hours cover is required
Holiday & sickness cover
Training
Equipment & Weapons
Other security measures/beefing up doors & locks
Increased surveillance cameras & CCTV
So we just need to set this up at every school.
No problem but who pays....... probably get it all sponsored by the NRA
Is this really the way forward for the USA?

If members of the public didn't have guns, other members of the public wouldn't also need guns. The idea that ordinary people need to carry guns is just absurd.

Ah Jamie, what an ideal life, to live in the UK... Which reminds me, i'm living in the UK now... (well not right now, i'm on a boat crossing the irish sea... Or F irish sea C(onvoy) A wales - ireland; as they say...)

How about we talk about the "advocates of freedom" and the originators of the "fascists take peoples guns first" argument, bitching that the Federal Government hasn't investigated and created a database of people with their definition of mental illness.

how can anyone be a part of this circus of an organization. How can you look yourself in the mirror, honestly.

Never mind a database of people with a mental illness. You need a database of every member of the public in the US who keeps a gun on their person or at home*.

Then you need to go to the home of every one of those people and take those guns away from them.

* Let people who are interested in sports shooting own registered guns, but require that they be kept locked up at a regulated gun club.

Seriously.

In 1996 in Dunblane, in Scotland, there was a primary school shooting. 16 children were killed. In response, the UK banned the private ownership of all cartridge ammunition handguns, regardless of calibre.

There have been NO school shootings in the UK since.

@ Jamie

They weren't exactly common before the ban either, and there have been mass shootings since (just not in schools).

It seems clear to me that imposing European style gun laws on America will be a nightmare, at least in the short term. A bit of tweaking is the best that can be hoped for, and a bit of tweaking will not stop these attacks from happening (It may prevent some, which makes it worth doing in my book, but it will be impossible to try and measure how many).

@ Octavious: "there have been mass shootings since"

I am aware of only one, the Cumbria shootings in 2010 - some 14 years after Dunblane. What other shootings are you referring to?

That is the only big one, but there been more than a few gang related shootings of more than one person in recent years which don't derserve to be forgotten. In terms of major mass shooting events I believe there have only ever been 3 in British history.

Laws were tightened after Hungerford '87. They were tightened further after Dunblane '96. I'm not sure anything changed after Cumbria '10. Gun laws can only do so much, and the UK doesn't provide any strong evidence either way to say whether what we did after Dunblane had any effect whatsoever.

No gun regulation can prevent gang shootings. You cannot regulate organized crime. That's a matter of police work, not legislative effort.