Shared publicly  - 
Sales for bulletproof backpacks and child-sized body armor manufactured by a Utah company have increased 500 percent since last week’s events at Sandy Hook Elementary, company officials said.
Justyn Amick's profile photoDon DC's profile photoHenry Soderberg's profile photoJay Carlson's profile photo
What a cool product idea...a little macabre...but cool all the same.
That would not have helped at all at Sandy Hook. 
Arming the teachers won't work unless you want all of them to go through extensive training.  Hire a dedicated security guard.

What are teachers doing now???  How about putting themselves in front of the bullets meant for the kids!!

Seriously, two weeks ago the teachers are all "union thugs" and useless, and suddenly now you trust them all with weapons.
+Mark Wallace Don't you trust them? 

You don't have to trust them all. Only the ones that think they can handle it. Two or three per school?  

Actually, the unions hire their thugs; surely you've noticed that.

+Richard Erickson yes...note that the psycho on drugs in CT offed himself as soon as somebody with a gun showed up. 

I like the suggestion to hire returning veterans as security. Surely there's some "stimulus" funds for that. 
+Margaret Leber No, I don't trust just anyone who wants to carry a gun, whether they're a teacher or not.  I don't trust the majority of folks with a CCP to act right in a crisis, because they're not trained for it.

If you can come up with some training guidelines, similar to what police have to go through, and figure out a way to fund the training and liability insurance without taking away from the regular budget, then I might be okay with it.
Also, I keep hearing that we only need a few per school, but what happens when the teacher with a gun hears the gunman down the hall.  Are they supposed to leave their kids alone in the classroom while they go after them? 

I think you need dedicated security personnel for this job and let the teachers do what they do best, teach.
+Mark Wallace Yes, I can see you're definitely someone who should judge the quality of tactical training. 
Yeah, "Yank" is a pretty standard term for Americans used by those from Great Britain.
+Richard Erickson Yeah, we know the Clackamas story...and many like it. One for the "guns have no use but to kill" crowd.
You did. 

 I don't trust the majority of folks with a CCP to act right in a crisis, because they're not trained for it.
This isn't a war on guns. It's a war on the value of life. 

IF we, as a society, valued life more, this type of out rages and murder wouldn't happen. But we don't. We're taught that life is cheap, expendable and doesn't hold significant value. 

and +Mark Wallace I don't trust anyone who is more ready to rely on medications, that to rely on self responsibility. I also hold a huge problem with people are aren't willing to accept that people are carrying guns. Chances are that, if you're in a 'merica, about one in 12 people around have a Peace Maker on them. Some 8,000,000 million CCW card holders, and out of those 8million there are around ~350 cases, justified use of lethal force... The problem isn't people who are legally carrying. 

And yes i carry everywhere i go. I have 9mm Sub-Compact, and when i cannot carry i have 3.5" SOG Tanto blade that i carry. And depending on where i'm going i also carry a stun gun.... Non-Lethal before lethal is my way of doing things.

Oh and on your "training" deal.... I can hit 4 clothing pins, with less than 10 shots, from 25yrds away, and i've never had formal training.  
Please also quote where I said I should be in charge of licensing these folks?  

That was my opinion, nothing more, nothing less.
+Michael Neidlinger The training I'm referring to isn't being able to hit your target, it's being able to hit your target in a crisis situation.  There is a big difference between those two things, as I'm sure you're aware.
+Mark Wallace Read what you said. Oh...I get it...your judgement was uninformed and you shouldn't be held to it.  

Fine, I certainly don't need any more noise in my stream. 
This is the problem with discussions in these forums sometimes.  One side has their mind made up about the other and won't listen to a thing they say.

