Scot,

In your article you asked "what is the solution ..." I know political correctness only allowed you to inquire about "the mentally ill from killing our children ..." to which there is only one answer.

Caution: The answer to the "solution" is political & journalistic poison:

Hint: When America removed GOD from our schools & public places, something else filled the vacuum it left behind. It is the "something else" we witnessed this past weekend.

How about using the CPL holders that would like to volunteer their time once a month to be on site at the schools? There should be more training for these individuals for their particular location but that would save a lot of money from hiring armed guards and allow us that carry to put our money where our mouths are so to speak. Just a thought that has run through my mind in the last 24 hours. I have already taken the class for my ECPL and would be happy to stand on that wall for my three kids and everyone else's.

Scot Beaton you are on the right track. I hope Gov. Snyder has the courage to sign the bill, even if the media attempts to beat him up on it.

If the legislature was to facilitate educators carrying in schools, some legal shielding would need to be enacted in concert with those efforts. I'd hate to see some educator attempt to thwart an act of violence only to be sued for doing so.

Good article, keep it up.

I accept that guns are a reality in modern American society. What Scot and other pro-gun advocates refuse to accept is that this reality has negative consequences. As long as we allow guns to be prevelant, gun violence will be prevelant. Similarly, for example, as long as we have cars, we will have car accidents; swimmimg pools will always be plagued by accidental drownings.

Our modern American society, and especially Scot, Steve, and other "gun advocates," need to admit that negative consequences, however unintended, will forever be tied to a device that's exclusive design purpose is to kill. "Safe" guns are, by definition, defective. Many other modern countries, most notable the United Kingdom, have proven scientifically that the only effective means of reducing "the wrong kind" of gun violence is to reduce the availability of guns.

I understand that gun advocates are unwilling to give up guns. I'm just asking for some intelectual honesty in the debate. More of any substance that has positive and negative aspects will increase both the positive and the negative.

Finally, what gun advocates are loathe to admit, no reputable science has ever shown that guns in the hands of "good guys" prevents gun violence. In other words, there is no evidence to show that an entire faculty of heavily armed, highly trained teachers has ever prevented a single school shooting. Not to mention the fact that advocating for Judge Dredd-style teachers is akin to advocating for the summary execution of the mentally ill and criminals (without due process). Again, if those are the positions you are advocating, please just be honest about it.

Matt Bieber, you are wrong when you say guns are designed to kill. Actually, guns are designed to fire a projectile. This can be used for good purposes, such as defending yourself, or in mountainous areas large guns (cannons) are used to dislodge dangerous snowpiles. Yes, guns can be used by bad people to do bad things. But a gun is not "designed" to kill. An electric chair, or a gallows, is designed to kill.

You also have some reading to do:

http://www.amazon.com/More-Guns-Less-Crime-Understanding/dp/0226493660/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1355685801

"On its initial publication in 1998, John R. Lott’s More Guns, Less Crime drew both lavish praise and heated criticism. More than a decade later, it continues to play a key role in ongoing arguments over gun-control laws: despite all the attacks by gun-control advocates, no one has ever been able to refute Lott’s simple, startling conclusion that more guns mean less crime. Relying on the most rigorously comprehensive data analysis ever conducted on crime statistics and right-to-carry laws, the book directly challenges common perceptions about the relationship of guns, crime, and violence. For this third edition, Lott draws on an additional ten years of data—including provocative analysis of the effects of gun bans in Chicago and Washington, D.C—that brings the book fully up to date and further bolsters its central contention."

Tim - you hurt my feelings with your comments. Thus, you should not be able to use your First Amendment rights. How about that? If they take away our Second Amendment rights, it will not be long after when your won't have your First Amendment rights or any others for that matter. Certainly, the tragic events are compelling but knee jerk reactions don't solve problems, they create more of them. Find a solution that fits the problem appropriately.

These assault rifles are weapons of mass destruction. No one needs an assault rifle to protect themselves or their families or shoot a dear. I don't care if Friday's shooter was mentally unstable or a healthy individual, these were war weapons he had access to. And don't tell me a shot gun is as deadly as an assault rifle that goes through a hundred rounds in minutes.

