You don't even have any facts about either this shooting or the Va Tech shooting that connect in a meaningful way to the policy change regarding gun shows that you are advocating. In other words, you're just trying to make cheap political hay out of a tragedy.

As far as private individuals being able to sell each other firearms at gun shows is concerned, I could personally care less either way. But at least make the attempt at some sort of logical argument. You don't know where this shooter in Illinois got his weapons. The little we have heard thus far about him suggest that there was no reason to suspect him of cracking and going ape shit. If he had no criminal record then he could have just walked into Walmart and bought a shotgun through the standard, legal process.

The only way to prevent this kind of thing is by improving our identification and treatment of the mentally ill. Period. So what if he couldn't have gotten his hands on a firearm? Imagine how horrible this scene would have been if he'd walked in the classroom, barred the door behind them and plunged into the crowd with a chainsaw.  If anything, it would have been even more horrific.  

I understand that you think that guns are scary and you are sad that some people died. But that's no excuse for failing to think through what you are saying in a rational way.

it's like saying we should ban meat cleavers since someone was hacked to death with a meat cleaver this week in NY.

Absolutely the most important thing we learned last year was that mental health treatment is severely lacking in this country and it would be wise for us to focus on changing that.

And it was the core of the problem with the VT shootings. We should do much more in the field of mental health. It sounds like the Illinois killings were the work of a troubled person as well.  

Please stop ascribing words and thoughts to people you know squat about and stop repeating NRA nonsense.

Guns are cheap and accessible in large numbers to just about anyone, and it is largely due to the NRA; that is what the author states. Why do you feel compelled to add your own "spin" that has been fed to you by the gun lobby?  

I've never pondered what a mass killing would be like with a chainsaw instead of a gun, but thank you so much for putting that horrific image in my head. Given that you're the guy who made a joke about the wildfires in Virginia, I'm not surprised.

good points.  If this is an area where there are real gun control measures that could have made a difference, then lay that case out.  If it's simply a "guns are bad, we should get rid of all of them!", that probably needs to be made a little more explicit, and it's such an unrealistic approach that I don't think most readers would assume that to be the point.
 

Miles is a leader on environmental issues and I would love to work with someone like him in getting hunters and conservationists together in a coalition to preserve habitats. But his position on guns makes that unworkable, and that is a shame. It is just plain wrong. It may come from a place that is honorable, but in the end it is just wrong.

Don't most of us feel that way about abortion? We reject and oppose a lot of legislation regarding abortion even when it doesn't mean much on it's own, like the 'partial birth abortion' ban. It's an idea to ban a procedure that doesn't even really have that name and the kind of thing they are getting at happens so rarely that it's just not much of an issue. Those few times when it is done is usually to save the life of the mother (which most of the proposed bills make an exception for), or possibly in a case where the fetus has developed with literally no brain. So why should we care if it is banned?

Because of the slippery slope thing. Let's be honest. Most of us here are pro-choice and we oppose all sorts of abortion regulations because of the fear that they will eventually add up to a de-facto ban.

Now I'm not trying to start a debate about abortion here. Just pointing out that it is disingenuous to dismiss 'slippery slope' concerns that Second Amendment activists voice, even as we all act under similar motives for other issues. The vast majority of the important work that the ACLU does is for 'slippery slope' purposes.

we wouldn't have any laws at all--about anything. I can't  go along with that. I accept certain restrictions because I don't live on an island by myself. And neither do you.

who'll do that, but I think the conversation goes better if we just ignore that (and I'm not entirely sure that's what Willie Stark did).  In any event, I didn't make any assumptions about your actual position - in fact, I was just pointing out that better explaining your position would have been more helpful.

Green Miles,

Picture a pie that was whole in 1900. This pie represents Second Amendment rights. At that time, you could basically buy and sell any weapon you wanted to, in any quantity, with no restrictions of any kind.

In the 1930's, a bunch of people got together and said they wanted to take a slice out of that pie. They wanted to essentially ban automatic weapons, sawed off shotguns and a few other things. The NRA and most gun owners thought about that and said 'ok.' Everyone was on board and gun owners gladly gave up a slice of the pie.

Then every few years, someone would come back and ask for another slice of pie. The pie got smaller. And in most cases, gun owners and the NRA discussed it and arrived at compromises and gave slices away. In the 1960's we had all sorts of slices getting handed out. Handgun regulations were tightened. Mail order sales were banned. Some cities started requiring permits. Still the NRA handed out slices.

