Saturday, December 15, 2012

No Mayor Bloomberg, What we need is armed security at every school

Bloomberg had this to say concerning today's massacre in Connecticut:
In a statement released Friday afternoon, Bloomberg noted that Obama rightly sent his condolences to the families in Newtown, but urged the president to immediately introduce reforms that would create more restrictions around gun control. He is the co-chair of Mayors Against Illegal Guns, a coalition of more than 600 mayors who support gun control initiatives, through which he issued the statement. 
“The country needs him to send a bill to Congress to fix this problem," Bloomberg wrote. "Calling for ‘meaningful action’ is not enough. We need immediate action. We have heard all the rhetoric before. What we have not seen is leadership – not from the White House and not from Congress. That must end today. This is a national tragedy and it demands a national response.”
Bloomberg couldn't be more wrong.

What we need is armed security (preferably police) at each and every school. If that is not possible, then EVERY SCHOOL needs to have at least 1 staff member trained in the use of firearms and with immediate access to that firearm if or when necessary.

I can tell you this with 100% full confidence. As someone who is trained in the use of firearms and is licensed to carry myself, if I had been in that building at the time that evil bastard took his first shot, he would not have gotten off many more before I would have sent his sorry ass to hell.

If you like what you see, please "Like" us on Facebook here.
Please follow us on Twitter here.


Rozy Lass said...

Amen and amen! Since when have the "bad guys" ever obeyed the laws?

Anonymous said...

I do hope the author of this blog will reply to my comment.

I started following this blog when I found it during the election. I really enjoyed and appreciated the full campaign rally videos you uploaded.

However, over the last few weeks, there have been many posts which I thoroughly disagree with.

Today is such one.

A police officer at every school?! This is bizarre. What does it say that the richest country in the world has to send police to all its schools for safety? You couldn't imagine Japan or the UK doing such an extreme measure

How much would such a policy cost? It would be massive. And more still, it would be ineffective. All it would have taken is for the gunman to approach the officer and shoot him in the head before the officer has time to get his weapon out.

And your comments about having a teacher trained for the use of firearms? The gunman would still have managed to kill quite a lot of children before the teacher has time to come from across one side of the school.

All that does is give a small number of casualties. The only number of casualties which is acceptable is 0.

For that to happen, this country must invest a lot more in mental health screening and help. And that might not even help. A lot of people are loners or aloof, many have weird habits but that doesn't mean they will go into a public space and start killing masses.

Maybe it is time to think about gun limit controls.

BOSMAN said...

"All that does is give a small number of casualties. The only number of casualties which is acceptable is 0."

Well, if your kid was one of those saved in that scenario, would you be as critical?

BTW, it came out today, that he broke through a window. So it wasn't a case of peacefully entering a building and surprising everyone. That would have given even MORE TIME for an armed guard/Cop/teacher to respond appropriately.

I stick by what I posted in this piece.

BTW, I like knowing who I'm responding to. If you feel strongly about your opinion, put a name on it.

MrX said...

@Anonymous: Your comment is silly. More gun control would not have stopped that person from obtaining a gun. He killed himself. If he's willing to die, no law on the books is going to deter him. Criminals don't care about laws.

And every single argument so far for gun control has been that they could predict that people with guns would be killed. That doesn't even make sense. Every person that the gunman encounters with a gun means that the gunman is very likely to die. Yet your assumption is the opposite.

What we have now is the absolute worst case when no one is able to stop the gunman. More gun laws will make this even more difficult to stop these criminals.

Think of it this way.

Get rid of all guns in your home and put a sign on your front lawn that says "Gun-free home." and see how long it is before your home is robbed. Yet, you would send your own kids to exactly such a place where it's announced for the world to see that it's gun-free.

Having security is not a bad thing. Most companies and government offices have some sort of security available, but kids aren't worth enough to protect is what you're saying. It would be too costly.

Yeah. Ok. Whatever you say.

Anonymous said...

I suggest that anonymous doesn't have children. ~MoonRose

Anonymous said...

Well there is a few comments here after my initial one which I'll try my best to fully respond to - which is more than I can say for you lot who don't even entertain the possibility that there might be another way of thinking. Such behaviour I would expect on obnoxious leftwing blogs.

So, first up Brosnan,

To your question, if I 'be as critical' in that situation, well obviously no. But by making every issue so deeply personal, you risk blurring the debate by highly charged emotions and not thinking rationally.

We are talking, here, about a sensible approach to gun control. I am not saying that there should be a blanket ban. But the fact remains, that these incidents are getting more and more common.

Your solution is trying to arm more and more people. The higher the number of people that carry guns, the greater the chance someone innocent is going to get hurt. There are numerous problems of having teachers carry arms in the classroom.

How long before the teacher becomes lax and the gun gets into a child's hands?

It doesn't matter that he entered through a window. Either way, he would have had easy access into a school. Are we to brick up all windows?

if you want my name, fine, but you can hardly talk can you. I doubt that you post behind your real name, 'Brosnan'.

To the other person who claimed that more gun control would not have stopped this 'criminal' committing this crime. Well, guess what, those with mental problems in other countries which have tighter gun laws don't go crazy but shooting dozens of people.

Look up the Dunblane massacre which happened over 20 years ago in Scotland. This was committed by a man who had severe mental issues - after bringing in tighter gun laws there has been no such repeat. Why? Because it is hard for such people to get a gun.

These people are not normal criminals who rob/mug/steal for money. They don't desire what common criminals desire. They are mentally ill to the point they cease to act like human beings. they have no social skills - how do you think they would get a gun? Approach a shady looking character in the bar and become jolly good friends before getting a gun. Impossible.

What you are saying is if more people carry guns, there is a greater chance they can stop the killer. YOu know, people don't walk about like they are in a Die Hard movie. If they see someone get shot in the head, there first reaction is shock. In that brief moment, the gunman can kill many others including those who are armed. If the citizen does shoot the killer, another citzien might mistake him for the killer and try and shoot him. All hell breaks loose.

Your comment about the cost of such a scheme is a non started. If cost is not an issue, why not hire a police guard in EACH classroom. Better still, as cost is of no worry, why not assign each child a personal body guard. That way there would be no risk at all (or a minute one)?

Each day we make choices about risk and if something is too expensive, we have to settle for the something not as good. Like, for example, buying a car. If all I can afford is the 1990s car instead of a modern one loaded with extensive security features, that's what I have to make do with. I can't believe I'm having to explain the concepts of cost and affordability to a supposed right wing audience.

And 'MoonRose' you are most wrong.

Mrs Edith Campbell.

BTW, I like knowing who I'm responding to. If you feel strongly about your opinion, put a name on it.

newark hawk said...

It's impossible to prevent 100% of these tragic incidents, but entry-point metal detectors and heavily armed security personnel would eliminate 99% of them.

Saving lives is worth the cost of these extra security measures.

More gun control laws will keep guns out of the hands of law-abiding citizens, leaving them defenseless against home invaders and other violent criminals.

Adopting European-type gun control laws in America won't work for three reasons:

1 - Unlike most European countries, America doesn't have secure borders - illegal immigrants & guns cross our borders with ease.

2 - Unlike most European countries, America has widespread gun ownership - three-hundred million guns that are never going to be rounded up or voluntarily turned in to the authorities.

3 - Unlike most European countries, America has an entertainment culture steeped in gun violence that inevitably leads some sick individual to try to replicate that violence in real life, which means that law-abiding citizens must have access to guns in order to protect themselves.

The notion of a gun-free American citizenry is a fantasy of liberal totalitarians who would love nothing more than for Uncle Sam to be the sole possessors of guns and other weaponry.