The National Rifle Association has just held a press conference at which their top executive said that what American needs right now are more guns, not less, and called for armed guards at every school in the nation. Do you agree?

Comments

44 responses to “”

  1. mewabe Avatar
    mewabe

    Yes, of course, why didn’t we think of this, the problem is not enough guns! But why limit ourselves to measly semi automatic assault weapons and thousands of rounds?

    We all need to stock up on tanks, anti-aircraft missiles, grenades, etc etc…a nuclear submarine or two would not hurt either, for those of us who have a spare swimming pool.

    You never know what will pop up from behind the bushes, or what’s crawling under the wallpaper.

  2. Sinclair Avatar
    Sinclair

    As I wrote in the other topic:

    Like it or not, people with guns guard our President, most of our political leaders, most of our celebrities, most of our valuables and, via our military, all of our country.

    But somehow it’s an entirely bizarre idea that we should have people with guns guard our children. For our children, a sign saying “Gun-Free Zone” is good enough.

    When the first responders are ten to twenty minutes away and death may be seconds away for our children, why not have someone with a gun nearby?

    Aren’t our children as valuable as our leaders and celebrities?

  3. Anne Avatar
    Anne

    Absolutely NOT. Guns do not solve anything. The mere presence of armed guards in schools merely reinforces the idea that we must solve difficulties by violence and weaponry.
    As a former teacher at the HS level, I felt it was incumbent upon me to teach my students HOW to think, not WHAT to think. We did this by constantly questioning the material presented, questioning each other and brain-storming together to find a commonality or method of accomodation for each other’s ideas. We never drew blood, and even among ultra-sensitive teenagers, we never came away from a discussion with ragged feelings. It can and, indeed, must be done.
    Putting armed guards in school hallways just reinforces that there isn’t enough security in the world and that since there is not enough we must take what we can by brute force. It completely negates the child’s natural tendencies to trust adults to guide them.
    My other question would be what happens when some over-zealous school guard mistakes a child’s horseplay for some “attack” mode and pulls his weapon? To my mind, that child will be just as dead from self-righteous do-gooding as they would be from a deranged stranger coming in from the outside.
    So, no, this is absolutely not an intelligent option in my book. In fact I think it hastens us in the exact opposite direction. When we reinstate hands-on parenting, communal cooperation and the understanding that we’re here to HELP not kill each other we’ll make some progress. Likewise, I think we have to stop being politically correct to an outrageous degree and admit that not everyone is absolutely flawless, not everyone has a sense of responsibility and fairness, and indeed some people have illnesses that need to be treated in a professional environment. Instead, now we do them the disservice of allowing the mentally imbalanced to roam around with full rights because it’s politically incorrect to do anything about it.
    My question is this: Is it more politically correct, then, to allow children to die with multiple gunshot wounds in their tiny bodies than it is to tell someone they’re sick and need help? I rather doubt it.

  4. Sinclair Avatar
    Sinclair

    Absolutely NOT. Guns do not solve anything.

    Anne: You sound amazingly dogmatic for a person who claims to teach “how to think” and rather than “what to think.”

    Guns do solve some problems. They just don’t solve every problem. Nor are they a perfect solution.

    Do you really imagine President Obama will appear anywhere in the world without several armed Secret Service men nearby? Do you think it would be better if Obama were not so defended?

  5. Paul Avatar
    Paul

    I’ve never understood this rationale, and if it weren’t for the fact that I know God is in control and nothing is scary, I’d find it rather unnerving. I heard a statistic that 80% of all rounds shot by trained police officers miss their mark. I can’t imagine a world where everyone is armed and ready to respond with lethal force to all kinds of perceived threats. There was a police officer visiting Calgary Canada from the U.S. this past summer with his family. He was told he needed to leave his gun behind at the border. While they were walking in the park, he was “accosted” by a local student, who “aggressively” demanded to know whether he was going to the Calgary Stampede, an annual sporting event that is the highlight of the summer. As the police officer told the story, he said he felt that his family was in danger, and wished he had his gun with him to defend himself. I can see the results now if everyone in the vicinity had been armed. The police officer would have shot the student, at which point the student’s friends would have pulled out their guns and shot the officer, at which point the officer’s wife would have killed the friends, and within 5 minutes everyone in the area would have been dead or severely wounded. Fighting violence with lethal force is not the answer.

  6. Sinclair Avatar
    Sinclair

    I can’t imagine a world where everyone is armed and ready to respond with lethal force to all kinds of perceived threats.

    Paul: You don’t have to imagine that world. No one is arguing for it.

    The NRA and other gun advocates are simply suggesting the arming of one or a few people at a school, so that any Adam Lanza knows that there will be someone armed there to stop him, and possibly kill him, before he manages to kill any children at all.

    If the objective is to save the lives of children, as opposed to agitating for the elimination of guns, I don’t see what’s wrong with this idea.

    If our President and celebrities rely on guns to protect them, why not our children?

  7. Darlene Zwolinski Avatar
    Darlene Zwolinski

    The NRA is acting out of fear in the only way they know how, which would be perpetuation of their own belief that the world is safer with more guns. There are those out there buying up guns for fear they will lose their right to own them. Then we have folks who feel they need guns out of fear that need to protect themselves from others who will bring them harm. These reactions all have one thing in common. They are coming from a place of fear. When we work out of fear then we are working from the other side of the continuum, from love. So, I do not agree that putting more arms in our world is the answer.