In the 1970's, some cities started banning handguns altogether. DC implemented it's ban. NYC started requiring that all firearms be registered. In the early 1980's NY used that very list to go door to door and seize all semi-automatics. FFL regulations were tightened up. Background checks were legally required. Waiting periods were adopted by many states. More new gun laws were put on the books than I can even summarize here. The pie got much smaller. Still, the NRA and most gun owners ended up agreeing to support many of these restrictions, most notably background checks.

You all have eaten rather a lot of our pie. We've given away a lot of slices now, often quite freely. And now we'd like to keep a slice for ourselves. Because no matter what reasonable restrictions we agree to, it's never done. You (anti-gun activists) will always be back the next year with a new list of proposals for bans and another fork aimed at what's left of our pie. There is no one, two or 10 things we can agree to that will settle the matter.  The only way to avoid waking up one day to find a plate full of crumbs is to start saying 'no.'

60%-70% of the American public.

60 - 70 % of the public does not want to ban guns -- they may want to ban illegal gun dealers - or semi automatic assualt rifles but they do not want to ban guns.

That statement does not respond to JL's well thought out and extremely correct conclusion.

The state of (or lack of) gun laws in 1900 do not somehow equal the natural and fundamental rights guaranteed by the Second Amendment.  And this "you" and "our" thing doesn't really capture things clearly, either.  As stated before, I'm a gun owner and semi-regular trap shooter, and I'm also in favor of a level of regulation of guns (that would probably make the folks at NRA HQ howl).

So you're arguing it's now really hard to get a gun in this country? That our laws are so restrictive that there are only 200 million guns in America? So if we'd left you the whole pie, how many guns would there be? 1.6 billion?

The gun control movement in this country has been a miserable failure. You can even get a gun if you've been declared mentally ill by a judge. But like conservatives painting themselves as victims of the "liberal" media, the pro-gun movement has been extremely successful at convincing gun owners that they're getting screwed at every turn.

By the way, I love the pie analogy. Between favorably comparing Barack Obama to a destructive wildfire, saying gun massacres aren't as bad as chainsaw massacres, and equating 200 million guns to being left one thin slice of the pie, you've won the single-week all-time bad metaphor prize.

As I pointed out repeatedly, gun owners as a group agreed with most of the restrictions that have been put into place regarding gun ownership.

Like most gun owners, I support the following:

- Ban on importation or manufacture of fully automatic weapons
- Background checks for purchases from gun dealers
- Prohibition of gun ownership by convicted violent felons or those who have committed violent misdemeanors within a certain time period
- Prohibition of gun purchases made by the mentally ill
- Firearms safety training required for concealed weapon permits and hunting licenses

These are all very wise restrictions. It is pie that I freely cede. It's also already been implemented.

As to the total number of guns that are out there in private hands in America (in working order or not), I fail to see how firearms that other people own somehow equates to the legal rights that any given person has. If we had a sudden ban on the sale, manufacture or transferal of any firearms but allowed people to keep those that they already have, and if John Doe has never owned a gun but wants to buy one the day after the ban is implemented, then he can't. His legal right to own a firearm could be completely taken away even though there are still 200 million other guns out there. This is an extreme example, but it illustrates the total irrelevance of your 200 million gun figure.

With regard to what you said about getting a gun if you have been judged to be mentally ill, don't act like this is somehow the fault of Second Amendment activists. The NRA was completely in support of Tim Kaine's measures to prevent the mentally ill from getting their hands on firearms. We're all in favor of keeping guns out of the hands of criminals and the insane.

Like I said, I don't want the whole pie. I just want to keep what I have right now. We've reached the point of diminishing returns with gun control. We have done pretty much everything that actually makes sense in terms of the balance between security and freedom. Almost every proposal I hear for new gun control measures is something that will be a big pain for gun owners but won't actually keep many guns out of the hands of the wrong people. And it's usually rooted in total ignorance of the technical facts about firearms.    

all of these?  

you explain all of these.

n/t

Great, so the United States is less safe than Azerbaijan and has 2.5 times more murders than the next-closest Western European nation. But we're still safer than Uruguay. Boo yah!

are you going on about?

That is how you explain it.

Every time people make arguments using stats or stories like those you alienate almost everyone who has ever hunted by de facto lumping them in with people who lose their mind and go shoot up a business or school.

