I urge everyone reading this to contact Dr. Peter Sanchioni, Superindendent of Schools, and insist that this dangerous, frightening, and downright stupid plan stay the heck out of Natick schools.

Of course the answer is more guns! Why didn't I think of that? (Oh, and in case it's not coming off in the printed word, that was sarcasm)

"LaPierre announced that former Rep. Asa Hutchison, R-Ark., will lead an NRA program that will develop a model security plan for schools that relies on armed volunteers."
That's right "armed volunteers." Are we supposed to take these people seriously?

I totally support this. When we have "gun-free zone" signs posted in schools, malls, movie theatres, etc., guess who these murderers target? That's right! Innocent people in schools, malls, movie theatres!! Place an armed guard, or someone else in the school, anyone, who has been properly trained in concealed carry, and these murderers/cowards will not enter here!

Mr. LaPierre said that we should arm teachers, we should arm principles and we should think about armed security in our schools in answer to the Newtown slaughter of 26 young innocents. What could possibly go wrong? I am incredulous at the words Mr. LaPierre spoke. They stun my imagination.

I am capable, though, of selecting the axioms about which he talked and agreeing at least in part, to some. He addressed his speech to the culture of violence in the nation and I agree with many of his points. Video games, talk radio, film, television's all pervasive saturated culture of violence is out there for all to see and companies make billions from it. Little violence or sexual licentiousness is prohibited nay more is encouraged and accentuated. There are FEW boundaries any longer.

I fear the culture of violence, I fear a culture of irrational thought, I fear the culture of unbridled greed, I fear a culture of hate and I fear a cultural garb rent with division. I was not asking for this world I worry I helped shape. I know I am as guilty as any of political thought and speech permeated with emotional passion, uncompromising and immutable. For that I, singularly, can hope only to do better.

I fear though the genie has been let out of the bottle decades ago. I suspect it cannot be returned and THAT is my biggest fear of all!

Please explain who is paying for these trained people.. equipping and insuring them.. and of course, not a single one of the "good guys" is potentially unstable- which puts an armed unstable person where there was none before, right? Oh, and of course because we operating in a bravado-based fantasy land, the good guys never miss, killing innocents, nor do they ever mishandle and or have their weapon stolen from them (as happens even to police officers). Obviously, since good guys with guns are infallible (like someone who keeps multiple semiautomatic weapons in the house with a known mentally ill person), the best thing to do is place deadly weapons where they were never before, and trust the Self-Appointed Vigilante Army protect us all.

Anyone else think that if people had a little less of this "Well, it's because (puff chest out) I wasn't there!" bravado, we might have a more rational discussion?

I am amazed about this whole issue. Everywhere you look, you have people that are proposing "solutions" when we really haven't had a discussion that allows us to find the root cause of these killings. No matter the eventual solution, a lot of people are taking this on from the wrong direction. More guns or less...... Institutionalize people with mental disabilities or not.... Bullet Proof Windows.....Arm the teachers...... Post an armed Police Officer..... Keep the kids at home.... Ban the Video games....

I really wish that people would hold off on suggestions for solutions until we have had a frank discussion on what is causing some of these people to do this. Until then, I think that people should just disregard the proposals until we know more. I believe that officials will be viewed as being serious about this issue when they stop their political posturing and decide to get together with people who may have different perspectives of what is going on to get to the reason that these things happen in the first place.

Until then, De-Stress and try to enjoy the Holidays. Hug your kids and thank God that you can!!

I am an avid gun control advocate. But I see putting cops in schools as an intermediate solution until such time as we reduce the circulation of these awful assault weapons.

As a very close Nevada friend, a long time gun owner married to a long time teacher, just wrote me in response to the NRA rant: "The nurturing of children in an armed camp is insanity institutionalized. It's obscene!" Soon it will be bars on the windows, guns in lunchboxes, drones flying around the property, anti-missile weapons on the roof.

That speech was a joke right? Shirley he couldn't be serious. (Spelled intentionally) Lets just arm the students! But really what did we expect? Common sense? Values? A more long term solution to the problem? I'd love to say what NRA really stands for but good taste prevents me!

I don't understand why the only option is arming people with lethal weapons. What about having something like a tranquilizer gun around that would subdue the gunman but would not endanger the lives of the innocent?

This country is in need of healing. If we do nothing else after this unthinkable tragedy, we need to sit down and talk with civility and open minds. There are many causes for this violence and problems exist in all - gun control, enforcement of gun laws, the way we treat our mentally ill and more. I agree with nearly every comment here that putting guns where they never existed is not a solution. For now perhaps it is necessary since see seem totally incapable of productive discourse.

