"a broader-based response to shootings"

[unfitmother]

if you felt the nra's proposal left something to be desired (not to mention gun-control proposals), check this out:

http://chrisuggen.blogspot.com/2012/12/a-broader-based-response-to-shootings.html

The focus on mass shootings...

... obscures over 99 percent of homicide victims and offenders in the United States.
... leads to unproductive arguments about whether imposing sensible gun controls would have deterred the undeterrable.
... obscures the real progress made in reducing the high rates of violence in the United States.
... exaggerates the relatively modest correlation between mental illness and violence.
... leads to high-security solutions of questionable efficacy.

the author lives in minnesota, to boot!

[Holland&Holland]

if you felt the nra's proposal left something to be desired (not to mention gun-control proposals), check this out:

http://chrisuggen.blogspot.com/2012/12/a-broader-based-response-to-shootings.html

The focus on mass shootings...

... obscures over 99 percent of homicide victims and offenders in the United States.
... leads to unproductive arguments about whether imposing sensible gun controls would have deterred the undeterrable.
... obscures the real progress made in reducing the high rates of violence in the United States.
... exaggerates the relatively modest correlation between mental illness and violence.
... leads to high-security solutions of questionable efficacy.

the author lives in minnesota, to boot!

So what did you expect the NRA to do? Last time I checked it was not a mental illness think tank.

[3Spaniels]

Quite frankly, I think the NRA offered a real solution. While it is not foolproof, it is better than anything I have heard for the last 45 years. After all, the schools can't protect their students from their own employees, be it Jerry Sandusky (sp?) and his ilk or the other gender.

"The value of my life to me is no different than how our President values his own. He has armed gunmen protecting him 24/7. Our Constitution gives me the right to protect myself in the same way. If you value your life less than Obama's, your nothing less than a fool".

The above is not my quote, and I do not know whom to contribute it to, but, it seems applicable to the security in schools these days.

Time has proven that all the "new" laws that are passed "so this does not happen again" is a crumbling facade. It does happen again and the laws passed only harm the law abiding citizenry. Like the woman that gets a protection order from an abusive admirer or husband, that piece of paper does litle to secure her from death at the hands of the abuser. Rather, the courts would be much more effective in saving her life by issuing her a gun. But, I digress, the government really has no duty or ability to protect it's citizens. Unless they prosecute for what you think vs. what you do, they can only be a reactionary entity. I, for one, do not want that line crossed!

[TTS]

if you felt the nra's proposal left something to be desired (not to mention gun-control proposals), check this out:

http://chrisuggen.blogspot.com/2012/12/a-broader-based-response-to-shootings.html

The focus on mass shootings...

... obscures over 99 percent of homicide victims and offenders in the United States.
... leads to unproductive arguments about whether imposing sensible gun controls would have deterred the undeterrable.
... obscures the real progress made in reducing the high rates of violence in the United States.
... exaggerates the relatively modest correlation between mental illness and violence.
... leads to high-security solutions of questionable efficacy.

the author lives in minnesota, to boot!

The thing that the NRA could not say is this... Mass shootings at our schools are not statistically a problem. If we want to prevent the death of children, drowning is a far more common problem than getting shot in school. Since 1980 there have been approx. 300 people killed in school shootings. In statistical terms, that is a fraction of a 10th of a percent of causes of death for school aged children.

The response to Sandy Hook is completely emotional with no policy suggestions based in fact. The only cost effective thing we can do, to help lower this already extremely low risk, is get rid of the idea of schools as "gun-free" zones. Allow parents and teachers to carry in school if they wish and impose harsh punishment for anyone who does so in an un-safe manner (leaving gun unsecured).