The NRA’s chief spokesman, Wayne T. LaPierre, got more publicity than he ever has before when he came out in favor of getting an armed guard in every public school. This was in response to the Newtown killings.
He was after a sound bite. He got it.
He called for the end of the gun-free school zone.
“The only way to answer that question is to face up to the truth. Politicians pass laws for Gun-Free School Zones. They issue press releases bragging about them. They post signs advertising them.
“And in so doing, they tell every insane killer in America that schools are their safest place to inflict maximum mayhem with minimum risk.”
When you call for more government, you need to ask two questions: (1) Who will pay for this? (2) What will it cost? Armed guards in every school would be very expensive. Sadly, he did not go into details on financing.
He made it clear that the gun-free school zone is a very bad idea.
Who was behind the idea of gun-free schools, anyway? Why, it was Wayne T. LaPierre!
Well, maybe not behind it, exactly. But he was surely front and center with it. When the 1999 version of this 1995 Republican Party version of the 1990 law needed expert testimony, Mr. LaPierre was there. He said this:
“We think it’s reasonable to support the federal Gun-Free School Zones Act. What’s unreasonable is letting 6,000 students caught with illegal guns at school go, prosecuting only 13 of them the past two years.”
But in 2012, he wanted a sound bite. I could have supplied him with one: School-Free Gun Zones. I defended this idea here. Problem: the idea is not politically correct. It calls for a reduction of civil government, not an increase.
I have a fall-back position: every public school teacher should be trained in the use of a handgun. Then every teacher would be supplied with one by the school. Every morning, a teacher would be handed a .357 magnum from the school’s arsenal. Make every teacher an armed guard. There would be an up-front expense, but no full-time armed guard on each school’s payroll.
Every school would have as many armed guards as it has teachers and administrators.
This would call attention to the vulnerable condition of children in public schools. Home schools do not have these risks. But the nation’s school districts don’t want to remind voters of this difference in school safety. Here is their sound bite: Blame Guns, Not Schools.
My suggestion: any teacher refusing to get trained and pack iron would be fired and replaced. No more squeamish, fearful old women of both sexes in our classrooms. I have a sound bite for this, too: Get Packed or Get Packing.
I love a good sound bite.
Only a liberal could argue that gun free zones anywhere including schools increases safety. Malarkey. More guns = less crime. Just as democrat controlled, gun restrictive cities equals more crime. Much more. This isn't about controlling guns, it's about controlling you.
the only reason the armed guards in school was poo-pooed, was that it WAS from the NRA.
Obama's kids;' school has 11 armed guards.
guns out of schools that were in students hands not guards, police, or staff.
Signs denoting that an armed security person is on the premises at all times is the obvious answer. Occasional exposure of such a person will reinforce that IMPRESSION and discourage the idea of any shooter finding no resistance to a proposed attack on those premises. Tasers should be provided to persons who might have reservations about shooting a youth with a gun as a taser only disables a person rather than killing such a person with a gun,allowing ample time to call police and have them arrive in time to restrain the attacker from further action.
Looks like Gary North tweaked La Pierre's statement. I see you caught this also. good job.
While I agree with most of the above comments, teachers should not be issued .357 revolvers. A .357 is too hard for most people to control. Most revolvers have terrible grips. So, a Glock in 9mm would be a better choice. There would be nothing wrong with a S&W, Kahr, or Sig, either. The second concern is that the teachers should be well trained with their own weapons. You do not become proficient with a rented gun. A $1000 annual stipend for proficiency and free, high-quality training would be a good initial concept.
I live in San Francisco and I've got to say that for over 20 years that I know of, there has been armed San Francisco police officers stationed in some of our High Schools. These lib politicians can deny or excuse this all they want. The point is that the police have been in these schools on a regular basis. So what's up with this garbage about gun-free school zones?
Obama is surrounded by guns, too. Secret Service agents don't carry pillows…
Legislators are responsible for the unintended consequences of their laws, and so are their "expert witnesses".
