4 dead in Pennsylvania shootings









By Greg Botelho, CNN


updated 5:22 PM EST, Fri December 21, 2012







STORY HIGHLIGHTS


  • NEW: Motorist hits a state police car, then dies in a gunfight with police in Frankstown Township

  • NEW: Authorities later discover two dead men, one dead woman

  • NEW: Weapons were seized, but a state police official does not go into detail

  • 3 Pennsylvania state troopers were hurt while responding, a district attorney says




(CNN) -- A man killed two men and one woman Friday in central Pennsylvania, then died in a gunfight with state troopers, authorities said.


The first report of shots fired came in a 911 call placed around 9 a.m. As Pennsylvania State Police officers responded, someone in a truck fired at their marked patrol cars.


The truck's driver then collided "head-on" with a different patrol car, got out of his vehicle and began firing at officers, Trooper Jeffrey Petucci said.


State troopers returned fire, eventually killing the truck's driver. According to Blair County District Attorney Richard Consiglio, three state police officers were hurt in the response: One was wounded when a bullet hit his armored vest, another was hurt in the vehicle accident, and the third was hit by flying glass as the shooter fired through the windshield of the officer's vehicle.


The incident occurred in Frankstown Township, about 7 miles southeast of Altoona and 100 miles east of Pittsburgh. By 10 a.m., the "active shooter situation" was under control, the Blair County Emergency Management Agency reported on its Facebook page.


Sometime after this episode, three slain people were discovered at three different locations, said state police Lt. Col. George Bivens.


A woman was killed at a church, one man was found dead in a residence, and the other man was killed after getting into a car accident with the truck's driver, added Bivens. All three had been shot.


"It is believed that the male subject committed three homicides before encountering the troopers," state police said in a statement.


Authorities have not identified the shooter or the victims. Earlier, an official gave a different breakdown of the victims' genders. Consiglio said "they were not immediate family" of the shooter.


"Some weapons" tied to the episode have been seized, though Bivens did not detail the type of firearms, how they had been obtained or how they were used Friday.


"It is safe to say there was more than one weapon seized from the crime scene," Bivens said.


Around noon, the Blair County Emergency Agency said on Facebook, "There is no longer a threat to residents and visitors to this area from this individual." A road -- Juniata Valley Road, between Geeseytown and Canoe Creek State Park -- was closed for the rest of the day Friday "as the Pennsylvania State Police process the crime scene along this route for evidence."


In the wake of the shootings, a prayer service for the community was scheduled for 7 p.m. Saturday at Geeseytown Lutheran Church in Frankstown Township.


CNN's Jake Carpenter contributed to this report.








Read More..

Pa. gunman kills 2 at church, 1 on roadway

(CBS/AP) GEESEYTOWN, Pa. - The gunman who died in an apparent shootout with police  in central Pennsylvania Friday morning began his rampage by shooting a woman who was decorating a church for a children's Christmas party, according to the brother of the church's late pastor.

The Altoona Mirror reports that  the gunman, who sources identified as Jeffrey Lee Michael of Hollidaysburg, then shot another person outside the church, and fled the scene in a pickup truck, crashed head-on into another car, and then shot and killed that car's driver.

CBS Pittsburgh reports that troopers responded to a 9-1-1 "shots fired" call about 9 a.m. Additional 9-1-1 calls reported an armed man shooting at additional locations.

Two troopers were fired at by the driver of a pickup truck on Juniata Valley Road and a third officer was injured in a head-on crash with the pickup, sources told the station.

Michael exited the truck and immediately shot at troopers. Troopers returned fire, killing Michael.

The troopers who were shot are expected to survive.

Officials tell the station that three men and one woman were killed in the incident.

The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette reports that according to Blair County District Attorney Rich Consiglio, the shooting scene "extended over several miles."

More on Crimesider
Dec. 21, 2012: Deadly Pennsylvania shooting leaves 4 dead, 2 injured, officials say
Dec. 21, 2012: Pennsylvania Shooting Update: Four dead, including one at a church, reports say


Read More..

Critics Slam NRA's Call for Armed School Guards













Gun control advocates slammed the National Rifle Association today for its proposal to create a force of armed security guards at schools across the country as a response to the Connecticut school shooting.


"It is beyond belief that following the Newtown tragedy, the National Rifle Association's leaders want to fill our communities with guns and arm more Americans," Sen. Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J., said.


Criticism mounted after the NRA addressed for the first time last week's school shooting in Newtown, Conn., in which Adam Lanza, 20, used a semiautomatic weapon to open fire on students and teachers at Sandy Hook Elementary School, killing 26 at the school.


NRA spokesman Wayne LaPierre this morning dismissed the notion that the pro-gun group of about 4 million members would support any kind of gun-control laws, instead saying that "the only thing that can stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun."


Rep. Chris Murphy, D-Conn., who represents the district encompassing Newtown, reacted angrily to the comments after attending the funeral of another victim from last Friday's massacre.