  8. Tam Avatar
    Tam

    As an outsider it appear to me that the Greatest threat to the security of the people of the United States – is from your own people.

    Guns in schools sounds like you all live in a war torn 3rd world country.

  9. Erin/IAm Avatar
    Erin/IAm

    Israel had a similar incident in a school (1974?) where 20+ children were gunned down…They made it mandatory that all teachers be trained & skilled, & must carry a gun…They have had no similar event since. Hmmm…???

    Most zero to near-zero crime rates are in towns where most citizens also have federal carry permits…some even mandated to do so. Operating on the concept of who will rob a store or bank if Everyone in them is armed & dangerous? Obviously few, if any. Hmmm…???

    In personal incident, homes on both sides of ours were broken into & robbed. We do not lock our doors, but we have signs that read “We don’t call 911”, “This door is in place for Your protection, enter at your own risk!” They were obviously heeded in the spree.(?)

    Just sayin’…

    I will not jump on the gun bandwagon…To each, whatever works for ya. I do, however, believe in teaching the skilled use of toolage…whatever the tool…no matter the age when curiosity to explore such a tool arises. Knowledge is what holds the power behind any thing.

    I asked a few teens how they would feel about armed guardians in their school, & the response was quite unanimous in light of recent events…They would not welcome ‘police’, since they represent an authority they are not comforted by…However, they would feel safer if military-trained personnel, especially local veterans, were at the helms of their halls (presently presided over by elder ‘lunch ladies’ & parental volunteers. A few teachers who were not comfortable with personal weaponry were open to this idea as well, & cited it as a good continued use of well-trained community members that the kids respected.

    Obviously shows that the marketing of military has proved itself of genius.

    Do I agree? Well, I do agree that “Gun-Free Zones” are easy targets for gun-motivated humans…Just as “Drug-Free Zones” are open markets for drug dealers. I agree that humanity is in flux…that Earth is in flux…that Stuff is in constant Change. I agree with adapting, not succumbing to Stuff.

    However, I can not agree with providing a ‘feeling’ of security…This only feeds the illusion that such even exists. I would much prefer to See ‘security’ in the eyes of children & adults who know that transformations are inevitable, that Life is eternal, that their power lies in their Oneness of Knowing these things.

    mpo, of course.:)

  10. Anne Avatar
    Anne

    The response to my reply leaves me a bit flattened. I am not generally dogmatic but when it comes to guns as a solution to other guns, I am. I agree with you that the President and his family must be surrounded by guns, but that doesn’t mean I like it or would want to participate in it by carrying a gun.
    My whole reply, and it seems like some folks agree, creating “security” by having the bigger gun doesn’t create security at all, it merely sets up the possibility of a bigger mess yet. This is not a situation that is going to solve itself overnight (unless it does) until the general populace decides that guns are not the way to settle differences. Until we get gun-toting superpowered anti-heroes off the TV and movie screens and return to a more intelligent level of interaction, we cannot hope to remove the gun-gunning down mentality.
    Someone on the web posted something that was entirely true. We of the Boomer Era grew up without all these gun laws and security measures and we DID NOT have mass shootings, we didn’t have terrorism, we didn’t have a lot of things that are commonplace now. The difference was the social attitude and approach to things. I’m not saying it was a perfect time, there were problems then too, but the general population was pretty much in sync with the idea of certain standards of behavior and personal responsibility. When that went away we began to “law” ourselves to death.
    What we haven’t figured out is we cannot legislate morality. . .it MUST be an internal source of understanding and action. Therefore, when we change the internals (the heart and mind) then we change the resulting actions. That change can be either towards more militarism, or what we on this site believe is a better and more productive way.

    Once again, we have a choice.

  11. Mark Shahin Avatar
    Mark Shahin

    Do not agree. Just heard that Australia has strict gun rules and vastly less violence than the United States.

    Not surprised, it’s a no brainer really. Guns attract violence.

  12. mewabe Avatar
    mewabe

    “Security” through weaponry leads to escalation, not only of violence and consequently of insecurity and fear, but to a race towards developing more lethal weapons.

    It is not an intelligent undertaken whichever way one looks at it.

    Ever since the dawn of history, humanity has spent a great deal of resources, time, energy and cleverness (as opposed to intelligence) in developing ever more effective weapons. Has it made the world safer?

    Of course not.

    Now some say everyone needs a gun in America.

    If everyone had a gun, those who want to have the strategic upper hand would seek ever more effective and deadly weapons to overcome anyone with a regular gun, until everyone catches up and possesses these deadlier weapons, and on and one…A citizen’s arm race.

    Just as the police was for a time outgunned by gangs and had to update its arsenal.

    Indeed it’s a no brainer.

  13. Cal Avatar
    Cal

    It will be a bright and wonderful day when all guns and weapons are smelted down and/or converted into something beneficial.

    This call to arms stems from fear, and a false identification of self in the external circumstances of ones reality. It comes from a fighting mindset, a male mind, not letting go, against, condemning, judgemental. It will create equal opposition because it comes from fear and ego.