However, how does that solve the problem of gun violence in the malls, in the movie theaters, on the street corners?

Perhaps, just perhaps, this is our opportunity to come together as a country and work toward a solution. And then perhaps it can extend to other areas of discussion in our country. What a wonderful way to honor the lives of those lost.

I think its a wonderful idea! Just why stop at one gunman/guard? Lets have 2 or 3 or 4 in case one goes mad and starts shooting. And lets teach children to handle guns instead of all that useless maths.
A couple of questions though:
1. Who will pay for this stroke of NRA genius? The NRA?
2. Would the gun producers be willing to be taxed for the hiring, training, and deployment of these guards?
Seriously, I could not believe this was for real.

Hey guess what? Did you guys know Shrewsbury High School has an on-duty police officer and has for like 6 years now? And you object? You've been paying for this, the officer has been serving the community well, and fights in school are dramatically down from before he was stationed there. I feel good knowing he's there, and he just might be able to stop a gunman if, God forbid, it ever came to that.

I hear a lot of complaints anyone got a solution or are we going to wait until it happens again?

I'd also like to point out that most guns used in crimes are stolen. This makes an extremely important fact clear: LARGE numbers of guns, numbers large enough to supply the need for the stolen guns, are left in a condition where they can BE stolen from "responsible" gun owners.

In all the bravado, this fact is seemingly glossed over. Every single stolen handgun in the hands of a criminal is the result of a legal gun owner who did not adequately secure a deadly weapon. A properly secured gun safe, cable and trigger locks make guns either nearly impossible or pointless to steal.

The point being, you don't get better proof that such weapons need to be controlled better- because who we allow to have them already has proven to be a bad choice, even legally.

"Responsible" gun onwership isn't a problem. Far too often, the fact of the matter is that we have placed trust in people whose care of their weapons proved they shouldn't have been allowed to own anything more dangerous than a pillow.

@ my name - i'm with you. Children see cops at malls, airports. They look up to them; they feel safe with them. Any kid I know does. There are ways to have someone there and not have a gun out in the open. What about giving him an office to monitor the area around the schools? As far as someone paying for it - that should not even part of the equation. You can't put a price tag on kids and their safety. There have been secret service men for how long? And how many dead presidents?
Let's be realistic people. I honestly, can't believe parents are not willing to stand up and try and protect their kids. If parents dont fight for their kids who will? Maybe that is whats wrong with this society..among other things. We are a society living in a fast paced world with the newest electronics, games, jewlery, top hand bags - but kids safety should be put on the back burner? I guess I need to move out of this country! We are one of the leading countried in these type of shootings. Why? Is it because so my families think family time is rush around here and there and buy this and that for our kids instead of giving them what they really need? Quaility time and love. HELLO

It is irresponsible to respond to one of the worst shootings in American history by simply reinstating an assault weapons ban, which was proven not to work from 1994 to 2004. That's not enough. Not even close.

We have federal air marshalls on our airplanes. They have guns. Yet terrorists can't get through the metal detectors with a gun. So we have air marshalls to protect grown men on airplanes from terrorists with box cutters and some marshall arts training.

And the same people who support that policy, are against having police in our schools, where 1,000 students convene every day, defenseless, crowded up in classrooms all day.

Let's get real. We'll never stop these sorts of mass shootings with tinkering around the edges on gun rights. We need a national overhaul of the way we approach mental health, and we need police (not in uniform so they aren't sitting ducks) in schools. If grown adults on airplanes are worth having air marshalls, our defenseless kids are worth having a cop. And in Shrewsbury, they do. And I am thankful.

The reality is that we cannot effectively defend against this type of thing, for the same reason that defending against terrorism is so difficult- you really have little to no idea when or where it may be coming. Once it has begun, it's too late to stop- a well armed gunman intent on harm will likely be able to kill a single armed guard, or even several. See Afghanistan and Iraq- and those are active duty military. Civilians stand much less chance of stopping an attack.

Lanza had THREE semiautomatic weapons.. two handguns, a semiautomatic assault-style rifle.. and a shotgun, which was left in the car. We have not been told whether this was the extent of the weapons in the home, but we can certainly say two semiautomatic handguns and an assault rifle is a bit much for home defense. They are not hunting weapons, and the simple fact is, cannot ALL be justified in the name of "bearing arms".

We need to better at prevention- and that takes RESPONSIBLE gun ownership. Keeping multiple semiautomatic weapons in a home with a known mentally unstable person, and additionally, in a condition in which someone other than the owner could arm themselves- that isn't responsible.

