Gun lobby defends call for armed guards at schools

Comments (11)
neutral57 wrote:

Talk of armed guards sounds a bit off base. We only need people to patrol/secure the school. once there are eyes watching, then the proper authorities can be contacted. It almost sounds like a plot to sell more guns!?
Why put under/quick qualified gun toters around schools instead of alert people with concern. What kind of authoritarian trend will be created? Why not extra cameras and proper procedure? The last thing we need is more potential for a shootout. Lock them outside and let our police do their job.

Dec 23, 2012 3:49pm EST  --  Report as abuse
leumasmc wrote:

Perhaps it might be a good idea to secure all public facilities with armed guards. Laboratories, Universities, Courthouses, Jails, High-Schools, Ferry Terminals, Air Ports, Rail Yards, Sub Tunnels, Capitol buildings and many other institutions paid for by public funds might benefit from being defended from the occasional few people who engage in the slaughter of innocents who congregate there.

Dec 23, 2012 4:16pm EST  --  Report as abuse
JohJac wrote:

They – are – I D I O T S .

Dec 23, 2012 4:54pm EST  --  Report as abuse
keinebremsen wrote:

I don’t understand the big deal. My quiet, suburban high-school had a few full police officers as security guards over a decade ago.

Dec 23, 2012 5:00pm EST  --  Report as abuse
CMEBARK wrote:

“call me crazy”…OK.

Dec 23, 2012 5:09pm EST  --  Report as abuse
reality-again wrote:

The NRA leader is not crazy, he’s just insidious, cynical and irresponsible.
Putting armed guards in public schools won’t solve the security problem in small private schools, shopping malls, gas stations, cinemas, supermarkets, streets, highways, beaches, and all other places where killers can kill many people.

The only solution to this increasing safety problem Americans are facing is limiting access of criminals and psychopaths to high power guns, assault rifles, etc.
No one needs to own more than one small-caliber, low-power, non-automatic handgun for self defense.
Allowing anything beyond that is unnecessarily and increasingly exposing the public to risk.

Dec 23, 2012 5:40pm EST  --  Report as abuse
sidevalve56 wrote:

The NRA is a collection of corrupt wackos…but this guy’s idea is more realistic than trying to control the number of guns…its way too late for that…

Dec 23, 2012 6:05pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Randy549 wrote:

What, exactly, is a “non-automatic” handgun? Realize that ALL handguns shoot once per pull of the trigger, even revolvers from the 1800s!

Dec 23, 2012 6:18pm EST  --  Report as abuse
TroyRogers wrote:

In response to reality-again, who are you to define the second amendment?
I would be curious of your age and to what extent you have traveled this country or any other. But I will agree with you on the fact that criminals and psychopaths do need to be prevented from possessing weapons, of any kind.

Dec 23, 2012 7:12pm EST  --  Report as abuse
TheNewWorld wrote:

@neutral57

The police took 14 minutes to arrive on location, and they are located 8 minutes away. Making a phone call to report immediate danger, does not solve the immediate danger. Armed security that can react is the best security, as we have seen in multiple incidents this year. The building I work in has security, the mall down the road has security, are our kids not important enough to have security?

Dec 23, 2012 7:24pm EST  --  Report as abuse
rgould22 wrote:

Well if it’s good enough for the school Obama’s kids go to, to have armed guards, why isn’t it good enough for our kids.

Dec 25, 2012 6:38am EST  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.