Alright, let's go ahead and talk about Obama's gun control proposals

[BlaqueKatt]

As for private sellers - I don't agree with this. This, in my opinion, stems from the myth about 'gun shows' where people think millions of guns are being sold without background checks.

Not so much that, we just had a shooting here in Wisconsin, the shooter purchased the firearm at a gunshow(from a private seller) on a saturday, shot his estranged wife and several others-she had an order of protection which prohibited him from owning a firearm(the ones he owned had been confiscated), this is why it's an issue.

[Andara Bledin]

Not so much that, we just had a shooting here in Wisconsin, the shooter purchased the firearm at a gunshow(from a private seller) on a saturday, shot his estranged wife and several others-she had an order of protection which prohibited him from owning a firearm(the ones he owned had been confiscated), this is why it's an issue.

Other than banning private sales entirely (completely unenforceable and utterly undesirable) or making private sales overly onerous (also entirely unenforceable), there is no way to stop this type of thing from happening.

^-.-^

[Nekojin]

Almost all of law is reactionary - you can't really stop someone who is dead-set on doing something illegal and/or violent. As the saying goes, "When seconds count, the police are only minutes away."

The fact that he has a restraining order is no deterrent if he has no regard for the punishment for breaking the restraining order (on top of the murder charge). So he violated several laws in order to kill his wife - she'd still be just as dead, and he'd be just as guilty, if he'd used a chainsaw, or a fireman's axe, or a big-ass monkey wrench.

[PepperElf]

Other than banning private sales entirely (completely unenforceable and utterly undesirable) or making private sales overly onerous (also entirely unenforceable), there is no way to stop this type of thing from happening.

^-.-^

This.

You may know of someone who bought a gun sale privately - even at a gun show. But that person bought from a non-FFL.

After all if ALL gun sales at gun shows were "background check free" like the media suggests then... why did I get a background check when I bought mine?


The reason is because the media is overplaying minor data and misrepresenting it. It's not as dramatic to say that most sales at gun shows are run through NICS (or get sold to CCW permit holders), and that only some sales are private person-to-person sales.

It's much more dramatic (and sells more stories) to mislead the people into thinking a gun show is a free-for-all with no checks at all and lawlessness everywhere you look.


Edit: found some good links about this too.
The gun show "loophole" - from 2001 but still good data. Especially the explanation of the "loophole" and that it doesn't actually exist.

There Is No Gun Show Loophole

The claim that a quarter to half of the vendors at most gun shows are unlicensed dealers is true only if one counts vendors selling items other than guns (e.g., books, clothing, ammunition, knives, holsters and other accessories) as unlicensed dealers.

Federal law requires that any person "engaged in the business" of selling firearms possess a valid Federal Firearms License. This is true whether one is selling guns for a living at a gun store or at a gun show. Licensed dealers must conduct an NICS check prior to the transfer of any firearm - regardless of where that transfer occurs. The majority of sellers at gun shows are licensed dealers and do conduct checks.

Individuals who occasionally sell or trade guns from their personal collection need not be licensed nor are they required to conduct a NICS check prior to the sale - whether the sale occurs at a gun show, at their home or out of the trunk of their car. Congress never intended a person who wants to sell a spare hunting rifle to a friend, a father who wishes to give a .22 rifle to his son or a widow who wishes to dispose of her late husband's firearms through an Internet auction or an ad in the local paper to undertake a NICS background check.

Thus, the same laws apply to gun shows as to all other gun transactions.

I would personally say... don't just take my word for it though. Actually go to a gunshow and look. What you'll see... is going to match what's described above. Although I'm disappointed they didn't mention the beef jerky. Seriously, a gun show just isn't right unless there's someone selling beef jerky. At least 2-3 tables of it. And that's at the small 200-table shows.

The people at tables engaged in actually selling NICS-required items ARE FFLs.

