President tasks Cabinet with Proposal to stop mass shootings

as detailed in this Politico article.

In addition the NRA announced it will have a plan at its press conference on Friday.

So, without getting into the weeds of ultimate legality, if you were a Presidential Cabinet member or an adviser to the NRA, what would you suggest?


  1. drjay says:

    i’d like to see teachers and administrators empowered to carry, perhaps county sheriffs need to deputize principals as a way to make that happen. perhaps retired law enforcement could be similarly deputized and allowed to volunteer at local schools to serve as “school marshalls” maybe there is a reason why that is not practical but it seems to me that an armed teacher could have saved even more lives than the ones the heroes from this tragedy were able to save last week…

      • The Last Democrat in Georgia says:

        drjay, December 19, 2012 at 12:21 pm-
        Buzz Brockway, December 19, 2012 at 12:27 pm-

        Empowering teachers and administrators to protect schools from armed gunmen by deputizing principals and selected school staff to carry and posting signs at the front of the property is an excellent idea.

        It’s an excellent idea because the only way to stop a heavily-armed deranged gunman intent on doing malicious harm is to put them down before they can inflict that type of harm.

  2. xdog says:

    I think a start at finding middle ground between outraged citizens and NRA absolutists would be to restrict oversized magazines.

    I’m curious as to how substantive the NRA proposals will be. By their silence so far I think they see this latest slaughter as something special and don’t believe their usual push it down the road approach will work.

      • Noway says:

        Usually agree with you Harry, but what if the bad guys trying to get into my home to home invade me has a 30 round magazine and I only gots my measly 6? I better be the best shot since Marshall Dillon if I’m going to get ’em.

        • Daddy Got A Gun says:

          If you are so sure, ask Law Enforcement to go to 6. Don’t be offended if they taser you.

          There are lots of reasons why more than 6 is appropriate for defensive situation. For example if you are defending your family from multiple attackers. Or if you need to shoot for cover because they are shooting at you. Or the attackers are moving and you are missing. Or you need to shoot a couple of warning shots to get the bad guys attention.

          If you encountered the Sandy Hook Killer, would you want 6 rounds in your gun or 30? if your wife encountered a rapist on the street, how many rounds do you want her to have?

          BTW Do you know where the 10 round limit came from in the original ban? (another trivia question). It was Bill Ruger. He was trying to protect his gun franchise (Ruger) that only sold 10 round or less guns from GLOCK who offered greater capacity.

          • The Last Democrat in Georgia says:

            Daddy Got A Gun, December 19, 2012 at 2:53 pm-

            +100,000,000…Excellent points.

            I’ve lived in nice suburban neighborhoods where firearms were seemingly not needed that much and I’ve lived in nice suburban neighborhoods where firearms were needed because of a ridiculously and shockingly high number of violent home invasions (where every adult that lived in the home had a sidearm or had a firearm very close by at all times and knew why they needed it).

            I’ve also lived in inner-city neighborhoods where the sound of ‘firecrackers’ are heard around the clock far removed from the 4th of July (the later the hour, the louder and more frequent the sound of the ‘firecrackers’ often heard).

            The animals popping ‘firecrackers’ in inner-city neighborhoods (often as part of their association with the illegal drug trade) and committing violent crimes of varying degrees in suburban neighborhoods don’t give one hoot about societial gun control or how much their prospective victims may or may not like their illegally-obtained guns.

            Heck, the more likely those animals think that someone may not have a gun, the more likely they are to want to make them the target of a violent act.

            Guns laws are for law-abiding people as heavily-armed sociopathic and psychopathic criminals don’t care about designated gun-free zones. In fact, gun-free zones are more attractive places for them to commit violent acts.

      • Noway says:

        Does that include the 9-12 rounds that occupy my 12 gauge shell of #4 buckshot? Dang, I gotta saw open the shell and pour out three?

  3. Daddy Got A Gun says:

    First, here’s a bit of trivia. Who was the author of the 1990 Gun-Free School Zones Act? (answer in a little bit).

    If people were serious and left their political agendas at the door, they would recognize the following facts:

    1) there are not enough law enforcement officers, military, etc. to protect every school in the state and do their other duties.

    2) We can’t afford nor would we want a policeman on every corner of a school.

    2) Since LE can’t be at every location, they will have to travel to get to an Active Killer event. Response time for Sandy Hook was 20 mins per CNN. That is 20 mins a killer can do his deed without resistance (

    3) Nearly every Active Killer stops when he encounters deadly force. They usually kill themselves within a minute of encountering the deadly force. Surprisingly unarmed resistance works but armed resistance ALWAYS works.

