Gun Control

[Frogee]

By David Oedel - Special to The Telegraph

When I first heard that an elementary school shooting had occurred, I guessed aloud the shooter’s profile: white male, 18-25.

Adam Lanza, 20, turned out to fit the profile. Lanza joins a sick lineup of similar shooting “stars”: Eric Harris (one of the Columbine shooters, was almost 18), Dylan Klebold (the other Columbine shooter, 18), Seung-Hui Cho (the Virigina Tech shooter, 23), Jared Loughner (the Arizona shooter, 22), James Eagan Holmes (the Colorado theater shooter, 24).

All of them shared other traits too. All had psycho-social problems to the point of being suicidal, pathologically vengeful, or at least dangerously out of control. All wanted grand notoriety. All had people around them who knew there was trouble brewing. All were from well-heeled families and apparently had good medical coverage. All were reportedly skilled video gamers, enough to be desensitized to the implications of pulling a trigger with bodies in the cross-hairs. All had too-easy access to real guns.

We don’t yet know all the details about Lanza as of this writing, but we know enough about the general profile to have a fair sense of what to do in response to President Obama’s appropriate declaration that enough is enough. We do need to do something different.

Rather than indiscriminately impose overbearing restrictions on the rest of society, though, it makes sense to target this particular age cohort. Right now, members of this group gain almost full legal status of adulthood simply by hitting 18. That’s a really bad rule, and I know. My son was sprung from drug rehab high at age 18. Though he re-entered drug rehab voluntarily a year later, he then checked himself out as an “adult” -- and was dead days later from a meth overdose at age 19.

As a desperately concerned parent and lawyer, I proved unable to save him, even though I knew better than anyone that he was in the process of making tragic decisions.

Luckily, my son did not take anyone with him, but I can relate to the parents of the shooters who knew they were dealing with fire, but didn’t have good options in part because troubled kids in that age cohort are treated as adults.

Ironically, Obamacare has extended health coverage for our kids to age 26, but after 18, parents don’t even have access to our covered kids’ health records under federal privacy law, and can’t easily commit them for serious mental health or drug issues.

These kids typically have to go commit a crime before anyone can require them to get help. That’s absurd. Let’s get them help before they commit crimes and mess with death.

Here are five simple legal changes that could get to the core of the problem, and really help prevent the next instance of shooter mayhem:

1. Change the presumptive age of majority from 18 to 21, like the Mississippi law that works well. That will empower parents more meaningfully to oversee kids under their care.

2. Change federal privacy rules so that parents paying for children’s health coverage have access to their health records, and change health care presumptions so that parents of covered children must be included in decisions about covered treatment.

3. As part of Obamacare, set up special mental health and behavioral problem centers specifically for the 18-25 cohort, including residential centers and adopt relaxed rules empowering parents to enlist independent authorities in requiring our most troubled young people to participate in such programs even if they’ve not yet committed a crime.

4. Require stringent waiting periods and training requirements for anyone under 26 wanting to own firearms and ammunition of any type.

5. Ban sales to minors of shooter-style video games that train for human slaughter.

It’s time to act, but let’s act with measured, thoughtful and constitutional responses to the special threat we face from some of our troubled young adults.

David Oedel is a professor of constitutional law at Mercer University Law School. His oldest son died from a drug overdose in 2005.

Read more here: http://www.macon.com/2012/12/23/2293457/oedel-lets-age-target-the-mayhem.html#storylink=cpy

[dog53]

By David Oedel - Special to The Telegraph

When I first heard that an elementary school shooting had occurred, I guessed aloud the shooter’s profile: white male, 18-25.

Adam Lanza, 20, turned out to fit the profile. Lanza joins a sick lineup of similar shooting “stars”: Eric Harris (one of the Columbine shooters, was almost 18), Dylan Klebold (the other Columbine shooter, 18), Seung-Hui Cho (the Virigina Tech shooter, 23), Jared Loughner (the Arizona shooter, 22), James Eagan Holmes (the Colorado theater shooter, 24).

All of them shared other traits too. All had psycho-social problems to the point of being suicidal, pathologically vengeful, or at least dangerously out of control. All wanted grand notoriety. All had people around them who knew there was trouble brewing. All were from well-heeled families and apparently had good medical coverage. All were reportedly skilled video gamers, enough to be desensitized to the implications of pulling a trigger with bodies in the cross-hairs. All had too-easy access to real guns.