    This is a grand invitation to take a good , long look at the feeling aspect of speaking and putting these actions into the world. Will we wrap this into a loving awareness, neither praising nor condemning what we observe? Under the bright light of our collective seeing, the darkness cannot exist.

  14. Sinclair Avatar
    Sinclair

    The NRA is acting out of fear in the only way they know how, which would be perpetuation of their own belief that the world is safer with more guns.

    Darlene: I find this is the standard reaction from liberals when they lack effective counter-argument: they declare that the other side is acting out of fear, anger, general unenlightenedness, or some other psychological deficit.

    Shorter: Most liberals assume that they occupy the moral and intellectual high ground when speaking to conservatives.

    The problem is that you can’t really have a conversation — if that’s the idea in this blog — if it’s not between equals, if one side can always trump the other by declaring them to be acting from fear, anger or whatever.

  15. Sinclair Avatar
    Sinclair

    Erin: Interesting response. I applaud you for possessing more facts and a more open attitude than usual for gun control advocates. I certainly agree that anyone who has guns should be trained in their proper usage.

    You say you “will not jump on the gun bandwagon.” No one is asking this. What’s on the table is the NRA argument that schools should have at least one armed person available to ward off armed attackers.

    However, I can not agree with providing a ‘feeling’ of security…This only feeds the illusion that such even exists.

    So basically you cannot agree with any commonsense efforts that give us a feeling of security — from seat belts to safety goggles to fire extinguishers to President Obama’s armed Secret Service agents — because these efforts feed the illusion that security exists?

    I understand the cosmic perspective, but most of us take safety precautions even though we and our loved ones are spirits who ultimately cannot be harmed.

  16. Sinclair Avatar
    Sinclair

    My whole reply, and it seems like some folks agree, creating “security” by having the bigger gun doesn’t create security at all, it merely sets up the possibility of a bigger mess yet

    Anne: Thanks for the civil reply. However, I still don’t get your reasoning. You accept that it’s good for President Obama to be guarded by armed agents, yet it’s not acceptable to guard children similarly.

    Sure, having guns at school could set up “the possibility of a bigger mess.” That’s true, just as it’s true that people occasionally die in automobiles because they are trapped by their seat belts. But generally speaking, seat belts save more lives than they lose. Likewise armed guards protect more lives. Otherwise our President and celebrities wouldn’t use armed guards.

    I can’t see how to understand your reply other than as an argument that it’s more important to build for a gun-free future, which might or might not come, than it is to protect children now.

  17. Sinclair Avatar
    Sinclair

    Now some say everyone needs a gun in America.

    mewabe: You can usually find someone saying just about anything, but that’s not what most NRA and gun people are saying in this case.

    Again, the issue on the table is whether each school should have at least one trained armed person to safeguard students from armed attacks.

  18. Stephen mills Avatar
    Stephen mills

    I find it very sad that someone like this get,s allocated prime time on television in front of millions of viewers to air his insane view,s ,all because of self interest.

    But the one,s who could really make the difference and create lasting solutions get zip time on air.There,s something that,s not working here folk,s ,the sane discussions are not even taken place we the people have no say in these outcomes and if that doesn’t change nothing will.

    Democracy starts with us,let’s get active and raise a ruckus.

  19. Sinclair Avatar
    Sinclair

    Do not agree. Just heard that Australia has strict gun rules and vastly less violence than the United States.

    Mark Shahin: It’s not that simple.

    After mass killing at a school the UK clamped down hard on guns in the nineties and has since seen gun crime increase 40%.

    Similarly Australia has seen a rise in violent crime since its gun ban in the nineties.

    Every household in Switzerland is armed by law yet it is one of the most peaceful countries in the world.

    The Japanese have some of the strictest gun control laws and they do have one of the lowest murder rates. However, they also have one of the most homogenous and controlled populations in the world. The police can search anyone and any home at any time and they regularly do — that’s a big reason Japan can have such effective gun control. I for one am glad not to live in Japan.

    For all the talk about how violent the US is, if the horrific rate of violent crimes by blacks and lesser rate by Hispanics are not included, the violence in the US is about the same as Europe.

    None of this stuff is simple. No two countries are alike. Everything involves trade-offs.

  20. Sinclair Avatar
    Sinclair

    I find it very sad that someone like this get,s allocated prime time on television in front of millions of viewers to air his insane view,s ,all because of self interest.

    Stephen mills: How are his views insane? All he is suggesting is using the same method by which the President and celebrities are protected for protecting schoolchildren.

    You decline to support your claim in any way whatsoever. He disagrees with you; therefore, his views are insane.

    Those who oppose the NRA’s views get plenty of time on the air, including President Obama.

    It’s hard for me to understand your comment as anything other than bigotry.

    Democracy starts with everyone — including people you disagree with.

