If there is one thing I've learned from this terrible tragedy, it's that "Gun Free Zones" are actually putting MORE people at risk, not making anyone safer, as imagined. Think about it: someone who is committed to slay multiple innocents, to commit horrible atrocities considered unthinkable by the rest of humanity, has made a conscious decision that leaves normal boundaries and civil behavior far behind. A sign that declares the presence of guns unwanted or "prohibited" in the area, only restricts a mass murderer like a sewing thread can tie the hands of an angry gorilla. The only people who will obey that rule are the ones that obey laws and have no murderous intent. Precisely the ones that ought to be carrying a weapon at that moment. Yet law abiding citizens won't, due to their sense of civic duty to obey the law. This, I have concluded, creates a prime target for those inclined to murder: a group of victims surely unarmed and surely not capable of defending themselves.
From now on, I will (and you should too) AVOID areas that proclaim it to be a "gun free zone" in an attempt to stay away from attractive target rich areas, and ask local authorities to cease and desist declaring those zones to exist. Any place where a murder has to stop and wonder if there any people carrying a weapon in that area, is a place he (or she) will not be attracted to. Is this not logical?

Gun laws have as much effect on illegal gun usage as much as drug laws stop drug illegal usage: NONE.

The killer in CT (like most mass shooters) had serious mental health issues. He was not a career criminal. He used guns that he mother obtained legally. If she were not allowed to have a semi automatic weapon, he would not have been able to take it and kill 26 innocent people in a matter of minutes. There is no reason anyone outside of the military or law enforcement needs that kind of weaponry. It's insane.

did you really think putting up a sing "gun free zone" would do anything?? ya, cause the ones marked "drug free zone" work SO well!!
I've aske my middle & high school kids what their schools did on MOnday after the shootings. 1 a moment of silance the other went over drills. sorry I dont think standing in 1 place is a good action plan in when all hell is breaking loose around you. In the middle of it all who knows how they'll act or what the crazy person is going to do. (espically if they where told the same thing in their school)
The real problem is helping the people before they get so messed up!

Steve
I am FOR ANYTHING that can and will bring down the number of people getting shot for no reason other than being at the wrong place at the wrong time. "Target rich" is a phrase that is used in the military, and that is EXACTLY what a "Gun Free Zone" becomes when everybody is unarmed and not expecting nut jobs to come out of the wood work to slaughter them.
This is NOT a simple problem with a simple solution. It is not just a "gun" problem. Many factors are involved in the causes of these atrocities, so many different ideas need to be looked at, including how we take care of our mentally ill, to the diliterious effects of our youth spending their free time passively wiping out hordes of people for hours on end in blood thirsty videos, to the number of guns that are available to the public. We have to look at EVERYTHING if we are to be serious about getting a handle on this. Is it possible Steve Cavaretta, ...that you might be able to ADD something to the discussion WITHOUT your predictable personal attacks and snark that seems to be squeezed out of your word hole everytime it happens to open? My comment was about the wisdom of "Gun Free Zones" and nothing more. Do YOU have some salient thoughts about that subject, or will you go off and become the irritating class clown that you think is SO very clever? Try a logical answer instead of making off the wall implications and personal attacks about me or whomever you happen to be aiming your "Insulto-matic 2000" at.

The Dec 19th TAB front page article about school security is an indication that the Newton School administrators are in denial and they are obsessed with the idea of an "open campus". They are invitating a problem.

Schools are already safe. This is all a waste of time. Better to worry about safe driving, safe drinking, safe street crossing.

So Steve, you only have witty words about a persons spelling or use of a phrase, not really much thought goes into your positions on a subject or the reasons why or why not you support an opinion. Your job is to act the gadfly and twit to and froe amongst the other comments found here, pointing out misplaced commas or minutia, not really ADDING any substantive thought or suggestions to really important and pressing matters. Just smart enough to make light of others, but not really smart enough to offer any substantive thinking. Ok. I think I've got you pegged now.
You are someone who isn't worth my time or effort. I've politely asked you your opinion, and twice I've gotten adolescent dodging in response.
In the future, ignore my posts, as I will ignore yours.
Buh bye...