As a person who grew up hunting, and a former Junior NRA member, I am ashamed of the conduct of the NRA for quite some time.

Its time to make it a lot harder for people to buy a gun. Its time to make it a lot harder for people to sell guns. There are more than twice as many gun dealers in the USA as there are McDonalds and Supermarkets COMBINED! Do we really need unregulated gun shows too? Sorry NRA I dont think Jim Tom in Kansas is doing a proper background check at the local flea market. Are guns the only problem? HELL NO! But the extreme limitation of their sales is a great place to start. Laws should not differentiate from state to state. If we are going to claim a right under Federal Law then the Federal Government should regulate the terms of that Ammendments use. Explain to me why anyone would need more than say two weapons for home defense? (I would say one but dont feel like dealing with the backlash.) Are you that bad a shot? If so why do you have a gun in the first place.

If The Patch didn't ALLOW us to use our real names, but we were FORCED to use an alias or pseudonym, Dave Lenane could be THE VOICE OF REASON. Go Dave!

http://www.wisconsinrapidstribune.com/article/20121221/WRT06/312210081/A-Moment-Clarity-column-Let-s-eliminate-need-guns?odyssey=mod%7Cnewswell%7Ctext%7CFRONTPAGE%7Cs

The 2nd Amendment folks speak about slippery slopes of gun control leading to loss of other rights.... What about the armed guard slippery slope? First schools, then buses, then bus stops, then birthday parties. What about college classrooms? Daycares? Sunday Schools? Need I go on. There is always another target to be found.

@ My Name: the officers already in schools are there to protect the teenagers from themselves and each other, not outside threats. Wboro has a school officer too. But he is mostly in the high school (and not full time and not at the door standing guard), and not the other 5 schools. So not the same.
As far as sky marshals, that program exists not to "protect men.. from box cutters" but to prevent guided missiles from killing thousands. Again, apples and oranges.

Maybe interested teachers could spend their summer vacations getting training as reserve police officers And probably pays better than their other summer jobs.

Oh yeah.... I'm curious to hear how responsible gun owners (meaning stored properly and safely) use those weapons to "protect" their homes? It takes me 20 minutes to find my key (hidden from the kids) unlock my safe, unlock my trigger guard and load the weapon. And that's in the daylight. Faster to run away. ;)

I have made my position abundantly clear. I hope if you are reading this that you and your family have a wonderful Christmas! God Bless us all and I hope together we can make this a less violent country in the New Year! Im gonna go enjoy the weekend now...Boston Pops tomorrow....dinner in the city...

I still don't see solutions to keep the kids and staff safe. Guns are already in the hands of people, they will never be completely gone, so there needs to be another solution besides gun control. I agree about having a gun to protect yourself.. Although, these days I am feeling like I need to get my license to carry; in the event I am somewhere when a shooting breaks out. Sad and disgusting.

As a parent and as a concerned citizen I would like every town in Massachusetts seeking a first step to addressing gun violence to join this coalition with the other Mayors of Massachusetts.
http://www.mayorsagainstillegalguns.org/html/home/home.shtml

http://www.mayorsagainstillegalguns.org/html/home/home.shtml

Has anyone addressed the issue that the mom legally owned all these guns, knew her son was unstable (she was reportedly trying to have him committed against his will) and yet somehow he still had access to these weapons? I fully support the right to own a gun to hunt or for personal protection but I haven't met anyone who needed assault/ semi or automatic weapons for that reason.

Insanity. As a kid I worked at Star Market in Cambridge where I managed the registers. They had an armed guard who insisted on accompanying me, often with his gun out. One night he went home and shot and killed his wife and kids. Tragic, but why did he have a gun? What if others like him are allowed in, no paid to be in our schools, and do what this man did? No, more guns cannot be the answer of a civilized society.

Police officers are armed security and they were in all schools in Syracuse as far back as the 80's. Its not a foreign concept and one that is already in place all over America.

Utter madness!
The only way to stop mad man with a gun....IS NOT TO LET HIM HAVE A GUN IN THE FIRST PLACE!

Of the last ten massacres of the innocent...how many have been done with illegally obtained guns?

About 25% of school districts use some kind of professional, sometimes armed services, and have been for many years. Often it is to protect schools, sometimes temporarily, against gangs, drug dealings, student-on-student violence, etc. In fact, violence against kids in schools has been dropping nationally, but not necessarily because of armed guards. It is one thing for a school district to work with local police departments, hire and train security people, etc. and another for a LOBBY for the gun industry to propose a NATIONAL program. Isn't this just what libertarians and conservatives would fear??? Next thing you know the National Helicopter Assoc (if there is one) will propose choppers over every school, and so it goes. The NRA is over the top and I am happy to hear friends in it say they will be organizing to try and drive the existing nutcases from office there. Sadly, we live in a country where fear is rampant, what with a proliferation of gated communities, utter nonsense about immigrants or black helicopters. A friend from Florida wrote recently and told me one of his church groups spent its meeting time discussing which Glocks to buy and why. Its time to take a deep breath.

