Comments on: McDonnell open to discussion on allowing school employees to carry guns

By: A reader

A reader — Wed, 19 Dec 2012 17:08:37 +0000

Have any of these clowns stopped to consider what might happen if these guns fall into the hands of a mentally ill student? Talk about a recipe for disaster…..

By: Sandi Saunders

Sandi Saunders — Wed, 19 Dec 2012 16:58:22 +0000

I do not have an objection per se to arming teachers who are qualified and capable with guns or tasers, I just think that is admitting defeat and accepting a reality I do not want us to accept. I certainly do not support arming anyone not qualified, capable and proficient with any weapon. If we are coming to that, I would prefer armed and trained security to arming classroom teachers. Land of the hopeless here we become.

By: VT Hokie

VT Hokie — Wed, 19 Dec 2012 16:56:02 +0000

The issue that needs the MOST attention, IMO, is mental health.

I am not just saying that because I happen to be a gun owner.

I’ve seen the argument that even if guns were banned, deranged killers would just find another way to carry out their horrible acts. I agree with that.

However, this is equally true if even if we do the opposite and arm every teacher and principal in every school. Knowing that he will be confronted with other armed individuals might very well deter the next killer from bringing a gun into a school, but what good will a million good guys with guns do if the killer decides to bring in a bomb and blow up everyone along with himself? It would be over and done before anyone had a chance to react. I am not saying don’t bother. I’m just pointing out that this is not a guaranteed fix either.

The focus needs to be on stopping the act before it can even be conceived of. We need to make sure people who need help are getting it. That’s really going to be the only way to stop such tragedies from happening again and again.

By: VT Hokie

VT Hokie — Wed, 19 Dec 2012 16:39:50 +0000

Sandi, what do you think of the idea of tasers for the teachers, rather than firearms? Not lethal, but still a way to put the guy on the ground and give the students a chance to escape. And there are tasers of the projectile variety, so you could still stop the guy from a distance, and you wouldn’t have to worry about whether there was someone behind him in the line of fire.

My thought is that any means of real physical resistance is better than “please please please don’t shoot”. The latter hasn’t been working very well.

By: Bubba Greene

Bubba Greene — Wed, 19 Dec 2012 14:08:30 +0000

Karen: The army base is not a police station. But more importantly, troops on a base are not typically armed. Weapons are secured and even when provided to the troops for exercises, ammunition is secured. But even more importantly, the base shooting was with a clear motive. A muslim militant conducted his one man act of terror. It was not a random act where unarmed defenseless innocents were targeted. And Sandi. I have not read all your comments but the last one above is tending to be accurate. Any Armalite style rifle ban won’t matter essentially. The problem goes to the root of societal values and morals. I read a comment from a relative of the shooters yesterday. Now consider this. The shooter was 20 years old, had never held a job, lived with his mother, stayed at home playing violent vid games all day and night in a bedroom totally dedicated to his fantasies and this relative said, “he has it all together”. WHAT! Society is WAY off track!

By: gdad

gdad — Wed, 19 Dec 2012 13:47:05 +0000

#26 Come on, Al.

By: Sandi Saunders

Sandi Saunders — Wed, 19 Dec 2012 13:33:35 +0000

This tragedy, and all the others is not “about” guns, but it is wrong headed IMO to discount the easy availability of guns as the reason they are so often chosen for this “mission”. Yes, he could have taken his car an mowed a line of Christmas shoppers down. He could have built a bomb and took out Town Hall. He could have done a lot of things, as many before him have. What he DID choose to do matters.

Certainly we put all sorts of checks in place when we discover an error, people get sick, after Oklahoma, after 9/11. It is what we, as a society do. Thinking we should ignore the part that an easily available “assault weapon” plays is just not gonna fly.

By: Another Chuck

Another Chuck — Wed, 19 Dec 2012 03:19:58 +0000

Joe Hokie, well said. Think about the money we have had to spend since 911 on a national level. To some extent they are accomplishing their goal by costing us so much money…and of course, the loss of life is our citizens lives is out largest loss.

By: Jeffrey

Jeffrey — Wed, 19 Dec 2012 03:02:32 +0000

Lets face it, this is not about guns, it is about mental health. What is stopping a person from driving a car into a pack of pedistrians crossing a busy intersection? What is stopping a person from making a fertilizer bomb, since all of the materials that are needed are easily accessible?

By: Sandi Saunders

Sandi Saunders — Wed, 19 Dec 2012 02:29:00 +0000

Another Chuck, your fantasy is the same as anyone else’s. The problem of mass shootings is very serious but the availability of “assault weapons” is but one facet of the problem. That alone will only make it somewhat more difficult. Nothing more.