MC
Schools are certainly not safe, as you've pointed out. Now, if you compare total school deaths with all other methods of death, yes, they are relatively low as David Chase is pointing out. More people die of bee stings in a year than in schools. However the emotional loss of a child that is supposed to be safe when out of their parents custody and in the custody of a school has long reaching psychological effects. Like blowing up a few planes in the air, the fear of that event happening to you or a loved one essentially can paralyze air travel and the tourist industry. Extend fear this to parents having second thoughts about leaving their most precious person in the hands of a school that is essentially unprotected, and many dominos start to fall. Don't think having an armed guard at schools is a good? Just wait til the next school tragedy occurs.
It doesn't matter what the actual school death numbers actually are...it's the PERCEPTION of that safety that will move legislation, budgets and the hearts of people.

No where is safe from criminals with illegal or illegally obtained guns. FACT. MA has a very tough and strict gun law, stop whining about it.

Most of the comments that appear on this blog rely on the "it won't happen here" premise. I'm willing to guess that most of the school safety policies rely on the same. In many of the more affluent communities it's what I call "the Jaws effect". We have all seen the movie Jaws and we all remember the town officials because they were reluctant to admit that there was a shark in the water - it would be bad for the tourist industry!. The schools are the centerpiece of appeal of many communties and the things that happen in and around the school become politically sensitive. Wealthy, afflluent and liberal minded communities refer to some safety procedures as draconian. Many safety professionals understand and work around those attitudes. If communities want to hope nothing will happen and institute measures that make every one feel better but have little to do with a threat assessment - that is the communities' perogative, you just can't sell it as a competent safety program.

Robert-
Agree. Though the cost will be high, a policeman or some kind of armed guard (retired military or vet coming home from Iraq/Afganistan looking for work?) being posted in each school IS a step that could potentially cut down risk. That is just one step in a multi pronged approach.

Agree with the mathematics of your arguement, but this is also a highly emotionally charged subject. There are MANY ways to get a better death reduction than dealing with these rare incidents, you've listed several. In most countries simply providing safe drinking water or providingb mosquito nets would save thousands if not millions of lives of children every year. But we don't do that. They aren't OUR kids. Emotions come into play, thus, irrationality rears it's ugly head. People feel compelled "to do something" ...so the question becomes: What can we do that will quiet the fears of parents about their children getting killed, even though statistically, they are safer in school than in their own homes?

David-
No one can't argue that if we had fewer guns that we wouldn't have fewer gun deaths. That is self evident. Think of a gun as a tool and say "fewer screwdrivers, fewer screwdriver accidents." Yep, I'd say,that MUST be true. Because it would be.
So, what is your solution? Where would you go? Eliminate the 2nd Amendment? Put all the crazies in jail? Put police at every school entrance? Ban video games? Do absolutely nothing? Those are a few choices we have before us from various respectable sources. Where would you, David make law, where would you allocate shrinking budgetary dollars? What other programs would you cut to pay for those that you propose to enact? My point is what PRACTICAL responses can we make (those that we can afford to pay for) instead of railing about this principal or that all day.
The question is: "WHAT WILL WORK??"
It's all about mathematics, you're right. Remedial or otherwise. Somewhat is YOUR math and where would you spend it?

"what is YOUR math, and where will you spend it?"

Whatever, wish you weren't so clueless.

This whole "gun ban" band wagon everyone is deciding to jump on is just sensationalism, we as Sudbury residents understand what it's like to have death invade our schools. News vans descended on our quiet little hamlet, the headlines, the gossip, the blame. What I would like to know is where were your opinions for the last 45 weeks of the year? I didn't read any "Ban assault weapons" letters to the editor here, I didn't see any articles about "how handguns are dangerous?" or any other anti-gun propeganda. All I've seen and read is local politics, 3 or 5 selectment, who works for this town got a DUI, senior tax relief, prop 2 and a half overrides, school repairs, etc. Don't vote for Scott Brown, Don't vote for Elizabeth Warren, and assorded other party politics. If you really care about the issue, maybe you should try and do something about it. I'm gonna guess most of you will forget about your "anti gun" politics once the next big thing happens. Do I feel bad for the community of Newtown, Ct, families of the students and faculty of Sandy Hook Elementary school? Yes I do, it is a tragic event, I am sad for them. Do I think we should ban assault weapons? Nope. Banning people from buying guns is to fixing the problem as banning people from buying cars to fix drunk driving incidents. If you feel that stronly about it? Call your congresswoman and get something done. Posting in this OPINION section of an online blog? Not gonna change a thing, especially someones mind.