Here is an article that Northborough police linked on their Facebook page from a professor of criminology, listing common myths about school shootings vs. reality - interesting read:
http://boston.com/community/blogs/crime_punishment/2012/12/top_10_myths_about_mass_shooti.html

@ Danielle, the same person whom wrote that article (james fox) also had this to say:
The fact that gun control, psychiatric services, and security measures are limited in their ability to prevent the dreadful acts of violence doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try. Although they may stop the next mass murderer, wherever he may strike, we can enhance the well-being of millions of Americans in the process. Besides, doing something is better than doing nothing. If nothing else, it will reduce the debilitating feeling of helplessness.
So let's put our heads together and demand a solution!!

Thanks for that. Missed it in the Globe. I remember back to my elementary school days when we did 'duck and cover' under our desks to protect ourselves against Russian nukes, and a crazy scheme in our rural Iowa college to build a bomb shelter in the new fine arts center for students and 'selected' faculty and community members (I helped stop that one) about the time of the Cuban Missile Crisis....now you can date me. After 9/11 we enacted laws, such as the Patriot Act, which are highly intrusive, even reaching into our local libraries. As one who travels all the time I feel my freedoms are unnecessarily restricted, and I have been physically abused, by airport security. Now powerful voices want to arm kindergarten teachers, college students and worse. We need to get perspective folks. One reason Dwight Eisenhower federalized the Arkansas National Guard to protect black kids going to school in Little Rock was because saw America facing shame in the world at a time when 'democracy' was our strong suit....and if you could see the emails I am getting these days from around the world you would feel likewise. Ike couldn't get nominated by his party today, nor could Reagan I fear. So whatever good literature, whether historical or of the kind you have provided Danielle is very welcome and much needed. And kudos to our Nboro police. They're smart and know what safety is all about.

Even if you do not agree with LaPierre, think about what he said. We guard our money but not our children, we have severe decay in our entertainment "culture", and we spend billions on illegal wars for another country. How many innocent lives, women and children, have these wars claimed and at what expense? Do you really think we cannot afford to protect our children?

I think we should have an armed officer at every school all day! I think at least th NRA is proposing an answer! Th coments above do not have a vaild realisitc answer. A gun ban wil not do it as there are already to omany guns out there. a bn will take YEARS to get through. We have a problem now and it is unfortunately a reality. People that think we can regulate it away are a huge part of the problem. i also see people worried about who wil pay for an armed officer. I say "seriously" we pay taxes for roads and th elike to the town now but these people don't want to pay more to keep our kids safe? That thinking is warped! How abotu we act realisticaly and solve the problem. I hate to say it but a gun ban isn't realistic. I wish it were.

I am with you DMEL. It saddens and sickens me to hear anyone say where to get the money. Re-budget the taxes, make it a priority as you do when roads need repair, or buildings need a roof or new plumbing. Some districts pay fees for sports. I would pay a fee for safety if it meant it would happen and it would happen ASAP. This is a reality. Guns are everywhere they aren't going to be all gone. Sick people will always find away. We can make it more difficult for them. We can deter them. Just as in 9/11 and new equipment at the airports, and air marshalls. We could also, sadly, add bulletproof glass and doors. COME ON PEOPLE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Check this out. I saw it on another post:
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2012/12/school-security-one-schools-extraordinary-safety-measures/

Your son or daughter probably has a much higher probability of dying at a young age from any number of factors -- diabetes from overweight and sugar, suicide from bullying, football field injuries, drug overdose, pregnancy gone bad, being unable to get into or afford college, etc. -- than being the victim of gun violence in school. Life is actuarial, as one of my friends put it. Educators have been working their tails off, often with little public support or tax dollars, to address those issues. Just look at how long it took to start reducing deadly sugar drinks, and in most schools it is difficult to provide sex education to prevent HIV and other diseases. So, maybe this is a good 'teachable moment' in which we do have to key in on mass murder or the odd person who enters a school with a gun. We have to learn about best practices. What we don't need is a gun industry lobby group to tell us what our perspective ought to be as NATIOINAL POLICY, responsible as they are for many of the 250,000,000 guns floating around. Though there is plenty of evidence that people will vote to raise taxes to support better education (as California just did), somebody has to do something about a national climate which cuts healthcare for kids, cuts scholarships, fires thousands and thousands of teachers and counselors, and sees federally stimulated vocational programs as 'socialism'. All politics is local at the end of the day so it is good to see discussion that gets beyond protecting AK47s

Armed volunteers... just what we need, another George Zimmerman.

