As we continue to mourn the deaths of the children brutally murdered in Newtown, Connecticut, the issue of gun violence is rightfully so in the mainstream.
The National Rifle Association has a solution to gun violence - whether it is a member of Congress being shot at in Arizona, a school shooting in Connecticut or a mentally ill individual in a crowded shopping mall unloading his rifle - a solution of calling for armed guards at schools. I want to examine, why, as a nation, this is horrible federal public policy and just a sideshow distraction by a gun industry only interested in one thing: money.
The gun industry (like so many other corporate industries, whether its cigarettes, oil or defense), has some of the most well-paid and powerful lobbyists in the country. Make no mistake about it, nobody is attacking anyone's 2nd Amendment rights. The gun lobby has a job to make it as easy as possible to make sure guns are easy to purchase, even if it is someone who fails a background check or is mentally unstable. They have one goal and that is to make sure gun manufacturers sell guns. You have an extreme group of the population that is 110% in support of the gun lobby, characterize this as an attack on the 2nd Amendment and want to make everything about that 'attack'. Fortunately, that is a fringe group in our country. Unfortunately, that fringe group can make a lot of noise.
The overwhelming majority of Americans can agree, that together, Democrats, Republicans and Unaffiliateds should come together to stop illegal guns from getting into our cities. The overwhelming majority of murders in Newark and Camden are from illegal guns. That should be the primary focus.
Second, the majority of Americans agree that if you are a law abiding citizen who so desires, you should be able to purchase a basic gun for self-protection. However, why should non-military and non-law enforcement folks be able to purchase an AK-47 or another type of gun?
Third, background checks need to be enforced so that those who have a criminal record, or is an undocumented resident or is mentally unstable is unable to purchase any type of gun, period. Similar to how we penalize bar owners for serving alcohol to minors, the severest penalties need to be given to any gun shop owner or manufacturer who sells a gun to any of the above categories and more.
Together, these are 3 areas that a strong majority of Americans agree on and Congress and the President should enforce these areas to the strictest. We currently aren't even stopping illegal guns or those who are mentally unstable from purchasing a gun!
Putting tens of thousands of guns now in schools throughout the country with armed guards does nothing to solve the situation. What happens if more than one attacker comes into a school, like a Columbine, where they had an armed guard?
What happens if at a place like a police station, such as in South Jersey earlier this week, a gun is stolen from a police officer and three people are shot?
How is this plan financially feasible? Armed guards could cost up to $100,000 each and where does that end? Do we put armed guards whereever children are? Churches? Playgrounds? Public transportation? Shopping malls? Beaches? Where else? This is not Israel and we are not at war constantly fearful of an enemy about to bomb us. What is the psychological impact to students of having an armed guard at every school? Do you feel safer seeing guards at airports?
My point is simple...has this well-publicized plan thoroughly been discussed or analyzed before the National Rifle Association and right-wing extremist members of Congress announced this as the solution? Some on the far right compare this to 9/11 and air safety. We don't have air marshals on every flight and the threat of global jihadist terrorism is a lot different than a mentally ill 20 year old.
As a Democratic County Chairman, this is my view. I happen to agree with Republican Governor Chris Christie as he and I agree on why we should not have a federal policy of putting armed guards in schools. However, I don't take issue with any school district who believes they need an armed guard at a school.
The Democratic Party Mayor of Marlboro Jon Hornik, Democratic Council members and the elected Marlboro Board of Education came out strongly in favor of armed guards at the Marlboro Schools. I don't disagree with their decision because I don't have the same information or same knowledge as Mayor Hornik and the Board of Education has on what goes in the Marlboro schools.
In fact, I don't have an issue with any individual school district that chooses to do it. That is why there is an elected Board of Education who the people entrust to make those choices and local residents will evaluate if that is what’s best for the children in that town. Elected Board of Education members have information at hand regarding the safety of their district schools that the general public does not have. I am sure there are school systems in Newark and Jersey City that may have several armed guards working there. I do, however, take issue with a proposed NRA federal policy mandating that on all schools spend millions of dollars placing armed guards at every school district throughout the country.
At the end of the day, until we first address why those suffering from mental health illness are able to purchase guns, illegal guns in general and legislation preventing background checks, the situation will continue.
The extreme National Rifle Association is trying to divide this country and they are succeeding, by talking about armed guards as if that is the solution of gun violence. Thirty three people are dying every day due to gun violence, most of it illegal gun violence, and the policies advocated by the gun lobby are why this is happening.