Aron-
Your point on $80,000 per year per school is a good one. When we are looking to pinch pennies on almost every front, this cost issue is a valid one. with every "solution" comes with a dear cost. Ban weapons? The Second Amendment rights are trampled. Ban violent video games? There goes the First Amendment. Throw the crazies in a mental hospital? Several amendments get violated there. Put armed guards everywhere? Enormous costs, especially if they belong to a union. That is why we need practical solutions. Ones we can afford to enact. And will ANY of those proposed solutions actually reduce gun deaths? I'm afraid the answer is "no".

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/12/23/School-Obama-s-Daughters-Attend-Has-11-Armed-Guards-Not-Counting-Secret-Service

God Bless and a Merry Christmas, and a Happy Holidays to all who blog here...and to those loved ones we've lost.

The gunman, William Spengler, had served more than 17 years in prison for beating his 92-year-old grandmother to death with a hammer in 1980 at the house next to where Monday's attack happened, Pickering said at afternoon news conference. Spengler, 62, was paroled in 1998 and had led a quiet life since, authorities said. Convicted felons are not allowed to possess weapons.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57560719/4-firefighters-shot-2-dead-in-upstate-n.y/

Arming the firefighters would be more to the point than passing another gun law we decline to enforce.

Pat Brown-
Don't give up. Every once in a while you'll actually run into an intelligent, reasoned discussion. You have to wade through insulting condensension occasionally, but actual exchanges of views can happen here. As far as passing yet another gun law that will "end these senseless killings" will end up doing nothing more than making those who pass the laws feel better. I predict an "assault weapons ban" will be passed soon...to no real effect. Without a multi-pronged approach involving arming teachers who volunteer to carry a concealed weapon in school, and a revamping of our national attitude about mental health care...there will be NO measurable lowering of these terrible events. This of course will lead to further calls for a complete and comprehensive ban on all citizens having ANY weapons in their homes more dangerous than a nine iron.

Not as funny as Aron the great. He knows everything about everything at his young age and has done nothing for another person in his life.

So, Aron, people who respond to your posts are "stalkers" huh? Wow, free speech seems to really frighten you doesn't it? Here...try this: if you have an opinion that you've actually put some thought into, let the world know what it is. Then, when it is exposed to critique by others, get ready, certain logical flaws may be exposed. Don't respond by calling them names or insulting their intelligence ...respond on the merits of the argument. It seems that ad hominum attacks are the first and last refuge of the Left, and real conversations with leftists such as aron, are doomed to go down the path of grade school playground taunts, leaving real decent people who actually want to converse within a blog site, standing there smeared with grimey useless insults, taunts, un-bunched panties and false accusations.
You make my self congratulatory attitude easy.
Instead of trying to strengthen your weak arguments by demeaning others, why don't you prove them wrong with FACTS or LOGIC? Try blogging with others as if they were standing in front of you, and not using the distance and anonymity of the Internet to hide behind? Do you speak to others face to face like you blog? I think not. Treat others like you lived next door to them. Blog like you will run into them at the dry cleaners tomorrow.
Argue your convictions, even if we disagree, with honor and intelligence, not with bile or suppressed anger.
Be nice.

What we are doing isn't 'BLOGGING.' It is 'COMMENTING.' The initial news story might constitute a 'blog post,' but all the comments after that are just that: 'blogs.'

Oh, wait. Dammit.