[Greenday]

http://www.mikehuckabee.com/2013/1/a...on-gun-control

An article written by a guy who owns guns, shoots competitively, trains people in proper gun use, and helped train many government officials. It's really long, so I don't expect many people to read it. But he certainly proves his point.

[PepperElf]

http://www.mikehuckabee.com/2013/1/a...on-gun-control

An article written by a guy who owns guns, shoots competitively, trains people in proper gun use, and helped train many government officials. It's really long, so I don't expect many people to read it. But he certainly proves his point.

Thank you!

I thought that article sounded familiar. I've read it before and was actually trying to find it again, cos he's the one who made that wonderful point about armed CCW vs mass murderers.

And here is the nail in the coffin for Gun Free Zones. Over the last fifty years, with only one single exception (Gabby Giffords), every single mass shooting event with more than four casualties has taken place in a place where guns were supposedly not allowed.

Oh and this one too.

The average number of people shot in a mass shooting event when the shooter is stopped by law enforcement: 14. The average number of people shot in a mass shooting event when the shooter is stopped by civilians: 2.5. The reason is simple. The armed civilians are there when it started.

[wolfie]

Two items about gun shows. One is strictly for laughs. The other is something I read in various papers over the past week or so.

It seems that in one day, there were 5 people shot (no fatalities) at gun shows in 3 separate incidents.

1) Shotgun being inspected (presumably by show personnel) on being brought in goes off, 3 people hit.

2) Customer leaving, reloading his sidearm (loaded personal weapons not allowed on the premises), it goes off. One person hit.

3) Dealer looking over a pistol he just bought. Naturally, he unloads it first (i.e. removes the magazine). Too bad there's still a round in the chamber. One person hit.

If you can't handle a firearm SAFELY, keep yer cottonpickin' mitts off it!. #1 is the only one where (depending on circumstances) I'd have any sympathy for the gun owner. If it was an ignorant (in the sense of "I don't know ANYTHING about guns except that they go 'bang', and it's not a good idea to be in front of one when it does") person wanting to sell an inherited gun, they could (reasonably) figure that it would be safer to have show personnel who (presumably) know aboug guns check/unload it than to try to do it themselves.

#2 should have his CWP revoked, or at least suspended until he can show he's been "cleared" in remedial training. After all, he has shown that he is unable to SAFELY handle a basic weapon-handling task (i.e. load it without it going off accidentally).

#3 is (IMNSHO) the worst. As a dealer, he should be familiar with the fact that autoloaders can have a round in the chamber when the magazine is removed, and act accordingly. He should lose his license over this.

From what I've read, PROPER protocol when handling a weapon (let's use a gun show/gun store as an example) is:
- Owner picks the weapon up from the display.
- Owner "clears" it (i.e. checks visually to make sure it is not loaded), and hands it to prospective purchaser.
- Prospective purchaser "clears" it again, before examining it for condition and function.
- If at any time it leaves the hand of the person holding it (i.e. purchaser puts it down to get a magnifying glass out of their pocket), its loading status has returned to "unknown". Clear it again after picking it back up.

[crashhelmet]

There Is No Gun Show Loophole

The claim that a quarter to half of the vendors at most gun shows are unlicensed dealers is true only if one counts vendors selling items other than guns (e.g., books, clothing, ammunition, knives, holsters and other accessories) as unlicensed dealers.

Federal law requires that any person "engaged in the business" of selling firearms possess a valid Federal Firearms License. This is true whether one is selling guns for a living at a gun store or at a gun show. Licensed dealers must conduct an NICS check prior to the transfer of any firearm - regardless of where that transfer occurs. The majority of sellers at gun shows are licensed dealers and do conduct checks.

Individuals who occasionally sell or trade guns from their personal collection need not be licensed nor are they required to conduct a NICS check prior to the sale - whether the sale occurs at a gun show, at their home or out of the trunk of their car. Congress never intended a person who wants to sell a spare hunting rifle to a friend, a father who wishes to give a .22 rifle to his son or a widow who wishes to dispose of her late husband's firearms through an Internet auction or an ad in the local paper to undertake a NICS background check.

