In a press conference Friday, National Rifle Association Vice President Wayne LaPierre called for armed guards in schools.
“The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun,” LaPierre claimed.
LaPierre used words like “vulnerable” and “defenseless” when describing students and classrooms in America.
The NRA said on its website that “we were shocked, saddened and heartbroken by the news of the horrific and senseless murders in Newtown.”
In planning the news conference, the NRA said “Out of respect for the families, and as a matter of common decency, we have given time for mourning, prayer and a full investigation of the facts before commenting. The NRA is prepared to offer meaningful contributions to help make sure this never happens again.”
At the same time, President Barack Obama responded to a petition signed by thousands of Americans asking for stricter federal gun control laws.
According to reports, four people dead were shot dead Friday morning in rural Pennsylvania. A gunman was among those killed and three state troopers were injured.
The facts on Columbine: One of the armed guards traded fire with Harris for an extended period during which Harris’s gun jammed. This guard immediately called the backup and they exchanged fire with the shooters and helped begin the evacuation of students all before SWAT arrived. That had to have saved lives. People that have trouble with facts are worrisome and just waste our time and hinder intelligent solutions.
The true facts are armed guards didn’t stop 13 people from being killed and 21 others from being wounded. Did they possibly prevent other from being harmed. Maybe. The true facts are with that outcome armed guards aren’t the answer. The NRA blames everything except the gun. It is time to ban all assault weapons and magazines that hold more than 3 shells. It is also time to make possessing those illegal.
Bill Clinton had a program with police in schools after Columbine and he wanted it to be even bigger so why is everyone acting like this is such a bizarre idea? Bill already came up with the idea. Where are you getting the number 3, why not 5 or 2? If gun control works please explain Chicago’s problems and don’t skirt the issue. What should we do if criminals have a lot more ammo than 3 bullets? Why don’t they get the criminal element under control before people only get 3 bullets? Are you going to try to suggest that police in schools would make children less safe? Why don’t you want to spend the money to help protect the children? Any opinions on all the blood and gore on tv, movies and video games and some seriously mentally ill people walking around with little supervision or should we just scream for gun control?
The idea that NRA presented is at least worth exploring. Most of the gun ban zealots really want nothing more than to do away with all guns, period and are not willing to listen to any opinions that differ from their own.
katie, your post didn’t say anything that I didn’t already know. You and I both know exactly which guns we are talking about. Quite splitting hairs. Did you know that the weapon that the shooter used in Newtown can be easily modified to where it can fire 100 rounds per minute. A weapon that is capible of that has no other legitiment use other than to kill people. No one should have the right to own that sort of weapon.
I like your proposal happy guy. But $50 is rather excessive for each round. Maybe $40 :). And Katie, it seems no matter what I post, you want to call me names. I just went downstairs and counted my weapons – 3 rifles, 2 shotguns and a 45 pistol. I am not an unknowledgeable non gun owner. I use my guns for hunting. An assault weapon is an assault weapon. You are splitting hairs.
I have never called you a name. I labeled you as unknowledgeable. You are the one splitting hairs. A handle and a different ammunition loading mechanism are what separate some guns from being acceptable and unacceptable to liberals.
A weapon that is used to assault someone is an assault weapon.
You should be aware that ANY and ALL semi-automatics, regardless of design, can be made to fire “full auto” be simply removing one piece from their trigger group. Right?
Some semi automatics can be made to fire full auto if worked on by a gunsmith who knows what he is doing otherwise it can’t be done.
Would it be legal for me to carry my homemade RPG Launcher in Walmart, so long as its not concealed? Just Curious and need to shop for groceries this afternoon.
For some of these people, yes, it would be alright. They talk about the 2nd amendment yet few have read it or thought about the time it was written. Guess what guys? There were no assault rifles in 1776. They had single shot, muzzle loaders. A few handguns, but nothing that could rapid fire. I really think some of you put words in the mouths of some very smart men who had no conception of what ‘arms’ would look like 200 years in the future.
And why call them ‘assault’ weapons unless that is their purpose – to assault others?
And, for those of you who bemoan the fact that we are 16 trillion dollars in debt and need to cut spending, how much money do you think it would cost to put armed security guards or police in every one of the 98,000+ schools in this country? Maybe we could pay for that by taxing the heck out of the gun control people or maybe the NRA with its millions of dollars could fund it. Did we hear them offer to do so? Of course not.
