West Hartford School Official: \’Won’t Be Taking Our Advice\’ From NRA

by Categorized: Uncategorized Date:

From Courant Staff Writer Julie Stagis:

“As a school official, we won’t be taking our advice on how to keep kids safe from the president of the NRA,” said Tom Moore, assistant superintendent for administration for West Hartford schools.

“That’s my comment as a school official,” he said. “As a father of two kids in schools: I come from a family of hunters; I have four brothers who are hunters and members of the NRA.\”

“All I’ll be asking for Christmas , after hearing Wayne LaPierre essentially blame school officials for the shootings, is for [my brothers] to resign from the NRA,” Moore said.

 

 

The Courant is using Facebook comments on stories. To comment on courant.com articles, sign into Facebook and enter your comment in the field below. Comments will appear in your Facebook News Feed unless you choose otherwise. To report spam or abuse, click the X next to the comment. For guidelines on commenting, click here.

19 thoughts on “West Hartford School Official: \’Won’t Be Taking Our Advice\’ From NRA

  1. Dave W

    While I am neither a gunowner or advocate, better security has merit. This is done on selected airline flights and in some inner city schools. The tragedy has spawned remarks on both political sides of the aisle, and to simply say as our President has that gun control would stop this is also wrong. And of course, all these politically motivated remarks can wait until the funerals have at least taken place.
    I would further posit that the multiple issues of gun control, mental health access and respect/fear of the law all play a role. If a motivated murderer had no easy access to a gun, there could be some who produce bombs either of the explosive or chemical variety – all equally fatal. Connecticut has one of the worse mental health systems in the country. In the 1990′s multiple hospitals even filed suit regarding lack of access to institutional or community settings.
    And lastly, it seems curious that the worst mass school related disasters took place in states where mores and law enforcement are weaker.

    1. Kim

      not just school-related, but gun related crimes are more prevalent where the laws are toughest. Think Washington, DC and Chicago (the murder capitol of the world is the worst).

  2. Lee

    The NRA offers common sense and real solutions to these tragedies. However, it is not beholden to the entertainment industry and unions like the Democrats and the left wing zealots in the media. If that “school official” had children who were killed, he/she might have a different take on this rather than what his Democrat bosses want him to have. Common sense solution are needed not political crap.

  3. One Very Bad Idea

    Personel should carry weapons in school, incase an insane shooter enters the building, and fires upon the innocent? This puts guns already into the school environment. What if the insane shooter is already inside, and trusted within the school community; having been placed there to protect? No one can predict who the next insane shooter will be. Placing guns into the school before hand moots the threat of a madman threat from outside. After a crazed teacher opens fire in an assembly room, how can one say “we never saw this coming” ?

    1. Kim

      what if an insane shooter gets a job with the police department? Shall we disarm all the cops? Your argument is ridiculous

    2. Logic Please

      You would have a “drug free school zone” in an effort to keep students safe; Yet deliberately place guns inside the school environment?

      1. Kim

        if you’re talking to me ‘logic’, yes I would. Gun free zones are targets for loonies. Our children are more important to protect than useless, self-interested politicians. Yet who is safer?

        You have a problem with a trained professional protecting kids with the same weapons being used against them? Why? Is helplessness a virtue or something?

      2. Kim

        and no where have I indicated that I am a proponent of a ‘drug free school zone’ so let’s not put words into my mouth. That’s a different subject altogether.

      3. Kim

        how’s your plan working out, Logic? Do you have a plan or do you simply choose to criticize and offer nothing constructive?

  4. JBeam

    When the politicians rail against security in schools consider this. They insist on security in their buildings. You can’t get into a federal or state building without going through security. Our state legislators have their own personal police force for crying out loud. How outrageous is that in this time of budget crunches? They can’t get by with a Trooper, off duty cop or private security assigned to the door?

    They will cry it costs to much. How much do we spend on their security. They are adults, they should step up and transfer that money to protect our children. Will they? no.

    Will, patrols that actually stop at schools and walk around, an armed guard or retired cop stop someone from using school children to lash out at society, no.

    Will making an easy target a little tougher help, quite possibly.

    It has to be part of the debate.

    And to those who say it will turn our schools into prisons. Take the metal detectors and security put into schools to prevent children on children or teacher violence out.

    I think the kids would welcome the friendly face of someone they know is there to protect them.