No legislation will solve this issue. I mean that in both ways it can be taken.
1) There is no possible law that could ever prevent a determined shooter, and
2) Not having a law would be better, as it would allow for thousands of laboratories of experimentation, leaving would-be shooters guessing as to the security precautions taken at any given location.
I'll train them for free. I bet most range owners would, too.
Gun free for us, not for them.
what an asinine thought ….. more guns great idea .
only this country would give you stupid asinine answers like that .
there are many examples of countries that did without guns and have fared very very well .
are schools the only public environment for a gunman to go to ?
oh wait I forgot about movie theaters or maybe even nurseries. how about gymnastics schools , dance schools so on and so forth the list goes on and on .
just arm everybody that’s the ticket . this country is full of knuckleheads .
I feel you are uninformed. the countries that have banned legal guns – their crime problems did not disappear. the crimes with guns in england and australia have almost doubled. The reason they are not publicized much is that the guns are already banned so that dog is not longer available to shoot.
States with concealed carry have a significantly lower crime rate. Illinois, specifically chicago has had pretty much a total gun ban since 1975. It has the highest murder rate other than detroit. it is double the killings in Afghanistan in a years time for cripe sake.
Everyone armed? No. But it should be available to those who will get licensed, trained, and trained some more. Liability insurance should be required as would an annual training requirement.
Places that are marked 'gun free' have always been a crime magnet. our 'drug free zone' schools have some of the worst problems with drugs outside the inner city.
That the NRA is promoting the same position that Bill Clinton once advocated only goes to (once again) expose how compromised the NRA tends to be. Think about it, the government shouldn't be involved in the education of our children in the first place. Why add to the tax burden by hiring a policeman for what two or more armed teachers can do. For every teacher armed the potential for protection is multiplied that much more over one lone cop.
Check out Gun Owners of America for an more uncompromising gun organization. Listen Executive Director Larry Pratt's views regarding the Biblical responsibility to bear arms in protection of ourselves, families, and neighbors versus the Second Amendment "rights" to do the same at http://www.bibleversusconstitution.org/tapelist.h….
Will you shsre with us those places that banned guns, but everything is OK?
I agree, a .357 is way beyond what most people can control, A small lady teacher, (or male) who missed their first shot, would play heck trying to resight on target , if a second shot was needed.
Remington makes a 9MM compact, that has a mag for 16 shots, which gives plenty of ammo to stop 2 or 3 people. Additionally, ammunition should be designed for max stopping power, which should enhance the minimum exit capability
Gary, I must disagree with you, though not quite as stronglyb as with Mr, La Pierre…. the solution is stupidly simple, and cheap. Repeal the Federal Gun Free School Zones act in its entirety. THEN, with the "gun free " insanity ended, no more goldfish bowls. Instead, ANY person already lawfully able to carry their own defense weapon would be able to do so IN THE SCHOOLS, just as we, millions of us, now do to the bank, restaurants, shopping malls, parks, bus, coffeeshop….. at that point, perps such as Lanza and the crazies that shot up Columbine and Virgina Tech would never know whether, or how many, armed individuals might be on hand to take them out before they could do much damage. Don't forget, the Aurora, Colorado, theatre was a designated Gun Free Zone as well.. nowhere near the closest theatre to his home that played that film that night, but the ONLY one designated "gun free". Funny, he didn't go to any of the others, now, did he? Conicidence? Hardly. This way, any given school COULD HAVE any number of armed defenders at any time. No putative perp could know. The era of the goldfish bowl replete with defenseless schoolchildren.theatregoers would end. At NO COST to the taxpayer. Your solution requires funding and government intervention. Besides, not all defenders would want the proffered .357 revolver. Some would carry something else.. but it would be THEIRS< and they would know it well. No one to be forced to carry.. but ALL must be open to anyone else to carry.
