Guns Now Allowed Inside Public Building (Schools, Hospitals, Libraries) Unless They Buy More Security

While this is an emotional, politically charged issue, it must be acknowledged that:

1) The best defense against a bad guy with a gun, is a GOOD guy with a gun.

2) The overwhelming majority of crimes committed with a gun, are committed with a gun that is not lawfully owned.

Whether or not you agree with private gun ownership, bad guys out there already have guns. Your choices to solve this issue run from the politically impossible (repeal of the 2nd Ammendment), the politically impalatable (illegal gun ownership does not fall evenly across US demographic groups, bringing with it politcal issues in enforcement/roundups), or the foolish (setting up zones where good guys are guaranteed to be disarmed).

I for one, feel more safe having the good guy around, who bothered to properly register a concealed-carry, that the sadistic unhinged who hasn't.

All I want to know is, Have they got the right door knobs?

John,

Need to know what qualifies as meeting the government's "standards" as well as "policies and procedures" for incorporation of metal detectors and security guards? Who will be providing oversight and authority on the use and incorporation of these standards, policies and procedures? What is the penalty for non-compliance?

I don't see how a state or local law enforcement entity can qualify and license someone to carry a gun - only to then deny to that person their constitutional rights in designated zones. That is to say, allowing for anyone to arbitrarily designate a facility as a "Gun Free Zone". One is either qualified and licensed or is unqualified and unlicensed to carry a firearm or other lethal weapon for that matter.

We all know that active shooters is an issue of precious few minutes and seconds. It requires a layered approach toward response which should include the clear message to anyone contemplating such a crime that they could be confronted by any number of armed responders within that facility. We also need to eliminate the ridiculous use of "Gun Free Zones". These are only INVITATIONS to slaughter, the most defenseless in most cases such as children, those that are unarmed.

Furthermore, I would expect if a loved one were to be harmed in a "Gun Free Zone", and it could be demonstrated that such a designation contributed to that harm, there would be legal liability for the owner of that facility.

The thought is that if you want a truly gun-free zone, you have to do more than just put up a sign that only the law abiding will obey, lest you create a free fire zone for a bad guy.

The government shouldn't deny me my right to self defense with a firearm unless it provides an effective substitute -- and not just a sign. Especially when I don't have a choice whether to enter such a zone.

Private entities are a different matter. Recently I met a colleague for lunch, but changed the venue at the last moment because my first choice told me with a sign that I couldn't enter with my concealed weapon. I respected their choice and we went someplace else instead. But we often don't have a choice when the building is a courthouse or other government building where we are required to do business.

"When seconds count, the police are only minutes away."

Libraries are impacted by this as well. For example, the Topeka Public Library is trying to figure out what to do.

If they implement the security measures (guard + metal detector), the projected annual cost is ~$200,000 (contrast to total annual budget for the library of $12 million).

Are you all so worried about a gun fight in the library that you have to bring your pistols while studying or forcing them to spend hundreds of thousands more?

The Arapahoe High School shooter's intended victim was the librarian.

The California State University at Fullerton massacre ended in the library.

The majority of casualties at Columbine were in the library.

No one is FORCING the library to spend $200,000US on an armed guard and a metal detector; they can instead allow legally armed patrons to enter. But what about illegally armed persons? The sign never stopped them in the first place.

I firmly believe personal responsibility is a huge element of security. I also suspect I am the most 'red state' of my IPVM colleagues. For me, I see nothing wrong with allowing firearms in public buildings for self defense.

To the 'gunfights in the library' scenario: why in the world would you ever venture somewhere where you might need a gun? Rather, you avoid those places, gun or no gun. You don't need seatbelts or fire extinguishers most of the time either, but that doesn't mean it is unwise to have them.

Unfortunately, the only way to neutralize deadly force is with deadly force... if personal protection is a serious priority, you must take that responsibility for what it entails.

There is nothing inherently 'evil' about a gun, only when they are improperly handled or used do problems arise. The element of the population that seeks to politicize this question is a real concern to me:

• You have those who amplify the risks of firearms ('the anti-gunners') who distract attention from the real root cause: evil people. Shame on them.
• You also have those who defiantly defend 'the right to carry' as a political statement and march around with guns strapped to their hips openly, simply because someone feels they should not be able to. Shame on them.