We don’t yet know all the details about Lanza as of this writing, but we know enough about the general profile to have a fair sense of what to do in response to President Obama’s appropriate declaration that enough is enough. We do need to do something different.

Rather than indiscriminately impose overbearing restrictions on the rest of society, though, it makes sense to target this particular age cohort. Right now, members of this group gain almost full legal status of adulthood simply by hitting 18. That’s a really bad rule, and I know. My son was sprung from drug rehab high at age 18. Though he re-entered drug rehab voluntarily a year later, he then checked himself out as an “adult” -- and was dead days later from a meth overdose at age 19.

As a desperately concerned parent and lawyer, I proved unable to save him, even though I knew better than anyone that he was in the process of making tragic decisions.

Luckily, my son did not take anyone with him, but I can relate to the parents of the shooters who knew they were dealing with fire, but didn’t have good options in part because troubled kids in that age cohort are treated as adults.

Ironically, Obamacare has extended health coverage for our kids to age 26, but after 18, parents don’t even have access to our covered kids’ health records under federal privacy law, and can’t easily commit them for serious mental health or drug issues.

These kids typically have to go commit a crime before anyone can require them to get help. That’s absurd. Let’s get them help before they commit crimes and mess with death.

Here are five simple legal changes that could get to the core of the problem, and really help prevent the next instance of shooter mayhem:

1. Change the presumptive age of majority from 18 to 21, like the Mississippi law that works well. That will empower parents more meaningfully to oversee kids under their care.

2. Change federal privacy rules so that parents paying for children’s health coverage have access to their health records, and change health care presumptions so that parents of covered children must be included in decisions about covered treatment.

3. As part of Obamacare, set up special mental health and behavioral problem centers specifically for the 18-25 cohort, including residential centers and adopt relaxed rules empowering parents to enlist independent authorities in requiring our most troubled young people to participate in such programs even if they’ve not yet committed a crime.

4. Require stringent waiting periods and training requirements for anyone under 26 wanting to own firearms and ammunition of any type.

5. Ban sales to minors of shooter-style video games that train for human slaughter.

It’s time to act, but let’s act with measured, thoughtful and constitutional responses to the special threat we face from some of our troubled young adults.

David Oedel is a professor of constitutional law at Mercer University Law School. His oldest son died from a drug overdose in 2005.

Read more here: http://www.macon.com...l#storylink=cpy

I am a devout pro gun person. I have been my entire adult life. Things were very different in the world that I grew up in. The idea`s that this professor has are very sound idea`s . We as a gun culture lose nothing. and the youth have every thing to gain. The world has changed and all the old dogs like me must take the time to take a hard look at the way things are now and help make intelligent choices like the one`s provided in this article. BUT we must fight with out last breath to defend the rights that our fore fathers so ingeniously implanted in our constitution to stop any form of tyranny that might arise from a corrupt government.

[Frogee]

I believe the 2nd Amendment was to protect us from a tyrannical government, not our selves. Dog, you are right, we are a gun society, and have been since the beginning. We do need to be ever vigilant, or like the frog put in cold water and gradually has the water warmed until he is cooked, so with our rights.

[Gooserider67]

In the immortal words from the other thread with Ted Nugent... Come and suck on the end of my AR...

[markb57]

Now their working on a Compulsory Buy Back program

http://washingtonexaminer.com/sen.-feinstein-suggests-national-buyback-of-guns/article/2516648#.UNtg8-Q8CSr

[Francie26]

I am very pro-guns, and thus, I don't know if this fits well with the laws suggested here, so I await other views to finally decide about it, but it seems to me that one more law might be needed. Perhaps it should be much harder and perhaps even illegal for someone in this age range who has been under mental health care to have access to guns at all. Perhaps we should have a national register for such people with the understanding that their names would be removed from such a list at a later time in their lives, especially if they are no longer exhibiting troubling behavior. I know kids often want to learn to do everything their respected adults do, but they have the rest of their lives when they could use a gun, and although they might not like this, it would make our communities safer. I remain very pro guns, but in a choice between young adults having guns while living through a troubled and vulnerable time in their young lives and even one of these tiny children and their caregivers and teachers, we need to come down solidly on the side of the kids and teachers. I realize that ordinary kids, non-troubled ones, would consider this to be unfair punishment if they got swept up in the crosshairs of such a law, and also that some of our kids join the military and use guns in that capacity, but we have to make adequate laws to protect as many citizens as possible, without depriving them of their rights on a permanent basis. I just can't seem to figure out if postponing the time when they could own a gun as a way to protect the community from the horrific behavior of a few is the same as denying them their rights at all. Anyone???