A school I was at in Chicago covered 3 square blocks. One security officer there wouldn’t do much good. And there are many more schools much larger. Come on, NRA, live in reality.
bodacious, Let’s fund the NRA’s armed school guards by putting a tax on ammunition for the guns. I heard on tv yesterday that the goverment estimated that it would cost 6.7 billion dollars to do that. If we taxed it at $50 per round there would have to be 134 million rounds of ammo sold per year to pay for it. If gun owners want to post armed guards at every school let them pay for it. The more I think about that the more I like it. Not owning a gun or wanting to, why should I have to pay for the NRA’s solution?
I heard the other day that sure maybe they didn’t have assault weapons back then but at the same time they didn’t have TV or the internet and very few newspapers for the 1st amendment(freedom of speech). The amendments were written for current and future generations. They just finished fighting a tyranical government and the amendments were a clause so people could defend themselves God forbid our nation became tyranical, which is looking more and more possible.
Only unknowledgeable non-gun owners call them assault weapons. They are semi-automatic weapons with magazines. Their function is no different from other guns except in looks. They just look like military fully automatic assault weapons. Assault weapons have been illegal since 1938. The magazines or gun stock handles are what make look them look different from hunting weapons, although most handguns and hunting guns now hold 10 rounds and extra magazines are easy and fast to change. Did you know the Virginia Tech shooter had 19 extra clips in his backpack and could change clips in 1 second? That was not highly publicized. Are you also aware that only 2% of gun crimes are committed with guns that look like what you call assault weapons? Also, that semi-automatic gun style is used for hunting. Educate yourself. Please read this article about guns written by a DEMOCRAT. You will learn a lot about guns that you didn’t know before.
http://kontradictions.wordpress.com/2012/08/09/why-not-renew-the-assault-weapons-ban-well-ill-tell-you/
katie you are making my arguement for me. Thanks.
Thanks for the kudos Bo. For the record Im an passionate hunter and avid outdoorsman as well. I own several weapons and just a few rounds and shells which are locked and secure. 50+ years ago I took a gun safety course sponsored by the NRA – in the days when they promoted education, personal responsibility and reason. I have long since let my NRA membership expire. I didnt leave them, they left me and sold out to the weapons industry and the kooks.
So do you mean a country that had the sense to pass gun legislation to curb the violence from all you Ted Nugent wanabees
The subject can be debated forever but it really doesn’t matter because our government will try to pass some token knee jerk bill that makes the situation worse.
ArmBears, you don’t live in utopia. You live in the U.S. Arm yourself or move to another country if you want to feel safe. That is the way it is. Not my doing, some guy named James Madison and others.
Well, ok, you can say firearms have ONE legitimate (in their mind) use, and thats home defense. And “ASSAULT” weapons are great for home defense.
Do you want to know what thing in our society that has ZERO legitimate uses, but causes many, many more deaths to than firearms?
Alcohol. There is literally zero legitimate use to alcohol, and it slays thousands each year.
b…but we already tried to ban that, and it didn’t work
YA DON’T SAY.
b..but i should not be punished because some retards decide to drive drunk
YA DON’T SAY
b..but this is america and i should be free to do what i want!
YA DON’T SAY
I think the NRA is short sighted in their recommendation. If we are gonna start providing armed guards in elementary schools, what about shopping centers, Houses of Worship, Colleges and Universities, secondary schools and all the other public and private places where gun violence has taken place. Big Brother with an RPG would be even better! God Bless America. But what if I dont want such “protection”, what happened to my individual Freedoms?
But what if I dont want such “protection”, what happened to my individual Freedoms?
This expression indicates an American’s confusion and lack of understanding. When confronted with something he can not understand or respond to, Americans mumble, “Muh Freedoms” or “Muh Freedoms mu#^&@(er.” This is usually followed by clapping and stuffing their faces with burgers.
as maybe has said armed guards can’t be at every place at once so posting armed guards is at best pretty iffy. Columbine had armed officers on duty there. Didn’t work out to well there. How much would you trust someone making $9 or $10 per hour protecting your kids. My bet would be that person would turn and run the other way as soon as someone shot at him
Pearl High School, Pearl Mississippi, 1 OCtober, 1997. A gunman was stopped by the Assisant Principal who had retieved his weapon from his car. Not everyone is a coward.