    4) We have 600K background checked licenses in Georgia. They are parents and teachers that have a vested interest in protecting their children. That is a 15 to 20 force multiplier of LE resources

    The solution is very obvious when you consider those facts …. Repeal section 16-11-127.1 so that Georgia Weapons Licensees can carry in schools, as it was before 1994. Doing so will discourage potential attacks and allow for an immediate armed response unlike what happened at Columbine, Virginia Tech, and now Sandy Hook.

    The answer to the question is ………… Joe Biden.

  4. Tom Taylor says:

    Are you speaking from experience?
    Ask the Korean merchants during the LA riots after the Rodney King case if 6 rounds was enough.
    Ask the folks at Fort Hood whether 6 rounds would have been adequate.

    And as for folks like Senator Vincent Fort proposing a ban in Atlanta, or other municipalities in Georgia, it is against the law. Please note that Georgia law expressly preempts local regulation of the carrying of firearms. Official Code of Georgia (OCGA) 16-11-173 states that the regulation of firearms is properly an issue of general, state-wide concern. It continues to state, “No county or municipal corporation, by zoning or by ordinance, resolution, or other enactment, shall regulate in any manner gun shows; the possession, ownership, transport, carrying, transfer, sale, purchase, licensing, or registration of firearms or components of firearms; firearms dealers; or dealers in firearms components.”

  5. jbgotcha says:

    All of these defense fantasies are really interesting. Unfortunately, if someone is willing to get you then they are willing to risk death to do it. Having bigger guns or more guns doesn’t really translate into safety. What seems to be driving all of these gun fantasies is fear. Some of you sound like school kids making up scenarios about who will win in a battle: “Oh yeah, well if you only have a pistol, I will get my AK-47 and kill you first!” I choose not to let fear dictate my life. I’ve never owned a gun and don’t plan on it. If someone wants to break into my house and kill me, then I guess that’s a wrap. I’ll play the odds. It’s very unlikely to happen, however.

    • The Last Democrat in Georgia says:

      jbgotcha, I may not necessarily agree with your viewpoint, but I respect it.

      Though as you note that if someone is willing to get you that they are willing to risk death to do it, I will counter that I am willing to risk THEIR death to stop them from doing malicious harm to me or any other innocent bystander.

      I will also say that if someone breaks into my house then let’s just say that they have absolutely broken into the WRONG house and it will likely be a wrap….For them, not me.

      I have a buddy (one of many) whose family is REALLY BIG into firearms. One late night, an armed robber broke into his cousins’ home where there were five adults….Who each all owned multiple firearms.

      Anyways, all five of my buddy’s cousins hear the guy breaking in the front door and they all come running out of bed with their guns and all start shooting at the guy as he quickly runs back out the door and down the street (fortunately, for him, they all missed as needless to say, he picked the WRONG house to break into that night).

      It’s our God-given right and responsibility as Americans to be able to provide for our own personal safety and security against those who may not have the same respect for others and the same respect for civil society as you, me and the majority of us do.

    • Noway says:

      Let me add one other personal note after reading your post. I have less fear about the hypothetical creep that breaks into my house because I have a firearm and have been professionally trained in its use. Maybe that’s just me but as a fellow poster who cares about your safety, I’d wish, if I had my druthers, that you did have that firearm to defend yourself with. Heck, I’d even go to the range and shoot with you. I’m not 21 anymore and my personal defense I used to think I could employ, sans pistola, ain’t what it used to be.

    • seenbetrdayz says:

      Oh now, there’s enough fear to go around. But I think gun owners are less fearful, and here’s why:

      Gun owners are afraid because they’ve seen what actually happens when people are disarmed.

      On the other hand, most of the cases for gun-restrictions have been based on what might happen.

      I’ve heard stuff like:

      “If we let everyone carry, it’ll be like the wild west.”
      “If everyone is armed, someone might get shot in a crossfire.”
      “What if someone wrestles your gun from you and now they have extra guns?”

      In fact, every time a gun-free zone is overturned and yet violence and chaos doesn’t erupt as some imagine, the reaction from supporters of gun-restrictions is, at best, silence. Why doesn’t the media sit there and talk about Kennesaw, GA’s crime rate after the mandatory gun-ownership ordinance was passed?

    • mountainpass says:

      It can happen anywhere. My DGU(defensive gun use) happened in Athens in an Ingles parking lot. My gun may well have saved my life. Here is another DGU.