Friday's shooter's family was an NRA poster family 5 minutes before he killed these people. I don't know how we can keep saying that with proper training and locked gun safes, we are all okay with gun access as it stands.

Tell me why one shoe bomber on a plane has caused our nation to be required to remove their shoes at the airport, but 20 dead babies doesn't equate more gun legislation?

Let's see if my 3rd post on this article drops into the same Patch limbo that ate the first 2.

Guns are not going away anymore than drugs are. Prohibition does little to fix issues and oftentimes leads to even worse outcomes. Gun control needs to be discussed in an even headed manner without the histrionics of emotions muddling the issues. Common sense, not knee jerk regulations.

This issue needs to not only address reasonable gun controls, but also take into consideration the mental health issues, the benefits and drawbacks of limiting all guns or just assault weapons, and the societal attitudes that blame the gun over the criminal who uses it to kill others.

Will restricting guns help change the attitudes or values that society has? Doubtful. Would regulations have stopped this massacre? Not in the slightest. Those who are willing to give up their own life in the pursuit of harming others, don't care what the law says because they know that little can be done short of making their objective a little harder to accomplish.

The mass school murder in 1927 in Bath, Mi. was able to be carried out because the killer didn't care about the consequences of his actions. How do you stop that mindset? You can't. The government can not afford to keep everyone safe from all the hazards that life entails, and should only try to stop the worst. There is little guarantee of success, regardless of cost.

cont. below

cont.

Though the murders at the school were a tragedy, are they any more of a tragedy than any other mass murders such as the theater shootings or the Virginia shootings? There is little difference in the tragedies, only our outrage over the deaths of innocent children. It showed how vulnerable life is, how our innocence has been lost as a society. No amount of gun regulations will put that innocence back into the kids or ourselves. Society has lost sight of the idea of respect, of responsibility to people other than ourselves.

People have screamed that this happened because we have lost sight of religion or God. Religion may help SOME people to learn respect, but not others. We have to take responsibility for ourselves and hope that others do so as well. Enough of the selfish me me me attitudes. Enough of the hate inciting speech from the media, from politicians, from those who feel that their view is the only correct one. Those who call for using bullets if the ballots don't get them what they want, are as much responsible for inciting hatred as are the media and politicians.

We have some huge fundamental problems with how society views things, that neither religion nor law can change. We need to demand accountability from those who espouse hatred just as much as we do from ourselves. We all need to tone down the vitriol and think about how our words can cause negative consequences just as deadly as any gun. .

Breaking News: Snyder Vetoes Gun Bill

I don't know who said it but it goes something like--for every complex problem there is a simple solution that is fast, easy and wrong.
Do we have all sorts of laws making heroin, cocaine, meth, etc. illegal. Do we have tens of thousand of people in prison for trafficking in those drugs? Have we as a nation stopped the possession and use of those drugs/. Why hasn't just passing a law solved the problem?
If the Sandy Hook did not have such a weapon he would have used the 2 pistols he still could have killed at least as many.
Fast, simple, and wrong

There are very good reasons why comparing the arming of airline pilots to the arming of school teachers is a completely invalid comparison....
* Airline passengers already have their lives in the hands of the pilot flying the plane, if a pilot has a mental breakdown he does not need a gun to kill everyone on the plane and there is always a co-pilot to help a stressed pilot.
* An airliner is a highly federally regulated environment, It is not a federal offense with possible jail time for a student to disrupt a classroom. One unruly student will most likely be joined by other students in the disruption, while on a flight anyone trying to start a disruption will be restrained by the flight crew with the eager help of passengers.
* There are federal regulations that are designed to prevent pilots from becoming too stressed, they are even allowed to sleep on the job and have a co-pilot to take over when needed.
* Since 9/11 the cockpit crew is always kept locked out of touch from the passengers behind a bullet proof door and knows that even in the worst case other crew and most passengers will be eager to come to their immediate aid.
* Many flights already have an armed air marshall to prevent major disruptions from passengers.