[dog53]

I am very pro-guns, and thus, I don't know if this fits well with the laws suggested here, so I await other views to finally decide about it, but it seems to me that one more law might be needed. Perhaps it should be much harder and perhaps even illegal for someone in this age range who has been under mental health care to have access to guns at all. Perhaps we should have a national register for such people with the understanding that their names would be removed from such a list at a later time in their lives, especially if they are no longer exhibiting troubling behavior. I know kids often want to learn to do everything their respected adults do, but they have the rest of their lives when they could use a gun, and although they might not like this, it would make our communities safer. I remain very pro guns, but in a choice between young adults having guns while living through a troubled and vulnerable time in their young lives and even one of these tiny children and their caregivers and teachers, we need to come down solidly on the side of the kids and teachers. I realize that ordinary kids, non-troubled ones, would consider this to be unfair punishment if they got swept up in the crosshairs of such a law, and also that some of our kids join the military and use guns in that capacity, but we have to make adequate laws to protect as many citizens as possible, without depriving them of their rights on a permanent basis. I just can't seem to figure out if postponing the time when they could own a gun as a way to protect the community from the horrific behavior of a few is the same as denying them their rights at all. Anyone???

+1 Well said Francie

[rockfl9]

Francie26:::A more difficult part of your proposal IS that The residence of the mentally unbalanced youth MAY NOT have a weapon!!! As with the connecticut shooter and 2 recent cases in Florida is that the parent legally had the gun and failed to make sure that it was secured AND the youth did not have access..

In the one case the parent thought the gun was "hidden" on the top shelf of their closet . The boy a 12 yr old took it to school in a back-pack to show off. The gun was discharged on the bus killing a girl... charges are pending.

[dog53]

Francie26:::A more difficult part of your proposal IS that The residence of the mentally unbalanced youth MAY NOT have a weapon!!! As with the connecticut shooter and 2 recent cases in Florida is that the parent legally had the gun and failed to make sure that it was secured AND the youth did not have access..

In the one case the parent thought the gun was "hidden" on the top shelf of their closet . The boy a 12 yr old took it to school in a back-pack to show off. The gun was discharged on the bus killing a girl... charges are pending.

Well Of course. But your stating the obvious. If your going to assume the responsibility of owning a weapon you have to double damm make sure it cannot fall in to the wrong hands. Thats where irresponsible gun ownership should be considered a felony in cases where simple negligence is involved

[BobCoss]

I too am very progun and we probably need to look at more than the 4 or 5 instances quoted as far as the ages of the shooters but it certainly sounds like it is an idea that is on the right track. There are several things that can be done for those adults that fall in that 18 to 25 slot to give some consideration. One would be an exemption for anyone in the military or with an honorable discharge and another might be allowing for single shot hunting weapons like black powder or Thompson Center weapons.

We already have a legal age slot for some things, 16 to drive, 18 to vote, 21 to drink, why not 25 to own multi capacity weapons?

[rockfl9]

Dog53:: Right on. Keeping a loaded gun unsecured is not responsible ownership...

[dog53]

Dog53:: Right on. Keeping a loaded gun unsecured is not responsible ownership...

Yep Well of course unless its your bathroom gun. I mean if your in the crapper and hell breaks loose. Well I just want to grab and come out shooting . Know what I mean. I mean anyone that has the nerve to interupt a good bowl movment deserves whatever he gets.

Edited December 26, 2012 by dog53

[Rayzur]

By David Oedel - Special to The Telegraph

This is such a sticky wicket, though I think this guy is on the right track.... but so much more thought has to be put in to this such that law of unintended consequences does not rule. If this were easy to solve, we would have done so, and it will take thoughtful approach.... along the lines suggested by this guy, to perhaps solve an issue that may not be something we can simply solve. Meaning, we have kind of taken this same approach with driving (in limiting what people of a certain age can and can't do), and it has solved some of the death by car accident numbers generated by using cars improperly... (Thank God we didn't pass a law to ban cars, or big trucks, etc etc).

That said, I would add the following in hopes to drill down on that most effective...

When I first heard that an elementary school shooting had occurred, I guessed aloud the shooter’s profile: white male, 18-25.