The saying goes 'When all you have is a hammer, all your problems look like nails.' When you carry a gun, are you more apt to shoot someone? Am I more likely to be shot by someone in error if guns proliferate? This again firmly depends on the 'personal responsibility' mandate of security. Possessing deadly force in any public place calls for great responsibility.

I might be misreading this or making too much out of it, but I think the poling question might be a little flawed.

For instance, in the case where someone is opposed to guns in federal buildings under no circumstances, what do you answer? If you answer "Good idea", it could be interpreted that you agree with guns in public buildings where there is no enhanced security. If you answer "Bad idea", it could be interpreted that you believe guns should be allowed all the time in public buildings. It seems that there should be a third option, "No guns allowed at all".

If the question assumes that everyone answering is a proponent of guns in public buildings in general, than the answers will be clear since the poled group would accept the basis for the first part of the question.

This is purely a logics/semantics issue. I will leave the politcal banter to others.

6 million Concealed Carry Weapon Licenses in the US. This is frightening. I don't think there is more than 50 in Canada.

I believe in private ownership of guns, including the conceal carry by law abiding citizens. But I also believe there should be some better screening process for people to own guns. I know plenty of people who aren't law breakers but don't have the mentality or temperament to be trusted with guns.

I came to a very difficult decision one day: I decided to call the sheriff's office and tell them I didn't think my dad was mentally fit to own his guns. He's a war veteran with alcohol and anger management issues….. PTSD that he refuses to admit he has. He's even been in jail recently for hitting someone with a pipe in an argument. Has a record of calls about violent behavior. He’s admitted to me homicidal thoughts. But they told me there was nothing they could do. They couldn’t even do an investigation. All they could do was put a warning in their system if an officer ever had to respond to his house that he owns firearms. So I would probably have to take some measures to try and have him declared mentally unfit for firearms through the court system. But if someone’s family member who has no record at all calls about another family member who’s had a history of calls, you’d think something could be done more easily…?

Anyone who hasn’t watched “Bowling for Columbine” should sometime. While admittedly my opinion of Micheal Moore nose dived deeply with how slanted and sensationalist his presentation was, in all the slant and bias, he interviews some people and who you see legally own guns, but you know they damn sure as hell shouldn’t have them.

Has anyone ever asked themselves the question of "Why does the goverment of the United States of America" have a 2nd Amendment? Who did our forefathers think we needed protection from?

I'm not convinced letting untrained/poorly trained, gun carrying citizens roam about in public places is a recipe for success. If anything, the opposite is probably true.

They should let the trained professionals take care of increased security where its warranted. And I'm also not convinced all of these places require that level of security. Courthouses, I'll agree with. Schools and hospitals, not so much.

I think Batman said it best in The Dark Knight:

Something to think about.

Murder and homocide rates in the US have been falling since it peaked in 1975. Its actually less than the Clinton Era on the assult weapons ban. But, weapon purcahses have been on the rise since then too. Actually, homocide has been knocked off from the top 14 causes of death in the US.

The 2nd amendment was probably placed there by the constitution makers because the British army was there in recent memory. Not much threat there now.

Do Americans love their guns now because they just don't trust other Americans? American culture (politics, movies, media) seems to propagate the belief that you shouldn't trust your neighbour?

If one considers the assumption that a person carying a gun is responsible and trained and emotianally stable to know how to use it, to be precise and not affect the innocent bystandard, then one may assume that every person who has a valid vehicle drivers license will follow the law, be polite on the road and never ever get into an accident.

I've seen a discussion on gun use in schools and the ability of even law enforcment to respond under critical circumstances, how does one know that a civilian has had the same training, physically and emotionally to use a weapon in a bad situation.

It's funny that the discussion goes wether people should be allowed to carry a gun in a public building. You already agreed to it that people can carry a gun on the street, concealed. Does it really matter then where they reside then. You already opened pandora's box.