Aron
I'm sorry, is there THAT big of a difference between the definitions between "blogging" and "commenting"that you think that changes the essential crux of my comments? I was aiming at the level of civility of expression, not whether one is blogging or one is commenting. Doesn't the author of the comments made need to follow a certain level of civility, regardless of what you call your exchange? You, my friend, as well as other lefty commenters, predictably insults the person whom you are responding to when you run out of logic in your argument. One could set their watch by it. Why is that? Have you even asked yourself that? Yet, you seem to think that their is some kind of existential difference between the two activities, between "blogging" and "commenting". Either way, Aron, you are engaged in a conversation with another human being, one whos opinions ought to be respected, and the difference between yours and theirs ought yo be shown some level of tolerance. Call it what you like, but your repeated reaching into the old insult bag during your arguements seems to suggest an intrinsic weakness in your over arching philosophy, and may I suggest, your personality. Try doing what I suggested above. Attack my argument, not me personally. Can you DO that Aron? Because if you can't, you will always win the "chop fight" as we called it in High School, or the trash talking competition, but you will never win the arguement.

Aron
I am still waiting to hear from you on how conservatives are similar to Kristalnact. You were supposed to get to your computer which you were away from at the time, before you could give me and answer. That was....oh...a week and a half ago.
Just WHERE did you put that computer??
And I HAVE answered your comment about the cost of armed guards in schools. I even AGREED with you on that subject. (shock!) Scroll up and you will see it. Go up exactly 20 comment boxes and you will see it. 20.
Aron, When you pose an intelligent question, I will bend over backwards to engage with you on it, and if you don't insult me, I promise to not insult you.
Do you agree?
Aron, I am truely interested in your point of view. Honest to God. I WANT to know why you think the way you do. Its acyually interesting to me. I KNOW what I think. What I want is to know what YOU think. And most importantly, WHY. I may or may not change my point of view, nor do I expect you to change yours either as a result of these interactions.... But the point of talking is trading points of view, not trading insults, which I view as infantile. If you want to talk ...without calling names...I'm for that. But if you must make defiling the other as a "de rigueur" exercise, then yes, we can certainly ignore each other
Please consider my offer of civility.

Aron-
I honestly don't have ant solutions to offer you. This issue of our own citizens killing each other is a conundrum that is VERY complex, and has many threads, none of which, alone, will do ANYTHING. Sorry to disappoint. You comments about the high cost of guards is a valid one, one which I think will eliminate that idea as a possible solution.
As far as your " post Strasserism mixed with elements of Falangism" is not an explanation. Since I am not a political theoretician and have no formal training in that field, nor does anyone who might be interested to hear what you have to say here on these pages, since you made the comment, I was hoping for you to explain your comments to me. I have no idea what you meant. Can you school us in your area of expertise? I mean, since it was YOU that drew the comparison, it falls on you, logically, to expand as to why your comparison is apt.

Post-Strasser National Socialism began after the Night of Long Knives. In short, with the death of Gregor Strasser along with the leadership of the SA, any last vestiges of socialism within the National Socialist German Workers' Party was dead. Adolf Hitler was free to ally himself with the industrial concerns that allowed him continued power (not to mention providing so much impetus for the concentration camps: forced labor).

I see elements of Falangism in the near symbiosis of the modern Republican Party with the American Religious Right. It has gotten to the point where religion is nearly as important for Repiblicans as is their fealty to big business and the wealthy.

I'm glad to see you realize there is no easy solution to the gun issue in this country. I think a ban on high-cap magazines is only a start. I disagree with the AWB as written, as most elements are largely superficial. (Honestly, when was the last time you heard of a civilian killing someone with a rifle grenade?)

But the state mental institutions closed under President Reagan's watch desperately need to be re-opened. It is because of those closures homelessness is so epidemic, and we will continue to see more crazed killing further down the road.

In addition, the whole gun culture in the US needs to be re-evaluated. Ted Nugent at the NRA National Convention, need I say more?

I am all for owning firearms -- I own several. But the madness has to end.