0 out of 32 since then and Colombine had armed officers. Odds aren’t to good. Sorry but more guns in schools isn’t the answer. You will never convince me or the majority of that. Site all the arguements you want. There are way to many wmd on the streets now.
“0 out of 32 since then and Colombine had armed officers. Odds aren’t to good.”
And in the same time peroid; the policey of “gun-free” schools has the odds of 0 to 121.
“Sorry but more guns in schools isn’t the answer.”
I seems to be, at least for Harrold, Texas.
“You will never convince me or the majority of that. Site all the arguements you want.”
Nice to see an open mind.
“There are way to many wmd on the streets now.”
Nice to see you resorting to an emotional arguement.
Jason, The shooting had already stopped when the principle got his gun from his car. He wasn’t an armed guard at the school. “High school shooting in Pearl, Mississippi
Another case, from 1997, in which the shooting was apparently already over: After killing two and wounding seven inside Pearl High School, the 16-year-old perpetrator left the building and went outside near the parking lot. The assistant principal—who was also a member of the Army Reserve—ran out to his own vehicle, grabbed a handgun he kept there, and then approached the shooter, subduing him at gunpoint until authorities arrived”
@HappyGuy (I mean Peter) Did you know that when a mass shooting event is stopped by police the average number killed is 14. The average number killed when the shooter is stopped by civilians is 2.5. The reason is simple. The armed civilians are there when the killing starts. An excellent response time by police is 3 minutes and we have seen how many can be killed in 3 minutes. Your arguments do not hold water.
LVS I would like to see facts that back up your claim about the number killed. Seems to me you would have to be a mind reader in order to say that. I haven’t heard of to many mass shootings where armed civilians have stopped them. I have heard where armed didn’t stop them. Columbine, Tuscon pop int5o my head right off the bat.
Thank you Peter L.
Do you know how many people elderly drivers that have no business driving ran over last year? Why are gun owners all of the sudden taking the heat? You people are flavor of the day hypocrits.
Be cause of a gun owner murdered 20 6 and 7 year olds. All within 10 minutes. 28 people all together. I don’t know how many people were run over last year. My guess would be that 99% were an accident. Now there were over 10,000 murders with guns last year. And the year before that. And the year before that. Ect. Ect. There were 247,131 gun fatalities in the US between 2003-2009. Of those 5,175 were accidents, 1,941 were undetermined, 141,244 were suicides, and 98,771 were murders. That’s an average of 14,110 murders by guns per year for those 7 years. I do try to back up my posts with some facts and I know some people don’t like facts and figures. They just like to argue.
“Be cause of a gun owner murdered 20 6 and 7 year olds. All within 10 minutes. 28 people all together. ”
Wrong! he wasn’t a gun owner. He murdered his mother then stole her weapons.
“Be cause of a gun owner murdered 20 6 and 7 year olds. All within 10 minutes. 28 people all together.”
Wrong! He was not a gun owner. He had attempted to purchase a gun but was denied (see the present gun laws work). To get the guns he used, he murderd his mother.
His mother was a legitimate gun own. And a very irresponsible gun owner. Hence a legitimately owned gun caused the deaths.
How can you judge her, do you know her? Her son had to kill her to get her guns so how does that make her irresponsible? I know you say you like to debate the facts but sometimes you get off on judging people, she is dead man, get a frikken life.
Maybe, think about what you are saying here. The mother was killed with the same gun that the students were killed with. Hence he had the gun first. Any responsible gun owner should keep their weapons locked up where no one can get them. So I can easily judge that woman. If you own guns do it responsibly
Judge and you will be judged.
maybe…and you don’t judge people almost daily on here?
“Maybe, think about what you are saying here. The mother was killed with the same gun that the students were killed with.”
Wrong again, She (his mother) was shot 4 time in the head with a .22 Caliber Marlin ( a lever action model I beleive). The childern and the school were shot with a .223 caliber Bushmaster (Ar-15).
“Hence he had the gun first.” He has A gun first, but clearly not the one used to massacre the childern at the school. We are still kept in the dark as to the origins of the .22 Marlin. And where Nancy kept her guns. Clearly Adam knew where they were kept. Clearly he had to murder his mother to obtain the guns used at the school.