Thus, the same laws apply to gun shows as to all other gun transactions.

"The majority of sellers at gun shows are licensed dealers and do conduct checks."

Majority, not Entirety.

"Federal law requires that any person "engaged in the business" of selling firearms possess a valid Federal Firearms License."

You ONLY have to be licensed if you're in the business of selling guns. Any John Q. Citizen can sell from his private collection without having to conduct a background check.

"Individuals who occasionally sell or trade guns from their personal collection need not be licensed nor are they required to conduct a NICS check prior to the sale - whether the sale occurs at a gun show, at their home or out of the trunk of their car."

Technically, the Loop Hole doesn't exist because it's not limited to Gun Shows.

BUT...

There is a lot of personal dealing going through gun shows. It's one of the easiest places to meet buyers and sellers since sites like eBay and Craigslist prohibit the selling of firearms.

[PepperElf]

"The majority of sellers at gun shows are licensed dealers and do conduct checks."

Majority, not Entirety.

"Federal law requires that any person "engaged in the business" of selling firearms possess a valid Federal Firearms License."

You ONLY have to be licensed if you're in the business of selling guns. Any John Q. Citizen can sell from his private collection without having to conduct a background check.

"Individuals who occasionally sell or trade guns from their personal collection need not be licensed nor are they required to conduct a NICS check prior to the sale - whether the sale occurs at a gun show, at their home or out of the trunk of their car."

Technically, the Loop Hole doesn't exist because it's not limited to Gun Shows.

BUT...

There is a lot of personal dealing going through gun shows. It's one of the easiest places to meet buyers and sellers since sites like eBay and Craigslist prohibit the selling of firearms.

yes and no. it does depend on the size you go to. at the small dinky 200 table shows there's not many people unloading personal firearms

at the bigger shows there are people walking around with signs etc ... but the number of sales that happen are not as many as the media wants you to think.

the problem is that many people think - and are encouraged to retain this belief - that all gun sales (business or personal) are check-free.

and they're encouraged to think that criminals are all buying up at gun shows, even though research has shown that relatively few use this method. 'm not saying no one does, just that it's far less than what the media wants you to believe.



The reason for this is that many media outlets want to push/sell the drama. sometimes it's just because drama sells, and sometimes it's because... the facts don't support the views they want to express.

that's why it's best to actually go to a show and see for oneself.

[crashhelmet]

yes and no. it does depend on the size you go to. at the small dinky 200 table shows there's not many people unloading personal firearms

at the bigger shows there are people walking around with signs etc ... but the number of sales that happen are not as many as the media wants you to think.

the problem is that many people think - and are encouraged to retain this belief - that all gun sales (business or personal) are check-free.

and they're encouraged to think that criminals are all buying up at gun shows, even though research has shown that relatively few use this method. 'm not saying no one does, just that it's far less than what the media wants you to believe.



The reason for this is that many media outlets want to push/sell the drama. sometimes it's just because drama sells, and sometimes it's because... the facts don't support the views they want to express.

that's why it's best to actually go to a show and see for oneself.

Yes and No??? What is there to be "Yes and No" about?

The only thing the media is getting wrong is calling it a loophole, because it's not a loophole. They are making it out to be that it only happens at gun shows and that all transactions at a gun show are without a background check. What they're failing to point out is that it's perfectly legal to buy and sell between private parties without a background check ANYWHERE. At a gun show, on the street, or in a house, it doesn't matter.

Sites like eBay and Craigslist don't prohibit gun sales because it's illegal. They prohibit them because they don't require a background check.

One of my old roommates buys and sells guns like there's no tomorrow. He's got a serious problem with impulse shopping. He sees something, wants it, and buys it. When the lustre wears off, or his wife gives him enough shit, he turns around and sells it. Guns more than anything.

