"Armed Guards don't work"

[GeneCC]

After the shooting in Newtown that left 20 elementary school students dead, the National Rifle Association responded with a proposal for what it called National School Shield program. The idea, said the organization's leader, Wayne LaPierre, was that "the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun." The shield program aimed to put an armed guard in every elementary school in the country to protect children from the next deranged killer.

The Navy Yard shooting exposes a fallacy in that argument. A military facility, the Navy Yard had plenty of good guys with weapons who were nonetheless were unable to stop Aaron Alexis, the alleged shooter, from killing a dozen innocent persons.

True, the Navy Yard is not a heavily armed facility. It's not like, say, walking into a military base in the U.S. let alone onto a war zone. But neither was it the kind of gun-free school zone that the NRA has described as an inviting target for crazed shooters. It was at least as heavily armed as we can expect any elementary school could ever be under the National School Shield program. And yet, carnage.

The NRA is in some sense right that guns stop mass shooters – although in Atlanta this year, a deranged man with weapons was talked into surrender by a savvy, quick-thinking administrator. Still, guns stopped Alexis, not pleas. In that sense, La Pierre is right.

But it's also true that shooters seem eminently capable of wreaking carnage before they can be stopped by on-site, armed personnel. This was true in the shooting at the U.S. Army's Fort Hood base and at Columbine High School, which had an armed guard. By the NRA's own logic, unless virtually every teacher in a school, or person in an office, is packing heat and is trained to use their weapon, a determined shooter can sow havoc before their weapons are silenced

http://www.nationaljournal.com/domes...fid=mostViewed

[GeneCC]

How many guards over how many acres of Installation?

Comparing a Navy base to an Army Post to a School is "Apples, to Oranges to Pineapples".

Soldiers and Sailors need to be armed. So do School Teachers.

[GunLawyer001]

This will be the spin from the Left:

- We need better background checks. The fact that he cleared a "secret" classification already, just means that we need deeper investigations before anyone can buy a gun. Except for full-time government employees, of course. Or Presidents. It's racist to look into the President's background.

- We need waiting periods. He bought his gun just 20 days before this spree, therefore we need waiting periods that exceed 20 days. That will fix everything.

- Guns are useless for self-defense. He killed two "highly trained" military personnel and took their guns, so what chance do you little untrained peons have? And those guys practiced for at least 20 minutes every year.

- We should have laws against crossing state lines with guns. He bought his gun in Virginia and took it to DC, where it was illegal to possess any guns; another statute would have stopped him like hitting a brick wall.

- America is racist, it's the fault of white people that black men like this are overcome with rage.

Print this out, watch MSNBC and check them off as their professional idiots vomit them out.

Yep. Right on schedule....

[ALS]

If the victim is armed it really doesn't matter if he is surprised. Who would think a guy with a Navy ID would want to kill you when he pulled up to the gate?

A cop walking up to a vehicle during a traffic stop is at level 10 alertness. A guy checking Id's at the front gate is at level 4 or less.

[Berks_Iraq_Vet]

Military Bases have armed guards at the ECP's and roving. Once in, easy to raise hell until they figure out who, what, where, how many.

[Sgt.K]

Military Bases have armed guards at the ECP's and roving.

That's Entry Control Point for those who don't speak acronym.

[knight0334]

How many guards over how many acres of Installation?

Comparing a Navy base to an Army Post to a School is "Apples, to Oranges to Pineapples".

Soldiers and Sailors need to be armed. So do School Teachers.

While on US soil and absent a declaration of war - no. The Founding Fathers did not want a standing army. And now that we have one, they do not need to be armed while on US soil - only their security and police forces should be.

US military has no business being armed on US soil when there isn't a declaration or war. It is the duty of the Militia to respond to invasions, insurrection, and to enforce the laws of the land.

[scruff]

While on US soil and absent a declaration of war - no. The Founding Fathers did not want a standing army. And now that we have one, they do not need to be armed while on US soil - only their security and police forces should be.

US military has no business being armed on US soil when there isn't a declaration or war. It is the duty of the Militia to respond to invasions, insurrection, and to enforce the laws of the land.

I'd agree with you on heavy weaponry, but a sidearm is more of a defensive weapon for a soldier, isn't it?

[streaker69]

Someone contact the Secret Service and tell them to all quit since armed guards don't work. There's no sense in spending tax payer monies for something that doesn't work.

[knight0334]

I'd agree with you on heavy weaponry, but a sidearm is more of a defensive weapon for a soldier, isn't it?

Let them have what the people of NYC may carry when on US state or territorial lands. When on a base within a foreign nation - then they can have goodies.

I do not want, nor did the Founding Fathers want, an army ready to do the tasks of the government.

An armed navy is ok so long as they aren't ashore - the Constitution did provide to "keep" a navy. Armies are only to be raised in times of war, therefor any military personnel in service when there isn't a declaration of war shouldn't be armed.

When you join the military you know you are giving up freedoms and personal lifestyle during your term of service. If you don't like being unarmed while on US soil - don't join.