      [Ten days later, Kohl Manh Nguyen drove to the skate park almost two hours after sundown to meet Michael Lee Willis, who had allegedly advertised an iPhone 5 on Craigslist for $550, according to the police report. Willis pulled out a .380-caliber handgun as Nguyen got out of his car and, according to the police report, the 18-year-old demanded Nguyen’s cash and keys. But Nguyen found his own weapon, a Kimber .45-caliber pistol he had in his car, and fired two shots into the ground. Moments later a police officer found Nguyen ordering Willis to keep his hands up and Willis on his knees, “crying and upset,” the report said. Willis was arrested but Nguyen was not because, the officer wrote, he “had been defending himself and simply detaining Willis until police arrived.”]

  6. Noway says:

    Hope it works out for you jb and you never need to to have the means to defend yourself or those close to you.

      • Daddy Got A Gun says:

        I’m a 9/11 gun owner. After the attacks, I felt I could not morally ask a police officer to defend my and my family’s life if I wasn’t willing to take the minimal steps to be prepared to do it myself.

        I’m an old fat white guy and my risk of crime is very low but I feel I have a moral imperative to own a gun and be able to use it. Hopefully, I never have too.

        • jbgotcha says:

          More power to you. I”ll defend myself without a gun. Who knows, I might even get the drop on a home invader with my chef’s knife or baseball bat.

  7. johnl says:

    A cop in every school. If we can have a hotel tax to pay for a new stadium, we can have a one cent tax to pay for that.

    The post above about assailants thinking twice about hitting a hard target where there will be an armed response is correct. That is why these lowlifes pick soft targets like schools.

    I know a little something about dealing with terrorist attacks, having spent a year in Iraq. At least the kids will have a chance with a cop on the premises.

    • Daddy Got A Gun says:

      The fault of that plan is that once you secure public schools, the killers move onto undefended targets like churches and synagogues then private schools then they move onto day care centers … and so on and so on.

      I can guarantee that Active Killers will strike where armed resistance is not on option. Just the mere fact that someone may be carrying in a location is enough to divert them to a softer target, somewhere we the citizens are not allowed to carry guns.

      Georgia needs to unleash the protective power of its Weapons Licensees. The deterrence factor is enough to reduce our risk of terrorism and active killers significantly.

    • johnl says:

      Noway – thanks – Army. Been back about a year.

      Daddy, I have a permit to carry, but don’t need one being in the military, but I could care less where they “move on” to target at the moment. This school shooting thing has got to stop. A cop at every school is the answer.

      Debate gun control all you want, on either side. You can’t stop loonies from getting guns, just like you can’t stop folks from getting drugs (which are already illegal). The trick is to meet the threat head on, with an armed presence every day at the school with a sworn law enforcement officer.

      As a postscript, I know for a fact that at least one local synagogue has an armed security officer already on the premises, so I think they are way ahead of you.

      • Daddy Got A Gun says:

        That synagogue has money and can afford the protection. I know of others where there is no LE protection because the congregation can’t afford the hourly rate.

        As an Army guy, do you really think one armed security officer is enough? It wouldn’t be the first time that the security guard gets shot first.

        • seenbetrdayz says:

          Well, that and officers present sort of a target themselves.

          The uniform, the badge and the gun are somewhat of a dead-giveaway.

          I’ve no experience in law enforcement, but I was a volunteer firefighter and trained with officers on how to handle events from a first-responder perspective. We held mock-drills for bomb-threats, barricaded suspects, plane crashes, etc.

          I want everyone to understand that the FIRST thing they teach you as a first responder is to protect YOURSELF. Every lesson in training begins with that premise, and it becomes second nature. I know that there are a lot of dreamers out there who think that officers are just going to jump in front of bullets, or firefighters are going to run into burning buildings before waiting for a back-up man on the hose, or EMTs are gonna respond to a domestic violence call and drag a victim out of the house and put them into an ambulance without making sure the scene is secure—while I suppose that sometimes does happen, it is NOT how we are trained. I’ve actually heard people criticize us for parking at the end of the street and waiting for officers to go in to domestic violence calls. I’d rather be criticized for that, than killed for rushing in on a crack-addict who just stabbed his girlfriend. It’s an inconvenient truth for people who think first-responders are superhuman. At times I wanted to hand those people a helmet and an axe and see if they would volunteer to do any better.

          The primary person responsible for your situation in a dangerous situation is YOU. Whenever I pulled up on scene and learned that home occupants had already the home as they had drilled and practiced with the family, I could almost feel the relief wash over me. It was one less risk I had to take. Now we could focus on the fire, knowing that a lost home is much less important than a lost life.