[Panacea]

Me: I distrust this. "Federal agencies" - which ones? Does the IRS need to know what guns I own for example? This sounds too generic for my tastes.

I think you're jumping to conclusions that Federal agencies means every federal agency. It means federal law enforcement primarily. It's not about who owns what guns. It's about what gun crimes are committed by whom, and is that information being accessed to do background checks.

Me: Um, correct me if I'm wrong but don't we already have laws in place requiring this information be made available to NICS?

Mental health professions are currently caught in a bind when it comes to reporting patients to systems to keep them from buying guns. HIPAA actually allows them to make these reports. The EO simply clarifies what the law already says. Unfortunately, there's been a lot of confusion on that issue, and the mental health professionals are erring on the side of NOT reporting, to avoid violating confidentiality laws.

Me: So free money if they agree to follow this Information Plan? Plus, remember my reservations about item 1 - which federal agencies get access. This makes me wonder if they're trying to ram it down the state's throats.

The states are usually happy to take this kind of money. It's why the legal drinking age is 21: states with drinking ages of under 21 lose federal highway money. But no one really complains because the laws are good ones.

All Obama wants the states to do is share information so the next mass killer doesn't just skip a state line to buy his guns. What's wrong with that?

Me: ... This one sets of warning bells. "Review categories" ... so people who are legally mentally healthy right now may get reclassified as unhealthy? And just what criteria will decide this? .

To be classified as mentally ill, you have to have seen a mental health professional who makes a determination the person should not own guns and reports it to the appropriate system. There is some legitimate concern about this because depression is so widespread, but I don't see any nefarious conspiracy to single out people the government doesn't like and take away their gun rights. And even if there were, so what? Anyone who thinks they're going to start an armed rebellion is both nuts and doomed to failure; the government doesn't NEED to take away our guns.

As long as there is a due process for recovered mentally ill patients to recoup their gun rights the same way felons can get their gun rights restored, then this is not a problem.

Me: holy mother of fuck. So if I have to defend myself with my gun, I'd have to pay for a background check ($$$) just to get my gun back?

Yes, you would. I don't see a problem with this. The cops don't know who you are. Even if you legally defend yourself, say if a burglar breaks in, doesn't mean you were legally allowed to own a gun in the first place. If you have a felony conviction and your rights haven't been restored, or if you are not allowed to own guns due to DV protective orders, or mental health issues, then you should NOT get that gun back, even if it was seized as part of an investigation into what eventually was shown to be a legal act on your part.

Some guns have ended up back on the streets, and this should not happen. They should be melted down.

Me: FFLs already know how to run background checks.

They do. But private sellers don't. The order relates to FFL's running the checks for private sellers as a service. While that's not required by law, it's a good idea to encourage by offering the service.

Me: Um... maybe. Believe me I'm all for gun safety. However I'd like to know what is going into it first. .

This is just being paranoid. No one has suggested a campaign to discourage gun ownership, and I see no evidence that this is what Obama has in mind.

Me: hmm... so we can be like California and if your gun is stolen from a safe that's not government-approved you get fucked over?

Why is it so bad to have standards. The EO says review the standards currently in place--they already exist. That's it. It doesn't say anything about fucking anyone over. Many states (if not all) have laws and regulations about securing weapons in homes already.

Me: combine this with 8 and you'll see what I'm getting at.

This isn't what Obama is getting at with this. He's talking about tracking guns back to the straw buyers who buy them legally, then sell them to criminals. The single most common source of criminals getting guns is to buy them from a straw buyer in a state with lax gun laws (like Virginia) and smuggle them to states with strict gun laws (like New York).

If your gun is confiscated and used later in a crime, then the tracking system will actually clear you from responsibility.

Me: eh, kinda neutral really. Although to be honest this info is already available if you know what you're doing.