  21. Lloyd Avatar
    Lloyd

    Why not put this issue up for a public vote? We claim to be a free democracy of “We the People” so can we let the majority vote and accept the outcome? Do we as a society “need” semi-automatic weapons in the hands of private citizens? My opinion is no, and I do not own any guns, so does this make me more apt to be killed or robbed or harmed, no not at all. I have and continue to travel the whole country and the majority more than 99% of the humans I know wish no harm to others, so why does the majority allow this small minority to control our thoughts, feelings and actions? Are we allowing the tail to wag the dog again? This is why we allowed our leaders to wage war on other countries in an attempt to control harmful act by a small minority, and we have caused harm to millions of humans while waving our flag of justice for our own loss. Get real people, a few act out of their fear and false visions of the world, and what their actions call us to do is educate and help these individuals before they reach the point of harm to others.

    If the overwhelming majority of humans wish to live in peace and harmony with each other, then why do we not address the issues of the minority with a loving society that can help them heal their pain? Our society keeps isolating ourselves from each other, rather than educating Ourselves that we are all ONE. When someone harms another we are all harmed, a truth that is seldom mentioned in the news or especially in churches or schools. Helping others find their path to knowing Love is the best we can do and it will eventually catch on, AMEN. Namaste’
    Butch

  22. Stephen mills Avatar
    Stephen mills

    Sinclare I respect your views but you cannot do peace you can only be peace,what I mean is that his ideas of more guns in more people’s hand do not render him very peaceful and I would then conclude would not lead more people to be peaceful so if you want to get to a certain destination and you go in the opposite direction ,well it’s not evolving is it.

    Perhaps insane was a harsh term(my passion,s are on overdrive on this topic).What we need is debate on where we want to go as a society with many from the spiritual progressives sitting down and having a serious and open dialogue with the institutions that I feel are taking us in the opposite direction.

    Off course the children should be our number one priority but where the cwg material is coming from this would happen as a result of creating a new cultural story and the result of this would be any kind of violence would be unthinkable as life would be prime value.I understand we have a Long way to go but I for could not even come to intentionally hurt a worm let alone build a weapon that kills another human being.

    Hey but that,s just me ,I dream of a future when humanity never creates any weapons or tool,s that are designed to kill other humans because this is the opposite of who I,am and to me that is not progress at the hu-mane level.

    Fear of the other and alienation leading to not being accepted in society can lead to shame ,the young man who committed this horrible act of violence needed love and understanding and to feel connected with the world that he lived in.

    Thee was no one there for him ?

    In cwg book three the education of the young is done by the elders with patience and kindness and by example ,what example does this person set when he advocates for more guns .

    We have the blind leading the blind ,this is just my observation the path that the rifle association are taking is the long road and not the only road.

    Namaste

  23. Sinclair Avatar
    Sinclair

    Why not put this issue up for a public vote? We claim to be a free democracy of “We the People” so can we let the majority vote and accept the outcome?

    LLoyd: We’ve been voting on gun control in the manner of our democratic republic since the 1920s at least when machine guns were outlawed.

    The current gun-free school zones are the result of the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990, which was legislated as a result of Columbine High School Massacre.

    We can see how well the Gun-Free School Zone concept worked out in Adam Lanza’s Newtown Massacre.

    CWGers may not like guns but there are over three hundred millions guns in the US, there is a constitutional amendment protecting the right of Americans to own guns, and a landslide majority of Americans would vote against banning the sale of handguns.

    So guns are going to be around for a long time. Meanwhile, the standard defense to guns favored by important people is armed guards.

    Obama’s children attend a school protected by armed guards. Why not all America’s children?

  24. Sinclair Avatar
    Sinclair

    …you cannot do peace you can only be peace,what I mean is that his ideas of more guns in more people’s hand do not render him very peaceful…

    Stephen mills: You may believe that. I don’t.

    Police, guards and soldiers are necessary for peace in the real world. I don’t see any way to dispute that. Perhaps someday we evolve beyond the need for armed defense to safeguard peace, but it isn’t happening next year or in the next ten, for certain.

    If you want to protect today’s schoolchildren from the next Adam Lanza, how do you do it?

    (A) Work for the human race to give up guns, and until then hope not too many schoolchildren are killed in First Person Shooter target practices by disturbed assassins.

    (B) Let schools set up systems for insuring that at least one trained, armed defender is present at all times to protect schoolchildren and see how well that works.

    Think it over and get back to me.

  25. Cal Avatar
    Cal

    Sinclair I see what you are proposing (option “B”) as action aimed at the symptom of a much deeper underlying problem. You can cut the thistle but until you get the root it will keep showing up. I agree with Neale, these violent images all over not only all media but even in our language and idiosms. Every approach to a solution is termed a “battle” or a “fight”. These images and ideas are powerful when not questioned and swallowed wholesale, sinking deep into the sub-conscious mind.

    We can take away guns, we can have more security, but this is all action aimed at the outcome and not the core mis-alignment. every single aspect of our collective story needs to be reexamined and altered to express and declare that violence in any form is counter-productive, and not who we are as a People.

  26. Sinclair Avatar
    Sinclair

    Cal: Neither the Vice-President of the NRA nor I am proposing to solve the deeper problem of human violence. Best of luck to you and Neale for fixing that one. I’m not optimistic myself.

    Until you and Neale succeed, however, our schools are legally required to remain Gun-Free Zones where any psycho with a satchel full of guns and ammo, legal or illegal, can murder a couple dozen or three schoolchildren with no resistance at all until the police show up 10-20 minutes later.