          Any officer worth his badge will tell you that arriving on the scene of a robbery knowing that the robber has been shot by the store clerk, and only needs someone to put on the handcuffs, can be cause for relief as well. —And this happens quite a bit, it just doesn’t get equal coverage in the media.

          • seenbetrdayz says:

            The primary person responsible for your situation safety in a dangerous situation is YOU.

            Man I miss [modify].

              • johnl says:

                Seenbetr, your points about first responders being targets, etc may all be true. But when you have a bunch of teachers locked in a school with a madman on the loose, wouldn’t you rather have a cop already there??? At least those poor kids would have had a fighting chance. As it was, it was a slaughter, pure and simple. It takes way less than 5 minutes to empty an AR-15 mag. By the time SWAT gets there its all over. At least a cop could react.

                All this debate about what a cop would or would not do, or if he would be a target is irrelevant. The cop is already there, and he has at least a CHANCE to make a difference. Without one, there is no chance until the guy runs out of ammunition.

                I support everyone’s right to carry, but not teachers in schools. Have a professional, a cop, carrying his weapon.

                This is such a simple answer and I don’t understand why everyone isn’t on board with it.

                • seenbetrdayz says:

                  Because it isn’t working?

                  If a fire breaks out in a school chemistry lab, we don’t respond by taking away fire extinguishers just because there’s ‘someone else’ who will respond to the threat. I just got done saying that if you have the ability to resolve the situation, what sort of firefighter would I be to say, “Oh no ,you can’t do that. Best to let a professional handle it.” Someone who is trapped in a buring room, yet is a complete fool with a fire extinguisher, has at least slightly better odds than someone without one.

                  I know some people will say I’m comparing apples to oranges, I think it’s more like comparing red apples to green apples.

                  You talk about odds but what are the chances that Professor Liviu Librescu at VA Tech, who braced his body up against the door to block bullets while his students jumped out the window, might have had the will power and the capacity to send a few rounds back through the door if he had actually had the tool to do so? We rarely try to change that, though. We call for more of the same approaches that have been proven to leave victims at the mercy of attackers, while SWAT teams converge, establish a perimeter, and plan strategies.

                  I get tired of seeing candle-light vigils and further limitation of personal defense as the only response to these shootings. All I’m asking is that we try something different, for once. Suppose, we change the laws and still see an increase in school shootings. There are plenty of politicians making promises of security they can’t guarantee, who would be eager to change the laws back.

                • Harry says:

                  Why not allow some qualified teachers in school to quietly carry? They’re intelligent, right on the scene, the perp can’t know which ones do or don’t, and it doesn’t cost the taxpayers additional money to have an officer present.

                  • seenbetrdayz says:

                    One suggestion I’ve read about is for county sheriffs to ‘deputize’ teachers and train with them for these situations (deputization would be an approach that already has legal precedence in this country). Let them go through the same firearms training that officers go through. No teacher would be compelled to participate (usually the ones who think signs keep lawbreakers from entering the campus), they could regularly drill with officers for these scenarios, get to know them, to minimize confusion. As much as I am for arming teachers, I do think that proper training is critical in order for it to have any chance of being effective.

                    Some communities already have programs in place where ‘ordinary folks’ can volunteer to assist with nat. disasters. —Set up field hospitals, direct traffic, search for missing children, etc. There are plenty of good people who are willing to go through the training to do these sorts of things, but when it comes to hostile situations, they are prohibited by law from doing so. We’ve created some sort of fantasy bubble around these situations where the real world is somehow not supposed to apply.

                    Harrold, TX has armed teachers:

    • The Last Democrat in Georgia says:

      It is the highly-misguided War on Drugs that has caused both illegal drugs (crack, meth, etc) and crime to become so bad as the illegal drug trade and gun crime go hand-in-hand overwhelmingly more often than not.

      In an illegal business that deals heavily (and primarily) in bulk amounts of cash, drug cartels and their associates are going to have high-powered firearms to guard their cash and their very-popular high-demand product which is worth a very-high amount of cash to protect against others with high-powered firearms who are willing to kill them to take their cash and their high-value illegal drugs.

      The illegal drug trade guarantees that there will always be high-powered weapons on the streets in the hands of outlaws whose only definition of ‘gun control’ is using both of their hands to hold their weapons while shooting.

  8. Noway says:

    Agreed, John. Don’t stop with pot, either. Legalize it all, regulate the dosages, tax the bejeezus out of it and fund treatment centers for those too weak to handle it. Set up support groups similar to AA. And fund those mental health facilities, too.