"Walking out of another funeral and was handed the NRA transcript. The most revolting, tone deaf statement I've ever seen," @ChrisMurphyCT tweeted.


LaPierre argued that the answer to gun violence in schools is an armed security force that can protect students, made up of trained volunteers stationed at every school across the country.


"It's not just our duty to protect [our children], it's our right to protect them," LaPierre said at a news conference. "The NRA knows there are millions of qualified active and reserved police, active and reserve military, security professionals, rescue personnel, an extraordinary corps of qualified trained citizens to join with local school officials and police in devising a protection plan for every single school."


He was interrupted twice by protestors who stood in front of LaPierre's podium holding signs and shouting that the NRA "has blood on its hands" and that the NRA is "killing our kids."


The protestors were eventually escorted out of the room.


Lautenberg, who has introduced legislation that would ban large-capacity ammunition magazines, called the NRA "irresponsible."


"The NRA points the finger of blame everywhere and anywhere it can, but they cannot escape the devastating effects of their reckless comments and irresponsible lobbying tactics," Lautenberg said.


Mark Kelly, a former NASA astronaut and husband of former congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, who was shot in Arizona, said, "The NRA could have chosen to be a voice for the vast majority of its own members who want common sense, reasonable safeguards on deadly firearms, but instead it chose to defend extreme pro-gun positions that aren't even popular among the law-abiding gun owners it represents."






Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images











National Rifle Association Calls for Armed Security at Schools Watch Video









President Obama Launches Gun-Violence Task Force Watch Video









President Obama on Gun Control: Ready to Act? Watch Video





The Violence Policy Center, a gun-control advocacy organization, said the NRA's idea of arming security guards at schools would not stop school violence.


"The NRA plan, which cynically allows for the continued sale of the assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition magazines marketed by its gun industry corporate donors, has already been tried, and it did not work," the group said in a statement released today.


It pointed to the mass shooting at Columbine High School in 1999, in which two armed police officers were at the school when Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold opened fire. The officers exchanged gunfire with the killers, but were unable to stop them from their rampage.


House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi conceded that the issue is "complicated, but she said the NRA's call for an escalation "is not a positive force" in the renewed gun-control debate.


"For the NRA and others to sort of shield themselves by saying it's the mentally ill or something, and therefore we have to have more armed cops in the schools or more guns in the school -- what are they -- are they going to have [a gun] on the teacher's desk?" Pelosi wondered.


"'Wait a minute, man with a gun; I have it locked up someplace. Wait until I go get it.' I mean, this ... just doesn't make sense; we've got to reduce violence."


LaPierre had dismissed the notion that banning so-called assault weapons or enacting gun-control laws would stop school violence. He instead cast blame for gun violence in schools on violent entertainment, including video games, and the media.


"How many more copycats are waiting in the wings for their moment of fame from a national media machine that rewards them with a wall of attention they crave while provoking others to make their mark?" he asked.


LaPierre announced that former U.S. congressman Asa Hutchinson of Arkansas would lead the NRA's effort to advocate for school security forces. Hutchinson specified that the NRA, with about 4 million members, is calling for volunteers to act as the armed guards, rather than requiring funding from local or federal authorities.


"Whether they're retired police, retired military or rescue personnel, I think there are people in every community in this country who would be happy to serve if only someone asked them and gave them the training and certifications to do so," Hutchinson said.


NRA leaders have held off on interviews this week after refusing to appear on Sunday morning public affairs shows. They said they would grant interviews beginning next week to discuss their position.


NRA News anchor Ginny Simone said Thursday that in the wake of the Sandy Hook shooting, membership surged "with an average of 8,000 new members a day."


New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg has said the NRA is partially to blame for the tragedy.


"We're not trying to take away your right to advance the interests of gun owners, hunters, people who want to protect themselves," Bloomberg told "Nightline" anchor Cynthia McFadden in an interview Thursday. "But that's not an absolute right to encourage behavior which causes things like Connecticut. In fact, Connecticut is because of some of their actions."


The guns used in the attack were legally purchased and owned by the shooter's mother, Nancy Lanza, whom Adam Lanza shot to death before his assault on the school.


In the aftermath of the shooting, many, including Bloomberg, have called for stricter regulations on the type of weapons used in this and other instances of mass gun violence this year.


Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., has said she intends to introduce a bill banning assault weapons on the first day of next year's Congress -- a step the president said he supports.






Read More..

Is Newtown tipping point for change?









By Piers Morgan, CNN


December 20, 2012 -- Updated 1627 GMT (0027 HKT)









STORY HIGHLIGHTS


  • Piers Morgan: Past gun-related tragedies haven't led to any action

  • He says that must change, and he hosted a debate on the issue

  • Morgan: Laws must be changed to limit weapons, ammunition and enforce background checks

  • Rights of Americans who use guns for hunting and sport must be respected, he says




(CNN) -- On Wednesday night, I hosted a town hall-style debate on guns in America, talking to lawmakers, mass shooting survivors, lawyers, gun lobbyists -- anyone, basically, who has a strong opinion about what I consider to be the single biggest issue facing America today.