Actually, the information is NOT available. Congress has restricted funding for these kinds of studies. Credible, scientific research in this area is something policymakers need to see.

Me: Preferably one who won't let guns "walk" to across the border.

I won't defend Fast and Furious; it was a boneheaded program and the people who cooked it up have been fired, and should be subject to civil sanction.

But using that as an excuse to do nothing over the problems of guns, or to appoint an effective ATF director is a crock.

Me: Kinda neutral, although I find it interesting that they have to train law enforcement?

It's not just law enforcement, it's school officials and first responders. You know, like the firefighters who were sniped on by that nut while fighting a fire?

Many law enforcement agencies are small and don't have the resources to train for these kinds of scenarios. Support for this kind of training is a good idea for these small agencies so they can provide an effective response.

Me: Neutral...ish. I'm just wondering how much of this "enforcement" is going to be "guns are icky" campaigns.

You really seem determined to believe the worst. Again, this is just support for small communities who want to deal with gun violence in their areas.

Me: A disease now? Maybe it's me but isn't the CDC suppose to take care of medical issues such as spreading illness?

The American Academy of Pediatrics, as well as the CDC, have considered guns to be a major public health crisis for a couple of decades now. After a couple of really good scientific studies on gun injuries in kids done by the CDC Congress shut down funding of these studies at the urging of the NRA.

Florida has a law prohibiting doctors from asking parents if a gun is in the home. This is just insane. The goal is not to report to the feds or take away guns. It's to educate parents on how to secure weapons so kids don't get into them and shoot themselves, or their playmates, by accident . . . something that happens far too tragically often and is completely preventable.

Now their job's going to be researching guns? .... Maybe it's me but, it may tie in with #4 - reclassifying what is mental illness.

NO! They will be researching gun injuries and the circumstances that lead to them, so that the right kinds of efforts can be made to educate gun owners on how to safely use or secure their weapons, and identify the right risk factors that make gun ownership an unacceptable risk for some people.

The American Psychiatric Association decides what mental illness is based on multiple criteria, none of which is owning a gun.

This EO is actually one of the best of the bunch. We NEED to treat our problems with guns and gun injuries as a public health issue if we're really going to solve it.

Me: kinda neutral again. there's already a lot of stuff out there. if you look for it.

Why should people have to work to look for it? Getting the information out there and easily accessible is a GOOD idea.

gun safety technology has always been a trade off - balancing what's easy for the gun-owner to use, but hard for the criminals to break into.

There's always a risk vs benefit issue with regulation. Personally I'd rather have technology that keeps not only criminals, but kids from getting into guns.

Me: WHAT THE FUCK? Why the FUCK is it my doctor's business? Why the hell should this even be in my medical records?

Because it's a legitimate health issue. Doctors should ask if guns are in the home of parents with kids, so they can educate the parents about gun safety. They should be able to identify risks to DV victims, or other victims of violence.

The information is used to help patients, not create databases for the government. There is no reason to object to this. If you the patient don't want to answer the question, don't answer the question. Nothing will happen; you have the right not to talk about this.

Is this part of #4 - reclassifying what's mentally ill? Will this determine my coverage, or opt me out from certain forms of care?

Oh, for pity's sake. NO! No one is "reclassifying" what's mentally ill, and NONE of these EO's do that. The APA determines what constitutes mental illness via the DSM IV TR (soon to be DSM V when it is published). What makes a mental illness is based on evidence based scientific research and consensus of the APA members: health care professionals, not the government.

And not all mental health conditions would prohibit someone from owning a gun. Only an illness combined with a risk for violence would do so.

For the insurance companies to charge more in health insurance premiums for gun ownership, there would need to be a different kind of research (actuarial research) that shows a greater financial risk to the insurance company for under writing purposes. That's a horse of a different color and completely off topic.

Better yet... With #2 and the freedom of information with the federal agencies - doesn't this cross HIPAA boundaries?