Does anyone ever wonder why females in the same age group are not so inclined?

All of them shared other traits too. All had psycho-social problems to the point of being suicidal, pathologically vengeful, or at least dangerously out of control. All wanted grand notoriety. All had people around them who knew there was trouble brewing. All were from well-heeled families and apparently had good medical coverage. All were reportedly skilled video gamers, enough to be desensitized to the implications of pulling a trigger with bodies in the cross-hairs. All had too-easy access to real guns.

Good point on the video games.. Bandura proved this almost 60 years ago. I have no idea why this remains a mystery. Ban all games of this type and you have pretty much solved the problem completely... Why aren't these violent games a topic of discussion...

Problem with the rest of this paragraph.... many many kids fit this profile... Knowing this has not produced any kind of measurement that will predict which of the kids fitting this profile, will act out in this manner.

Ironically, Obamacare has extended health coverage for our kids to age 26, but after 18, parents don’t even have access to our covered kids’ health records under federal privacy law, and can’t easily commit them for serious mental health or drug issues.

I'm not so sure parents have full access to a child's actual health record at any age. Not sure what he is advocating. Perhaps he is saying, parents should be briefed about their child's medical or mental issues?

These kids typically have to go commit a crime before anyone can require them to get help. That’s absurd. Let’s get them help before they commit crimes and mess with death.

Not sure he looked into all available avenues already established? This may vary between states.

Here are five simple legal changes that could get to the core of the problem, and really help prevent the next instance of shooter mayhem:

1. Change the presumptive age of majority from 18 to 21, like the Mississippi law that works well. That will empower parents more meaningfully to oversee kids under their care.

Except if they are in the US military, in which case, they attain the age of consent at 18

2. Change federal privacy rules so that parents paying for children’s health coverage have access to their health records, and change health care presumptions so that parents of covered children must be included in decisions about covered treatment.

Ohhhhh not so sure this will fly or is even in the best interest of other kids if enacted as a simple blanket law... More thought needs to be given as to how this is implemented. Especially so for kids who have reached majority.

3. As part of Obamacare, set up special mental health and behavioral problem centers specifically for the 18-25 cohort, including residential centers and adopt relaxed rules empowering parents to enlist independent authorities in requiring our most troubled young people to participate in such programs even if they’ve not yet committed a crime.

This just has to be thought out completely... will cost a pile of money, there are no indexes against which to measure which kid fitting the profile will go this far in contrast to which kid matching, won't.

4. Require stringent waiting periods and training requirements for anyone under 26 wanting to own firearms and ammunition of any type.

I'm not so sure that all the kids referenced above, owned firearms. What about the farm and country kids who grew up shooting off the back porch, need arms to work the ranch for personal protection, or hunt for their meat every year in providing for families... I guess this wouldn't hurt... and would probably just be a pain in the azzzzz for kids growing up with guns as tools... Okay no harm no foul..

5. Ban sales to minors of shooter-style video games that train for human slaughter.

Want to cut human directed violence in at the very least half and more likely 3/4 of what we are seeing today? Ban ALL manufacture of these games... Hey I love playing them just as much as anyone... And when I really look at what I am doing... its clear... I'm playing a game wherein I win if I shoot people...

So fine, my brain was already wired to do this by way of induction into the US military.... HOWEVER, the military has a very precise and prescribed program of induction that has rules, regulations, structure, command and authority to which you must submit, obey, and without question follow, no matter what.

These video games have only the hard wiring effect on the brain, with absolutely no built in safety mechanism as when to turn this off.... there is No structure, No authority... No other person in command of when to play and not play...

Why in the name of God are we acting like this is rocket science???

It is not the guns that are the problem... its the hard wiring we subject our kids to day in and day out for years.... How many people have missed that the US Military uses sims in order to teach military folk the best and appropriate response. How many people miss that we use sims to teach real life response patterns.... How many people have missed that these video games are sims??!!!??? ... My God, the arguments about guns are beyond inept in the face of thousands of kids engaged in thousands of sims, in which the goal is to shoot humans in order to win...

And then we wonder why some of these kids go out and shoot human beings???!!!!??.....

If people really want to do something productive in ending this kind of violence.... they will ban the manufacture of human killing games....

And I have to say there are times I'm absolutely blown away with the degree of stupid the prevails in these kinds of discussions.... Any one who wants to ban guns and ignore that we wire thousands of kids during their prime developmental years to "win" by way of killing other human beings, is... in my humble opinion, nothing short of a complete moron....