Since I joined CNN two years ago, there have been a series of gun-related tragedies, including the attack on U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords and the Aurora, Colorado, movie theater massacre.


Each sparked a short-term debate about guns. Yet each debate fizzled out with zero action being taken to try and curb the use of deadly weapons on the streets of America.



Piers Morgan

Piers Morgan



Now, following the grotesque slaughter of 20 innocent young children at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, I sense that the mood has changed.


We have reached a crucial moment in this debate, and I intend to use my platform to continue this conversation on Wednesday night and going forward. The media have previously been quick to move on to other stories after these tragic acts of gun violence. That must change.


Opinion: Don't let this moment pass without acting on gun control






I've made my own views clear on my show -- the senseless killing has to stop. High-powered assault rifles of the type used at Aurora and Newtown belong in the military and police, not in civilian hands. High-capacity magazines, too, should be banned. And background checks on anyone buying guns in America should be comprehensive and stringently enforced.


As President Barack Obama said, doing nothing is no longer an option.


But, at the same time, law-abiding Americans who want to protect themselves under the Second Amendment right to bear arms must be respected. As should the rights of Americans to use guns for hunting and sport.


This is a vital debate for the country. Some 12,000 people are murdered in the United States with guns every year, compared with just 35 in Britain, where there are strong gun laws.


Analysis: Guns and the law


Sandy Hook should, and must, be a tipping point for real action to bring this number down.


Follow @CNNOpinion on Twitter.


Join us at Facebook/CNNOpinion.


The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Piers Morgan.



Watch Piers Morgan Tonight weeknights 9 p.m. ET. For the latest from Piers Morgan click here.









Part of complete coverage on







December 20, 2012 -- Updated 1923 GMT (0323 HKT)



John Avlon says as the U.S. Postal Service is heading toward insolvency, Congress has a chance to save it.







December 20, 2012 -- Updated 2052 GMT (0452 HKT)



Gun marketers play on male self-image and ideas of masculinity, encouraging men to buy more and more weapons, says Paul Waldman.







December 20, 2012 -- Updated 1810 GMT (0210 HKT)



Peter Bergen says the film is attracting growing criticism for exaggerating the role of coercive interrogations in finding bin Laden.







December 20, 2012 -- Updated 1313 GMT (2113 HKT)



Douglas Rushkoff says our first instinct is to protest Instagram's new terms of service, but we should realize that Facebook paid a billion dollars for the site and needs to earn money in return.







December 20, 2012 -- Updated 1958 GMT (0358 HKT)



Howard Kurtz says reporters should stay on the story and the issues it raises.








Get the latest opinion and analysis from CNN's columnists and contributors.







December 19, 2012 -- Updated 2057 GMT (0457 HKT)



LZ Granderson says allowing concealed weapons in places like schools and churches would just result in more tragedy, not less.







December 19, 2012 -- Updated 2054 GMT (0454 HKT)



William Bennett says having armed and trained people could help protect schools and other vulnerable places from gun violence







December 19, 2012 -- Updated 1544 GMT (2344 HKT)



Rebecca Buckwalter-Poza says the vice president, who shepherded the 1994 Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act through the Senate, is the right man to lead new gun control efforts.







December 19, 2012 -- Updated 1711 GMT (0111 HKT)



Ruben Navarrette says with their many demands, many of the young undocumented immigrants brought here as kids are turning people against them, hurting the chances for broad immigration reform







December 19, 2012 -- Updated 1933 GMT (0333 HKT)



James Garbarino says troubled, lonely boys view the world as hostile, and think their culture condones the use of violence to solve problems







December 19, 2012 -- Updated 1438 GMT (2238 HKT)



Lori Haas says our elected leaders have abandoned all sense of right and wrong despite epidemic deaths from guns.







December 18, 2012 -- Updated 1635 GMT (0035 HKT)



Edward Mulvey says we cannot tell which one of the thousands and thousands of young men who are quiet or withdrawn will be a killer.

















Read More..

Mayans don't buy it






STORY HIGHLIGHTS


  • Some believe a major calamity will occur Friday based on the Mayan calendar

  • The Mayans don't think that's true: "It's an era," a Mayan wood carver says

  • The end of the winter solstice marks the end of a 394-year period on the calendar

  • Predictions mention a deity but not the end of the world, an archeologist says




Merida, Mexico (CNN) -- There may be no one left on Earth to say TGIF this week.


Some believe the world is coming to an end Friday -- on 12/21/12 -- which is when an important phase on the ancient calendar of the Mayan people terminates.


Mayans don't buy it.