No, it does NOT. HIPAA already clearly states that information may be transmitted for treatment or payment. For example, I don't need the patient to sign a HIPAA form to call another nurse to give report when transferring a patient.

HIPAA also explicitly says it does not apply to those circumstances where health care providers are mandated to report. If a patient says to me "I'm going to kill my wife when I get home," HIPAA does not prevent me from calling the police.

However, the rules are complex and have created a lot of confusion, and all these EOs do is remove that confusion to let the law do what it is already supposed to do.

What will this information be used for?

It will let health care providers report people who they believe are dangerous to background check systems so they can't buy guns. It will let researchers do research on gun injuries and violence so lawmakers can make better policy decisions.

Me: so we have an executive action telling people to ... obey laws that are already in place.

It's not as clear cut as you try to make it. Mental health professionals really have been in a bind on this with unclear regulations that put them at risk no matter what they do. I have a friend who is a psychologist who has run into this problem. This is badly needed clarification

me: Maybe. Since these are officially officers they can carry, right?

SRO's are usually state certified law enforcement officers, and yes if they are a state certified LEO they can carry. If they are not certified LEO's they cannot carry.

This EO actually goes along with the incredibly insensitive NRA claim that armed security would make schools safer. I don't have a problem with this one, but I don't think it will have any impact on the real issue we are having to deal with: what to do about the sheer number of guns that are out there in the hands of people who don't use them responsibly.

Me: Neutral. Just don't fuck it up.

I don't understand why you'd be neutral on plans to help schools, hospitals, and churches develop safety plans. But the "don't fuck it up" isn't very neutral.

Me: ... maybe neutral. but after #s 4 & 16 my distrust levels are high. I want to be sure the government isn't going to use medical data to restrict my rights as a gun owner. or reclassify healthy people just to remove their rights.

First of all, the government doesn't "classify" people as mentally ill. Health care professionals do that, and I don't see why you would want the mentally ill to have access to guns. It wouldn't remove your access to the courts, so a block to buying guns can easily be challenged.

Just how does asking a patient if they own a gun restrict their rights in any way?

[Panacea]

1) Follow the laws that were already in place. Including the laws requiring medical personnel to report data. I propose if they had done this in the first place then there'd be less trouble.

That's what these EO's DO!!!!

2) Reconsider "gun free zones". [/quote]

This is the one thing you've said I actually agree with. While I don't think people should be bringing guns in schools, it actually does nothing to prevent the kind of gun violence we're talking about.

Some states already have armed teachers even. Perhaps we should look to those schools to see how they've functioned and what their plans of action are.

What state arms teachers? I don't think even Texas actually arms its teachers, and its' a stupid idea on its face.

3) Stop using emotion to fuel debates. This detracts from actual facts about firearms. Meaning no more lining kids up while you push a gun-debate for the emotion factor.

Pepper, you WHOLE line of argument in this post has been using rampant paranoia, mistrust of government, ie emotion to support your arguments.

It would be a lot easier to have a rational debate about guns if you would admit that we do actually need to have some regulation on guns and gun ownership. It makes NO sense to require a license to operate a 2500 lb vehicle that can kill, and not regulate guns, which are designed to kill.

This is a serious endeavor. What we decide on WILL affect our rights in years to come - and the rights of our children.

True. The most important right it will affect is the very right to life itself . . . a right under pressure from unregulated gun ownership.

and on a personal note, if one citizen is worthy of being protected by firearms (be it their own, or an armed guard) then all citizens are worthy of it. we are all suppose to be equal, no?

I want to be protected by someone who actually knows what he is doing, who knows how to keep his guns out of the wrong hands, and not some yahoo who wants to own a gun to flash at people to look "cool."

I for one, am a bit tired of being "preached at" by politicians, hollywood actors, higher ups in the entertainment business and other armed/protected citizens about my gun rights.

Rights have to be balanced by responsibility. The NRA fights every effort to inject responsibility into the discussion. That's a big problem.