    If you prefer that state of affairs, instead of deploying the established solution of armed guards which works for President Obama and his children, then those deaths, as far as I am concerned, are partially on you, Neale and the other commenters here.

  27. Lloyd Avatar
    Lloyd

    Sinclair, the issue isn’t eliminate guns, the issue is eliminate automatic weapons from the general public. Does this make sense, eliminate semi and automatic weapons for the general public. Eliminate the secondary sellars, ie gun shows from selling weapons to the general public. Have a licensing process that does background checks, with a waiting period, anything to help restrict guns in the hands of those who do not respect human life. Namaste’
    Butch

  28. Will Richardson Avatar
    Will Richardson

    No I do not agree. The NRA is sponsored by the manufacturers of rifles, pistols and bullets, not by the members. Most of the members of NRA have expressed their desire for more meaningful gun control. Only the top people in the NRA continue to fight for more guns and less control. Perhaps they are more interested in lining their pockets? I believe any person who reveres life would agree that controlling the sales of weapons is prudent.

  29. Cal Avatar
    Cal

    Sinclair I Think it’s important to look at the somewhat subtler and far reaching outcomes for what you propose.

    To the very very very impressionable youth the way they “see” the world has vast implications. Showing and demonstrating to them that the world is indeed that dangerous where an armed mercenary (at best) is needed for them to exist safely is a loud and clear message of fear. This action would instill a vast amount of anxiety,mistrust and paralyzing fear into the thought’s and hearts of these claylike young beings.

    Moreover actions such as this are pulling a dogs tail, it will always go back to being curly. It’s patchwork and is the same doing that has led humanity in circles for millennia.

    IN the meantime I agree that making guns much harder to access is about the best “doing” that can happen.

  30. Michael Avatar
    Michael

    This is like a script in a bad B movie. I truely cannot believe that people believe this themselves. Can ignorance realize ignorance? I hope so.

  31. Sinclair Avatar
    Sinclair

    Sinclair, the issue isn’t eliminate guns, the issue is eliminate automatic weapons from the general public. Does this make sense, eliminate semi and automatic weapons for the general public.

    Lloyd: Your comment fails in so many ways.

    (1) Automatic weapons are already illegal.

    (2) Almost all weapons today, except old-style revolvers and double-barreled shotugns, are semi-automatic.

    (3) Be honest — the real intent of gun control advocates, as you can see by most comments on this blog, is to eliminate guns in the hands of the public.

    (4) Even if all semi-automatic weapons are somehow miraculously eliminated, killers will just use speedloaders and detachable cylinders or carry extra weapons. Whatever scheme gun control advocates come up with will be easily gotten around legally or illegally.

    Furthermore, 3D printing is here and in the near future, people will “print” the guns and gun parts they want.

    (5) None of your suggestions will protect schoolchildren from another Adam Lanza, who will find weapons no matter what. Bombs and machetes work too.

    Unless there is someone armed and trained on the premises, Adam Lanza will have 10-20 minutes to kill as many children as he can before the police arrive.

    And so far, almost no one on this blog seems to care.

  32. Sinclair Avatar
    Sinclair

    IN the meantime I agree that making guns much harder to access is about the best “doing” that can happen.

    Cal: But you make no effort to support your claim, which, as far as I can see, is insupportable. See my reply above to Lloyd.

    There are 300,000,000+ guns in the United States right now. Unless you consider gun control important enough to turn the US into a near-totalitarian state to control all those guns and future guns, your suggestion is nothing more than wishful thinking.

    In any event as I have argued, gun control will not protect schoolchildren from Adam Lanza killers.

    But protecting schoolchildren is not as important as pressing the anti-gun agenda.

    No one yet has presented an argument against armed guards in schools. I suspect that the real nightmare for many writers here, Neale included, is that if armed guards were tried, they would work, at least as well they work for President Obama and his children.

    If schoolchildren were protected, where would the anti-gun agenda be? At least with a juicy mass killing every couple years, gun control advocates get to renew their demands each time.

    No killings, no gun control “conversation.”

  33. Cal Avatar
    Cal

    Sinclair my friend, it is obvious that you only respond to what you want to, and ignore mine ( and other’s) main point(s).

    On the surface, which is all this measure (placing armed guards in schools) is aimed at. Much like western medicine, this is simply “attacking” the symptom, or outcome of several inputs. it DOES NOTHING to really make any significant change.

    So let’s have the “gun control conversation” that you want to have.

    Pros: Might or might not lower the possibility of this type of violence happening again. If you have read such books as freakonomics you would know how easily tilted and inaccurate statistics can be, especially looking at causality-effect. So a huge MAYBE at best. it MIGHT be effective. Your assumption that it would produce the outcome you say it will with such confidence is shaky, there is no way you could know. It’s your opinion and a guess. You don’t know, there is no way you could predict the future here.

    Cons: Huge cost to the state, and I would guess it would compromise (take funds away from) the already severely underfunded education system, damaging it even further.

    In the climate of fear and tension this would create, the chances for a mishap/misunderstanding/error in judgement increases dramatically with the increased presence of an individual armed and ready to use it (the gun, tazer etc). A good reference is the countless police “accidental shootings” that make the news regularly.