Aron-
I will not be able to comment on your analysis. It is too esoteric for these pages, and I would have to become an active student of political theory to become familiar enough to refute or even agree with your opinions. Sorry. Not trying to dodge your question, it's just what you said is so much gobbledy goop to me, so I will have to plead ignorant. I WILL say that all modes of thought, throughout all of history, religion has its supporters and detractors, and they will always align themselves with one political party or another. Everyone has the right to defend their beliefs and to work for its preservation in society. That the right sided politics attracts the religious is no more damning than the anti religious is attracted to the left. That's just how the political dice has been thrown. No one is a bad guy for religion preferring one candidate or political party over another, no more than people who depend on welfare subsidies depend on one candidate or another. We ALL vote for our own interests. In America, everyone has that right to chose. Just because some failed political system attracted religious folks 60 years ago, doesn't make them equals.
How about this? Hitler banned guns before taking over Germany, but that isn't making the Democrats similar to Nazisim when The American Left call for gun bans does it? But because Hitler had ties to "industrial concerns"... now THAT proves conservatism and Nazisim are the same, right?

Aron- To your second post-
I believe AWB, as written, as you do, has too many holes, and multi bullet clips are too easily made in your basement. If you want one, you'll be able to get it. Besides, there are too many assault rifles AND clips in circulation. And they dont wear out. They will be with us, literally forever.
Reagan was wrong to close psych hospitals. I was actually in my residency in my psych rotation when they were shut down. I SAW the level of mentally ill folks that were about to be released on the street. I was appalled. But apparently the release was done from pressure by the ACLU. ( Look up the politics behind this drastic move) But the cost of re institutionalizing the mentally ill has a cost that now is beyond our current level of available funding. So that may never get fixed.
But "this madness needs to stop"? We agree. Will it? No sir, it will not.
It is the nature of humans to murder it's fellow creatures. If we can consciously turn a blind eye to Hitler, Mao, Bosnia and currently Hassan killing 20,000 (and counting) of his own people, you think we are going to do anything significant to slow down a relatively few school killings? (the operative word is "significant") David Chase in posts above makes an excellent point. We could save FAR more children's lives by simple acts like vaccinations, household cleaner safety, etc. ...yet we don't. You think we are going to split this country down the middle by dumping the 2nd amendment? Nope

Nor are you. LaPierre is the guy hired by the NRA to protect their lobby. What position would you EXPECT him to take? Trumka is the head of the UAW. His job is to protect the interests of the unions. Do you expect him to abandon his "It's not the unions fault" position even though the unions influence on job growth and economic recovery is detrimental to America? Of course not. Don't be surprised when you see a cat, it meows.
I am glad you are a strong supporter of the 2nd amendment. Everyone ought to be.
But the question is: what measures can we take about gun possession in this country that will EFFECTIVLY reduce gun violence, without completely removing the 2nd amendment? Nibbling at the edge of gun rights will do NOTHING to stop this crazy stuff going on. There are more guns than people in the US. You can't put the genie back in the bottle. Guns are everywhere, their numbers are increasing every time Obama burps, and guns never wear out or break. They last forever. Guns will ALWAYS be available to people, especially to ones that have evil acts planned. No effect will be seen if we pass an AWB...or even an outright ban on ALL guns will only decrease the number by a small amount. However, I expect an AWB to pass in the next 6 months. But it will do nothing, nada, zippo to mass shootings or the murder rate. But we "did"something!...and that is what the point of trying to legislate morality is all about. How it made us FEEL.

I appreciate your comments. Keep them coming

http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/12/listening_to_the_latest_media.html

Murder rate is down significantly. At the lowest level over the past century.

Security Worked, These are the words of Congressman Barney Frank after the United States Capitol Shooting Incident of 1998. The doctor’s didn’t protect the public. The killer had been diagnosed as a paranoid schizophrenic six years before but was released after testing as being of no danger to himself or anyone else. Furthermore, it was not the uniformed arm guards that stopped the murderer, it was a plain closed officer assigned to the dignitary protection detail that wounded the murderer. After the murder walked around the metal detector just inside of the entrance of the building and shooting one guard in the head killing him instantly and wounding the other. He was stopped, by the Massachusetts resident who was assigned to executive protection group for congressman, as the murder entered the outer office of a group of offices. They shoot at each other. Although the officer died from his wounds, he wounded the murderer enough to stop the carnage any further. Congressman Barney Frank was correct, Security Worked.

Don’t our children deserve the same protection?

Why didn’t government officials throughout the country put in a plan to protect our children?

I wish they introduce a bill to put all mentally sick people into mental institutions as well.