And If you would like me to point out the mass killings everywhere else I could do that too.

You will never convince anyone with these arguments. The one you should be making is that we need to invest more in the background check system and in our mental health screening and reporting. These are not new gun laws but are strengthening our already good laws.

For that matter, I even take the step that if you are filing for fault grounds divorce then you should be required to report for a period of time. Domestic violence is one of the biggest problems we have that no one seems to want to talk about.

The fact of the matter is...most killings come by way of someone that the victim knows.

Another thing I would like to say is that no one really believes that people like yourself and The Green Miles really want reasonable gun laws. You guys want to totally ban some guns and make others almost impossible to get. This makes your comments on this subject less powerful. Too bad because for the most part I think you make cogent arguments here.

From Harris:  "A large majority (71%) favors continuation of the ban prohibiting the sales of assault rifles and high-capacity ammunition while 26 percent opposes continuing the ban."  Also, "Overall, a 60 percent majority favors stricter gun control, with 32 percent wanting less strict control and 4 percent volunteering no change."

From ABC News: 67% of Americans favor a nationwide ban on the sale of assault weapons.  Only 30% oppose.

By the way, here are the leading Democratic candidates on banning assault weapons.

Barack Obama: "He said the government needs to permanently reinstate an assault weapons ban and close regulatory loopholes that protect unscrupulous gun dealers."

Hillary Clinton: "We do need to crack down on illegal gun dealers. This is something that I would like to see more of. We need to enforce the laws that we have on the books. I would also work to reinstate the assault weapons ban. We now have, once again, police deaths going up around the country, and in large measure because bad guys now have assault weapons again."

The guy had two pistols and a rifle didn't he?  Do you know how many people in Virginia alone hunt with rifles?

And yes - we should crack down on illegal gun dealers - we should do background checks - but we should not take the guns away from the citizens of this country.  After 8 years of George Bush I feel as strongly as ever about that.

I was responding to Willie Stark's comment that I was in the small minority in wanting to restrict SOME guns, so I pointed out that I'm in the large majority for assault weapons.  This isn't that hard.

it's just not relevant to this particular shooting.  Even if the laws were changed to match your polls - he still could have bought the three handguns and one rifle.  It's not like he went in there with a machine gun.

Also this:  The graduate student who fatally shot five students before killing himself in a Northern Illinois University lecture hall reportedly "became erratic" two weeks ago after he went off his medications.

We're back to mental health again.

The definition of 'assault weapon' is any gun that the Brady campaign decides that they don't like that particular day. It's like a more egregious example of 'partial birth abortion,' which is a term made up by right-wing politicians who know nothing about medicine or surgery and which describes a non-specific procedure that doesn't even exist as described.

'Assault weapon' is not a bona-fide technical term and it has no actual definition. 'Assault rifle,' however, is. Use of the term 'assault weapon' is basically just a way of saying 'bad guns that I don't like or understand' and it's lack of actual meaning or definition prevents any meaningful discussion from taking place.

This was written by people who knew absolutely nothing about firearms. The fact that you can write up a proposal for legislation regulating something does not mean that the words add up to any kind of sense. This whole bill is just a laundry list of things that ignorant people found scary when they looked at pictures of guns. Most of these design features do not share a unique application in common, save to put a piece of lead in a particular spot away from where the shooter are standing. And that could be said of all firearms, rendering the term 'assault weapon' totally useless. 'Assault weapon' does not constitute a bona fide category of weapons.

Again, I am reminded of Ted Stevens' impassioned speech against net neutrality. The fact that a person in government makes a list of things that they think mean something does not automatically mean that it makes any sense.

Seriously, look at the ridiculous crap in this bill. Things that it prohibits include rifles with 'conspicuous pistol grips.' How exactly does a given grip design make a weapon kill people any faster or deader? It's just an ergonomic matter. Some people find a pistol grip comfortable, others prefer a stock that does not protrude below the trigger guard. But someone thought that a pistol grip looked scary, so into the bill it went.

Or the mention of bayonet lugs. Do we have some huge problem with people getting mugged at bayonet point? Emergency Rooms overwhelmed following bayonet charges between the Bloods and the Crips? It's ridiculous. These are all solutions in search of problems.

The textbook definition of an assault rifle is: 'A selective fire rifle chambered for an intermediate cartridge.'