Columbine had two armed officers on duty at the time of the shootings. Worked well, right?
More guns don't help.

n 1999,.... at Columbine High School. The destruction occurred despite the fact that there was an armed security officer at the school and another one nearby -- exactly what LaPierre argued...
Deputy Neil Gardner was a 15-year veteran of the Jefferson County, Colo., Sheriff’s Office assigned as the uniformed officer at Columbine. According to an account compiled by the police department, Gardner fired on Harris but was unsuccessful in stopping him:
Gardner, seeing Harris working with his gun, leaned over the top of the car and fired four shots. He was 60 yards from the gunman. Harris spun hard to the right and Gardner momentarily thought he had hit him. Seconds later, Harris began shooting again at the deputy.
After the exchange of gunfire, Harris ran back into the building. Gardner was able to get on the police radio and called for assistance from other Sheriff’s units. "Shots in the building. I need someone in the south lot with me."
The second officer was Deputy Paul Smoker, a motorcycle patrolman who was near the school writing a speeding ticket. When he heard a dispatch of a woman injured at the high school, he responded. He, too, fired at Harris but didn't stop him.

LaPierre said having armed security on the scene is necessary so someone is there to shoot back. "The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun," he said. "Would you rather have your 911 call bring a good guy with a gun from a mile away -- or a minute away?"

The destruction occurred despite the fact that there was an armed security officer AT the school ..He was assigned to the school and WAS THERE.
I don't understand this.." I win you lose" kind of conversation you seem to be having with me. . Or "I'm right/You're wrong" . It feels like middle school. Is this a contest or something you feel you need to win? How old are you anyway?

For heaven's sake. Doesn't anyone realism the problem here is the availability of repeating weapons? There will always be mad people, there will always be weapons, but I strongly suspect that the carnage seen in Newton would not have happened if a crazy young man had not had access to repeating weapons. Yes, there was Dunblane, and the incident in China, but it has now happened so many times here ...with legally obtained assault weapons.

Actually...England has had NO mass shootings since Dunblane. They have strict gun laws and penalties in place and they follow them.

So we will now have armed officers and armed students, and armed visitors whose main hurdle will be to enter the school unseen by the (insert number here) "school gunmen". And we will trust these school-based gunmen to be "good guys"--because we know that there are good guys and bad guys and they are so easy to distinguish.... And so, instead of Gettysburg and Vicksburg in the 19th century, our 21st-century battlegrounds will have names like "Roosevelt Elementary" and "Eisenhower Middle School". This is nonsense. We should be ROUNDING UP guns. It should be extremely difficult to obtain them. People who buy them should have to insure them at great cost, so that WHEN they turn up stolen and used in a crime, those responsible should incur ruinous fines--doubled when the user-abuser turns out to be from the same household as the "good guy" owner. YES we have a lot to do when it comes to helping the mentally ill, and preventing them from threatening the public. But we have MORE to do when it comes to curbing this gun-loving, gun-crazy, gun-toting, NRA-worshipping sector of Americans who live on fear and spreading fear and have held the rest of us hostage--at gunpoint, really--for WAY too long.

Ron, The recent threats made by peace loving liberals to attack NRA members and Second Amendment supporters are taken seriously by some people. Visions of PETA come to mind where the activities of crazed irrational liberals really do concern people. About the FEMA camps, do you know that returning veterans have been targeted by Homeland Security as potential domestic terrorists because of their overseas "experiences" and injuries? As I said before, the safety of children should be our main concern. As LaPierre said, we have many qualified retired and/or unemployed policeman, firemen and veterans who would gladly protect our children, maybe even if they carried weapons other than guns so that everyone is happy and not making threats against those who are trying to help find a workable solution.

Yes, the safety of children is our main concern. So your partisan, tendentious comments seem a bit out of place, anonymous "Patriart41". In any case, they do not succeed in deflecting our attention from the priority: a safer environment for innocent people, with FEWER guns all around, and NO guns in schools, PERIOD.

I have watched this back and forth for days now. It is going no where. The struggle will be to break the back of the NRA and the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC).