“Any responsible gun owner should keep their weapons locked up where no one can get them.” Can you support this? Or was she murdered so that Adam could take them from a locke safe/location?
To correct myself, I have finally found an article which stated the .22 Marlin was in fact Nancy’s.
Better outlaw cars. Do you know how many drunks used them to kill people last year?
Time to start caining at an early age and learning discipline.
I think some of you just wish you still in the old west. Saying just arm more people is like saying give the drunk more booze to solve his drinking problem. I agree with law enforcement that we need less guns.
Wrong:
More law enforcement people support guns than law enforcement wanting gun control.
I have yet to here anyone in law enforement come out in favor of more guns. In fact the large city police chiefs that I have seen interviewed are against more guns. So I am wondering where you got your facts? Please share it with us.
That’s funny because every cop that I’ve talked to is for more guns so maybe you could tell us where you got your numbers, and these political police chiefs don’t count, I’m talking the cops on the street.
Maybe I have found just the opposite. The street cops, the sheriff, and deputy sheriff’s that I have talked to all disagree with what you are saying. So is mine bigger than yours? Anonymous sounded as if he had somekind of proof. I just want to know where he/she, or you for that matter, are getting your facts. Show me a poll or survey. And I do think police chiefs should count. Why don’t you?
“For example, in a survey conducted by the National Association of Chiefs of Police of the nation’s police executives, with regard to private citizens owning firearms for sport or self-defense, 93.6 percent of the respondents supported civilian gun-ownership rights.”
Jan. 13, 2011 article in the Examiner by Jim Kouri
I am not arguing your right to own guns. I am arguing the fact we don’t need civilians armed with weapons that can fire 100 shots be minute. I’m sure “in a survey conducted by the National Association of Chiefs of Police of the nation’s police executives, with regard to private citizens owning firearms for sport or self-defense, 93.6 percent of the respondents supported civilian gun-ownership rights.” that is a true statement. That is an answer to do you believe in the 2nd amendment. I believe you have a right to own some guns too! But the question is what kinds of firearms should be legal to own. That is a whole different question than what you responded to.
blog: “I agree with law enforcement that we need less guns.”
Anonymous: “More law enforcement people support guns than law enforcement wanting gun control.”
happyguy: “I have yet to here anyone in law enforement come out in favor of more guns. In fact the large city police chiefs that I have seen interviewed are against more guns.”
Jason: cites “with regard to private citizens owning firearms for sport or self-defense, 93.6 percent of the respondents supported civilian gun-ownership rights”
happyguy: “I am not arguing your right to own guns. I am arguing the fact we don’t need civilians armed with weapons that can fire 100 shots be minute.”
You moved the goal posts here happyguy, the question was about gun ownership, not the rate ofr frie of some of them.
Jason I’m sorry of you misinterpreted something I posted. Everything that I have posted has been in reference to a ban on assault type weapons and mega magazines. I have never said I wanted to take your guns. That is what the NRA and gun lobbies want you to believe. But I haven’t ever called for4 the ban of all guns. I do think we would live in a better country if so many didn;t own guns. I also would like to see it become illegal to own or possess assualt type weapons and magazines that hold more than 3 rounds of ammo.
“Jason I’m sorry of you misinterpreted something I posted.”
I didn’t misinterpret anything, you may have mis-posted.
“Everything that I have posted has been in reference to a ban on assault type weapons and mega magazines. I have never said I wanted to take your guns. That is what the NRA and gun lobbies want you to believe. But I haven’t ever called for4 the ban of all guns. I do think we would live in a better country if so many didn;t own guns. I also would like to see it become illegal to own or possess assualt type weapons and magazines that hold more than 3 rounds of ammo.”
But you see happyguy, every gun I own falls into your “assault type weapons” (as defined by the 1994 assault ban bill). Then you go on to say you want to eliminate anything that has a magazine greater than 3. So that eliminates the rest of my weapons. Is it NRA hype or are you a NRA plant attempting to rile me up so I rush to join them?
Jason concidering what you just posted my answer to you would be to buy different guns. A gun who’s sole purpose is not to kill humans. I will never understand why you or anyone else needs to own one of those guns. You can call it narrow minded or anything you want. To me it is senseless. I have not misposted. You must have reading comprehension problems. You seem think you are always right and the othere person is always wrong. Is there any point of us continueing this conversation?