      • The Last Democrat in Georgia says:

        Mental health, the MOST IMPORTANT issue in this whole debate has fallen through the cracks because the people driving this debate don’t really care anything about improving access to mental health services.

        The people on the far-left driving this debate only care about one thing, which is using this tragedy as an opportunity to do what that they have always wanted to do which is taking away law-abiding citizens’ firearms.

        Tune into MSNBC or CNN and there you will hear very little, if any, talk of improving access to mental health services for those who are very seriously mentally ill like Adam Lanza.

        All you hear on the far-left in the midst of this tragic massacre are their long-awaited plans to ban and confiscate as many legal firearms as is possible. Heck, you even hear frank and open talk of liberals wanting to overturn the Second Amendment because they don’t like legal firearms.

        Of course, just like there is very little, if any, talk on the far-left of wanting to increase access to mental health services for the severely mentally ill, there also is very little talk of restricting the ILLEGAL firearms trade, a firearms trade that goes hand-in-hand with a multibillion-dollar illegal drug trade that will never allow illegal firearms to disappear from the streets as long as it is in existence.

        The obsessive talk by the far-left is pretty much “we don’t like guns so nobody should be allowed to legally own guns so that we can be just like Europe”.

  9. bowersville says:

    Man Attempts to Open Fire on Crowd at Movie Theater, Armed Off-Duty Sergeant Drops Him (UPDATED)

    Posted on December 17, 2012 at 10:28pm

    Notice the dateline. An off duty female SGT from the Sheriffs office employed by the mall/theater stops active shooter….SINGLE-HANDED…BY HERSELF….ALONE….NO BACK UP..NO WAITING FOR SWAT.

    Response to has changed. Go to the active shooter and stop the shooter.

    When you arrive at the scene of an in progress active shooter and realize your back up is a long way out your feet will take you in. You will know at that moment better than anyone now reading these words that the only thing that is going to stop the killing is a stealth approach by you to a position of advantage followed by a well placed shot.

    A properly trained law enforcement officer, placed in the elementary school will employ training and stop the shooter. At Newtown there was no properly trained law enforcement officer in the school. Initial public reports indicate officers arriving at Sandy Hook Elementary broke in and entered the school to stop the shooter. They didn’t wait on SWAT…It was to late. Had single properly trained law enforcement been assigned within the school……

    • johnl says:

      This is EXACTLY what I’ve been saying. Put a cop at every school. So ridiculously simple. If we can have a hotel/motel tax for a brand new stadium we can have a 1 cent tax for more police.

      • bowersville says:

        As one can tell this debate on gun control/2nd Amendment rights as well as the other issues involved is complex. The political arguments will rage and be time consuming. I’ve lifted a quote/comment from a Maureen Downey column. The article is entitled “Principals Oppose efforts to Allow Them to Carry Firearms.”

        The quote is from Dr. Monica Henson whom has commented here before. I hope Dr. Henson doesn’t mind me using the comment.

        “It’s a matter of funding for school resource officers.” This is, in my opinion, a real necessity in brick-and-mortar schools and the best way to deter school shooters and neutralize them quickly if they do strike: trained, armed, law enforcement personnel onsite. Every school needs this protection in this day and age.”

        No matter the particular persuasion on the other issues, that solution shouldn’t be controversial.

        (Again, my comment is an attempt to avoid the debate on gun control/2nd amendment rights.)

  10. John Konop says:

    All should read this article to get real grasp of the issue!

    ……A local parent of a mentally ill child says: “Change our mental health system now before more blood is shed.”……..

    ……….We have turned to psychologists, psychiatrists, therapists and our local school for help to no avail. I will give you a few examples so you will understand our situation. This past spring we endured hours of extreme raging and violence every day to the point where my biological son and I would have to hide in a closet. We made the difficult decision to have our son committed to Peachford Hospital. Within a week, he was home and the raging began again within 24 hours.

    When I called the doctor and asked him how he could send home our son when he was clearly not stable, the doctor said that our insurance company forced him to be released. Our insurance company has also refused to refill a prescription because we went through the pills too quickly. Even though I got a new prescription explaining that we had to increase the dosage, our insurance still would not refill the medication. So, I bought several pills at $30 apiece to keep my family safe…….

  11. Noway says:

    The reason I ask is that I am overseas this very minute. I’d be curious to see what her kid is taking and whether or not I could get it here and for what price per pill. Now, there are things they will not sell without a script, even antibiotics like Cippro now require a real prescription in Mexico.

Comments are closed.