"Meaningful action" has been thwarted, largely because of the power and wealth of the National Rifle Association (NRA). One of the key avenues it has used to exert its influence is the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC). For decades, the NRA has helped bankroll ALEC operations and even co-chaired ALEC's "Public Safety and Elections Task Force," where it secretly voted on bills alongside elected representatives. At ALEC's annual meeting this summer, the NRA had the biggest booth at the convention in Salt Lake City and also underwrote a shooting event along with one of the largest sellers of assault weapons in the world.
http://www.prwatch.org/news/2012/12/11908/nraalec-reactionary-gun-agenda

In 2004 when Cheney/Bush allowed the assault weapons ban to expire, the vast majority of Senators and Representatives who received money from the NRA were Republicans. Dave has pointed out that, last year, Republican Senators and Representatives received 88% of the money contributed to members of Congress by the NRA.

I can't help it, I keep trying to imagine the Founding Fathers, say Benjamin Franklin or Thomas Jefferson, and they're contestants on a game show, and the challenge is to construct a sentence containing the two phrases, "elementary school" and "semi-automatic weapons". Those who think this is an issue of Constitutional rights--you've lost it!!!!

I do not like guns. I wish we did not have them freely available to us. They are. If you think that these people arent already out there you are kidding yourself. I could walk into school everyday packing and no one would know. I think the immediate thing would be a guard to protect the schools like we protect our borders and fight for our country, Marshall's on planes, secret service men and women, etc. while they are in place we all should be working on other solutions not arguing with each other and getting no where. Metal detectors, bullet proof glass, cameras around the schools that someone monitors from the inside. Always locking doors. Making two door entrances etc... Kids are precious and should be just as protected. There is security at malls, hospitals, your patted down and they are at concerts. I see no valid arguments here. I have learnt in the last year that many of my family members carry. Nothing I usually condone. Point is - if you think these people aren't already carrying get real. They are your neighbors, could be a teacher, the guy who walks by everyday with his dog, a coach etc... No one really knows!!!!!!!!!!!!

con't

con't

In the very long run, we need to get all of the money & lobbyists out of Congress and have publicly funded elections. Then we might be able to have government for the people and not government for the NRA.

In the short run, we need to publicly identify Senators and Representatives from New England (I don't believe there are any from MA) who have accepted money from the NRA, research their voting records, and apply vigorous amounts of public pressure to them and demonstrate that we -- even though we might not live in their districts -- can threaten their re-election.

Rebutting pro-gun BS on this site from people whose minds can not be changed is pointless.

Guns dont shoot themselves..nra all the way . Its was not the gun it was the idiot who woke up and decided to use it the wrong way! Just so you know there are people in the world that do own guns and never killed anyone or anything.!

Funny...I was AT a concert today...I wasnt patted down. Then visited a hospital...no armed security anywhere...hmmm... I' ve been in a war zone Rose. I've seen grown men and boys scared of their own shadow. Hell I was one of them! And I had an AUTOMATIC rifle that I would have gladly used on a number of occasions had I not been trained. There are millions of people out there right now with NO TRAINING and you are advocating for millions more! Guns need to be limited...bought back....taken from irresponsible people and confiscated whenever and wherever possible. There is no foolproof way of securing guns from kids. Google " gun safes" and read about how they can be opened with a paper clip or a drinking straw. More guns wont protect kids...it will end up putting more guns in the hands of kids! Thats my last post on this topic. Somehow...someway..I hope Barack and Joe manage to get something done on this....makes me wish I had voted for them. I'm ashamed I didnt!!!!!

Guns do not belong in schools. Nuff said.

Great to hear Dave. Im not advocating more guns. The officers at schools would people who already have them. I don't know where you see a concert but anytime I've gone to a rock concert they are there and have been for decades. I've been at the hospital everyday for two months and they have security. Not sure of their a abilities but they are there like they are at the mall. If I lived in a perfect world the would be no guns. However that is not reality. I am all for a buy back program and I personally don't see a need for GH s especially assault riffles. Enough about the gun date. Lets work on a solution for the kids. It's way past time to but systems in place to lessen the odds. Merry christmas eveyone!

I guess when the police come and respond they should not bring their guns

I was at Symphony Hall...no pat downs. And when you go to Gillette Rose they are making sure you arent bringing booze or drugs into the stadium. And you see how well that works so please dont tell me you are getting a pat down.

Merry Christmas Dave Nolta!

@Ron, the discussion is putting gaurd in schools and how to keep our chldren safe. You offer NO way to do that. You go off about soft drinks and college tuition. I will gladly discuss these issues with you and show you how and why your thought process is what is causing the decay of society you speak of! When people like you blame others for everything and will not take accountability that is a problem. How about parents watch what the kids eat and drink, how about if a parent knows they will not be able to afford college they make sure thier child is set up to succeed with a trade. how about if college is within reach they make sure the kids take a major that will have the best chance at a job when they are done not pursue some waste of time major then blame the world that there is no job! What color is the sky in your world Ron? we need to keep our children safe NOW. I am done! all I can say to you is WOW.