Guns have multiple uses, hunting and protection. Either way the outcome is to either kill your prey or kill the person threatining you’re life. You mentioned if they make a gun that doesn’t kill people, that is the purpose of it. It’s the person behind the trigger that needs regulated.
maybe, your last post here makes no sense at all.
“Jason concidering what you just posted my answer to you would be to buy different guns. A gun who’s sole purpose is not to kill humans.”
And under your restictions that would be which gun?
“I will never understand why you or anyone else needs to own one of those guns.” Because I can. Anad for the protection of my family. I will never understand why you or anyone else needs to own a vehicle capable of traveling faster than 50mph (kinda stupid right).
“I have not misposted. You must have reading comprehension problems. You seem think you are always right and the othere person is always wrong. Is there any point of us continueing this conversation?” There was no reading comprehesion problem on my end. I’ll re-post YOUR OWN Words.
”
blog: “I agree with law enforcement that we need less guns.”
Anonymous: “More law enforcement people support guns than law enforcement wanting gun control.”
happyguy: “I have yet to here anyone in law enforement come out in favor of more guns. In fact the large city police chiefs that I have seen interviewed are against more guns.”
Jason: cites “with regard to private citizens owning firearms for sport or self-defense, 93.6 percent of the respondents supported civilian gun-ownership rights”
happyguy: “I am not arguing your right to own guns. I am arguing the fact we don’t need civilians armed with weapons that can fire 100 shots be minute.”
You moved the goal posts here happyguy, the question was about gun ownership, not the rate ofr frie of some of them.”
See you were talking about gun ownership.
In this case you were wrong, and once again you want to take your football and go home.
Jason you obviously don’t understand the conversation. Take some reading comp classes and come back. Then maybe we could have a dialogue that you will understand.
@HappyGuy-(Hey Peter) I thought you were mad a the cops because they wouldn’t stop the noisy bikers for you. Are you still in Clear lake or did the Harley riders catch you?
“Jason you obviously don’t understand the conversation. Take some reading comp classes and come back.”
My reading comprehension is just fine. You have shown that you really didn’t know what you are talking about. When I showed you that the Law Enforcement Community did support the public owning guns, you had to move the discussion to assault weapons. Go back and really read what you posted. But you won’t; like a petulant little child you imply that I have a problem when you can’t even acknowledge your own posted words.
“Then maybe we could have a dialogue that you will understand”
What you really mean is that you want to lecture. If you were interested in a dialogue you wouldn’t come with a closed mind. And in case you deny that your words (paraphrased) “there is nothing you can say that will make me change my mind”
@Jason-That is what Happy Guy (Peter L)does best. He has no real answers but just trys to muddy the waters and mislead people on the subject at hand. He is a expert at liberal cut and paste and was run off the site once when he went after our vets that were killed in the line of duty. He swore he would never post on here again but obviously he lied “again”. Just disregard his post and after awhile he will get tired of talking to himself and go away again. Almost forgot, the Haley Riders are probably still looking for him because of his comments last summer.
Now that makes sense, I thought this guy happyguy pisses me off as much as peter did. Now I find out that it is peter.
LVS David, You are so wrong about my ID. Have have never met Pete. I have read his posts and some pissed me off. David I’m sorry that I piss you off but the truth sometimes hurts
LVS your post on December 27, 2012 at 4:41 pm proved to me just how unstable you are. I have supected that for some time. It makes no sense at all and WHAT THE HELL were you talking about? You can call me who ever you want, I don’t care just try and be civil.
@Happy Guy or Peter-what ever your name is you sound the same and have the same socialist outlook. You like to throw mud and see if it sticks. Almost all of your comments are outdated and when someone makes a comment you don’t like you accuse them of calling you names. If you want to get along then clean up your act. Otherwise we will continue to call you Peter.
Happy guy = Peter L. Who cares.
Happyguy, it’s not that the truth hurts because it doesn’t, it’s the closed mind that bothers me. I try to have an open mind on what others are saying even if I know that I am right there is a small chance that I am not so I take everything everybody says and check it out. You do not seem to listen to anybody but those that totally agree with you. I don’t care if you are peter or not, at least peter listened to what I had to say.
Happy Guy or Peter-You call me unstable and then want me to be civil? That figures about you Peter. I would expect you to deny being Peter and you are running true to form. Keep it clean and so will I.