I'm at least willing to listen to the possibility of arming teachers, but you only seem to be interested in attacking the messenger.  Good luck to you.
+Mark Wallace, i agree there is a difference between the two. But something you don't know about me, personally, is even in the roughest of times i understand how to control the situation around me. One of the reason when i go shooting I practice with both hands, one on one, So i know i feel confident with either have to. I've physically witnessed a guy get shot 3 times. Once in the neck and twice in the chest. One of the reason i'm an avid carrier. 

I just wish you could of see how calm and collected i was when my car came down on top of me, with me underneath it. You have to be calm and collective in certain situations. Panic will only lead to confusion, and confusion will lead to people getting hurt. 

It's about controlling the mind, and focusing the the end result you want. 
+Richard Erickson, I find arming teachers unreasonable.  Same with an armed security guard at the door.  My opinion is that they are logistical nightmares coupled with throwing more guns at the situation.

The best thing to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.

There are so many millions of gun owners, an insignificant amount are well-trained for that specific situation.

Would you support legislation that every existing and prospective gun owner go through 18 months of basic training?
+Michael Neidlinger Then you are one of the folks that I would want to have around in a crisis.  Another one is my brother-in-law, an ex marine.  I have no problem with people carrying guns who can be safe around other people.  My concern is with people who have a CCP just because they can, not because they should.
If you want people are specifically trained in CQC (Close Quarter Combat) and people who can work inside walls. We need to armed people, say Vets, as guards.

+Mark Wallace it's about self control. The whole issue is. People who have these out rages have none of it. And we need people who can control the situation..... arming teachers, and school staff may help put the control back in the hands of the school. ... it's not an answer. But it may help save lives. 
I agree, it might save lives, but I just don't want to end up where the only people who are safe are the ones carrying.  Unfortunately, in this situation, I don't see any other way things could have been different.
+Michael Neidlinger personally, I think that serves as a quick-fix, the problem isn't necessarily that there weren't gun-toting people, it is that this asshat was able to get his hands on a highly efficient killing tool that was legally purchased.

Now, how can that be prevented?  Maybe reduce availability of assault weapons, maybe repeal licenses for people in unstable households (someone mentally troubled lives with them)?

I guess my point is that just putting more people with guns around doesn't prevent this from occurring.  If anything, you're accepting the fact that mentally handicapped people are going to continue mass-murders with guns at schools.

I refuse to believe that there isn't some sort of path towards a long-term solution.
+Richard Erickson a carrier. They have guns alot bigger than we're allowed to buy... We're not going to stop a government with 4 armed branches 
+Richard Erickson,

Such measures are often used to ensure that only the "right" people are armed. I support a complete background check and complete personal responsibility with what you do when you're armed with your weapon.

If you take personal responsibility very seriously, then would you be willing to increase most weapon-related crimes drastically?

And I would rather have people who understand the true strength of their weapon as well as the training to actually operate it during a time that they insisted a gun was necessary for.

Those of us that carry take the right and responsibility very seriously. We often times spend more range time and receive better training then police officers.

You aren't all gun owners.

In the US I have a constitutional right to carry if I want to to resist tyranny within the government or the tyranny of a single individual.

Just stop with this nonsense.  You really think that some militia can overthrow our existing Government?  Just stop, it diminishes your otherwise rational argument.

As a human being I have an obligation to defend myself and those around me.

What?  According to who?
not a lot of good if the shooter has a semi automatic rifle.
Actually +Joe Ekiert, I agree with +Richard Erickson on his last point.  I think we do have a moral duty to protect ourselves and those around us, if we can, whether armed or not.
+Mark Wallace, I agree with that point, however it isn't some general implication. Its dangerous to assume that's what everyone with a concealed weapon believes.
I am an educator and I am willing to carry a gun. I know I may not be able to stop a mentally ill gunman, but I will at least have a chance to stop them!!!!! 
+Richard Erickson, solid response. I guess the blinders went on when I crafted that portion of my response.

However, in regards to the obligation, I meant in a general sense. You can absolutely speak for yourself and me for myself. But while we both hope that people with concealed weapons are carrying altruistically, its a dangerous assumption to make
+Joe Ekiert The sooner you accept that evil people do evil things and you can't legislate your way around it, the better off and better prepared you will be

Edited to add: If you boil the "new gun restrictions" arguments down, at their simplest form... It suggests that a law will protect you. Criminals don't care about the law. This is the concept liberals have trouble grasping.

If I'm willing to go to a school and murder children, knowing the penalty in our legal system if I'm caught, what makes you believe I care about some dumb gun law? Or how many rounds my magazines are legally permitted to contain.

The law can't protect you when the guy in front of you is holding a gun. It's up to you to protect yourself. LE does the best they can for those unwilling or incapable of defending themselves. However, when seconds count, the police are only minutes away. 
Thank you, cable "news" media, for scaring the Hell out of these people.
I will say this. I love it when people single out the M4 style carbine.

Most people don't know this but when we were in Nam, it took about 50k bullets from a M16 (m4 style carbine] to drop one Vietcong... from a M40 Bolt action... it took 1.3 rounds to drop a Vietcong.... The style of the weapon as nothing to do with it's leathle impact on human flesh.
That has more to do with poor marksmanship, and the ammunition used at the time, than lethality of the caliber or platform
+Paula Ortiz If a gunman knows you are armed he targets you first then takes your weapon... arming you only makes it worse as the gunman will also use your students as a shield, you wont shoot. there are few scenarios where you are capable of winning a shootout as the gunman has the element of surprise.
Makes my brain hurt to listen to all the libtards who are suddenly experts on CQB and active shooter tactics. Muting post. 
+Phil Grainger you sir are completely using this to push your personal political agenda.... Please stop. 
Employing out of work vets to guard schools is a better idea. Retired cops as well. The money can come from a tax on the union dues of the teachers.
Actually, let's put a tax on the NRA and let them pay for it.  That seems about as fair as a tax on the union dues, doesn't it?
+Mark Wallace The NRA is a non-profit, human rights organization -The functions the NRA serves saves the US government more money than any taxes that may be confiscated.
And responsible gun owners also save lives.
+William Howard First of all, I'm not sure you actually know what racist means, so I'm going to overlook that.

Secondly +Milton Ragsdale I don't want to tax the NRA.  I just said that it made as much sense to do that as it does to tax union dues.  Man, there are so many people who can't read for comprehension around this place...
+William Howard Annual deaths by firearms also include the numerous criminals killed in the act by citizens and police.

It isn't the police but the citizen that is on the front line against crime -You don't get many break-ins at your local police precinct substation.
Armed citizens have prevented and deterred more crimes than any police force.
The NRA is called an angry white male organization. I consider these attacks to be racist.

+Milton Ragsdale We should not consider the death of a criminal by a gun in fireams death numbers. We should borrow a liberal term and call it "social justice"
Oh wow. Common sense has gone out the window. 
Don DC
Wow, another business opp for guns/ammo enterprise! Excellent... No!
America,you are totally nuts !.
Please keep to your side of the border.
+Rich Ziegler, I accept that evil will always exist. However, my definition of evil is something that is unsolvable. That they were born out of pure hatred and don't even comprehend anything that is good.

I don't know if any of the mass killers of late fall within my definition. All too many were either mentally unstable (and ignoring meds) or with unable to vent energy before their tipping point.

I believe none of those people people are evil.

Assholes? Yup. Selfish and shortsighted? Yeah. Misunderstood and unbalanced? Absolutely.

Essentially, I'm saying that while I agree that fixes to evil cannot be legislated, fixes to everything below is remotely possible. Perhaps if people who live with a mentally unbalanced citizen weren't allowed to own an assault rifle, or if there were harsher penalties/more access to help for those having trouble with a mentally troubled family member were given immediate assistance, this type of tragedy may be prevented in the future.

I'm not saying they absolutely will. I am saying that we owe the deceased something, at least a conversation, maybe putting ourselves in the minds we most disagree with.. just to do something to help prevent this from occurring again.

We the people do not have a direct say/vote in the ultimate decision, so there's no reason not to engage each other with with civil discourse regarding the matter.
A Free Market solution beats hysteria-driven government schemes any time.
+Waylyn Gilbert  - I wouldn't go that far as t blame Jewish people.... but, it is certainly troubling how the media works these days. And, the gun grabbers need to just shut-up! All they will do is take them away from good guys
Taking advantage of a situation to make profit- 
What's wrong with making a profit?
The company sold bulletproof products for children before the shootings and you criticize them for a rise in demand. I say good for them because they meet a demand.
Okay seriously, there are now nazis posting in this thread??  I think that's a sign that I should go.  Good luck all!
+Mark Wallace  There is no such thing as an "ex-Marine".  You're either a Marine or you're not.  I'm sure your brother would say the same thing.

As for arming teachers, more people need to be taught how to use and respect firearms.  I believe that if a teacher is trained in how to use and maintain a firearm and is subsequently allowed to obtain a CCW and carry on campus, that we could go a VERY long way towards reducing those killed by gun violence in schools. 

Gun bans do NOTHING to curb violence.  In fact, Great Britain instituted a handgun ban, the result was a 40% increase in gun related crime.  There is undeniable proof spanning decades that prove the effect that gun bans have on crimes.  In fact, it should also be noted that Switzerland REQUIRES it's citizens to own firearms.  You'll be blown away at the subsequent result on crime in Switzerland... They have the lowest crime rate IN THE WORLD.

It is FACT that an armed populous keeps crime rate low.  Why?  Because the populous is able to defend themselves.  Too much of a risk for criminals if they know they have a 50-50 chance of making it out alive.

I believe much of this gun control debate comes from a irrational fear of firearms.  That irrational fear stems from an unfamiliarity of the use and operation of said firearms.  Americans, especially liberals, should be taught to respect NOT fear guns.

One final thought... Compare the states with stricter gun laws to those with more lax gun laws and answer this question... Where are the majority of these massacres happening?  A vast majority of these massacres come from states with strict gun laws.  It should also be noted that these are also the same states that have high crime rates especially compared to their softer gun law counter parts.

Also remember that Columbine happened in spite of a Federal assault weapons ban.  Chew on that a bit.

Only a fool ignores facts.
+Mark Wallace Interesting that you should mention Nazis... The Nazis instituted a gun ban before they killed 11 million Jews, Gypsies, Christians, Muslims, Homosexuals (the list goes on)...
+Don Goodwin Not a problem.  Totally cool with remaining on my side of the boarder where I have more freedom (well, at least for the time being).
+Phil Grainger To follow your logic we should disarm the police and military since being armed makes them targets.

No one will be allowed to be armed at schools. The agenda is to get rid of guns, so those pushing this agenda will not allow a situation where guns  are the solution.

These calls for more gun laws are not really an assault on gun ownership or really the second amendment. This is an outright attack on the entire Constitution.
There are many teachers I really would not trust with a gun. I teach 5th grade and some of the teachers can be just as unstable as the students.

I guess you could make it voluntary, or do the cops in school thing. 
All you lefties that want the Federal Government to protect and take care of you, please ask a Native American how that has worked out for them so far.
A. G
+Richard Erickson
Wow! Armed teachers and child body armor. I wonder if that's what the founding fathers had in mind for their great nation when they added the second amendment. No, well maybe it's time for a change. 
+Alban Gray No, obviously by the language of the 2nd Amendment, the Founding Fathers intended unimpeded rights to bear arms.  It IS time for a change, but not in the way you hope for.

Why is arming  teachers so far fetched for people like you?  Israel ARMS their teachers and guess what?  There is no gun violence in their schools... Imagine that!

You see, out here in the west or even in the south you dont hear about mass shootings at our schools.  Why?  Because of less restrictions on gun ownership.

Gun bans or even gun control do NOTHING to curb violent crime.  It's a proven fact.  What is ALSO a fact that a well armed populous deters crime SIGNIFICANTLY.
This is not about protecting anyone. It is about shamefully exploiting a great tragedy to promote a political agenda.
A. G
+Justyn Janell Amick
Maybe you should look into the gun situation in Israel:
Israel has 12 times fewer guns per capital
Israel does have an assault rifle ban
Israel has no right to bear arms
Israel sharply limits ammunition purchase

Sounds like a good start
A. G
+Justyn Janell Amick
The question is, do you what to live in a country that needs teachers with gun and small children to wear body armor or do you want to achieve something better? 
Well +Alban Gray speaking strictly for myself I'd rather have Liberty and live in a free country as a free man. I take it you think the Constitution is just a bit dated and old fashioned that modern progressives can do much better.
A. G
+William Carlson is not like you live in a country where you get to do anything you want at anytime. You accept a certain level of restrictions so that you, your family and community can feel safe. People can't drive 200 mph, you can't just steal things - it's about achieving a balance where people can feel safe. Those kids and families paid a high price so that lunatics mom could have an assault rifle around the house. You're not going to eliminate 100% of these events but a balanced approach from a gun control and mental health perspective needs to be considered. 
+Alban Gray I guess you're unfamiliar with Connecticut's ban on assault weapons?

The point is, gun control or bans do NOT amount to a "balanced" approach when those laws do nothing to curb violence.

So you ban assault weapons in the US... What have you done? Nothing, except take those weapons from law abiding citizens. Criminals do NOT abide by laws and would not answer a call to relinquish those weapons.

So again, by taking away assault weapons, what have you done?

Assault weapons still find there way into the US through illegal means. Criminals have ready access and the populous is outmatched.

Gun control or weapons bans do NOT amount to any sort of balanced approach no matter how you try to spin it. 
Connecticut is a perfect example of how an assault weapon ban does NOTHING to stop violence. 
A. G
+Justyn Janell Amick I don't know but data from country after country after country suggest differently. Besides how many gun fights are you or others having on a daily basis with these criminals where you need extended clip and assault rifles? Or do you think crime is non existent since you have guns. 
+Alban Gray You said NEED. So here is the crux of it, making the government the arbiter of what we the people need. So, I don't need this type of gun, here is the gov approved version. I don't need that type of motorcycle, here is the gov approved version. Matter of fact the gov says motorcycles are too dangerous and screw up health care costs so the gov says you don't need a motorcycle at all. You really don't need as nice a house as the one you live in, here is the one the gov says you need.

Your arguments are specious. We had such bans and studies showed they had no effect. 
+Alban Gray

I don't think, I know it's non existent because I arm myself. I teach my kids how to properly use and respect guns. I don't teach them to fear those gun. Something the rest of you people need to learn.

Extended round mags do not matter in a fire fight. It takes a split second to drop a mag and reload. There is a video that was taken in the 1990s, a congressional hearing, that you should watch where a woman talks about here experience being in the midst of an attack and her anger and frustration with being disarmed by people like you. I'd post it, but I've got to go find it first.

Also, it's obvious to me that you know nothing about guns, if you did, you'd know your rounds are held in a magazine, not a clip. NOT the same thing.
I've had enough republican irresponsibility.

Republican Irresponsibility:

-Letting millitary assault weapons be sold (higher casualties in violent acts)
-Iraq war (massive millitary spending on credit card, with tax cuts for the rich, leading to massive debt)
-Deregulation of Wallstreet (financial collapse)
-Ideological rigidity, failure to provide govt. loan to U.S. auto industry at catastrophic economic loss (glad Romney wasn't president)
-Lack of funds for education and infrastructure (proven investments for human and economic growth)

AND - soon to be, going over the fiscal cliff, plunging the US economy back into recession. Republicans (especially tea party extremists) just don't care about practical steps. Too ideological - will refuse to raise taxes on millionaires at the expense of the entire economy.
Don DC
At the end of the day, guns are made to kill another being fast, guns and their accessories profit best when they are used, so killing each other is profitable for this business. Guns will not provide security but will only endanger each other's lives come to think of it.
+David Soderberg The weapons in question aren't "Military assault weapons".

Plenty of dems voted for the Iraq war, and they sure as hell don't mind putting everything else on the "credit card".

Are you speaking about the deregulation that Clinton signed into law?

GM should have gone through the the bankruptcy process. Should every business that practices irresponsibly now expect a bailout at taxpayer expense?

Have you noticed that spending on education has steadily gone up, but Johnny still can't read or doesn't care to?

The fiscal cliff. The problem here is spending, not income. The amount of money they are talking about raising with taxes won't run the gov for 3 months. Spending has to be cut drastically and the gov reigned into Constitutional limits. I take it you don't really understand that the taxes BHO wants are really gonna hit small businesses hard but huge corporations will get a break.

Come back later when you know what you are talking about.
Don DC
To create demand, business will create need: start a fight, stir a war, increase crime, disrupt peace therefore business will profit. 
+William Carlson
-Assault Weapons, similar to what the millitary uses, designed to kill lots of people fast. You know what I am talking about.

-BHO as you put it did not support the war in Iraq, it was almost 100% republican supported. One of the biggest mistakes in history. Strategically speaking, it opened Iraq up to Iranian influence.

-Yes, I think its a terrible idea to repeal the glass-stegal act. Again, of course some democrats support deregulating wallstreet, but nearly 100% of republicans do.

-To not have provided a government loan would have meant massive damage to the American auto industry. I am glad Mitt Romney was not president, we would have done much worse. Again, stop being an ideological twit, and start thinking practically.

-Again, the major problem with Internet posting, especially on hugely biased sites like FOX news, is that people make statements without sourced facts to back them up. Please, insert a hyperlink to factual information to back up your loaded statements.

Hey, let me just rub this in your face:

Come back later when you have sourced facts.
Wanting America to ban assault weapons and high-capacity magazines isn't anti-constitutional - it's called 'common sense'.
I've served in the Military for 27 years and carried Military weapons in Iraq and Afghanistan, and you are either ignorant or just lying when you describe the guns available to civilians as assault weapons similar to what the Military uses.

Hey, let me rub the date of your article in your face. 2008, guess you missed that little tidbit. Lots more going on today four years later with BHO full speed ahead turning this nation into a third world country.

GM should have gone through the bankruptcy process rather than screwing the taxpayers. So everyone now can run any business into the ground and expect a bailout with money we don't even have.

You sourced no facts to back up anything you said other than an article dated 2008. So stop being a twit.

I'm an ideologue, sure but my ideology is based on the principle of limited government, not just a knee jerk reaction to every "crisis" that comes along.
+William Carlson Ok - civilian guns are not at military level, but I see no reason to own an assault weapon, besides to kill a large number of people in a short amount of time.
Since you feel that way. I hope you never own any.
+William Carlson I've shot guns on shooting ranges. 50 caliber pistols and powerful rifles. It's fun, they feel very powerful, I get it, people like guns. It's part of American culture. I just think it's obnoxious for people to freak out about restricting assault weapons and high capacity magazines which are specifically designed for killing large numbers of people in a short amount of time.
I am impressed with your broad experience in weaponry.

I think it's obnoxious that people freak out and call on the Federal Gov to solve every problem. I think it's obnoxious that we live in a time when politicians give lip service to the Constitution but behind the scenes do everything they can to twist, distort, and outright violate it in order to garner more power to themselves and the central politburo.

I think it's obnoxious that you keep copying and pasting that same line.
Add a comment...