Carbon, are the taxpayers also expected to pay for armed security guards at private schools (where prayer certainly makes it an unlikely target for such violence)? What about public libraries and government centers, preschools, shopping centers, pedestrian malls, city parks and beaches, little league fields, boy scout jamborees and movie theaters? It's a ridiculous suggestion.

Don't forget armed guards at every fire so that firefighters aren't shot and killed by the arsonist when they show up to fight the fire. These nutcases are now killing people on a weekly basis all around the US.

you dont need guards at fires...generally. In the "inner city", anything with a flashing light is "the man" (popo) and they DO get shot at by the gang bangers and their glock fo-tays. They are not nutjobs, they are s#$t bag criminals. Criminals dont give a rip about ANY laws. Most SHOULD be in jail. just like this guy that shot the firemen. We dont have a justice system...we have a legal system.

Or perhaps we need to start putting a dollar figure on the value of human life? Insurance companies and the courts do this all the time. I, for one, am willing to endure an occasional mass shooting if an appropriate deterrent is not financially feasible. How much should be spent trying to eliminate events that rarely happen anyway and there is nothing that states the extraordinary measures being bandied about to try and prevent them will actually work in the first place. I know this is an emotional topic for many people, myself included as a parent of two, but this overreaction and push to put armed security on every corner will not stop those determined to do harm nor is it a prudent use of our already limited financial resources.

Randy, I somewhat agree with you here. Considering the number of schools and students, vs. the number of shootings, the statistical probability of someone's children being involved is very small. I don't think doing nothing is the answer, but some long-term clear thinking is certainly in order in coming up with a response to this incident. Ms. McCollum's knee-jerk reactions would undoubtably result in the wrong actions taken.

Nothing puts kids at ease more than armed security.

@Randy Marsh. The kids aren't bothered by armed security, there called police officers, and they were a hit at my kids school on Monday. Two of them, with their weapons at the entry of the school.
Ever been in an uncomfortable spot walking down a street, or in a bar that has some patrons starting to get out of control? What's eases your tension? Seeing an armed officer.

How intelligent and original. Anything goes wrong these days and somehow it's Obama's fault. Tell me again why Bush was never held accountable for his war crimes? For the mess in which he left our economy? In fact, it is probably jointly the Senate and the House of Representatives responsible, ergo, both parties, equally.

"somehow always obamas fault"
Followed immediatley by "bushes fault"...
Tell me how i blamed obama for the shooting in ANY possible way in my above comment.

wow.

@NancyTomlinson: Obama has been in office for 4 years now, so yes, it's on his shoulders. Liberals, including Obama, have blamed Bush for years, It's time to move on. People forget that Bush himself inherited a slowing economy that turned into recession thanks to Clinton. He was turning it around until 9/11. Obama is leading us into another recession because he can't lead.
Oh, what war crimes?

I am sick to death of this analogy from the gun lovers that cars kill people, yet we aren't banning them, so why should we ban guns? First, I don’t believe most Americans think it is realistic to ban guns…think about drugs; banning them has caused far more problems than it has solved, and if you don’t believe me, think of the prohibition of alcohol. Second, I have a huge news flash for you…yes, tens of thousands die in cars each year, BUT…wait for it...there is only a tiny fraction of those who kill others with their car that intended to do so, compared to about 10,000 who intentionally kill someone with a gun.

But there is more; we have seat belts, air bags, safety glass, and our cars are tested every way possible to help make them safer for the public. Can we say the same about guns? Never mind the fact that tens of millions each days operate their cars...the same cannot be said about guns.

So next time you want to use your car analogy, let’s put three seconds of thought into it so you can see how absurd it is.

I have no idea why you bring up fists, knives, and bats (really?), but less than 2000 people typically die each year in this country from knife wounds. Fist fights are even less at 900. I didn't bother with bats because that is simply asinine, but I guess I should consider the source. Whereas 30,000 people die each year from a gun shot wound.