'Selective fire' means that a weapon can be fired fully automatic as well as in semi-auto mode. Hold down the trigger and bullets keep coming out of the barrel by themselves.

The United States effectively banned the importation or manufacture of all automatic weapons in the 1930's. Those laws have been tightened up even more so since then. You cannot walk into a gun store and buy an assault rifle. Period. All of the so-called AK-47s that you see on the market in the US are not really Kalashnikovs. It is illegal to import any fully auto capable receiver. They take AK barrels, stocks and cosmetic parts and attach them to a completely different receiver that doesn't fire any faster than any semi-auto .22 can-plinker. This is a great way to sell rifles to people who want to feel like they have an assault rifle, but the fact remains that it only cosmetically resembles a real AK.

Assault rifles are already banned in the US. The people who still demand that we ban assault rifles only do so because they know absolutely nothing about guns. It's like Sen. Ted Stevens voicing his concern about our internet tubes.  

What exactly is an assault weapon?

The bad guys who kill cops are generally using the same weapons that they did while the ban was in place. Simple 9mm handguns, usually with a bullet either to the head or through one of the openings in the bullet-proof vest.  

But this is absolutely absurd:  "A large majority (71%) favors continuation of the ban prohibiting the sales of assault rifles and high-capacity ammunition..."

High-capacity ammunition? THERE IS NO SUCH THING. Are they talking about magnum-length cartridges for big game? Are they confusing ammunition with magazines? Who knows. The people both conducting the poll and responding to it have no idea what they are talking about.

This is like asking Ted Stevens for his opinion on DNS protocols. I'm sure he could come up with something to say. But he would sound like as much of an idiot as whoever wrote that sentence for Harris.

They mean nothing.

Much like most of the people here, 71% of Americans don't know what an "Assault Wepaon" is.  Mostly because Assault Weapons don't exist.  The Clinton Assault Weapons Ban (may it rest in peace with the 18th amendment) was a BAN on cosmetic features of some rifles, and a ban on the importation of some foreign made rifles.

It did nothing. It stopped nothing.

For a Pol to say that "Bad guys now have assault weapons again" is of course a lie.  The so called assault weapons never left, and neither did the bad guys that use guns to kill. They're just saying what the sheep want to hear.  It helps them "feel" superior to the other type of sheep.

Also, there is no such thing as a "gun show loophole".  It doesn't exist.  Private sales of privately owned property is allowed in VA.  However, if you are suspected of "dealing" in guns, without a license, you will go to jail (BATFE).

There is no such thing as an "illegal" gun dealer.  All gun dealers are licensed by the BATFE, regulated by the State and the BATFE, and must adhere to state and federal law.  No exceptions.

Everyone that buy's a gun at a gun show goes through a background check.  Except for private sales, and those are very few.  Another BS stat is that 60% of dealers at gun shows are unlicensed.  Also not true.  At a gun show there are two types of dealers: FFL's and C&R.  FFL's are Federal Firarms Licensees (NEW and used), and C&R are Curio and Relic (firearms that are 50 years old or older).

Other "dealers" at a gun show are the people that sell beef jerky, military surplus (non firearm), dolls, popcorn, knives, pretzles, flags, and other non-firearm related bric-a-brac that is at every "show" at every convention center in every city in every state.  But the Brady people still like to call them "Unlicensed Dealers".  It helps with their lies (stats).

There are NO unlicensed GUN dealers at a gun show.

Timothy McVeigh did not use a gun.  The 9/11 hijackers did not use a gun.  The man who set his estranged GF on fire in Rockville, did not use a gun.  You don't need a gun to kill.  And if you want to kill in mass quantities, a gun is a poor choice.

But here is an unsolicited observation:  people will continue to eat up this dis-information as long as there are politicians, and their apologist, to spoon feed it to them in sound bite sized nuggets that they can quote and "feel" as if they actually are knowledgaeable and informed.

Republican or Democrat = same thing, different sects.

A regular Nostradamus who can see into men's hearts and souls and understand what they REALLY want--ban all guns!

You say you we need to invest more in the background check system, yet you are against background checks at gun shows?  

I am not against dealers doing background checks at gun shows.

I suspect you have seen way too many of those "chainsaw massacre" films. And you accuse the author of being "irrational?"

If this young man had been armed with a chainsaw, he would have found his planned massacre problematical in the extreme.