Read more here: http://www.macon.com...l#storylink=cpy

[bamagirl]

Francie I agree with what you're saying BUT I'm afraid if we give an inch they'll take a mile.... What keeps popping at me from this article is all the kids are gamers, since there is a correlation maybe to begin with the violent games should be taken off the shelves.. they serve no purpose anyways besides making Americans lazier... JMO

[dog53]

Does anyone ever wonder why females in the same age group are not so inclined?

Cause their GIRLS

Edited December 26, 2012 by dog53

[Gooserider67]

I find idea of a buy back program completly stupid, this do nothing government can't dig itself out of a physical cliff and pay the bills that it already has and they want to buy your guns from you.... how??? just print more money to cover the cost of buying billions of dollars of guns from millions of citizans who will not give up their guns in the first place. So you bought a gun worth a thousand dollars, we go over this physical cliff and tank the dollar and they contiune to print money and buy your gun for $500.00 which will actually be after the dollar tanks around $100.00 and will not even buy a loaf of bread with that, I think that our government needs to concentrate on something else besides taking our guns... OMG Scotty hurry and beam me off of the planet

[SnowGlobe7]

Yep Well of course unless its your bathroom gun. I mean if your in the crapper and hell breaks loose. Well I just want to grab and come out shooting . Know what I mean. I mean anyone that has the nerve to interupt a good bowl movment deserves whatever he gets.

OMG...I have a visual...lol

[Rayzur]

Does anyone ever wonder why females in the same age group are not so inclined?

Cause their GIRLS

ROFL ROFL .... okay funny boy.... you always crack me up... Gotta make sure I +1 ya...

All kidding aside... don't ya wonder why? I've found only one thing that seems to correlate with guys versus the gals... but wonder if anyone else has tried to figure this out....

[Muleslayer]

Yep Well of course unless its your bathroom gun. I mean if your in the crapper and hell breaks loose. Well I just want to grab and come out shooting . Know what I mean. I mean anyone that has the nerve to interupt a good bowl movment deserves whatever he gets.

Bwahahahaha. Now THAT is well said!

[bamagirl]

Yep Well of course unless its your bathroom gun. I mean if your in the crapper and hell breaks loose. Well I just want to grab and come out shooting . Know what I mean. I mean anyone that has the nerve to interupt a good bowl movment deserves whatever he gets.

Oh my dog, you have out done yourself.. lol!!

[tigerstripes]

Does anyone ever wonder why females in the same age group are not so inclined?

Maybe because of this sort of advertising?

Maybe it stems all the way back to early hunter gatherer days, where the hairiest, strongest male hunter was more desired by the female as he would be more likely to be able to provide a decent feed.

Maybe modern society continues to impart this psychology onto adolescent males.

I found a good article on hegemonic masculinity - link below.

http://www.academia.edu/1199492/Hegemonic_Masculinity_and_Mass_Murderers_in_the_United_States

There are examples of female mass murderers too.

Jennifer San Marco

Sylvia Seecrest

Priscilla Joyce Ford

Andrea Yates

Aileen Wuornos

The difference with female mass murderers is that they don't tend to be what are now being called "pseudocommando" mass murderers.

Perhaps this is because of societal "pressures" or environments that would encourage males to be more indiscriminate with their killing than females.

I think it would be more important to try to track down the mental illness or condition that leads someone to commit mass murder - whether that be in males or females.

If people really want to do something productive in ending this kind of violence.... they will ban the manufacture of human killing games....

Is this an infringement of rights? Not that I disagree with you, but isn't it the same sort of thing as banning certain types of weapons?

To borrow from the pro gun argument - "Why should the millions of law abiding players of violent video games be punished for the actions of a few?"

[Muleslayer]

ROFL ROFL .... okay funny boy.... you always crack me up... Gotta make sure I +1 ya...

All kidding aside... don't ya wonder why? I've found only one thing that seems to correlate with guys versus the gals... but wonder if anyone else has tried to figure this out....

My two cents.

When was the last time you met a "stable" 18 to 25 year old male? Dog I am sure you were18 to 25 at one time.

Stable was not a word applied to me at that age. I had two things on my mind at that time. The FIRST is not spoken about in polite society. The second was just how "bad" I perceived myself :mad:/>

There was many a day that as Stalone said " Just another a**-h0le that woke up hating the world"

If you make past those years without going postal you might turn out to be a productive member of society.