At least the ones living in the city of Merida, Mexico, don't. Neither does anyone in the Mayan village of Yaxuna. They know the calendar their ancestors left them is about to absolve a key phase -- the end of an era and the heralding of a new one -- but they don't think we're all gonna die.


Read more: Be honest, apocalypse seems kind of exciting


"It's an era. We are lucky to see how it ends," said wood carver Santos Esteban in Yaxuna, a sleepy village of fewer than 700 Mayans, located in a territory that once belonged to the ancient kingdom founded around 2000 B.C.










He feels it is a momentous occasion and is looking forward to the start of the new age. He is not afraid.


"Lots of people say it's the end of the world, but we don't believe that," he said.


Read more: China cracks down on 'Doomsday cult'


People in his village will keep living much as they have, preferring hand-built, palm-thatch huts to concrete buildings and baking tortillas on an open flame.


For those less optimistic than the Mayans, an "official" website in the United States has collected links to all the doomsday articles and videos Internet users can consume.


December212012.com also offers tips on survival and advertisements for the needed gear -- from gas masks to first aid kits and hand-crank radios. Comments are welcome on its Facebook page, which has more than 14,000 likes, and website owner "John" from near Louisville, Kentucky, sends out tweets under the handle @December212012.


On the doomsday Facebook page -- in between gloomy superstitious links and user comments -- John has confessed that he does not really believe the world will end on Friday but thinks that a new era could dawn that may include some improvements for the world. That new era, however, might require a good bit of destruction as well.


John asked posters not to take the whole thing too seriously.


"PLEASE PEOPLE. . . I'm begging you. Do not overreact or make any rash decisions regarding Dec 21st. Anyone who knows anything about the 2012 prophecies, including myself, does not believes that the world is going to end," the Facebook page says.


Opinion: The Maya collapsed - could we?


Gunmaker Ryan Croft in Asheville, North Carolina, does take the prediction seriously. He is building a special assault rifle to deal with any signs of doom lurking around the corner.


He doesn't think life on Earth will come to a complete end Friday. "I'm not planning for the world to go away," Croft told CNN affiliate WHNS.


However, he thinks the day could mark the beginning of cataclysmic times introduced by a disaster. That may call for drastic measures, Croft said.


His new rifle, a hybrid of an AR-15 and an AK-47, is designed to be easy to use, the Gulf War veteran said. Trouble in the United States could ensue in the wake of an economic catastrophe, he thinks.


"I taught about economic collapse and how it actually looks on the ground," he said. "People want to act like it can't happen or doesn't happen, and it happens around the world. There are places on fire right now."


In true survivalist manner, Croft also teaches his family how to subsist on alternative sources of nourishment, such as algae, roasted mice and live earthworms.


Though 12/21/12 is a somewhat congruent date on the western calendar, the Mayan version enumerates the event in a different way.


The ancient people measured time in cycles called "baktuns" of 394 years each, and the winter solstice coming Friday marks the end of the 13th baktun. Some who study the calendar say the date for the end of the period is not Friday, but Sunday.


The Mayan calendar is based on the position of the heavenly bodies -- the sun, the moon and the stars -- and was meant to tell the Mayan people about agricultural and economic trends, said archeologist Alfredo Barrera.


NASA is also weighing in on the matter, with a post on its website declaring that the world will not end on Friday.


"It will be another winter solstice," NASA said. "The claims behind the end of the world quickly unravel when pinned down to the 2012 timeline."


As of Thursday afternoon in the eastern United States -- already Friday across Asia -- the space agency said it had detected "nothing unusual" and that it anticipated a normal couple of days ahead.


Read more: Hotels ready for the end of the world


The hubbub about a calamity occurring comes from a Mayan stone carving called monument 6, made in 700 A.D., which predicts a major event at the end of this baktun, Barrera said. But half of the broken tablet is missing, so one may only speculate on what the complete message may be.


Whatever it is, it's not about the end of the world, he said.


"We don't have a prophecy or inscription related to the finish of the world. It just mentioned a deity."


Barrera said he believes the hullabaloo about the end of the world has been whipped up by online speculation -- and he finds it a bit ignorant.


In Merida, Mayan priest Valerio Canche conducts an ancient ritual to honor the dead in light of the upcoming end of the 13th baktun.


"It is considered the closure of the great cycle of Mayan time," he said. "But, of course, the cycle (14th baktun) begins the following day. For the Mayans, it's not the end of the world."


If you're reading this on Thursday, keep in mind that it's already Friday in New Zealand, and it's still on the map. If it's Friday, a look out the window may be reassuring.


If it's Saturday, and no major calamity has occurred, then relax and go celebrate the beginning of the 14th baktun with the Mayans.


Debunking doomsday: 6 rumors dispelled


CNN's Ben Brumfield reported from Atlanta, and Nick Parker from Mexico






Read More..

House GOP: We have the votes for "Plan B"




Play Video


Cantor: "We're going to have the votes" to pass "Plan B"



Updated 1:45 p.m. ET

As the House readies for an expected vote on an alternate plan, dubbed "Plan B," to avoid massive tax hikes on all income earners, House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, R-Va., said he is confident he will have enough support to pass their plan.

"We're going to have the votes," Cantor told reporters this morning.

"Plan B," a scaled-back measure that extends tax rates for everyone except those making $1 million, comes to the House floor at the unilateral direction of Republican leadership just days after it seemed talks between House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, and President Obama were progressing to avert the so-called "fiscal cliff." Both sides offered major concessions to move toward compromise, but aides tell CBS News White House correspondent Major Garrett that Boehner didn't have enough support in his party to pass his proposal that included $1 trillion worth of revenue increases.

While "Plan B" would raise taxes on millionaires, which is something Democrats support, it does not go far enough for Democrats who want higher tax rates for more income earners. The president's latest "fiscal cliff" offer would raise the marginal tax rate to 39.6 percent on those making more than $400,000, a concession from his previous demand that taxes go up for households making more than $250,000.




Play Video


Boehner: Dems' "Plan B" is "slow walk" over "fiscal cliff"



Boehner said he is doing his part by offering "Plan B"  to ensure taxes don't increase on millions of Americans in the New Year. "It will be up to Senate Democrats and the White House to act," he told reporters today.

While Cantor says they have the votes to pass the alternative, some Republicans expressed reservations because it would raise taxes on about 400,000 families, or about 0.2 percent of Americans.

Boehner's proposal doesn't abide by "clear conservative, clear Republican principles," Rep. Tim Huelskamp, R-Kan, told CBS News correspondent Nancy Cordes.

Perhaps offering Republicans an out, in an about-face, anti-tax crusader Grover Norquist said Boehner's proposal does not raise taxes. Other outside conservative groups, however, including the Heritage Foundation and FreedomWorks, are urging Republicans to vote against "Plan B", saying it does raise taxes.




Play Video


Reid: "Boehner's plans are nonstarters in the Senate"



Generally opposed to raising any taxes at all, Republicans are also reluctant to vote for a plan that has already been declared dead in the Senate by Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., if it passes the House. "Speaker Boehner's plans are non-starters in the Senate," Reid reiterated today. 

Even if it somehow cleared both houses of Congress, the White House announced Wednesday that it would veto "Plan B."

Another reason some Republicans also objected to Boehner's "Plan B" because it doesn't include spending cuts. Republican leadership addressed that concern Thursday morning, however, by offering a second piece of legislation that cuts $200 billion from the federal budget.

House Republicans "are taking concrete actions" to avert the "fiscal cliff" and reduce spending, Cantor said. "Absent a balanced offer from the president, this is our nation's best option."

During a news conference Wednesday, the president said Republicans "keep on finding ways to say no as opposed to finding ways to say yes" on agreeing to a deal to avert the "fiscal cliff."

He added that it's time for the Republicans to step up and compromise because its' "what the country needs."

The president pointed out their proposals are only "a few hundred billion dollars" apart. "The idea that we would put our economy at risk because you can't bridge that cap doesn't make a lot of sense," he said.

The president's latest proposal includes about $1.2 trillion dollars of revenue increases and $800 billion in spending cuts. Boehner said it's not balanced. His latest offer is, which is not what the House is voting on today, includes about $1 trillion in spending cuts and $1 trillion in tax increases.

Read More..

Obama, Boehner Not Far Apart on 'Cliff'? Not Really


Dec 20, 2012 5:09pm







ap barack obama john boehner jt 121209 wblog Obama and Boehner Not Far Apart on Fiscal Cliff? Not Really

Carolyn Kaster/AP Photo; Pablo Martinez Monsivais/AP Photo


There are some in Washington and around Capitol Hill who keep saying that House Speaker John Boehner and President Obama really aren’t that far apart on the “fiscal cliff” and there will be a deal despite Boehner’s proposal to hold a vote on his “Plan B.”


Let’s deconstruct the two parts of that thinking.


Boehner and Obama really aren’t that far apart?


Not really.


The differences are more significant than just tax rates.  Republicans say the Democratic offer is really $800 billion in spending cuts and $1.3 trillion in tax increases.  That is because the inflation adjustment applies to tax rates* as well as Social Security — resulting in less than $100 billion in added tax revenues.


Democrats count that as a spending cut.  Republicans say that is a tax hike.  So the real difference, from their perspective, is $450 billion.  The $400,000 vs. $1 million threshold for tax rates hikes is just one part of this.  Republicans want more spending cuts and fewer tax increases.


Related: Read More About the Fiscal Cliff


Obama and Senate Democrats are fond of saying they are this close (fingers close together).  They say Boehner should just accept the president’s offer.


But, as I asked Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., earlier today: If you are this close why not just accept Boehner’s offer?  He dodged, saying that Boehner’s offer wasn’t really an offer and likened him to Lucy and the football — you’ll recall the routine in which the “Peanuts” character would pull away the ball at the last second and leave Charlie Brown kicking at nothing but air.


Both sides like to talk about Lucy and the football, but that is another story.  Will there be a deal?


They should be able to do a deal.  I know where the deal should be.  So do you.  But, really, they aren’t quite as close as the nifty charts like this one from the Washington Post suggest. And this is about much more than the $400,000 tax-rate threshold.


*By lowering the government’s calculation for inflation, the income level for the top rates would rise at a slower rate, putting more and more people into the top rates.



SHOWS: World News







Read More..

Arming teachers would halt massacres




William Bennett argues that schools would be safer with at least one armed person there who is well-trained in firearms use.




STORY HIGHLIGHTS


  • William Bennett: Arming, training one person in a school could help prevent shootings

  • He says armed people have stopped instances of mass killing

  • Killers may target places where they know they can't be shot down, Bennett says

  • Bennett: Guns help prevent crime and improve public safety




Editor's note: William J. Bennett, a CNN contributor, is the author of "The Book of Man: Readings on the Path to Manhood." He was U.S. secretary of education from 1985 to 1988 and director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy under President George H.W. Bush.


(CNN) -- On NBC's "Meet the Press" this past Sunday, I was asked how we can make our schools safer and prevent another massacre like Sandy Hook from happening again. I suggested that if one person in the school had been armed and trained to handle a firearm, it might have prevented or minimized the massacre.


"And I'm not so sure -- and I'm sure I'll get mail for this -- I'm not so sure I wouldn't want one person in a school armed, ready for this kind of thing," I said. "The principal lunged at this guy. The school psychologist lunged at the guy. Has to be someone who's trained. Has to be someone who's responsible."



William Bennett

William Bennett



Well, I sure did get mail. Many people agreed with me and sent me examples of their son or daughter's school that had armed security guards, police officers or school employees on the premises. Many others vehemently disagreed with me, and one dissenter even wrote that the blood of the Connecticut victims was ultimately on the hands of pro-gun rights advocates.


To that person I would ask: Suppose the principal at Sandy Hook Elementary who was killed lunging at the gunman was instead holding a firearm and was well trained to use it. Would the result have been different? Or suppose you had been in that school when the killer entered, would you have preferred to be armed?


Evidence and common sense suggest yes.



In 2007, a gunman entered New Life Church in Colorado Springs and shot and killed two girls. Jeanne Assam, a former police officer stationed as a volunteer security guard at the church, drew her firearm, shot and wounded the gunman before he could kill anyone else. The gunman then killed himself.


In 1997, high school student Luke Woodham stabbed his mother to death and then drove to Pearl High School in Pearl, Mississippi, and shot and killed two people. He then got back in his car to drive to Pearl Junior High to continue his killings, but Joel Myrick, the assistant principal, ran to his truck and grabbed his pistol, aimed it at Woodham and made him surrender.


These are but a few of many examples that the best deterrent of crime when it is occurring is effective self-defense. And the best self-defense against a gunman has proved to be a firearm.


LZ Granderson: Teachers with guns is a crazy idea










And yet, there is a near impenetrable belief among anti-gun activists that guns are the cause of violence and crime. Like Frodo's ring in "The Lord of The Rings," they believe that guns are agencies of corruption and corrupt the souls of whoever touches them. Therefore, more guns must lead to more crime.


But the evidence simply doesn't support that. Take the controversial concealed-carry permit issue, for example.


In a recent article for The Atlantic magazine, Jeffrey Goldberg, by no means an avowed gun-rights advocate, declared, "There is no proof to support the idea that concealed-carry permit holders create more violence in society than would otherwise occur; they may, in fact, reduce it."


Goldberg cites evidence from Adam Winkler, a law professor at UCLA, that concealed-carry permit holders actually commit crimes at a lower rate than the general population.


The General Accountability Office recently found that the number of concealed weapon permits in America has surged to approximately 8 million.


According to anti-gun advocates, such an increase in guns would cause a cause a corresponding increase in gun-related violence or crime. In fact, the opposite is true. The FBI reported this year that violent crime rates in the U.S. are reaching historic lows.


This comes in spite of the fact that the federal assault weapons ban expired in 2004. Supporters of the ban (not including anti-gun groups who thought it didn't go far enough in the first place) claimed that gun crime would skyrocket when the ban was lifted. That wasn't true at all.


In fact, after the expiration of the ban, The New York Times, whose editorial pages are now awash with calls for more gun restrictions, wrote in early 2005, "Despite dire predictions that America's streets would be awash in military-style guns, the expiration of the decade-long assault weapons ban in September has not set off a sustained surge in the weapons' sales, gun makers and sellers say. It also has not caused any noticeable increase in gun crime in the past seven months, according to several city police departments."


But let's take the issue one step further and examine places where all guns, regardless of make or type, are outlawed: gun-free zones. Are gun-free zones truly safe from guns?


John Lott, economist and gun-rights advocate, has extensively studied mass shootings and reports that, with just one exception, the attack on U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords in Tucson, Arizona, in 2011, every public shooting since 1950 in the U.S. in which more than three people have been killed has taken place where citizens are not allowed to carry guns. The massacres at Sandy Hook Elementary, Columbine, Virginia Tech and the Century 16 movie theater in Aurora, Colorado, all took place in gun-free zones.


Do you own a gun that fell under the now-expired federal weapons ban?


These murderers, while deranged and deeply disturbed, are not dumb. They shoot up schools, universities, malls and public places where their victims cannot shoot back. Perhaps "gun-free zones" would be better named "defenseless victim zones."


To illustrate the absurdity of gun-free zones, Goldberg dug up the advice that gun-free universities offer to its students should a gunman open fire on campus. West Virginia University tells students to "act with physical aggression and throw items at the active shooter." These items could include "student desks, keys, shoes, belts, books, cell phones, iPods, book bags, laptops, pens, pencils, etc." Such "higher education" would be laughable if it weren't true and funded by taxpayer dollars.


Eliminating or restricting firearms for public self-defense doesn't make our citizens safer; it makes them targets. If we're going to have a national debate about guns, it should be acknowledged that guns, in the hands of qualified and trained individuals subject to background checks, prevent crime and improve public safety.


Follow @CNNOpinion on Twitter


Join us at Facebook/CNNOpinion


The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of William J. Bennett.






Read More..

Megaupload New Zealand extradition case delayed again






WELLINGTON: A US bid to extradite Megaupload boss Kim Dotcom from New Zealand for alleged online piracy has been delayed for a second time and will not be heard until August next year, his lawyers said on Thursday.

The extradition case, launched after Dotcom's arrest in January for alleged online piracy, was originally due to go to court in August, then pushed back to March next year amid legal wrangling over evidence disclosure.

A spokeswoman for Dotcom's Auckland-based barrister Paul Davison said the court had rescheduled the hearing again to August 2013. She did not provide a reason for the change.

Police are investigating New Zealand's foreign intelligence agency, the Government Communications Security Bureau (GCSB), for illegally spying on Dotcom ahead of his arrest in a raid on his Auckland mansion in January.

Prime Minister John Key earlier this year issued a public apology to Dotcom, acknowledging the German national should have been off-limits to the agency because he holds New Zealand residency.

It was the latest in a string of setbacks for the case against Dotcom, who remains free on bail in New Zealand, including a court ruling that the search warrants used in the raid on his mansion were illegal.

The 38-year-old's Megaupload file-sharing empire, which at its peak had 50 million daily visitors and accounted for four percent of all Internet traffic, was shut down after the raid and Dotcom has indicated he will seek damages.

Dotcom denies US allegations the Megaupload sites netted more than $175 million in criminal proceeds and cost copyright owners more than $500 million by offering pirated copies of movies, TV shows and other content.

The US Justice Department and FBI want Dotcom to face charges of racketeering fraud, money laundering and copyright theft in a US court, which could see him jailed for up to 20 years if convicted.

- AFP/de



Read More..

Obama to GOP: Fiscal cliff not about me






STORY HIGHLIGHTS


  • NEW: Stocks drop on news of the latest impasse in fiscal cliff talks

  • President Obama suggests Republicans are fixated on besting him personally

  • Speaker Boehner says the House will pass his fallback tax plan Thursday

  • Without a deal, everyone's taxes go up in the new year




Washington (CNN) -- After progress earlier this week in fiscal cliff negotiations, President Barack Obama and House Speaker John Boehner firmly butted heads Wednesday to set up a showdown in the final days left to reach an agreement.


The incremental negotiations had focused on a roughly $2 trillion package of new revenue, spending cuts and entitlement reforms the two sides have shaped into a broad deficit reduction plan.


Boehner added a new wrinkle on Tuesday by proposing his plan B -- a limited tax measure to extend Bush-era tax cuts on income of $1 million and below. He described it as a fallback option to prevent a sweeping tax hike while negotiations continue on the broader overall plan.


In a candid assessment of the tough talks Wednesday, Obama told reporters that Republicans are focused too much on besting him personally rather than thinking about what's best for the country.










"Take the deal," Obama said to Republicans, referring to the broader proposal under discussion, saying it would "reduce the deficit more than any other deficit reduction package" and would amount to a significant achievement.


"They should be proud of it," Obama said. "But they keep on finding ways to say 'no.' as opposed to finding ways to say 'yes.' "


The comments at a White House news conference came less than two weeks before the nation faces automatic tax increases on everyone, as well as deep spending cuts due to the fiscal cliff at the end of the year.


Economists warn that failure to reach agreement could bring another recession, and investors appear to be closely watching the negotiations. After gains this week on news of progress in the talks, stocks fell Wednesday due to the latest impasse in the talks.


