Of all the dreck that's being proposed in the congress, here's the only one so far that might actually help.
H.R.133
Latest Title: To repeal the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990 and amendments to that Act.
Sponsor: Rep Massie, Thomas [KY-4] (introduced 1/3/2013) Cosponsors (None)
Latest Major Action: 1/3/2013 Referred to House committee. Status: Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
Imagine the deterrent factor of a $10 sign on the school house door reading "Your valid CCW welcome here."
Drop your rep a line and suggest he co-sponsor this.
Update:
Sir;
You are probably aware that Congressman Massie (KY) has introduced HR133, a bill to repeal the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990. The President has called for quick action to prevent another school shooting, and this is the most realistic answer to a problem that no "assault weapons" ban will cure.
It's unfortunate that we need to protect our children with firearms, but it has been proven over and over again to be the only effective method we have.
Signs proclaiming "NO GUNS" have proven to be magnets for unstable people, not a deterrent. Far more effective would be a sign proclaiming "Your CCW Welcome here."
Had she been allowed to be armed, Principal Dawn Hochsprung and 25 others might still be alive.
I urge you to support HR133 and to go further and take the lead to allow responsible people inside schools to be their own first line of defense.
Respectfully,
The nraila site has a setup that allows you to email your rep, all your reps, or your entire state delegation.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
Repealing the gun-free zone act would actually accomplish a lot.
Your "CCW welcome" signs would invite responsible weapon holders to be armed, and possibly in a position to help others or defend themselves; it isn't a given that would necessarily be how it might turn out.
But just taking down the gun-free signs begins to demolish, in part, the fairy castle image that the gun-free zone created. It makes the school just a bit less dramatic, a bit less horrifying -- a bit less inviting, to a potential mass killer -- than a situation with kids and/or adults, where guns might be present.
That, I think, along with the vanishingly small number of people that might attempt something like shooting up a school, would be a major change and improvement in school security.
Even requiring a certain number of staff and/or teachers to be armed wouldn't do as much, or assure that an armed respondent would be in place and prepared, in case the need should arise.
As I recall, there was an armed guard at Columbine High. He exchanged shots with the 2 shooters, then went to give first aid to a student they had shot on the way in.
A cop costs $100K/year. TSA costs considerably less. You get what you pay for.
An armed teacher has a much more personal interest in the outcome.
"Had she been allowed to be armed, Principal Dawn Hochsprung and 25 others might still be alive."
Was Ms. Hochsprung a CCW permit holder? Was she a gun owner? Did she have any interest in guns at all?
Because if not -- and nothing I've read indicates that she did -- then your assertion is completely idiotic. "Allowing" her to be armed would have made no difference if she had no interest in being armed.
@ The Troll,
It is my guess, just a guess that happens to coincide with mass shootings in recent history, that if she, and others had been *permitted* to carry, then the shooter might not have chosen the school to assault.
Because, except the first, mass shootings happen where the law prevents everyone else from carrying a weapon.
I don't think it would be a specific shooter likely to stop the rampage; I don't think it would have been as likely to have been in a school, or that school, anyway, if it hadn't been a "disarmed victim" zone.
. . although, in the last decade or so, I read that civilians stopping a multiple-shooting (maybe without firing a shot), the average has been 2-3 dead. When the authorities stopped it, there was an average of ten more deaths.
Remember the gun advocate bumper sticker, "When seconds count, the police are minutes away."
The idiotic assertion was
"Had she been allowed to be armed, Principal Dawn Hochsprung and 25 others might still be alive."
not
"Homo economicus criminalis make rational cost-benefit analyses before going on shooting rampages."
But if you want to "move the goal posts" and replace rational thought with bumper-sticker slogans, go ahead.
Unlike, say, the Luby Cafeteria shooting of 1991, there is no evidence that anyone in Sandy Hook at the time would have been armed if only CCW laws had been relaxed. Nobody who was there has come forward and said "I would have been armed, but the law prevented me from being so."
You people are as ghoulish as the anti-gun crowd, using the bodies of dead children to advance your agenda.
The ElPaso county (Colorado Springs) sheriff has offered to waive county fees for teachers in K-12 and RMGO has offered the firearms course for free to teachers. Both are heavily subscribed.
Any given teacher might or might not wish to participate. You never know.
Post a Comment