    How to screen the individuals hired to ” protect the children”. Extensive screening like the president’s schools do would be impossible due to the high cost of extensive background checks and the like. what kind of individual is this, how do we know this “guard” isn’t secretly disturbed? The fact is there is no way to really know for sure.

    Bradley Manning is a great example of a quite unstable person in a very high level military institution. ( his actions were quite heroic however and I applaud his actions in exposing the us gov’s actions to wikileaks) but I digress.

    And even though you summarily dismiss it, the fear based action is bound to fail because of where it originates from. All actions from fear produce more fear, and are ultimately self defeating. So it’s not some past pattern or method of invalidating what anyone is saying, but rather the reality of this specific moment and situation when you look at it with clarity and non-atatchment. Any call for defense is ultimately believing in the illusion that damage exists, which is at it’s base is, you guessed it, fear.

    Happy holidays to you Sinclair and to all who might read these words and all those who don’t. – Cal

  34. mewabe Avatar
    mewabe

    Sinclair, by your own admission, there are more than 300 million guns in the US.

    If guns were to make society safer as NRA spokespersons and gun nuts profess, that should be plenty enough guns to make us all safe, since there are about 311 million people in the US. It is almost a gun to each person, including young children and babies.

    Instead, according to you, we now need armed guards in schools.

    So isn’t there something wrong with this picture? How many more guns do we need in the hands of people according to gun nuts? 600 million (one for each hand)? 1 billion? 1 trillion?

  35. mewabe Avatar
    mewabe

    By the way Sinclair I do not think any government should be armed either.

    Pro gun people always make the argument that if people are not armed, then governments have all the control.

    Mass murder by government is a historical, provable fact, as a matter of fact governments have been the largest and most deadly terrorist organizations throughout history, and make any other terrorist groups look like dilettantes.

    I am against ALL wars, all acts of violence either by people or their governments. None of them are EVER justified, there is ALWAYS a better way.

    Humanity needs to grow up once and for all and stop attempting to resolve its conflicts through violence.

    Violence never resolves conflicts because it heals nothing and create ever more wounds, fear and hatred.

    Women need to completely end their support of the armed forces and stop being “proud” of their sons being in the military. This “pride” is the most unintelligent stance anyone could take.

    Men need to stop acting like idiotic little boys who want to blow things up with their latest toys.

  36. Cal Avatar
    Cal

    wow I said actions 3 times! HA and I misspelled attachment. Oh well. Merry freakin christmas!

  37. Pat Avatar
    Pat

    Maybe we should consider another solution. Maybe it’s time to teach kids to stop being victims. Maybe it’s time to start holding “bad guy” drills. We have fire drills. We teach them about “stranger danger” and “inappropriate touching.” Maybe it’s time to teach them about gun nuts and drill them on what to do.

    I envision drills in which threatened children are taught to run wildly around the room, throwing everything they can get their hands on at the intruder, while making their way out the closest exits. Unlike quiet, disciplined fire drills, kids would be instructed in some sort of controlled chaos – something to give them a greater chance. From what I understand, most victims simply wait in fear huddled under desks and chairs for their turn to die. Untrained brains freeze at fear and danger – trained brains react as instructed. A bunch of kids running and throwing things at the perpetrator will provide more windows of opportunity for heroism such as the principal at Newtown who tried to charge the shooter. In a chaotic environment where he was not in control, her attempt might have been easier to accomplish.

    I know many would say it’s going too far, but I could even see a big scary guy dressed in a fuzzy outfit firing Nerf bullets at kids while they attempt to swarm him and take him down. For older kids, say Middle School, this could be considered. In other words – don’t just run – fight back. Swarm the dude. He can’t get them all. Most will live. Bring in drill sergeants.

    We live in a society that celebrates being a victim. Kids who defend themselves against bullies are thrown out of school – often while the bully gets away with it. I’ve seen that happen. It’s time to empower kids. A little controlled chaos when a bully starts picking on someone might also work to affect positive change.

  38. Alessandra Marion Jouberteix Avatar
    Alessandra Marion Jouberteix

    I would like to know in how much pain this being was in. How is it that nobody he could talk to or support his mother? Was this the only way he though we could hear his call for pain? Is this reflecting how isolated we have become and we close our eyes to what is around us and instead of offering our support we buried or head in the sand and say it is not my business?

  39. Alessandra Marion Jouberteix Avatar
    Alessandra Marion Jouberteix

    Walls or guns serve too purposes: they keep people in and they keep people out.
    Also, I wonder what the reaction would be if the child would have used a knife instead of a gun. I am not condoning guns, but I believe that we are using the “killing the messanger” idea. Guns do not “kill” people, people “kill” people. I feel that we are reacting to a “gun” incident with another “gun.” I would like to remember Gandhi’s non violence philosophy.