The vast majority of us make the cut. It is a right of passage. No fire no steel.

As to the idea of mental screenings, it sounds a little like the minority report to me.

I do not know the answer to this problem. As a suggestion maybe require a hitch in the service as the price for adulthood?

I did not care for it at all but it did make me pull my head out.

Kicking and screaming ALL the way. I think buddy on night court said it best.

I'm feeling much better now :drool:/>

Edited December 27, 2012 by Muleslayer

[dog53]

My two cents.

When was the last time you met a "stable" 18 to 25 year old male? Dog I am sure you were18 to 25 at one time.

Stable was not a word applied to me at that age. I had two things on my mind at that time. The FIRST is not spoken about in polite society. The second was just how "bad" I perceived myself />

There was many a day that as Stalone said " Just another a**-h0le that woke up hating the world"

If you make past those years without going postal you might turn out to be a productive member of society.

The vast majority of us make the cut. It is a right of passage. No fire no steel.

As to the idea of mental screenings, it sounds a little like the minority report to me.

I do not know the answer to this problem. As a suggestion maybe require a hitch in the service as the price for adulthood?

I did not care for it at all but it did make me pull my head out.

Kicking and screaming ALL the way. I think buddy on night court said it best.

I'm feeling much better now />

Don't know how old you are mule or what year you were that age. Like I said I came from a different world then what exists now. Don't get me wrong I did my share of raising hell but never did I or anyone I new and I knew a lot of of guys so mean that they didn't make it to adulthood that never in a million years would hurt a child.

[TexasGranny]

This article is a perfect example of the idiocy of banning guns. 3 armed men would have had no problem killing everyone in the house if the homeowner had been unarmed.

Sacramento Bee

Sacramento resident kills would-be robber; 3 wounded in gunfight

By Denny Walsh

dwalsh@sacbee.com

Published: Sunday, Dec. 23, 2012 - 12:00 am | Page 2B

Last Modified: Sunday, Dec. 23, 2012 - 7:30 am

Sacramento police are investigating a deadly home invasion robbery early Saturday in which one of the intruders was shot dead and three other people were wounded.

The identities of all but one person in the shooting were withheld pending the results of a preliminary investigation, according to police spokesman Officer Doug Morse.

Police identified one alleged intruder as Thomas Ordonaz, 21. Ordonaz was arrested Saturday night for investigation of assault with a deadly weapon and being an accessory.

Morse said that at 3:29 a.m. officers responded to reports of shots fired on Haven Court off Greenhaven Drive in the Pocket neighborhood of Sacramento.

Upon arrival, Morse said, officers quickly discovered that an exchange of gunfire had occurred between the homeowner and would-be robbers.

One of the intruders was fatally wounded and pronounced dead at the scene by Sacramento Fire Department personnel, Morse said. Three others, including the homeowner, were shot during the exchange of gunfire and suffered non-life-threatening injuries. The three were transported to a hospital for treatment.

Sacramento Police Department homicide detectives and crime scene analysts are investigating the circumstances that led to the shootout, Morse said..

"There were some juveniles in the home who didn't live there, but they were not involved in the shooting and were not injured," he said. It appears there was a sleepover, he added.

The Sacramento Police Department urges anyone with information about the crime to call the dispatch center at (916) 264-5471 or Crime Alert at (916) 443-4357.

To text a tip to 274637 (CRIMES), enter SACTIP followed by the tip information. Callers can remain anonymous and may be eligible for a reward of up to $1,000.

[jerry125]

The easiest solution is to use the many armed service men and women that we all ready have on the payroll rather than marching around playing army and watching over the Mexican border that is wide open anyway. And put say 1- person at all the entrances, at all the schools, to deter such carazies from entering the school property. So guard the schools, all of them. Not really much different than the airport before you go down the corridor to your flight. Will not cost any more money and protect our kids, and put them to practical use to protect our children. No need for gun regulations. I don't see how some guy can walk into a school with a rifle anyway. No cameras really? the court houses have them too. So we spend TRILLIONS of dollars on dumb shiP and have a huge deficit but did not spend one dollar on camerias ect .for the school entrances. WALLEY has camerias at every wal-mart store to see whats going on outside. Our government with all the resources at it's finger tips don't even have a clue who shot JFK Kennedy yet really? Something is not rite with our leadership. For Sure!