Oh my Mr. North, your idea is jest as bad as Wayne’s. Maybe even WORSE. Spreading the ease of use of guns near children is just a BAD IDEA.
What if one of the teacher’s uses it on his/her students for whatever reasons. BECAUSE UNDER YOUR METHOD IT WILL HAPPEN.
What’s wrong with you gun guy- anyway, lately? Falling for the trap the liberals put you in? It’s not the gun’s fault nor is it the gun solution!!!
Get the facts out, all were under psychiatric care and UNDER psycotropic drugs AND God and the Bible have been removed from schools.
YOU COULD BEGIN FROM THERE!!!!!!!!!
Armed guards at school would be about as effective as the border patrol. There are plenty of "Minute Man" minded teachers who would gladly make the schools safe. Shutting down all the schools would be the best solution. Here is the video of the maiden flight of the world's only all-steel structured, class 103 ultralight airplane that was designed, built and flown by a home-schooled aero engineer who never took a formal engineering course, flying lesson or even sat in the front seat of a flying airplane. Just reading books and praying for the Spirit described in Nehemiah 9: 20 ("Thou gavest also thy good spirit to instruct them…"), did it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9GYaelwdHkw. Of course, this modern day Bezelel (see Exodus 31) would love to teach, in lieu of paying taxes, but is not welcome in Babylon's indoctrination-centered system.
Has the Tea Party now gone Liberal ?? LaPierre has only pointed out that the Gun Free Zone School Signs point out to Terroist's ,of any kind, that there are "No Guns Here". As a Life Member of the National Rifle Assn., I believe Gary North is one of those "hidden" Anti-Gun People that talk out of both sides of their mouth's, depending on who they are talking to next. Some people are, plain and simple, afraid of " Any kind of Weapon " that could be used to hurt a person or "protect" a person. Any of the weapons that can be used to kill people can just as easily be used for self-protection as well. In other words, the person who is in control of what ever weapon that is available, could be a good guy or a bad guy. No amount of Laws can be used for "Individual Control" by City, County, State, or Federal Law Enforcement Officials. Thank you for your time. TSgt., USAF Retired.
I agree and haqve for about 20yrs that GOA is at least 3 times better if not 10 times better than NRA ia or ever was.
NRA is like if you dont mind and will allow then we would appreciate such and such.
Gun Owners is more like this is how it must be go cry to9 your self or le3ts take it to court rather than to the legislature or congress.
A disciple of Christ needs no authorization from humans to protect his own. Authorization has been issued:
Luke 22:36 "And He said to them, "But now, whoever has a money belt is to take it along, likewise also a bag, and whoever has no sword is to sell his coat and buy one.""
Woe to the usurping human governing authority who would presume to punish the good work of protecting the innocent with lethal force.
Romans 13:3-4 “For rulers are not a cause of fear for good behavior, but for evil. Do you want to have no fear of authority? Do what is good and you will have praise from the same; for it is a minister of God to you for good. But if you do what is evil, be afraid; for it does not bear the sword for nothing; for it is a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath on the one who practices evil.”
Funny, nobody mentions Switzerland in the dialogue over whether to disarm or not. In Switzerland, it is mandatory for every able-bodied male between the ages of 18 and 45 to have a military-standard (these days, that means full automatic) rifle and ammunition in his keeping ready to go at a moment's notice. Strangely enough, or maybe not so strangely, there is almost a complete absence of gun violence there. And you also gotta consider that the Swiss have been free for about 700 years now. There's got to be a correlation somewhere…The really strange thing is, nobody seems to want to follow the Swiss example. Everyone's falling all over themselves trying to emulate the Germans, the Russians, the Chinese, the Aussies (lots more gun crime since the confiscation), etc. A little anecdote: during WWII, a German general and a Swiss general were having a not-so-friendly conversation. The German said, " I hear you have a million men under arms. I can bring two million men against you. What do you think of that?" To which the dour Swiss replied, "I'll just tell my men to each shoot twice, and then we'll go home!"