If the NRA can talk context, so can others. I hope all the WOWs make you feel better. Having spent much of my life working in and around schools, and doing research on them, I would be happy to engage in an informed debate, but for now you sound like the kid who comes to class late, sits in the back row and loves to sound off, pretending he is a social scientist or some other expert. Nobody is saying parents don't have some responsibilities to do the best they can, but tain't working because there is only so much they can do, and it isn't because of people who criticiize the NRA. I never said local communities could not work with schools and post guards if so determined (though I don't especially like the idea). Many do. This suggests Mr/Ms DGM you might read more carefully. Anyhow WOW on and dig in deeper. Oh, and if you are going to tell me and others off take the time to spell well and use good grammar. Failure to do that is a sure WOW! My last word with you sir/madame.

Everyone is making this more difficult than it really is. We cannot control human behavior. If someone wants to kill people, especially if they our going to kill themselves, its very difficult to prevent. The person isn't deterred by the consequences because there won't be any.

There are many different weapons people can use to kill. We cant eliminate them all. What we can do is everything in our power to increase security at school and decrease the opportunity to harm our children. If armed guards are what is necessary, than thats what we do.

Every day children die from guns they find at home. How long before a child dies in school from a gun lifted from a guard? (It happens...a moment of inattention, acute illness, a bathroom break).

Maggie, There all all sorts of ways having an armed gaurd could go bad. But I have never heard of a K through 5th grader trying to take an officers weapon. I think if there was a risk analysis done we would find that the chance of it hapening is very small. I have never heard of it hapening. I would ask how you propose to keep the kids safe now (realisticaly)? in 1994 Diane Feinstein passed a law banning assault style weapons (a law I am all for coming back). It took 5 years to pass and because gun companies made modifictions to weapons they found way around the law. It didn't make us any safer! I want to addess the issue now and keep the kids safe and gaurding our kids is an answer until we get the country to a place where we don't have to. Again that could take years or decades and I think to realistcially get all guns off the streets is not a realistic goal. I hope we call al work together to find an answer for the kids.

Massacusetts has some of the strictest laws in the Nation on gun control, so I am confident that we (here is MA) will not see ANY CHANGE from the President. We should have armed people in our schools, with the Media making such a big deal out of this horrific event, it is no wonder that unstable beings who want to be hero's (in their own minds) do these unspeakable deeds. 3 years ago I took 3 classes (ALL DAY CLASSES) on Gun safety all by NRA trained instructors (at my own expense). I wanted to NOT be afraid of guns and to be able to protect myself, should I ever have to. I now have my licence to carry and practice shooting regulary (as to feel comfortable with my gun). I hope I NEVER have to take my gun out of the holster, but I will if I need to. I urge those of you who are questioning what the NRA is saying to take one of their all day courses for a $125 and find out how guns ARE SAFE and if you are a normal stable person, get your license, practice and arm yourself. If we had more GOOD PEOPLE with guns than the BAD ONES the tables would be turned and people would not be so stupid as to open fire on innocent people. If you have not taken a class (to get informed) or educated yourself on gun safety (either with a class or at least did some research), then I do not feel you should vote on the issue, because you do not understand how guns are safe... people sometimes are not.

It was depressing and frightening to hear the NRA's LaPierre on 'Meet the Press' this morning. He staunchly refused to concede that guns should even be part of the discussion of mass shootings. He argued that banning large capacity magazines and 100 round drums would have no impact on these shootings. He said if "all that is crazy, call me crazy".

Wayne LaPierre -- you be crazy.

OK people wake up. A secured entrance to a school is the best way to control who enters. How many banks are robbed when an armed guard is at the door?. How many are robbed when there is no guard at the door?.No matter how hard you try there are to many legal guns out there, you will never get them. They have a right to own them. I will not give mine up!.To remove all the illegal guns is a job that is on going an very hard to do. So if you can't control the guns then control the schools.

But we CAN do much more to control the guns. And to make those whose guns are not controlled responsible for the terrible things done with them. Gun-owners often seem to think their responsibility ends if anything happens to their guns--sorry I don't see it that way. And guns do not belong in schools, period. And this absurd idea that only "good" people should have them--what a delusion! Yes, WAKE UP!