All I know is that when I got my concealed carry permit I had 8 of my friends in the class with me and out of those 8 I am the only one who carries everyday. I would imagine that those numbers are not very far off from the rest of the nation. Carrying a loaded weapon is a huge responsibility and one that I do not take lightly. The state requirements to get a permit in my state are a joke as far as I am concerned. You need 12 hours of classroom training and there is no shooting qualification, therefore you can go sit in a class, take what is basicaly an open book test and go get your permit. They are actually looking to reduce the class time to 4 hours now.

I went out and took professional training and I joined an outdoor range when I can shoot while moving (not just standing in a lane). I also shoot IDPA shoots occasionally which really put you to the test. I would say that I certainly shoot more than some of the police officers I know. I feel that if confronted with a sutuation, I will at least have a fighting chance.

One more thing, I think there are alot of people out there that dont realize how many people do actually carry at a given time. You would never know by looking at me that I had one (sometimes two) guns on me and likely a knife. Look around the next time you are out at the mall, local eatery, or Wal-mart, if you know what to look for you may be surprised to see that there are quite a few prople carrying even though I still think only 1 out of 8 do it daily!

Legal guns are safe guns. As was brought up again and again in this thread, people carrying legally cause a miniscule amount of the shootings in this country, and the vast majority of those are deemed justified after the fact. So, why not allow them to carry in public buildings?

As far as the security is concerned: posting a sign saying "no guns" at the entrance does nothing to take guns out of the hands of people carrying them illegally, it only disarms the law abiding, who, as established, are not the people we need to worry about. So taking active measures to disarm the law breakers only evens the field and ensures that legal carriers are not put at a disadvantage against those carrying illegally.

Oddly enough, with all of the discussion around this topic, no one seems to have brought up the obvious question of what motivated these elected officials to vote this law into being.

Pandering to a certain group of voters in an attempt to secure reelection could easily be seen as having more to do with their choice than insuring the safety of their constituents.

This exerpt from the article is particularly revealing and makes you wonder how many other public administrators will use a similar approach:

"Few have expressed more disappointment in the decision than the board of Wichita’s public library, which already has an armed security officer on site. Steve Roberts, the board’s chairman, said that if library staff members saw someone with a weapon, they would not be able to determine who was carrying it legally and who might be a threat. The police would be called. Lockdowns could occur."

Just reading all these comments sure doesn't paint a pretty picture of America. I really get the feeling that people live in fear there. If one must carry a gun in order to feel safe, why would you still want to live there. Perhaps it's just my European nature that such a way of live in unfamiliar with me, but I wouldn't want to wish to live in a place where I need to be able to apply deadly force whenever I wish, in order to feel safe.

Like I already said. Allowing guns opened up pandora's box. "I must own a gun cause he owns a gun and he might use it on me" is a thought that only goes one way, to more people getting guns. And the way I see it, that doesn't mean it will get safer, just more deadly when things DO escalate.

You need to look more at the demographics, geographics, cultural and other determinants to arrive at just "who" may be more immune or safe from becoming the victim of a gun related offense. Not unlike how we integrators conduct our risk assessments using a myriad of tools, consultation with our client and research to arrive at what level of protection is necessary to address that risk.

Unfortunately, I am not able to get a gun permit. But I found a great alternative...

Behold!!!!

(if you are in a hurry, scrub to 1:50, but you should watch the whole thing)

I'll preface this by saying the following is a joke:

"When someone breaks into his house, the first thing the typical anti-gun atheist does is call for someone with a gun, and then pray that they arrive quickly."

Obviously this makes an untrue generalization that anti-gun folks are atheists, but jokes are funny when they're close to the truth.

First rule of thumb in a gunfight: Bring a gun. Otherwise, it's not much of a fight...

Here in Georgia, the CCW permit was insanely easy to get. Background check, fingerprints, fill out a form. Wait 10 days, bingo. I agree with previous poster that there should be required safety training, but I'll go one better and say that you should have to prove you can put 6 shots into a center mass target before you can get the permit. If a fellow CCW permit holder is trying to save my life somewhere, I'd hope that they could shoot straight.

I would like to see Georgia law changed to allow guns in public buildings. Where do these lunatics go when they want maximum impact when they die in a blaze of glory? Places with a lot of people. You do the math.