How does he close and bar the door, while holding his chainsaw, I wonder? Does he turn the chainsaw off? What if he has trouble getting it started again? (This frequently happens, as I can attest.) Wouldn't people have heard it and run away? Perhaps thrown some desks and chairs at him so his chainsaw would be busily occupied with the job it was designed to do? And here's some interesting information of which you are amazingly unaware: you have to get very close to a person to kill him with a chainsaw; not so much with a gun.

But guns don't kill people. People with guns kill people. It is the most effective and deadly weapon a person can carry. It is relatively easy to use and not all that heavy or cumbersome. It is the weapon of choice for most mass murderers in this country there is a reason why; it empowers the murderer in a way a bomb cannot do.  

Whether or not either of these troubled men bought their guns at a gun show is inmaterial. You either believe that background checks should be required to purchase a gun or you don't. But if you absolutely MUST have a tragedy that can be attributed directly to the gun show loophole, let me remind you of Columbine.

is that if everyone thought so practically, we wouldn't have cultural classics like this.

in this case doesn't look particularly beefy or strong. I think he would have had a bit of trouble with the chainsaw thing. Weilding such a weapon or a machete or a sword or whatever takes a bit of strength and skill--shooting a gun radomly into a crowd does not.

I'm sick and tired of hearing "oh, he could have done the same with a (pick one) car, swimming pool, meat cleaver, chainsaw, knife, et al--why don't we outlaw them?" It is sophistry at its best and the people who advocate these ideas are nowhere near as clever as they think they are.

The sole purpose of a gun is to put a hole in something and to kill or destroy it. A piece of paper tacked to the wall. A tin can sitting on stump. A disc thrown into the air. An animal. A human being. That is what a gun is designed to do, and no, it doesn't necessarily make it bad. But it does make it dangerous. To deny otherwise or to lump it with everyday items such as cars and carving knives is delusional.  

The accessibility of guns, the ease of handling and use, the gun culture that permeates every aspect of our society, makes the gun the most dangerous weapon out there.

We are living in the age of the gun. But we are told we can do nothing about it. We are told that these senseless deaths are something we must accept and God forbid, we should look for or even talk about finding solutions.

There is a broad national consensus that we need to be making sure that people who have mental illnesses which would prohibit them from buying guns are actually flagged on the lists that background checks look at. From what I've heard about this case, I'm not sure that he could have wound up on that list given the short period of time that he was behaving erratically. But this does bear on the Virginia Tech shooting and certainly many other lower-profile killings.

Targeting straw purchases is another good idea that everyone will agree on. Particularly in chain stores with poorly trained employees, clerks often do not fully grasp the seriousness of stopping straw purchases. A few months ago I was at a Dick's Sporting Goods store, standing at the gun counter where there was a couple trying to buy a rifle. The man had only his out of state drivers license and no secondary ID. And he had damn near convinced the clerk to sell him a fishing license just so that he could use the fishing license as a secondary form of state issued ID in order to buy the gun.  So I pointed out that this would be illegal. Then he tried to have his girlfriend buy the gun and the clerk was thinking about it when I told him flat out that this was illegal, too.  I happen to hold an 03-FFL myself so I know the regs.  If I hadn't been standing there and butting in, this clerk was fully prepared to improperly sell the gun to the guy. Not out of greed or callousness. Just out of ignorance and a desire to avoid conflict with a customer.

I think the BATFE should offer regional workshops on these kinds of issues for the people who actually work at the counter. They've got to teach these clerks how to say 'no.'

What I reject is this notion that nothing is done to prevent these kinds of tragedies. The implicit idea that access to firearms for criminals and the mentally ill is totally unfettered. Which is just not the case. We have a huge body of law on the books both federally and on the state level that limits, regulates and restricts access to firearms. Getting us to a safer point does not have to involve knee-jerk bans or faux FAA-style security. Better background checks and better training for gun sellers are things worth trying.  

I recall that the Columbine killers used a straw purchaser of legal age to buy those firearms. She had no criminal record and could just as easily have bought the guns at a gun store rather than from some random guy at a gun show. She would have passed a background check.  So no, Columbine can not really be attributed to a gun show loophole. Which, incidentally, is not an issue that I particularly care about either way (the gun show thing, that is).

Straw purchases are already illegal. As they should be.

Plunging into a crowd of students with a chainsaw would be pretty ugly, barred door or not. The less I imagine it, the better off I will be.

