Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

Sandy Hook Elementary Was a Gun-Free Zone

Posted by on Dec. 18, 2012 at 11:27 AM
  • 14 Replies

 

No guns were allowed at Sandy Hook Elementary. It was a gun-free zone.  The law prevented guns. So how did the guns get on premises with a law in place to prevent just that?   

by on Dec. 18, 2012 at 11:27 AM
Add your quick reply below:
You must be a member to reply to this post.
Replies (1-10):
JakeandEmmasMom
by Gold Member on Dec. 18, 2012 at 11:39 AM

 I hate those signs.  They're like condescending little pats on the head.

rccmom
by Gold Member on Dec. 18, 2012 at 11:41 AM

By your logic, since some fatal accidents are caused by drunk drivers even though driving while under the influence is illegal, should we get rid of drunk driving laws? The law didn't stop the drunk driver, so let's not have that law. As a matter of fact, if we were to get rid of all laws that are broken by some people, what laws would we have left? 

_Kissy_
by on Dec. 18, 2012 at 11:42 AM

The same reason there's signs at convenient stores that says clerk cant open safe. They still get robbed for the cash register money.

BoysManDog
by Bronze Member on Dec. 18, 2012 at 12:10 PM
2 moms liked this

 

Quoting rccmom:

By your logic, since some fatal accidents are caused by drunk drivers even though driving while under the influence is illegal, should we get rid of drunk driving laws? The law didn't stop the drunk driver, so let's not have that law. As a matter of fact, if we were to get rid of all laws that are broken by some people, what laws would we have left? 

No, by my logic, there was a law already in place, which was supposed to prevent guns from being brought onto school premises.  By my logic, the criminal broke that existing law.  By my logic, criminals, as in your example, willfully disregard the law.  That is what makes them criminals.  By my logic, making it more difficult for LAW ABIDING citizens to defend themselves (and whole areas) makes it a heck of alot easier for those who already have no regard for the law to operate.  A person who wants to kill someone will find a way to do it.  A criminal will get a gun if he wants one.  A law abiding citizen will obey the law.  Who has the upper hand?   

 

rccmom
by Gold Member on Dec. 18, 2012 at 12:17 PM


Quoting BoysManDog:

 

Quoting rccmom:

By your logic, since some fatal accidents are caused by drunk drivers even though driving while under the influence is illegal, should we get rid of drunk driving laws? The law didn't stop the drunk driver, so let's not have that law. As a matter of fact, if we were to get rid of all laws that are broken by some people, what laws would we have left? 

No, by my logic, there was a law already in place, which was supposed to prevent guns from being brought onto school premises.  By my logic, the criminal broket that existing law.  By my logic, criminals, as in your example, willfully disregard the law.  That is what makes them criminals.  By my logic, making it more difficult for LAW ABIDING citizens to defend themselves (and whole areas) makes it a heck of alot easier for those who already have no regard for the law to operate.  A person who wants to kill someone will find a way to do it.  A criminal will get a gun if he wants one.  A law abiding citizen will obey the law.  Who has the upper hand?   

 

If you make it harder to get guns, the criminals will have to work harder to get them. I think gun free zones are silly, but you worry me with what I feel  you are suggesting. I feel you are suggesting that having gun laws are useless because criminals do not obey the laws. Well, that would mean all laws are then useless. We need to find out what laws work, and why. Would you rather allow anyone to bring a gun into a school?

29again
by Gold Member on Dec. 18, 2012 at 12:31 PM
2 moms liked this


Quoting rccmom:


Quoting BoysManDog:


Quoting rccmom:

By your logic, since some fatal accidents are caused by drunk drivers even though driving while under the influence is illegal, should we get rid of drunk driving laws? The law didn't stop the drunk driver, so let's not have that law. As a matter of fact, if we were to get rid of all laws that are broken by some people, what laws would we have left? 

No, by my logic, there was a law already in place, which was supposed to prevent guns from being brought onto school premises.  By my logic, the criminal broket that existing law.  By my logic, criminals, as in your example, willfully disregard the law.  That is what makes them criminals.  By my logic, making it more difficult for LAW ABIDING citizens to defend themselves (and whole areas) makes it a heck of alot easier for those who already have no regard for the law to operate.  A person who wants to kill someone will find a way to do it.  A criminal will get a gun if he wants one.  A law abiding citizen will obey the law.  Who has the upper hand?   


If you make it harder to get guns, the criminals will have to work harder to get them. I think gun free zones are silly, but you worry me with what I feel  you are suggesting. I feel you are suggesting that having gun laws are useless because criminals do not obey the laws. Well, that would mean all laws are then useless. We need to find out what laws work, and why. Would you rather allow anyone to bring a gun into a school?