I have a question:...would any of you put a sign on your front door stating: "This is a gun free family and a gun free household. You are entering a gun free zone"? Please include your reasoning why or why not in your response.

David
When you say "if we had the gun regulation that we hope for", I don't know what that regulation is. The AWB? Complete removal of all weapons from every citizen? Somewhere in between? But regardless of your answer, my question still stands. Let's say ownership of any weapon, by any citizen was outlawed tomorrow. Millions of citizens turn in their weapons by the truck load in eager anticipation of a brighter tomorrow. The bad guys, of course, being bad guys, decline the opportunity to disarm. Would you, David, post that sign on your house?

Binder Woman-
Uhh....you KNOW that this site is FOR discussions, ...right?
If you are not logging in and typing your question to get into a discussion...why, exactly, are you even here? If you are not interested in a discussion, why would you not just go do something else? Just curious.

David-
I appreciate your reply. Perhaps my question was posed in a confusing manner. Let me restate: this was more of a rhetorical question. I wasnt asking how any gun ban might be implemented. Would you, in today's environment, EVER post such a sign prominently displayed on your front door? In fact, regardless of what gun control legislation that might be passed in the near future as I anticipate there will be, would such a sign be a good idea? You more or less answered that question with your comment "it would take years to get it where it would be safe to post such a sign"
From your answer I can see that you understand that such a sign wouldn't be safe.
I agree.
Which brings me to my point: if such a sign would not be safe in today's environment, why have we been putting such a sign on our SCHOOLS since 1975?

David
If such a sign indicating that the occupants of a home are unarmed and such a sign is unsafe... isn't it logical that the same sign announcing the occupants and employees of a school are unarmed equally unsafe? You say that history shows that schools are very safe. Then why are we even talking about how to prevent murders in schools in the future? Clearly school safety is the topic of day, and everyone is submitting ideas as to how we can improve it. You ask what would be the point of attacking schools? I don't know...why don't we ask the idiots that attack them? Clearly the days where we see schools as a "safe haven" are over. Talk of posting armed guards fails to address their prohibitive cost. My point is, If posting "gun free zone" signs on your home is a bad idea, why doesn't that make it a bad idea for anywhere else? With exception of the Giffords shooting, all the mass murders in the last 20 years have been committed in "gun free zones". Apparently criminals are for "gun free zones" as they make their jobs easier. I am looking for ways to help the situation, and one way I can think of that won't cost bazillions of dollars is to revoke the 1975 Federal Gun Free Zone Act" it creates a an area that essentially outlaws defending your self. I am certainly open to other ideas, but this sounds doable and certainly more effective than banning future assault weapons sales, when there are already millions of them already out there. THAT will do zero to help the situation

Steven,
So, people who the government has investigated and decided that they are allowed to possess a firearm are nuts.

So, should we consider teacher, who have to be certified to teach by the government, nuts. Also, the government is licenses and certifying many people who preform many activities; so, are all people licenses and who are certified should be considered nuts?

Dan
I've read your posts before about death reduction and the little things we can do to reduce deaths, and I totally agree. Mandatory vaccination alone would by far save more lives than banning guns, but we don't have the political will to force parents to do what is needed...so we don't. This shooting tragedy is simply a political opportunity. As you said, the window has opened and Obama is stepping through it. But let me return to the gun free zone issue. These zones are clearly not preventing crazies from doing their bad deeds. Right? The bad guys don't give a damn about any sign. If they have decided to commit heinous atrocities, do you think a sign "banning"guns will do anything to them except make them chuckle as they chamber their weapon. These aren't burglars who are motivated by money or your stereo to be stolen. They are crazed whack jobs who want to do as much damage as possible in order to get the noteriety they would not otherwise get in their loser lives. Doesn't it make sense to have SOMEONE there to have a weapon? We have guns in our homes for protection. To keep bad guys from stealing our stuff or threatening our family. Why shouldn't that logic also apply to a place where we put the most valuable things in our lives, all day? Are our TV's more valuable than our kids? Dan, if it makes sense to protect our homes with a gun, why doesn't it make sense to protect our MOST valuable possession? Bigger fish to fry? Not if it's my kid you are talking about.