  5. Kim

    All responsible, honest gun owners deplore what happened in Sandy Hook and most would have laid their lives on the line to protect these beautiful children. They are not, however, willing to politicize this tragedy to advance their rights to self defense, like the second amendment haters are doing.

    It’s disgusting – but completely in character and therefore expected – to hear many shouting for ‘an honest discussion on guns’ while leaving honesty completely out of their discussion. Here are some facts that you WON’T hear during this ‘honest discussion, from those jumping on the anti-second amendment bandwagon:

    1. The Second Amendment says NOTHING about hunting and target shooting. It was created to protect citizens against bad guys, both individuals and over-reaching governments: ESPECIALLY over-reaching governments. The colonists suffered many abuses from the King until the British soldiers took steps to take away their weapons and ammunition – this caused the famous ‘shot heard ‘round the world’. If the soldiers had succeeded and the citizens had simply rolled over, this country would not be the beacon of hope to the world that it has been for so long: a beacon because of the freedoms and opportunities afforded its’ citizens by the constitution and bill of rights. Ask the citizens in Egypt or Turkey how badly they wish they had the right to own weapons for ‘the security of a free state’ at this very moment. Even President Kennedy had concerns about a US Military coup in this country – for those of you who want to insist we have nothing to fear from our government (while complaining that they can’t buy a large soft-drink in NYC).

    2. Gun deaths have decreased by 50% over the last ten years, in spite of private gun ownership quadrupling in the same time period. This blows the argument that more guns create more violence, completely out of the water.

    3. Many of those screaming to ban ‘assault weapons’ and ‘military-style weapons’ have no clue what either of these is. They certainly weren’t among those used by the pathetic Adam Lanza or most mass-murderers. Yet in spite of this ignorance they want the rest of us to believe and accept what they have to say.

    4. Assault weapons are already banned for 99% of citizens – it takes a special permit to own one.

    5. The second amendment haters are always complaining that the average gun owner has no training and therefore shouldn’t be allowed to own guns. Yet when a gun owner purchases 5,000 rounds of ammunition to obtain training over a long weekend at the range, they scream that no one should have that much ammunition. As usual, they want it both ways. And yes, it’s easy to go through that much ammunition in 2-4 days at the range.

    6. The second amendment haters use the fact that black-powder weapons were used at the time of the constitution and bill of rights and therefore should be the only weapons that private citizens should be allowed to own. They conveniently ignore the fact that the government troops had the same weapons, yet they don’t want to limit the GOVERNMENT to those outdated weapons. They want us all to pretend that self-protection is possible with slingshots and sticks, against a heavily armed government. And they want us to defend ourselves with single-shot weapons instead of 30-round magazines.

    7. The second amendment haters want to pretend that gun owners only need 1-3 rounds in order to successfully defend themselves against the multiple intruders that currently engage in home invasions. This while knowing full well that the intruders will have high-capacity magazines.

    8. The second amendment haters – including the main stream media – refuse to acknowledge the THOUSANDS of lives that are saved every day by responsible gun owners. This would erode their position, so it must be ignored.

    9. Second amendment haters like to talk as if they know what the founding fathers were thinking when they created the second amendment. Yet few – if any of them – have read the only book that I have seen to date that deals with precisely that issue: Stephen Holbrook’s’ Second Amendment. If they have read it – they completely ignore the truths presented therein. If they haven’t read it – they are grossly misinformed. Both scenarios are acceptable when you are more interested in an agenda than the truth.

    By all means, let’s have an honest discussion. But no discussion can be considered honest without acknowledging the previous points.

  6. Kelster

    I just have to say-how is the “war on drugs” working out for this country? Not so good last time I checked-regardless of what bans are put in place, people who want to break the law or who are insane will continue to commit crimes such as Sandy Hook-it is NOT a reflection on the vast majority of gun owners-people will get access to guns regardless of restrictions made by law, just as they do get illegal drugs-no law will stop criminals, or crazy people from doing their thing-we have over 18,000 people incarcerated in the state of CT, that alone should tell you something about how effective “laws” are-they are just words-people have to make a choice to follow them or not-just because a law is enacted reall means very little-

    1. Mike Robinson

      So “laws” such as the Constitution and the Second Amendment really mean very little.

      So we should eliminate all laws since criminals break them all.

      Some gun laws are obeyed by manufacturers, dealers, stores, gun shows, courts, and the police.

Comments are closed.