I can safely assume that your intentions are genuine when it comes to the safety of our schools. I can also safely assume that you wanting an "assault weapons" ban is not a result of some evil tyrannical ideology that seeks to disarm The People to allow some master plan of mass oppression to take root and play out. Having said that, your mindset actually puts more people at risk over time, it tilts the odds away from the law-abiding citizen and in the favor of the criminals, and on a larger scale, it incrementally surrenders The People's individual freedom for the false sense of "security" which can indeed lead to tyranny and history supports that notion. Probably not in the next decade or century, or even a few centuries but it still weakens future generations ability to keep government in check.
http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcassaul.html Poke around the FBI site yourself to see how responsible "assault weapons" are for violent crime. In the FBI crime reports an "assault weapon" would fall under the "rifle" category. Interesting how even the FBI doesn't even categorize them as "assault weapons". http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/crimestats
Could you take a moment to explain why you referenced Congresswoman Giffords (I am assuming that is who you are referring to and leaving out the "d" was just a typo) and questioned who was protecting her. I just want to understand the point you are trying to make, assuming it has something to do with @Theodore mentioning The President, Congress, and Senate. The way I am reading your comment is that even though Giffords was protected by armed security, she was still shot. Correct me if I am wrong in this interpretation. Thanks in advance.....
An armed guard would have returned fire when he began shooting to gain entry & it could have ended there. Stop with your uneducated hysteria already. The gunman DID NOT HAVE an automatic weapon. There are perfectly legitimate uses for semi automatic weapons that 3rd generation apartment dwellers refuse to acknowledge. Farmers around our country must contend with the 5 million non native razorback hogs that destroy our forests, crops & other wildlife...They EAT anything including native nesting birds & fawns! Highly aggressive dangerous animals that weigh several hundred pounds & normally roam in groups of 20 to 50. It takes several shots to put down just one of them. Recently these feral pigs have begun invading upstate New York. Our founding fathers would never have removed any law abiding citizen's rights because of the acts of criminals. They also would have applauded the spirit of the 12 year old girl who shot a man through the door of the closet as he turned the doorknob. That home invader had already been charged with kidnapping a mentally disabled girl. You would rather fling her into his arms, how shameful!
Democratic Chairman Gopal needs to realize that New Jersey has already had police officers assigned inside it's schools since the 60's. He also seems much more concerned about the cost of an officer's salary than with the safety of elementary school children. Having an officer assigned to elementary school would actually foster a better rapport between our law enforcement & young students. That will have a positive impact later on for their communities, as well as providing extra safety for emergencies of various types now. Community fundraisers can provide cutting edge technology(like biometric weapons) to prevent accidents in a school full of curious students. Residents of New Jersey have used similar efforts in the past to provide vests for police officers. In my opinion, Mr Gopal is advocating being penny wise, pound fooolish.
Could you also cite for me where in the Constitution or any other State or Local law it allows for the "rounding up autistic and mentally deranged people" and where that line is drawn between people that can be "rounded up" and people that cannot be?
http://dailycaller.com/2013/01/09/iowa-lawmaker-calls-for-retroactive-gun-bans-confiscations-of-semi-automatic-weapons/
The point of my comment was to exemplify the fact that there are elected officials that openly support legislative action that would allow the confiscation of legally acquired and owned firearms by American Citizens. Maybe I am misunderstanding what you are accusing me of doing so please clarify the point you are trying to make.
I'd like to respectfully ask you to either come right out and say what you want everyone else to figure out about me or refrain from responding to my comments. My position is clear and simple regarding confiscation, history teaches us that it happens and I am against any type of incremental legislative measures that create the framework for a governing body to "come after our guns" at some point in the near or distant future.
1) good news, glad to hear that. 2) Most of congress and senate alreadyhave UNRESTRICTED permits such as Feinstein and Schumer which allow them to carry ANY weapon. 3) as a father of 2 young children I applaud the idea of ARMED GUARDS...Israel has them and ZERO shooting in their schools. 4) your column was actually very well written and in my opinion unbiased and thank you for that. 5) lets examine the UK where guns are outlawed and more people are killed there by stabbings or very close to the number of shooting here in the US. A lot of ppl are comparing the U.S. to the U.K. but fail to make mention of the stabbings. I travel to the UK for business and all you hear on the news is the amounts of stabbing throughout the UK and its not 1 time its multiple stabbings per person.