  40. Alessandra Marion Jouberteix Avatar
    Alessandra Marion Jouberteix

    Reflecting on what Gandhi, a confirmed Hindu, took from the life and teachings of Jesus is very illuminating.
    The key lessons Gandhi took from Christianity: the teaching in the Sermon on the Mount and the symbol of the Cross.
    He did not always value Christianity. During his childhood, advocates of India’s various religions, Sikhs, Muslims, Jains, were all welcome in his father’s house. As a child, Gandhi was put off only by Christianity. Christian missionaries stood on the corner of his grade school loudly deriding the gods and beliefs of Hinduism. Converts to Christianity were “denationalized,” and “Britishized.” Christianity was “beef and brandy.” It was the religion of the “sahib.”
    As a young adult, he began to study various religions including his own. He was studying for the bar exams in London when he was given the New Testament to read. He later wrote: “the Sermon on the Mount went straight to my heart… the verses, ‘But I say to you, resist not evil: but whosoever strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if any man take away your coat, let him have your cloak as well,’ delighted me beyond measure” The Sermon on the Mount inspired him for the rest of his life.
    How did he understand the Sermon on the Mount? First, he heard it with Hindu ears. He learned a Gujurati poem at a young age, for example, that echoed the “turn the other cheek” message. It concluded “But the truly noble know all men as one, and return with gladness good for evil done.” Overcome evil with good.
    Secondly, he heard it as a son of the soil of India. Until you visit India you have no idea how religion soaks the daily life of people. The sense of the reverence for life jumps out at you – as a town elephant wanders through a business district and is given breakfast offerings by each shop owner. As, first thing in the morning at the front doors of their simple dwellings, people put out breadcrumbs in an elaborate mandala design as an offering, which the ants will then eat. All life is sacred and all life is one. The basic spirit of ahimsa, “do no harm to life” permeates the culture. Gandhi brought that sensibility to his reading of the New Testament.
    Gandhi understood the return good for evil, love for hate, nonviolence for violence message of the Sermon on the Mount much as contemporary exegesis does today. The words for him, and for contemporary scholars, are not just the expression of a lofty moral ideal. They are, as Roger Tannehill writes in the Harvard Biblical Review, a particular kind of language, focal instances. Jesus is putting his listeners in situations of oppression that are very recognizable to them, a master striking his slave with the back of the left hand; an occupying roman Soldier pressing a Jew into service to carry his pack; a debtor taking a person to court to take away even the last garment in which a poor person slept out tin the cold – and is asking them to imagine how they might creatively and nonviolently oppose the oppression and surprise the oppressors, inviting them to changes. Turning the other cheek signifies to the master that the one struck is not cowed. He looks the oppressor in the eye and says do it again. It will not overawe me. Think again about what you are doing. Voluntarily going an extra mile will surprise and throw that soldier, and force him to see you as a human being. Give the cloak to the one taking you for every last dime. Walk out of the law court naked. It will dramatize just how rotten the whole moneylender, stealing-the-land-from-the-peasants system really is.
    For Gandhi the message of “turn the other cheek” was the reverse of “passivism” (double s); it was heroic, brave, and creative action. It was the only way to break through the circle of violence that kept people oppressed and convert the oppressors. He later had to coin the word satyagraha to separate out what he heard in the Sermon on the Mount and saw as he world’s best and last hope, from ideas of “passive resistance,” or “pacifism” or mere “civil disobedience.” Satyagraha subsumes the message of Jesus (and Hinduism as he understood it) and applies it to politics and relations between masses of people. It is not just a personal ethic; it is the way of people nonviolently fighting against oppression and evil in this world.
    It disturbed Gandhi greatly when he heard Christians put aside the teaching of the Sermon on the Mount as impractical or dreamy idealism or to be practiced only by the very few as a personal ethic – the typical ways Catholics and Protestants make the Sermon on the Mount irrelevant to daily life and realpolitik. He wrote:
    “For many of them contend that the Sermon on the Mount does not apply to mundane things, and that it was only meant for the twelve disciples. Well I do not believe this. I think the Sermon on the Mount has no meaning if it is not of vital use in everyday life to everyone.”
    For him a commitment to nonviolence was at the center of what Jesus taught and lived and died for. He could not understand how one could be a disciple of Jesus if one was not fundamentally committed to nonviolence. He wrote:
    “Christianity is no Christianity in which a vast number of Christians believe in governments based on brute force and are denying Christ every day of their lives…. Just now Christianity comes to a yearning humankind in a tainted form.”
    He spent the whole of his life demonstrating that the Sermon on the Mount could be eminently practical politics – as he nonviolently opposed a ruthless and globe-spanning Empire, as he nonviolently opposed the thousands of years old injustice of untouchability, as he labored nonviolently to raise up the lives of his cherished “dumb millions,” in the villages of India. He continues to hope that Christianity would some day be authentically lived and that the West would come to the message of he Sermon on the Mount afresh. He was intent, through “experiments with truth,” to demonstrate its workability in a whole range of situations of violence.
    The second lesson, of many, that Gandhi took from Christianity was embodied in the symbol of the Cross-.
    It a famous scene, captured on film, Gandhi had stopped at the Vatican on his way back from the Roundtable Conference in London, when he happened to see a rough crucifix. His reaction was immediate and emotional. He wrote:
    “Chance threw Rome in my way. And I was able to see something of that great and ancient city … and what would not I have given to bow my head before the living image at the Vatican of Christ crucified. It was not without a wrench that I could tear myself away from that scene of living tragedy. I saw there at once that nations like individuals could only be made through the agony of the cross and in no other way. Joy comes not out of infliction of pain on others, but out of pain voluntarily borne by oneself.”
    Gandhi’s understanding of the cross was that when one lived the life that Jesus lived, he would probably end up in conflict with the powers that be. He saw that Jesus befriended eh poor and stood with those whom society considered outsiders. Furthermore, he tried to get those responsible for oppression, both religious and civil leadership, to change. They rejected his efforts and found him to be a threat =. Why did Jesus die? Because of the way he lived. The cross was the result of his living out this way of life to the end.
    The theology of atonement that has held sway for a thousand years, the “penal substitution theory” which has the Father offering up his Son in a bloody sacrifice for forgiveness of humanity’s sins, was revolting to Gandhi. Gandhi understood the cross, not metaphysically but politically and historically, as the final step and consequence of a way of life, a life spent befriending those in need and resisting oppression and violence.
    This presentation was delivered at “Justice and Mercy Shall Kiss: A Conference on the Vocation of Peacemaking in a World of Many Faiths” on September 22 – 24, 2005 at Marquette University.