Of these 30,000 deaths each year approximately 700 are unintentional or accidental deaths. This means that those gun owners were not properly trained, didn't understand the laws, or just didn't care. A two year old was just shot and killed by his sibling in Minnesota. A similar situation happened this summer, but thankfully the three year old boy lived. His father, for having an unlocked and loaded gun in the house with children (against the law), got a whopping 2 years of probation for this crime. A grandfather (a pastor), just this month in Minnesota, shot and killed his granddaughter because he thought she was an intruder.

We need better enforcement and punishment for the laws we have. We need to require training, from a book and at the range, for anyone wanting a gun, and we need to stop the massacres by limiting the clip size for some of these killing machines...

What exactly is a "killing machine" that you refer to here Susan?

How many people were actually killed by an "Assault Weapon" last year?

We had a ban on these from 1994 - 2004 which had no impact on crime - why would this time be any different?

It will make a TOTALLY way gooder difference this time... The media told me so...

baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

The kneejerk reaction of most people is to regard the NRA's proposal as foolish and that assault weapons need to be banned but really think about it on a base level: If a deranged individual walks into the single door to a classroom of 40 elementary aged students, one teacher and perhaps an aide and he is armed with a single shot breech loading shotgun and a bag full of shells how many will be killed before the police can be dispatched, arrive, survey the situation and kill the suspect? EACH AND EVERY ONE WITHOUT QUESTION. The only way to reduce the casualty rate would be to reduce response time and the shortest response time would be to have someone on site armed. Security provided in this country by the police is an illusion, the police are only a reactionary force not a preventive one, like it or not your saftey is completely dependant on the good intentions of those you come in contact with.

Susan, I am willing to put a price on the lives of children and it's less than $2 to $8 billion each year. I know it sounds cruel and/or uncaring, but anybody who says no price is too much to ensure the safety of our children is either ill-informed or doesn't understand numbers and math.

I understand Randy, but I wanted to make it clear that since I haven't made up my mind on this, I was not considering cost vs. children's lives.

CB has the best idea (below) that I have heard yet.

I am not opposed to this, CB, as long as the person goes through the same training as a police officer.

The same shooting training, or the whole officer training course? I would agree that the same shooting training would be beneficial, but requiring the whole police course is too much. A course could be developed for a school protection certification.

I mean the gun and stress training. At the shooting range and (not sure what it's called) the simulation situation training. When they are put through a simulation of those high stress bad-guy situations.

And I suppose a shoot-out at a school poses no risk to school-children? Arming classroom teachers is a poor alternative.

B. Martin, are you saying the children are safer with or without someone there to protect them? Arming teachers is a poor alternative to what?

DJR, the sad thing is that most of the time, it is not sarcasm, which is why I have had my fill of the analogy.

I will be honest and say that I haven't looked into exactly what defines the "assault weapons" that the politicians want banned, but I have a hard time seeing them being used and designed for anything other than killing human beings. Are you allowed to hunt with these? I've known hundreds of hunters in my life and the consensus seems to be that you get one, maybe two shots. I think that, with all the other options out there for the shooting range, assault weapons are not needed or required for a good time...maybe for the testosterone bump, but not a necessity. Having said that, as I said above, banning something like this will usually create a black market, so I don't know that it is a good idea.

Yes, you can hunt with these. The AR-15 is one of the most popular hunting rifles in Minnesota for deer season. As more veterans leave the service and start hunting, we'll see this trend continue.

You realize that they are functionally *exactly* the same and in many cases *less powerful* than most hunting rifles?

Thanks, Bryan, I did not realize that they were used for hunting. As I said, I am not very familiar with these weapons and will do some more research. Just one last note; why is it that people who want to see some common sense items implemented (which also include mental health in this country) without banning guns, are painted the same as those in the minority who would like to see guns banned? It's frustrating that people keep missing the point that I do not want to ban these guns. Banning doesn't work, it is counterproductive. An honest discussion, without attacking each other is the only way this 'debate' is going to get resolved. If you think that nothing is going to happen in regards to the gun laws, you are not looking at the big picture. If the NRA had come out with even a hint of a conciliatory tone, the response would have been much different. People use the products they promote to slaughter other people...yes, it is a person doing the killing but it doesn't mean that we can't make it just a tiny bit harder for them to do so, while still allowing law abiding citizens their second amendment rights.