[Panacea]

Pretty sure he was being facetious, here.

Oh. Sorry. Asperger's Moment there.

And how close were they to the victim?

My commentary was directed at the idea that a gun, by it's very presence, gave a person the ability to kill anyone that they could see, which belies either a notable lack of familiarity with guns and their capabilities or is outrageous hyperbole.

^-.-^

Distance: some close (a few feet), some not close (50-100 feet). With the exception of the suicides, they were all the result of domestic violence attacks, drug deals gone bad, or gang bangers having a go with one another.

actually those kits are HIGHLY ILLEGAL(and have been since 2006), Also a full auto Mac 90, would go through a 75 round drum in 7 seconds(firing rate of 800 rounds/minute)

We did this back in '96. I didn't know it was made illegal; it was legal back then.

And yea, it didn't take long at all to unload that drum.

That would be the Bath school Massacre, Bath Michigan, 1927.

Whoa Thanks for the link (I didn't doubt you, just didn't know---am now sorry I do )

[BlaqueKatt]

This is the one thing you've said I actually agree with. While I don't think people should be bringing guns in schools, it actually does nothing to prevent the kind of gun violence we're talking about.
What state arms teachers? I don't think even Texas actually arms its teachers, and its' a stupid idea on its face.

In fact, my state laws allow for somebody with a concealed weapons permit to carry a gun in a school right now. Yes. Utah has armed teachers. We have for several years now.

Actually the previously posted article addresses this very issue-and it's not "stupid"

Now when I say teachers carrying concealed weapons on Facebook I immediately get a bunch of emotional freak out responses. You can’t mandate teachers be armed! Guns in every classroom! Emotional response! Blood in the streets!

No. Hear me out. The single best way to respond to a mass shooter is with an immediate, violent response. The vast majority of the time, as soon as a mass shooter meets serious resistance, it bursts their fantasy world bubble. Then they kill themselves or surrender. This has happened over and over again.

The average number of people shot in a mass shooting event when the shooter is stopped by law enforcement: 14. The average number of people shot in a mass shooting event when the shooter is stopped by civilians: 2.5. The reason is simple. The armed civilians are there when it started.

The teachers are there already. The school staff is there already. Their reaction time is measured in seconds, not minutes. They can serve as your immediate violent response. Best case scenario, they engage and stop the attacker, or it bursts his fantasy bubble and he commits suicide. Worst case scenario, the armed staff provides a distraction, and while he’s concentrating on killing them, he’s not killing more children.

But teachers aren’t as trained as police officers! True, yet totally irrelevant. The teacher doesn’t need to be a SWAT cop or Navy SEAL. They need to be speed bumps.
Over the last fifty years, with only one single exception (Gabby Giffords), every single mass shooting event with more than four casualties has taken place in a place where guns were supposedly not allowed.

[Panacea]

Actually the previously posted article addresses this very issue-and it's not "stupid"

It's horrifically STUPID. Teachers are trained to educate. Armed confrontation is NOT part of their job description. Guns in the class room would first of all create an air of intimidation in the classroom that is not conducive to a good learning environment.

Secondly, arming teachers means the teachers have to 1) be trained in the safe handling of fire arms, and 2) trained in when NOT to use them.

Understanding when to and when not to use a fire arm is a very important part of law enforcement training. Many prospective police officers fail this part of the training (which includes a Hogan's Alley exercise), and do not graduate.

Now you and Mr. Huckabee are proposing that we put people who are not law enforcement officers, who do not have this training, into classrooms with guns? We already have too many incidents of teachers who lose control in a classroom and are charged with assaulting students: here's a quick link to recent news reports on this on Google. And you want to add guns to this mix??!?!?!?!?

Also, no where in Mr. Huckabee's blog post does it say what state already arms teachers: because none do. Several states are considering it. That's not the same thing, and it is unlikely to pass even in conservative states. Parents would be in an uproar.