Yes David we can do more to control guns, while we are waiting for our guiding light to lead us what do you suggest we do to make schools safe?. Not all gun owners are irresponsible and because of this you have no right to take away their rights.

To be clear: I do not like Dick Cheney.

However, during an interview after the shootings in Tucson, he seemed to open the door to limiting the size of magazines that one can buy that go with semi-automatic weapons. “Maybe it's appropriate to reestablish that kind of thing,” said Cheney.

http://tinyurl.com/46uaz8k

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, in his majority opinion in the 2008 ruling that affirmed the right to bear arms, said the government could impose restrictions, such as bans on “gun possession by convicted felons and the mentally ill.” He went a bit further when he wrote gun rights are “not unlimited”. Scalia said the court was not questioning “laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.” He asserted that the Second Amendment protects weapons that are in “common use” and not those that are "dangerous and unusual”.

Future court cases will likely turn on whether Scalia’s “common use” becomes defined as common use for self-defense or common use because a particular type of gun is widely owned.

And therein lies the rub.

http://tinyurl.com/d79knrw

"Not all gun owners are irresponsible and because of this you have no right to take away their rights." Lots of jumps in logic there. Gun control suggests a spectrum--why is it when the phrase "gun control" appears in a discussion, the gun enthusiasts counter immediately with an extremist refusal to have their guns confiscated? That sort of reaction suggests a sort of trigger-happiness, metaphorically speaking. As for a guiding light, we have only ourselves to look to for leadership. On the practical level, as I and others have been saying for some time here on The Patch, we can do PLENTY to improve gun control, to make it harder to obtain weapons, to make gun-owners more responsible (financially and in other ways) for whatever uses their guns are put to, to reduce the capacity of guns to carry out wholesale slaughter (many posters have made an admirable effort to explain about the varieties of ammunition and the various types of firearms available--these things can be regulated, too, and should be), to reduce the proliferation of guns (how many guns do you need, seriously??), to do better and wider background checks, to keep tabs on the whereabouts of guns, to impose heavy fines for gun-negligence, etc. As an answer to your question, that is the tip of the iceberg.

Again while you and your anti-gun friends are trying to figure out to solve this problem who? is stopping this gun violence.Why is it wrong for me to refuse to let my legal weapon be confiscated ?. I agree gun owners have to be made responsible for their actions as well the control of them. All we need is a clear fair rule not one guided by vigilantes who feal it is their right to control others

Believe me, though you don't seem to read it in black and white, I do not want to take your weapon. READ!

I understand that , my main concern is what do we do while we figure out what to do about a deranged person gaining entrance to a school . What is the best way to stop him,keep in mind we do not have week,months to do this!!. The quickest way is to controll school entrances

Also thank you it is nice to have concerned people involved in such a serious decision

These entrances you speak of--do you think that is how a killer would choose to enter a school? And how many entrances are there? And windows? And the parking lots, and the playgrounds? How far away from the school will these many gunmen have to fan out? Nope, serious gun restrictions are the first and most practical step, including better and more widespread background checking, securability guarantees, rigid ammunition regulation, etc., all while we simultaneously improve the way we handle mental health... Now the tax bill for this--that's going to be another interesting debate.

Sure serious gun restrictions will slow down legal guns in the hands of legal owners . Sad part is there are just as many illegal guns and people who use them. In the last few shootings involved in schools they came through the main doors.

I hope and believe that Wayne LaPierre's blatant, mendacious, self-serving rant last Friday will outrage NRA members and lead to their mass exodus. LaPierre and his accomplices have turned a former educational and recreational organization into a money-making political lobby with values very much at odds with those of their members and most other Americans.

Once again, time to ban assault weapons. If you insist on having a hunting rifle, or even a six shooter, OK (reluctantly). But why, on earth, do you need an assault weapon?

When the NRA announced that they would have a press conference on December 21, they began by saying the NRA "is made up of four million moms and dads, sons and daughters..."
It appears that Wayne LaPierre thinks all 4 million members march in lock step with his views. However, the NRA really represents the gun manufacturers and gun dealers.
One might wonder how many of those moms and dads, sons and daughters were outraged by LaPierre's rant last Friday and may turn in their NRA membership. While refusing to acknowledge that semi-automatic weapons and large-capacity magazines need to be part of the conversation, LaPierre wants government censorship of music, media, and games.
LaPierre foolishly told David Gregory on 'Meet the Press" that he wouldn't be a part of any panel to examine what should be done to address mass shootings in America. Great tactic, Wayne, refuse a seat at the table -- don't be part of the solution -- don't try to shape the conversation -- just stomp off like an angry guy -- who no doubt owns a gun or two.