  41. mewabe Avatar
    mewabe

    “The theology of atonement that has held sway for a thousand years, the “penal substitution theory” which has the Father offering up his Son in a bloody sacrifice for forgiveness of humanity’s sins, was revolting to Gandhi.”

    And to me!…thanks for pointing this out.

    This is one of the most absurd and primitive of Christian beliefs. It is nonsensical and primitive, fear-based. It is absolutely incredible, extraordinary, that people still hold this belief today…

    Anyway “Jesus” keeps dying on the cross every day, in every person that is abandoned and ignored, abused, oppressed, persecuted, tortured, killed not just by one crazed individual or criminal but systematically, by the world authorities and by the mainstream population of any nation.

    If average Christians really understood Jesus’ message, they would reject it right away…oh wait, they already have!

  42. Maggie Avatar
    Maggie

    No. My wish for the world is for no guns at all. No need for guns and no more using them to hurt and kill others.

  43. doug Avatar
    doug

    Hi Neale,
    To answer your question: do I agree that we should have armed people protecting our children in schools? No, I don’t agree with this. I have read with interest many of the comments posted here, and I have to be honest and say that in my mind it is a black-and-white issue: I would like to see all weapons destroyed, melted down, “beaten into plough-shares” as I think the Bible puts it. Like Maggie, I wish for there to be no guns in this world at all. I recognise that in reality, it is not going to be something that happens overnight….unless it does! Seriously, I don’t think it will happen that quickly, though I can envision a day when we all lay down our weapons and actually desire to live in peace together, which is what this issue is really all about, after all.

    I am a father of two children myself, and like everyone else I was horrified by the school shootings. I can not begin to imagine the pain felt by those poor parents, teachers, siblings, by the whole community there. My heart goes out to them all. I can not begin to imagine, either, the pain that this young man felt, which led him to feel the need to take so many lives as well as his own. As a spiritual being, and someone who has a deep respect for Jesus’ message (though I am not a Christian), I feel that our prayers should be directed not only towards the dear children and their families, but towards this perpetrator also. Not many would agree with this, I know, but then this is not about winning a popularity contest, is it?

    Do our children have every right to be protected, just as Obama and his family are? Yes, of course they deserve our protection, they need our love and support and guidance and all that we can give them to stay safe. Should this protection be with guns? In my opinion, no. I just believe that weapons lead to more and more weapons, the stakes get higher and higher, it “ups the ante” and there will be no end to it. Last year, two young female police officers were shot dead in Manchester, and of course we were all horrified at this. Yet when you ask most police officers if they would like to carry guns, the majority opinion is against it. Yes, we do have some trained firearms officers over here, but the ordinary police constable is not armed, and I would not want him/her to be armed, either.To me, it just leads to an escalation in weapons and violence.

    I live in England, where firearms are not so common as they are in your country, Neale. So perhaps this colours my views and opinions on this subject. We have had school shootings in the UK in the past, too, and our response was to tighten security in schools, which may or may not be the answer. Maybe just increasing security and having alarmed doors is all we need here, because, thank God, guns are not so prevalent. Maybe it’s different in the US, because the stakes are much higher, because there are so many wepaons out there.

    I just wish all weapons would be melted down, though, I really do wish for that.

    Best wishes to all from Doug.

  44. Jon the mechanic Avatar
    Jon the mechanic

    I personally think that guns are amoral. they don’t know or pass judgement.
    I feel they are a servent to the person that is holding it. If I was asked what
    do you think is the problem if it is not the gun? I like going to the movie theater but
    I have to be very selective because there is so much violence playing at the
    theater I some times have to wait for a peaceful show to come on to go to.
    But that is not all the tv,video games etc. are full of violence. I know people
    will say that that is fiction an not real, but my question is how many times
    have we the people watch a program and cry some tears that we hope
    that nobody sees us because it is just a movie after all its not real. My point
    is that if I were an angry person an I continued to watch this violence could
    I be of danger if I had a gun? I might be the only person that feels like this
    and maybe I am barking up the wrong tree. But that is the way I feel.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *