.
Feedback

Snyder Vetoes Bill That Would Have Allowed Guns in Schools

The bill would have allowed concealed weapons in gun-free zones such as schools and sports arenas.

Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder has vetoed a bill that would have allowed concealed weapons into public schools and sports arena, according to a report on Michigan Public Radio.

The Michigan Legislature passed Senate Bill 59 late last week that would have allowed concealed weapons in gun-free zones, but in the wake of the school shooting in Newtown, CT, many had called for Snyder to veto the legislation.

David Hecker, Michigan President of American Federation of Teachers (AFT) said in a Friday statement, "We’re aghast that this lame duck legislature thinks it’s a good idea to put MORE guns in our schools, let alone places of worship or sports arenas...The House passed SB 59 on Thursday. How dare these lame duck legislators put the safety of students, educators and communities at risk. As our thoughts and prayers are with the families of the victims of today’s tragedy in Connecticut, we call on Governor Snyder to veto this ill-considered bill."

On Monday, Snyder said he would re-evaluate the bill, and on Tuesday, he vetoed it.

dan rice December 19, 2012 at 03:21 pm
I think the argument as to why untrained citizens shouldn't be allowed to bring guns into schools, day cares, stadiums, churches and bars so they can play John MacLain, is made in the previous comment.......
Concerned December 19, 2012 at 03:58 pm
One suggestion, we have thousands of highly trained veterans out there that everyone keeps saying need jobs, this would put them to work, creat jobs, and provide protection to our kids, I would be in favor of having at least one armed security guard at each school. There is the possible obvious cost to school districts for this but in my opinion well worth it. It would also as someone mentioned provide a deterent, but there is always going to be that wacko who expects to die anyway that will try it regardless of what is in place.
Concerned December 19, 2012 at 04:25 pm
We spend thousands of dollars every year to protect our money with armoured vehicles, armed guards in banks, we even have armed guards escorting city and government officials everywhere but we wont provide security for our own children? Put a armed guard in every school! We have thousands of highly trained veterans that we constantly hear about that are looking for jobs that I am sure many would love to do it. It would provide a deterant, it will put thousands of our Veterans to work that are already trained in use of weapons, and it will provide a line of defense for our children.
Col. Duke Lacrosse December 19, 2012 at 05:08 pm
Your argument that the argument to fight back against crazed gunmen is somehow invalid because the other arguer is not as elegant as you'd prefer, is a pretty lame argument.
Col. Duke Lacrosse December 19, 2012 at 05:10 pm
Steven Russell is exactly right. Those soldiers at Ft. Hood were also inside the great liberal fantasy "gun free zone" and a lot of them died because of it.
dan rice December 19, 2012 at 05:15 pm
Col: characterizing a self-appointed vigilante's statement on stray bullets from the good guys as 'what's the difference' and his view on the governor as "not elegant" qualifies the most outrageous double-talk of the year.
The larger point is that we don't want you bunch of cowboys out there making life & death decisions. I've been thru gun training courses and there's no class out there that qualifies you guys as de-facto police officers.
Michael Ritenour December 19, 2012 at 07:51 pm
The comment by Mr. Stroh to the effect that he hopes a stray bullet finds Governor Snyder proves the point: there are too many violent, stupid people out there masquerading as "law abiding citizens" to allow firearms to float around the country without any real restriction. The NRA and those in this discussion who advocate against any firearms control or, worse, arming teachers, librarians, hospital administrators, clergymen, etc., have apparently adopted the position that massacres such as Sandy Hook, Aurora, and the several others THIS YEAR ALONE are simply the price society must pay to keep the Second Amendment from any interpretation that might impose reasonable, justifiable limits on what they perceive is their Holy Right to carry any gun, any time, anywhere. In their view, the children of Sandy Hook and anyone else mowed down by firearms are simply collateral damage, the "cost of doing business." I reject that view, those people, and their shameful war on the rest of us. The answer to such carnage is not more arming, but less.
FCF December 20, 2012 at 12:19 am
Fort Hood! Extreme Gun Control!!! Obama does not mention it for it does not fit his agenda! No one there could defend themselves and all of them were soldiers! Obama's elimination of Fort Hood as an example is his cost of doing business!!! You fill in the blanks _________!
Col. Duke Lacrosse December 20, 2012 at 12:43 am
And dan rice, this is why your perspective is so terribly flawed: You fail to believe in yourself. You fail to think you are qualified to do anything in the face of danger. You fail to understand that police officers are not generally great shooters (mediocre in most cases), and you fail to believe that anyone except a "highly trained" police officer could make a difference in a terrible situation. I outshoot cops at competitions all the time. Doesn't mean I want to be in one of those situations. But I do want crazed maniacs to think that maybe, just maybe, someone who is capable might be where they want to kill innocent people. You fail to understand deterrence, and you fail to believe in yourself, and you are transferring your fears onto everyone. Your failures lead to innocent people getting killed. It's horrible.
Col. Duke Lacrosse December 20, 2012 at 12:50 am
"The answer to such carnage is not more arming..."
This is such a lame argument. There is no proof to it, only emotional blather backed up by Beatles song reasoning (Give Peace a Chance!). Read "More Guns Less Crime" by John Lott. Actual scientific research that shows when more law-abiding people can defend themselves, crime goes down. Nearly all these shootings occur within the confines of liberal fantasyworld "gun free zones" where good people are defenseless and evil criminals kill unopposed. And every time this liberal policy fails, we're told we need more failed liberal policies....
John Fedricks December 20, 2012 at 02:32 am
I have no problem with anyone owning a gun. Keep it at home and protect yourself and your family. Live your life in a bunker, play army all day long. None of my business. It is my business when some jackass sits down next to my grandaughter in a resturant with a pistol straped to his leg. Does this make everyone feel more comfortable knowing that they are safe, or does it have the opppisite effect?
dan rice December 20, 2012 at 03:29 am
and Col Duke: you just fail.
My take on you is that you have a lot of "projection" issues.
Col. Duke Lacrosse December 20, 2012 at 03:32 am
John, please watch the following video. The mainstream media does not want you to see it. This woman sat down in a restaurant with her parents and because she was disarmed by the Texas legislature long ago, her parents are dead.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=V-oNMHNrS-8 It's not about some imaginary jackass. It's about making crazy murderers fear being confronted by someone who will fight back.
dan rice December 20, 2012 at 03:44 am
here's a worthwhile read for you Col. let me know if you need any help with the big words. No cherry-picking of isolated incidents, just cold, hard facts.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2012/12/14/chart-the-u-s-has-far-more-gun-related-killings-than-any-other-developed-country/
Col. Duke Lacrosse December 20, 2012 at 04:01 am
"let me know if you need any help with the big words."
Why be condescending? Are you feeling defensive? Please watch the video I posted above, of the woman who had her parents killed because of dumb policies. I'm less interested in scoring points in an argument, than enabling you to defend yourself if some madman wants to hurt you or someone you care about.
Ron December 20, 2012 at 12:56 pm
John, you make a great point and Gregg Palombo makes the BEST point for NOT allowing assault weapons to be sold. A shotgun or handgun has a limited capacity that allows for a few rounds to be shot before reloading,, where an assault rifle can shoot dozens of rounds very quickly and a clip reloaded very quickly allowing the rampage to continue. Had the shooter at Sandy Hook NOT had an assault rifle,, rest assured the number of people killed would have been significantly LESS! NOBODY NEEDS ASSAULT WEAPONS BUT THE POLICE AND MILITARY.
dan rice December 20, 2012 at 01:06 pm
i appreciate your new-found interest in keeping this above board all of a sudden, but i don't need your help on this topic.
why don't we take our back & forth offline? i'm sure others on this board would appreciate it.
hartland eagle December 20, 2012 at 06:43 pm
Spot on, Michael.
The fact that Mr Stroh, who at best takes someone being shot to be something to joke at, and at worst just made a threat against a public official - holds a license to carry a concealed weapon is just downright scary. Patch: please report Mr Stroh's comments and IP address to the authorities
Sean Campbell December 20, 2012 at 08:36 pm
I appreciate the immediate prevention ideas (armed guards at schools, for example), but aren't we missing the bigger point that our culture should be advanced enough that schools and libraries should be free from any gunfire? What about the desire of parents that don't want their children in schools with armed educators? By focusing the conversation on more or less gun ownership for personal protection against mass murders, are we just accepting that our society has failed and the only option left is to completely arm or completely disarm ourselves?
Sean Campbell December 20, 2012 at 08:43 pm
Bryce,
Point taken, but aren't you interested to understand why these events were incredibly rare up until only 5 years ago? I don't support tougher gun laws, but I can't believe that gun-free zones are the main cause of these tragedies.
Sean Campbell December 20, 2012 at 08:46 pm
Darren, don't you think your comment is equally as silly as the 'Navy SEAL-style hero taking out the shooter' hypothetical proposed by hardcore gun owners?
Darren Whittaker December 21, 2012 at 01:26 am
Sean - seems far more realistic to me, especially in light of current events. The theory being put forward is that if nearly everyone is armed, it will not only deter some crazy from doing the unthinkable, but also that someone will be able to stop a mass shooting by taking out the gunman. This is just what I described. I think, if the gun nuts (and I speak only of those who advocate for a heavily armed public) have their way, this scenario is not only quite possible, but inevitable. Nothing silly about that.
Darren Whittaker December 21, 2012 at 01:35 am
Duke - we've already established that those who commit these types of crimes are "crazies". Deterrence is a product of logical thinking. Someone who decides to do something like this will be unlikely to stop, think, and decide not to do it. They already know they are likely to be killed, either by their own hand or someone else's. Yet they proceed, sometimes, as mentioned above, in all types of venues, whether those venues are heavily armed or not. Again...the argument, while seeming to be viable on the surface, is deeply flawed - specious.
Darren Whittaker December 21, 2012 at 01:43 am
There it is. The "colonel" and his ilk love to characterize any news report that doesn't jibe with their take on things as the "mainstream media", therefore not to be believed. This is as opposed to, what, the "ancillary media"?
I do not take any one source of information as completely accurate or non-biased. I think anyone who does lacks intellectual depth and reason. But this wide-swath painting of the media that dares report something they don't agree with as suspect and deceitful is just one more reason to take your slant on things with half a grain of salt.
JustACitizen1 December 21, 2012 at 03:38 am
Dan Rice,
Nice cherry pick on the statistics but now let’s be honest. The United States has less than 5.93 Homicides / 100,000 people vs many other countries( both undeveloped and developed )that have much higher rates, see Angola or South Africa oh and don’t forget Chile which is higher than the US even though your graph shows differently ( http://chartsbin.com/view/1454 ). So Dan the argument could be made that the reason the USA’s murder rate is so low is because is citizens are ARMED or at least have the possibility to ARM. Dan, now let’s have a real talk about what’s wrong with our country, I.e. we do a lousy job taking care of our mentally ill, we have taken any form of discipline out of our schools and our country is basically morally bankrupt. We have 18 states that have made the smoking of marijuana legal in one form or another. We live a country that now has three states that agree with assisted suicide and have made it legal. But what should we expect from a country that for the last 40 plus years has said that its totally acceptable to kill the unborn, because life doesn’t really start until your born. But hey, guns are really the problem right Dan?
dan rice December 21, 2012 at 05:44 am
No, the problems are with: 1- the special interest group who plows hundreds of millions of $ into Washington to buy their votes against any kind of common-sense oversight of gun sales and 2-the cowboys who think the solution is to place loaded guns and extra clips into kindergarten classes.
Here's some other stats for you: -40% of gun sales are done at shows without background checks -Annual Gun deaths peaked in 1993, then steadily declined by 2000 by 25% (assault weapon ban) -since then annual gun deaths have steadily increased, currently by 10%, projected to be a 16% increase by '15 -85 Americans are fatally shot each day -1 of those daily 85 are under 14 years of age But hey, there's no problem whatsovever with unfettered access to assault weapons; we just need our Art and History teachers to start packing and everything will be ok. Btw, i own a handgun and believe in the 2nd Amendment, just not without rational, commonsense legislation in the face of this epidemic. And i have no desire or see a need to bring my gun into my church.
Sean Campbell December 21, 2012 at 03:10 pm
JustACitizenaffraidtousehisrealname,
It's kind of hard to attack someone for cherry-picking statistics when you compare the United States (GDP over $14.5 trillion) to Angola (GDP $99 billion, only 10 years out of a 30+ year civil war and with 40% of its population in poverty), but ignore all of developed, democratic countries that have 50-80% lower homicide rates than the US. Here's an interesting statistic from the same website you used: the countries with the lowest homicide rates are also countries with Republican governments with the smallest income disparities. <a href="http://chartsbin.com/view/559">http://chartsbin.com/view/559</a> Perhaps gun ownership, or income disparity, is one metric that contributes to lots of other factors. Statistics can be great for showing trends or indicating cause and effect, but they can also be great for misleading people and mischaracterizing issues.
Tim H December 21, 2012 at 05:32 pm
What are your thoughts on all the Pit Bull Attacks?
http://royaloak.patch.com/blog_posts/too-many-dead-pets-enough-pit-bull-attacks
Haulin T Male December 21, 2012 at 06:25 pm
Typical Blog: Defensive, name calling, "one time" means always, getting personal , why?
I don't own a gun, prob. never will, but certainly see the logic of some one wearing guns so others can see. right away, the non gun people go into the worse case scenario's, the gun will drop out, (strapped in) stray bullets ( most if not all duck out of sight & don't shoot in a knee jerk reaction) people who own and want to carry a gun, have a major investment, in product , time, practice, and training. Fire it in public once, (at an invader, attacker) you surrender your gun, and go under scrutiny, basically house arrest, till fact finding is done. Guns make those who have not been trained squirmis. why? fear cause of lack of training. I watched just about all of the Newtown stuff, one lady said if the principal had a gun "locked up" what good would that of been? Obvious that lady is one of these posters. I say she would be wearing it, yes she would be in a bazer, to cover from kids eyes........ in stead this Principal dove trying to stop a bullet, if yall can just do theory's then I say, that principal had a good chance to take out the bad guy, and save 20 kids.. Collateral damage? why do you lock your house? all the damage is done getting in, just leave it unlock, it's cheaper.
eddy February 20, 2013 at 06:08 pm
We need very strong legislation against selling guns at the gun shows!
All the people that sell only care about the money.

Newsletter & Alerts

Get the best stories each day and important breaking news

Subscribe

Not from Clawson Patch? Find your Local Patch »

Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors. Write a new post... What's up? Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell something
canseeallsides June 14, 2013 at 04:53 pm
I also notice that other patch sites out side of this area still look good (old). Can we just goRead More back since I don't hear ANY good feedback.
Cori Cann June 14, 2013 at 09:51 pm
Personally, I'm enjoying that I can blog and post announcements on here free of charge. When IRead More called months ago, the young man I spoke with told me I'd have to pay a small fortune to place a business ad.
Sharon Awbrey June 16, 2013 at 01:43 pm
I don't blog, so the fact that it is free is irrelevant to me, but great for those who do blog.Read More However, I have to agree with the majority. The new site is very unappealing visually and much less user-friendy. Are all the "Patch" news run by the same people? I would like our to have more individuality to it and be easier to use.
Photo Credit: Courtesy of Kris LaMotte
Melissa Kolf June 11, 2013 at 11:17 am
Way to go, Strikers! Such a great group of girls, parents and coaches!
Kevin C Jablonski June 11, 2013 at 12:42 pm
Amazing coaching provided an awesome experience for these girls. It is a real treat to watch theseRead More girls play an d interact with their coaches.
Kimmi Seguin Carlesimo June 11, 2013 at 04:33 pm
They have learned so much and come so far under some great coaching. Thanks for a great year!