Thanks for the reasonable response Susan...if this is the REAL Susan.... [squint eyes] :)
I have AR's becsue they are a "blast" to shoot. very light recoil (excellent rifle for women/small folk). I fell in love with them in the Army.
Now realalistically, you do NOT need thirty round mags for hunting- and I doubt you will ever see anyone using one deer hunting (if i recall, you are limited to 5 rounds) but for something like prairie dog hunting, they would come in handy so you dont have to reload constantly.
Now on the NRA...I agree that I think thieir inital statment was pretty stupid. But they have to stand their ground (give an inch...) I just think they could have come up with something more sensitive/meaningful in the time they had

Thanks for the reasonable response Susan...if this is the REAL Susan.... [squint eyes] :)
I have AR's becsue they are a "blast" to shoot. very light recoil (excellent rifle for women/small folk). I fell in love with them in the Army.
Now realalistically, you do NOT need thirty round mags for hunting- and I doubt you will ever see anyone using one deer hunting (if i recall, you are limited to 5 rounds) but for something like prairie dog hunting, they would come in handy so you dont have to reload constantly.
Now on the NRA...I agree that I think thieir inital statment was pretty stupid. But they have to stand their ground (give an inch...) I just think they could have come up with something more sensitive/meaningful in the time they had.

Police at schools? dude, what rock you living under....TONS of schools have officers in them. I know we live in utopia around here, but comon...

We dojn't need gun control...we need nut control. A perfect bullseye at 200 yards...that's gun control.

Excellent point.

Columbine's police officer actually exchanged fire with the two gunman - but at a range of about 60 yards.

Foot Hood - the victims were all unarmed. It was the responding police that brought the situation to an end.

fort hood...dunno about that base, but MY base we are not even allowed to bring guns on post....

So let's just keep letting it happen, and like all of the other 'God and Guns' people, we will just wait until it touches someone in your family, and see how you feel about it then.

Mike, you better than anyone should understand about public safety. The government does it every second of every day with the police force. Why should we have them if not for public safety...even though so many complain that they are only reactionary...never mind that they do actually deter some criminals. How about the FDA, I'm sure we can dispose of them and just say that accidents will happen, CEO's will never cut corners in the name of profit, and bad food and drugs are bound to kill a few people, as long as it's not me or my loved ones. It's called civilization, we are NOT a bunch of spineless sheep wandering around bleating madly for the government to run every tiny aspect of our lives.

Get real, this time it isn't going away, the NRA can shut up, and people can stop screaming about their second amendment right to own a gun is being taken away....IT WILL NEVER HAPPEN, but we certainly can make it a little more difficult for the nut jobs of the world to walk into a school and systematically mow down children!

Whatever you need to do for entertainment, I guess.

Look, the conversation must be had. Something will be done. I don't have the answers, but I want the conversation. Those who preach about government take-overs and our freedoms being taken away need to be a part of that conversation, not try and shut it down by implying that people are hysterical or that, heaven forbid, you might not be able to buy a high capacity clip...tragic!

It's about a conversation, NOT shutting it down, and the sooner the NRA and avid gun owners and lovers get involved with the conversation, the sooner something can happen that will benefit everyone.

I don't know a lot about our mental health system other than it is very difficult to get or force an adult child to get 'help'. I'm not sure if you read my post on the other story so I am going to copy and paste a couple things here:

This is not guns OR mental illness. This is a deadly combination of a few things. I have taken some time to read about the individuals who have committed these terrible crimes - not because I am interested in them, but because I want to understand why this happens. It's human nature to want to know the why, and then try to fix it.

Most of these shooters have the following things in common.
1. They are men.
2. They have dealt with mental illness.
3. They have isolated themselves from society for various reasons.
4. They have fixated on the violence against humans in our glamorized world of violent entertainment.
5. They had easy access to semi-automatic guns.

