Port Jefferson Locals Mixed on NRA Call For Armed Guards in Schools

Tell us what you think about the issue.

Port Jefferson locals are reacting to statements made Friday by National Rifle Association’s Wayne LaPierre on the Sandy Hook school shooting, breaking a weeklong silence by the gun organization.

LaPierre blasted the media and entertainment industry for promoting and glorifying violence in what he said was a “dirty little truth.” He called it “a callous, corrupt and corrupting shadow industry that sells and stows violence against its own people.”

Among his ideas on how to prevent another unspeakably murderous act like the one Adam Lanza brought to Newtown, was to post armed guards in every school in America. The money, he said, could come from a variety of sources including the U.S. budget for foreign aid. His idea is to use qualified police, retired, active or reserve military personnel or other types of law enforcement agents to fill those posts.

Related: You can read a full transcript of the NRA press conference here on the Washington Post website.

When we asked if locals supported the idea to put armed guards in school, John Feinberg agreed.

“Veterans need jobs and are already trained in firearm use,” said Feinberg. “Gives them tons of more jobs!”

Lucia Torraco Tamargo said gun laws will only be broken by criminals.

“Yes. I totally agree,” she wrote. “Another law to be broken as criminals always find a way. We need to protect our children as much as we protect our banks.”

LaPierre also compared protecting children to protecting money in banks and life of the President of the United States.

Frank Raffaele worried about the effectiveness of that strategy.

“Putting more restrictions on law abiding people won't work,” he said on Facebook.

One commentor said that she wasn’t sure armed security is the best thing to do.

“We need to do something, but I'm not sure making children feel like they're in school at a prison is the answer,” said Stacey Heckelman Devaux. “Horrible as a tragedy it was, many more children are killed in car accidents, house fires, etc.”

Devaux suggested other ideas like metal detectors, immediate notification and lockdown procedures for the entire school building and alarms connecting to police.

"Banks have them," she said. "Kids are more important than money."

Janet Basile pointed out that the potential killers would go somewhere else leading to even more armed guards everywhere.

"Every public place would need them, the shooter would just move on to another unarmed place?" she said.

What do you think? Should we post armed guards in our schools to protect our children from another tragedy like at Newtown?

Yvonne Affronti December 23, 2012 at 01:17 AM
This back and forth stuff is only leading me to one conclusion: no more privately owned guns and assault weapons! If you need to shoot, join the armed forces or the police force. You don't have to prove yourself to everyone by murdering a deer or a fowl. Unless you are living in the backwoods of our country (or any other country for that matter), and are anti-social, you can purchase your pound of flesh at a butcher shop or in the supermarket. If you don't think the meat is up to your standards, develop a rapport with the person behind the counter and they will be sure to serve you well. People and firearms = trouble. Don't we have enough? I guess we're at a stage where no one should be allowed entry to a public or private school without an appointment/fingerprinting/patdown types of firearm prevention similar to the airlines. It's sad but rather than more guns, fewer guns and better screening techniques.
Peter C. Walsh December 23, 2012 at 02:03 AM
What ought to be and what shall be are two different things. Society ought to be able to say no more guns for evil purposes and see this goal materialize. That simply will not happen, no matter how much we demand it to occur. America will engage in this controversy and either, fail to effectively act until another Newtown draws our attention, or inevitably, embrace a solution that will result in more freedom, not less. In this case the solution is defined in our Constitution, the freedom of ordinary citizens to bear arms. We cannot afford to do nothing and, we cannot afford the cost of securing every school, mall, movie theatre, public conveyance and crevice of our society. Even if we could, we cannot guaranty that armed security will be available in the precise location that a mass murderer strikes. Yet, we, as decent Americans, can afford to arm and train ourselves to protect those we love and the society we love from the unpredictable timetables of madmen. It is not desireable to do this for most individuals, myself included, but who wants to be the one to look back and say, but for my reluctance to take individual responsibility for my safety and the safety of others, this or that innocent loved one would be alive today. The ugly truth is that this is the only affordable solution that can become law and will effectively address these type of unforseeable threats.
moethegrass December 23, 2012 at 02:16 AM
Anybody who thinks they can casually carry a firearm and then at a moments notice have the wherewithal to use it appropriately and discharge the firearm and only hit the target they're aiming at and then stop shooting in the heat of the moment has another thing coming. Even a trained police officer in the heat of the moment shoots at least one round. and hits innocents as well as the intended target. The answer is....
Peter C. Walsh December 23, 2012 at 05:45 PM
The law calls the situation "moethegrass" describes as "justifiable homicide." For example, if the Principal at Newtown discharged her weapon, killed the perpetrator and in the process, a bullet propelled off the wall and killed an innocent bystander, this is what the law calls justifiable homicide. It is akin to collateral damage or death by friendly fire. If such a situation occured in Newtown the media would be all over the killing of the innocent bystander and the controversy would be how to stop the killing of innocent bystanders and, protect the rights of armed gunman that break into schools and get killed before they commit atrocities. Afterall, the poor little mental case could have been there for show and tell. In hindsite that controversy would be preferable to the one we now have, how to stop the slaughter of 20 innocent children and their unarmed protectors. No easy answers Moethegrass, just a need to find pragmatic solutions to the unacceptable conditions that have come to pass in Newtown, the planes that crashed into the World Trade Center, shopping malls, movie theatres, railroad cars, Columbine, etc. etc. It is irresponsible to consistently find reasons "why not" when the need exists to take action.
Dennis December 24, 2012 at 02:30 PM
Peter C Walsh; you've got it right.


More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something
See more »