It sucks that there are a few idiots every year who do this kind of thing. It also sucks that there are a small number of idiots who abuse freedom of speech to promote racism and hate. It sucks that the 5th Amendment allows some murderers and rapists to escape justice. But in all of these cases, it would be reckless and wrong to eliminate these civil rights in the name of security.

She has stated, on record, that she did not want to go through a background check and that having to face a background check would have deterred her.

Colorado did outlaw the gun show loophole. Not their legislature, mind you, who were totally in the grip of the gun lobby, but the people of Colorado. Something like 70% of them, btw, many of whom were and are gun owners and gun enthusiasts like yourself. And it hasn't stopped the good people of Colorado from purchasing and owning handguns. So much for the slippery slope...

Green Miles original point was that, in spite of the bi-partisan reccomendation of the VaTech Review panel, our own legislature failed to do something about the gun show loophole. You say you don't care either way. So what are you getting on his case about?

Pray tell, which civil right has anyone here advocated "eliminating?" Putting reasonable restrictions on the 2nd Amendment is no closer to "eliminating" than putting reasonable restrictions on the 1st.  

She said that when she was in big trouble for providing guns to murderers. Is it true? I don't know. But at the time she said it, she certainly had an interest in looking like she didn't really want to provide those guns. 'If only' someone had thrown up a momentary barrier in her way then she wouldn't have broken the law. Yeah, it's not her fault. That darn state government didn't ask her to sign a piece of paper first. I have trouble taking her statement seriously under the circumstances.

I was on Green Miles' case because there was no actual connection between the horrible news and the policy that he was advocating. One can lay out a logical case for banning private sales at gun shows. He just didn't do it and I'm kind of a cranky bitch about things making logical sense in politics.

Green Miles is a sharp guy on environmental issues and global warming and knows more about energy policy than I ever will. I expect him to keep me honest if I ever start talking about climate and fail to make sense. For my own part, I know a lot about firearms and I'll do the same on those issues.

With regard to your last paragraph, 'reasonable restrictions' is a pretty broad notion. I take issue with Green Miles' implicit statement that firearms ought to be expensive (perhaps I misunderstood him?). More importantly, advocacy for the 'assault weapons ban' is not promotion of what could be defined as 'reasonable restrictions' by informed people. I don't think that people who are in favor of it are horrible human beings. Just that they do not fully understand the technical issues involved. The content of that bill is so utterly rooted in ignorance that I find it's promotion to be rhetorically similar to, say, cheering the PATRIOT Act. Close inspection of that act by people who understand the law demonstrates that it's riddled with First Amendment threats. But people who never read it and didn't really understand any of the issues touted it as 'reasonable' since after all it did not eliminate the first amendment per se. It is possible to damage civil rights even if those rights are not totally eliminated.

to which well-regulated militia he belonged.

  With all the recent shootings on campus I hope America decides to wake up and change things for once! Hopefully they'll understand that stupid "Weapon Free" or "gun free" zone signs mean NOTHING! I'm hoping that people, mainly lawmakers, pull thier head out of thier 4th point of contact and finaly let students aswell as teachers who have concealed carry licenses carry thier weapons into the classroom and take resoponsablity for thier own safety.

  The fact that I have to take my gun off and leave it in my car because I'm going to school is utterly rediculous. I'm a responsable adult when walking around at the mall, or going to a movie, but when it's time to go to school, I'm a little kid that can't be trusted to not shoot the teacher and everybody else for getting a C on a report. Just ludacris. The fact that anyone thinks that the police are going to be around to protect you, or you should just cower in a closet or under a desk and call the authorities and hope for the best is a completely foreign idea to me.

  I'm hoping that if schools and other establishments that still want to ban weapons or concealed carry will have to abide by a new set of requirements, such as. Metal detectors and armed guards at every enterance point. Armed escorts to and from the vehicle for those that want one. They should also be held more liable for violent crimes that happen on thier campus or establishment, especially if the person who it happend to was a CCL holder and disarmed at the time do to said establishments policy of no weapons.

  For me right now, I will no longer leave my gun in my vehicle. Untill they do a better job of securing the school, and I get ready to walk through the doors and have to go through a metal detector, I will keep my Glock 27 strapped to my ankle. Since there are no security measures in place, this won't be a problem for me, and no one will ever know, unless I need it. At that point, I'm sure my classmates will be very happy to be in the same room as the good guy fighting for his life aswell as everyone elses. I'm doing it for the Children.