Without number five, you might (stress "might") have an individual who uses a knife, as was the case in China last week (the same morning as Newtown). The individual hurt seventeen children, but they are all ALIVE. Some might say that he would make a bomb...maybe, but guns are certainly easier.

These mass shootings are usually done by a person meeting all five criteria above. This is what we need to focus on...ALL FIVE (guns included), and the recognition and treatment of those who might fit into a combination of those categories.

Sorry, the incident in China was 23 children, not seventeen.

I agree.

But there does have to be some balance between getting help to those who need it and locking up people against their will simply because they don't act 'right'. There must be some consensus on what determines a person's sanity and/or ability and willingness to hurt people.

I haven't done a lot of reading on the subject (yet) but I would guess that we stopped locking everyone up because of "freedom" and the rights of those individuals being taken away before a crime was actually committed...but that's just a guess at this point.

Sure, Democrats would commit Republicans and Republicans would commit Democrats. Then we independents could solve problems.

Markus, this is the same video I posted above. You have your opinion, I have mine. What is interesting is when I posted this 28 hours ago, it had just over 300,000 views. Now it is over 2.5 million...seems some people find it a good message and are passing it on to their friends, family, co-workers, etc.

Frankly, I think the idea of armed guards at most schools is ludicrous. However, there may be a need in certain cases such as some inner city schools. If a particular school deems an armed guard necessary they should be able to have one, at their own expense of course.

The point I was trying to make was that politicians and the Hollywood elite have armed bodyguards to protect them, but the idea that children should have access to that type of protection is scorned. They are hypocrites and their sanctimonious blather makes me want to puke.

The thought of another federal "safety" program should make people shudder. If people really want to keep their kids safe, they shouldn't send them to the government schools. They would not only be protecting them from potential physical harm, but as an added bonus may also protect them from becoming little lemmings trained to believe that the government is the answer to all of their problems.

Government is woefully inept at virtually all it endeavors to do, whether it's educating our children, "protecting" us or attempting to manage the economy, despite their good intentions. Be careful what you wish for.

It's at 3.5 million now...that's kind of impressive actually. I guess I didn't hear them scorn the idea, and I'm not sure that they all have body guards who are armed, but I understand your point.

Way up at towards the top, CB had an idea that I added to. He brought up having some of the current staff at the school trained for conceal & carry. I thought this would be an okay idea, but I would like to see them go through the same (gun) training as the police officers.

I think the bigger issue/problem with the NRA's suggestion was that they wanted every aspect of these shooting considered, when working on a resolution, EXCEPT guns. He was so arrogant about it and not even the tiniest part conciliatory, people were immediately turned off to him, and therefore his words....that's not to say that there are many who are adamantly opposed to armed guards.

As I pointed out before, the vast majority of gun owners will never hurt another human being, just as a vast majority of those who are mentally ill will never hurt another human being. Why can we look at one item, but not the other?

Case in point.

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

"Markus (whose at least smart enough to know when he's over matched)."

I guess I'm not that smart.

The relevance to the discussion is that many advocating gun control attempt to marginalize those who would protect themselves with a firearm or suggest someone else like a teacher would. The story's obvious lesson is that being armed most likely saved this woman and her kids from bodily harm. An armed teacher finding themselves in a situation like Newtown might be able to change the outcome. It certainly did in this case. It might make other intruders think twice as well.

"It's a tiny, frightening, minority who would suggest responsible gun owners not be allowed to protect themselves"

You mean like 535 people in Washington D.C.? That is definitely a tiny, frightening, minority.

Or a common term that basically everybody except you understands (or is willing to spend the 7 seconds it would take to find out).

You are EXACTLY why we dont need any knee-jerk laws passed by a bunch of people that have ZERO clue what they are talking about.

oh, must be like that little thing "obama care"....just go forward and pass it not knowing what it is or the ramifications.....

Please tell me what I am so clueless about so I can learn. So far you've offered nothing to dispute my comments to Markus (whose at least smart enough to know when he's over matched). Your nonsensical ramblings do nothing to further this discussion.