So now that the topic is placing restrictions on constitutional rights, why stop with the 2nd amendment? Let's restrict the 5th so criminal convictions can be made easier! Just think of how many dangerous felons can be removed from the streets and incarcerated! Doing away with that one will make society MUCH safer than taking away the 2nd!
Tony, not sure why, but your replies are showing up in places that don't make sense. Not saying you are doing it but your reply to me hear appears to be a reply to Chairman Gopal's post just above. I have done it in the past but you have to click the first "reply" button that is higher up in the thread of the comment you are responding to. Having confirmed what you meant, i.e. even though Giffords had armed security she was shot, I don't recall there being mention of any armed security in the Safeway parking lot where the Giffords shooting took place. The gunman was subdued by regular citizens when he fumbled around with his weapon after having dropped a magazine and then a handful of people got to him. It is unreasonable for anyone to suggest that if armed security were indeed there that they would have been able to react fast enough to prevent her from being shot (not sure if she was the first one shot or not) but the possibility does exist that the gunman could have been stopped sooner than him creating the opportunity to be rushed by bystanders. If armed security were indeed there, they might not have even fired at the shooter because of where he was in relation to the crowd he was surrounded by because of a lack of "a clear shot" at him. Catch 22 there since if you shoot and miss you risk hitting someone innocent whereas if you don't shoot, he just keeps picking people off. (continued below.....)
I fail to understand the logic behind the notion that less good guys with guns makes people safer from bad guys with guns. This is not to say "everyone should be armed", absolutely not what I am saying. Instead, why is it not feasible to allow law-abiding citizens more effective means of defending themselves beyond waiting for law enforcement to show up when history shows, at no fault of their own, they tend to arrive after the body count has already begun to tally up, again, not saying there is insufficient support from law enforcement, it is just impractical to expect them to be able to respond to a "shots fired " coming across the radio fast enough. As for the NRA, I do not carry water for them, I also do not support their leadership's call for Federally funded Armed Security in every school, we don't need yet another Federal program. What I do support is a collaborative conversation between local authorities, schools districts, and parents to determine what the best means is to protect the children in our schools. (continued)
You and I are not very far apart on this issue in principle Tony, that being "attempts to protect life trumps all in my book" as you said. We just seem to believe in different means to achieve that.
Then President Clinton, one year post Columbine..... http://articles.latimes.com/2000/apr/16/news/mn-20323
*An airplane's primary purpose is transportation. The primary purpose of a gun is to kill. *There are many interpretations of the Second Amendment. *The source of most illegal guns is not across borders, "...in 2009 ten states (Arizona, California, Georgia, Florida, Indiana, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Texas and Virginia) supplied almost half the interstate-trafficked guns recovered at crime scenes. ..." - and - "...90% of the guns recovered from crime scenes in Mexico are traced led back to American dealers..." For more gun sources: http://www.economist.com/node/17151375
marylou -- You are right, you ARE NO EXPERT. You have no idea what you're talking about. 1) To purchase and/or own firearms in New Jersey you must: * Apply through your local police department and pay nominal admin fee. * Get fingerprinted for the NJ State Police and the FBI. * Obtain 100% verifiable references that are checked out by your local police, state police and the FBI. * Wait several weeks for all background checks to be cleared. * If you apply for a hand gun, you are only allowed 2 or 3 permits at a time to purchase (estate inheritances are handled case-by-case). * Even once you are cleared by the federal and state agencies, your local police chief may turn down the application if something doesn't add up. * Every time you go to purchase a hand gun in NJ, you have to repeat the application process all over again. Don't believe me: http://www.njsp.org/faq.html Now...what were you saying about owning firearms being "easy" in NJ???
Look at Senator Dianne Feinstein! This HYPOCRITE: * Has a CONCEALED CARRY PERMIT * Owns firearms * Has ARMED GUARDS protecting her * Works in a building that is protected protected by ARMED Capitol police; is lined with metal detectors/screeners; etc. So, while this woman lives a 100% PROTECTED LIFE, she expects the citizens to roll the dice and take their chances. I'll disarm the day the HYPOCRITES from the Left Wing totally disarm. Let Mayor Bloomberg walk about New York City without the armed detail that carries FULL AUTO SUB-MACHINE GUNS as he travels in an ARMORED LIMO. Note to Left Wing Liberals that want me to surrender my Bill of Rights -- in the words of General Anthony Clement McAuliffe to the Nazis: "NUTS!"