Criminals won't work harder!  They don't even work hard now!!  I have not gotten the feeling that anyone is suggesting that we do away with gun laws since criminals don't follow them.  I believe that the point people are trying to make is that we DO have laws already to address the issue, and the calls for yet more gun control now are similar to calling for bans on cars and alcohol to do away with drunk driving.  We don't punish law abiding drivers who don't drink & drive, we don't say that there is no need for this kind of whiskey, etc.  We enforce the laws we already have.  But by calling for bans on this gun, or that accessory, I think it is wrong, it is just an emotional over-reaction that suits the progressive agenda.  Why don't we ban cars & alcohol as well?  And knives, scissors, electrical cords, frying pans & grease, and any other thing that has ever injured a person as well? 

rccmom
by Gold Member on Dec. 18, 2012 at 1:14 PM


Quoting 29again:


Quoting rccmom:

 

Quoting BoysManDog:

 

Quoting rccmom:

By your logic, since some fatal accidents are caused by drunk drivers even though driving while under the influence is illegal, should we get rid of drunk driving laws? The law didn't stop the drunk driver, so let's not have that law. As a matter of fact, if we were to get rid of all laws that are broken by some people, what laws would we have left? 

No, by my logic, there was a law already in place, which was supposed to prevent guns from being brought onto school premises.  By my logic, the criminal broket that existing law.  By my logic, criminals, as in your example, willfully disregard the law.  That is what makes them criminals.  By my logic, making it more difficult for LAW ABIDING citizens to defend themselves (and whole areas) makes it a heck of alot easier for those who already have no regard for the law to operate.  A person who wants to kill someone will find a way to do it.  A criminal will get a gun if he wants one.  A law abiding citizen will obey the law.  Who has the upper hand?   

 

If you make it harder to get guns, the criminals will have to work harder to get them. I think gun free zones are silly, but you worry me with what I feel  you are suggesting. I feel you are suggesting that having gun laws are useless because criminals do not obey the laws. Well, that would mean all laws are then useless. We need to find out what laws work, and why. Would you rather allow anyone to bring a gun into a school?

Criminals won't work harder!  They don't even work hard now!!  I have not gotten the feeling that anyone is suggesting that we do away with gun laws since criminals don't follow them.  I believe that the point people are trying to make is that we DO have laws already to address the issue, and the calls for yet more gun control now are similar to calling for bans on cars and alcohol to do away with drunk driving.  We don't punish law abiding drivers who don't drink & drive, we don't say that there is no need for this kind of whiskey, etc.  We enforce the laws we already have.  But by calling for bans on this gun, or that accessory, I think it is wrong, it is just an emotional over-reaction that suits the progressive agenda.  Why don't we ban cars & alcohol as well?  And knives, scissors, electrical cords, frying pans & grease, and any other thing that has ever injured a person as well? 

That was kind of my point. If it is harder to get ahold of certain type guns, like assault rifles, criminals would be less likely to have them. We don't ban cars, but we do have safety regulations on cars, and some cars are not allowed to be sold anymore because they don't meet safety standards. We regulate all kinds of stuff when it comes to electric cords and power outlets. We don't ban alcohol, but we do regulate the sale of it.

What we need is a non knee jerk, grown up conversation about what type of gun regulation would work best. I know we have gun regulations already, but which ones work, which don't work, and should we ban assault weapons? 

BoysManDog
by Bronze Member on Dec. 18, 2012 at 1:21 PM
2 moms liked this


Quoting rccmom:

 

Quoting BoysManDog:

 

Quoting rccmom:

By your logic, since some fatal accidents are caused by drunk drivers even though driving while under the influence is illegal, should we get rid of drunk driving laws? The law didn't stop the drunk driver, so let's not have that law. As a matter of fact, if we were to get rid of all laws that are broken by some people, what laws would we have left? 

No, by my logic, there was a law already in place, which was supposed to prevent guns from being brought onto school premises.  By my logic, the criminal broket that existing law.  By my logic, criminals, as in your example, willfully disregard the law.  That is what makes them criminals.  By my logic, making it more difficult for LAW ABIDING citizens to defend themselves (and whole areas) makes it a heck of alot easier for those who already have no regard for the law to operate.  A person who wants to kill someone will find a way to do it.  A criminal will get a gun if he wants one.  A law abiding citizen will obey the law.  Who has the upper hand?   

 

If you make it harder to get guns, the criminals will have to work harder to get them. I think gun free zones are silly, but you worry me with what I feel  you are suggesting. I feel you are suggesting that having gun laws are useless because criminals do not obey the laws. Well, that would mean all laws are then useless. We need to find out what laws work, and why. Would you rather allow anyone to bring a gun into a school?