LVS I will reveal my ID if you will. If you are afraid to then I really don’t care what you call me. You can call me Bill, Pete Dave, Sam what ever. I have thought for sometime that we should all be using are real names on here. It is way to easy for some here to hide behind a screen name and make all kinds of false statements
@Happy Guy-I really don’t care what your name is. Like I said, quit calling me names and making smart remarks and I will do the same with you. As for using your real name, I can tell you that it is dangerous and I don’t think you want to go there. There are a lot of strange folks out there and you just can’t tell. I had a experience with that one time when I used my name on a issue. I know this is hard to believe but not everyone has the same viewpoint and some take it personal. Although, I must say it is hard to carry on any type of discussion with Anonymous as there must be at least five people using that name.
LVS you are either trying to figure out who I am or trying to insult me with the Peter thing. Which is it. I know what you are saying about putting your real name out there but I am getting tired of all the name calling and bs remarks. I can’t think of one post that I have posted that I wouldn’t have said to someones face other than when someone else started in on me. I understand that there are at least 2 sides to every arguement. Problem is to many don’t see it that way. I would put my name out there if others did also.
David, how could I have ever listened to you? I don’t think we have ever had a conversation. First I hear of you is when you are saying how much I pissed you off. What makes you so mad? Your first post shows up at:
December 29, 2012 at 9:22 am
“Now that makes sense, I thought this guy happyguy pisses me off as much as peter did. Now I find out that it is peter”
@Happy Guy-Tell you what, I will drop it and not call you Peter any more and try not to say anything insulting if you will do the same thing. There you go, a peace offering for the New Year.
P.S. I really don’t care what your name is.
Jason,
You seem to be using the Examiner survey to validate your point that law enforcement officials support gun ownership laws which I don’t have a problem with. But, I think you are confusing what the survey points out with concealed weapons permits. I would agree that most law enforcement people think people should be able to own guns. The survey says nothing about what kind of guns nor does it refer to concealed weapon permits. Anyone can take facts and twist them around to validate their own beliefs. That is what you are doing. You make the assumption because they support gun ownership rights, they approve everything the NRA lobby supports. They don’t. Talk to them, not to the NRA. And, although you cite the Examiner survey, I can’t find it on their website or archives.
“You seem to be using the Examiner survey to validate your point that law enforcement officials support gun ownership laws which I don’t have a problem with. But, I think you are confusing what the survey points out with concealed weapons permits. I would agree that most law enforcement people think people should be able to own guns. The survey says nothing about what kind of guns nor does it refer to concealed weapon permits. Anyone can take facts and twist them around to validate their own beliefs. That is what you are doing. You make the assumption because they support gun ownership rights, they approve everything the NRA lobby supports. They don’t. Talk to them, not to the NRA. And, although you cite the Examiner survey, I can’t find it on their website or archives.”
Actually I was using the Examiner article to support nothing more than the general Law Enforcement support for private ownership of guns. This was to dispute happyguy’s assertion that Law Enforcement supported gun control.
@Anonymous-wasn’t it Columbine where they had propane bombs as well. They just were not able to set them off. Mentally Ill people will always find a way to kill. Are we going to ban cars because drunk drivers kill more people than guns? I don’t know if putting armed guards in school is the answer but I think we have a officer on duty with a gun at Mason City High.
Columbine did have armed guards or policeman. Didn’t help out much there.
Armed guards no matter how good they are can’t be everywhere at once.
There is a problem with gun violence. The only answer is to have more guns available.
So then now the nuts will adjust and just go to the malls to do their mass killing and taking no action at all is what our government is best at.
You said they would adjust and go to the malls, well that guy at the mall in oregon was shooting people until an armed citizen pulled his weapon and pointed it at him. If they think that someone might be armed they will try to avoid that place, hint hint.
You are right, this guy stopped a mass murder in that mall by himself. Bad guys are always going to have guns, no matter what law you have. It only takes one good guy with a permit to carry to stop one bad guy.
The NRA got that idea from Heath High School and from Columnbine. These schools said we don’t want to minimize the number of dead students (ie eliniating rifles with high capacity clips is a waste of time), we want to eliminate the possibility of any student getting shot and the only way to do that is having armed guards. And they do. Problem solved.