Really?  Do existing laws for ANYTHING make it harder it for people with no regard for the laws to break them?  In fact, cities, such as Chicago and D.C. that have the strictest gun laws also have the highest gun crime rates.  The only people who don't have guns are those who follow the laws.  The criminals do not.  So who are these laws benefitting?  The people who obey them or the people who break them?  When it comes to gun laws, the only people who benefit are the criminals.  Why would you suppose a person who wants to kill lots of people goes to a GUN-FREE ZONE to do it?  He has no fear of being stopped.  None.  Because LAW ABIDING people there will not have no gun and no way to stop him, and so he can march right in with alacrity and do as he pleases.  Now, did that gun-free zone keep anyone safe?  Uh, no.  It made them more vulnerable.  Just as disarming law-abiding citizens will do.  

rccmom
by Gold Member on Dec. 18, 2012 at 1:31 PM


Quoting BoysManDog:

 

Quoting rccmom:

 

Quoting BoysManDog:

 

Quoting rccmom:

By your logic, since some fatal accidents are caused by drunk drivers even though driving while under the influence is illegal, should we get rid of drunk driving laws? The law didn't stop the drunk driver, so let's not have that law. As a matter of fact, if we were to get rid of all laws that are broken by some people, what laws would we have left? 

No, by my logic, there was a law already in place, which was supposed to prevent guns from being brought onto school premises.  By my logic, the criminal broket that existing law.  By my logic, criminals, as in your example, willfully disregard the law.  That is what makes them criminals.  By my logic, making it more difficult for LAW ABIDING citizens to defend themselves (and whole areas) makes it a heck of alot easier for those who already have no regard for the law to operate.  A person who wants to kill someone will find a way to do it.  A criminal will get a gun if he wants one.  A law abiding citizen will obey the law.  Who has the upper hand?   

 

If you make it harder to get guns, the criminals will have to work harder to get them. I think gun free zones are silly, but you worry me with what I feel  you are suggesting. I feel you are suggesting that having gun laws are useless because criminals do not obey the laws. Well, that would mean all laws are then useless. We need to find out what laws work, and why. Would you rather allow anyone to bring a gun into a school?

Really?  Do existing laws for ANYTHING make it harder it for people with no regard for the laws to break them?  In fact, cities, such as Chicago and D.C. that have the strictest gun laws also have the highest gun crime rates.  The only people who don't have guns are those who follow the laws.  The criminals do not.  So who are these laws benefitting?  The people who obey them or the people who break them?  When it comes to gun laws, the only people who benefit are the criminals.  Why would you suppose a person who wants to kill lots of people goes to a GUN-FREE ZONE to do it?  He has no fear of being stopped.  None.  Because LAW ABIDING people there will not have no gun and no way to stop him, and so he can march right in with alacrity and do as he pleases.  Now, did that gun-free zone keep anyone safe?  Uh, no.  It made them more vulnerable.  Just as disarming law-abiding citizens will do.  

That is one of our problems. It is not standardized. So, there are strict laws in Chicago and DC, but those are relatively small areas. All one needs to do is go outside that area to legally purchase guns. Now, if the entire country had the same laws making it equally difficult, then it would actually be harder for criminals to get such guns.

In another post I said the gun free zone signs are kind of silly, but maybe our problem is not just ineffective laws, but the scale is ineffective. A gun free small area is easy to penetrate with a weapon, but make it a larger zone, then maybe it would be better. Reduce the amount of guns available to criminals, and I guarantee they will have less guns.

Anyway, these are just ideas, parts of a conversation we need to have and think about. Just sitting around saying we need more guns is silly, and sitting around and thinking we can get rid of ALL guns is also silly. However, that does not mean that we sit back and do nothing.

29again
by Gold Member on Dec. 18, 2012 at 1:37 PM


Quoting rccmom:

That was kind of my point. If it is harder to get ahold of certain type guns, like assault rifles, criminals would be less likely to have them. We don't ban cars, but we do have safety regulations on cars, and some cars are not allowed to be sold anymore because they don't meet safety standards. We regulate all kinds of stuff when it comes to electric cords and power outlets. We don't ban alcohol, but we do regulate the sale of it.

What we need is a non knee jerk, grown up conversation about what type of gun regulation would work best. I know we have gun regulations already, but which ones work, which don't work, and should we ban assault weapons? 

Ah, but this is not what is happening. 

And isn't any type of weapon an "assault" weapon? 


Felons are not allowed, by law, to own guns of any kind.  That does not stop them in the slightest....  I believe we need to look at our gun laws from the POV of the law abiding citizen, not from the POV of what a criminal might do.

Add your quick reply below:
You must be a member to reply to this post.
Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)