Boehner followed Obama's remarks with his own statement Wednesday, saying the president had yet to make a proposal offering his promised approach of balance between increased revenue and spending cuts.


In his 52-second appearance before reporters, Boehner said the House will instead pass his fallback tax plan Thursday that limits tax hikes to income above $1 million.


While a concession from his original opposition to any kind of increase in tax rates, the Boehner plan sets a significantly higher threshold for a rate hike than the $400,000 level sought by Obama.


Once the House passes his plan, the president can either persuade Senate Democrats to accept it or "be responsible for the largest tax increase in American history," Boehner said before walking off without answering shouted questions.


The Obama administration and congressional Democrats said Boehner changed course because he was unable to get Republican support for the larger deal being negotiated with Obama.


At his news conference, Obama alluded to last Friday's Connecticut school shootings in calling on Republicans to put aside such political brinksmanship, saying that "if there's one thing we should have after this week, it should be perspective about what's important."


"Right now, what the country needs is for us to compromise," he said, calling what he characterized as a GOP refusal to accept a reasonable compromise on the table as "puzzling."


Asked why an agreement proved so difficult to attain after both sides made major concessions in the past week, Obama said it might be that "it is very hard for them to say 'yes' to me."


"At some point they've got to take me out of it," Obama said of Republicans, adding they should instead focus on "doing something good for the country."


Boehner responded by arguing that Obama's latest proposal was not evenly balanced, with more new revenue opposed by Republicans instead of the spending cuts and entitlement reforms they seek.


With automatic tax hikes looming for all, Boehner said, his plan B proposal would "make permanent tax relief for nearly every American."


While addressing part of the fiscal cliff, the Boehner plan B would leave intact government spending cuts, including defense, that are required under a budget deal reached last year to raise the federal debt ceiling. Known as sequestration, the cuts were intended to motivate Congress to reach a deficit reduction deal to avoid them.


Opinion: Art that calls the fiscal cliff's bluff


Obama said Wednesday the Boehner proposal "defies logic" because it raises tax rates on some Americans, which Republicans said they didn't want, and lacks any spending cuts, which Republicans say they do want.


He also criticized the Boehner measure as a benefit for wealthy Americans, who also would have lower tax rates extended on their income up to $1 million.


The White House and congressional Democrats say the Boehner plan B has no chance of passing Congress, and Obama added that bringing it up now wastes time as the deadline for an agreement looms closer.


In a background briefing with reporters, senior administration officials said no further talks have occurred between Obama and Boehner since Monday. According to the officials, Obama will delay his planned holiday trip to Hawaii on Friday if no deal is reached by then.


This week, Republican Rep. Steve Womack of Arkansas called Boehner's move a negotiating tactic, and GOP leaders sought to corral support for the plan B option.


They planned to vote Thursday on Boehner's proposal, as well as Obama's long-standing demand to return to higher tax rates of the 1990s on income above $250,000 for families.


Conservative allies publicly supported Boehner's plan Wednesday.


Anti-tax crusader Grover Norquist provided political cover for Republicans who signed his pledge against tax increases, saying they could support the Boehner plan B because it adhered to the meaning of their promise to oppose tax hikes.


House Budget Chairman Paul Ryan, a leading conservative who was the Republican vice presidential nominee in the November election, will vote for Boehner's plan, a spokesman said Wednesday.


Conservatives trying to shrink the federal government generally oppose increasing tax revenue. They are particularly opposed to higher tax rates because history shows that once rates go up, it is difficult to later reduce government revenue by lowering them again.


Obama and Democrats argue that increased revenue, including higher tax rates on the wealthy, must be part of broader deficit reduction to prevent the middle class from getting hit too hard.


Obama made the tax proposal a central theme of his re-election campaign, arguing that it prevented a tax increase for middle-class Americans in a time of needed fiscal austerity.


Polls consistently show strong public support for the Obama plan, and some Republicans have called for giving the president what he wants on the tax issue in order to focus negotiations on the spending cuts and entitlement reforms sought by their party.


As part of the broader talks on reducing the nation's chronic federal deficits and debt, Obama on Monday raised the threshold for the higher tax rates to $400,000.


Budget experts: Fiscal cliff deal could disappoint


Boehner and Republicans initially opposed any rise in tax rates but conceded to raising more revenue by eliminating some deductions and loopholes. The offer of a plan with higher rates for millionaires represented a further concession, but Obama and Democrats say it is not enough to ensure sufficient revenue from wealthy Americans as part of a deficit reduction package.


Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada said Boehner's backup plan appears to be a result of pressure from tea party conservatives opposing a wider deal.


"It would be a shame if Republicans abandoned productive negotiations due to pressure from the tea party, as they have time and again," Reid said this week.


Boehner's spokesman, Michael Steel, shot back that the plan B proposal gave Democrats exactly what they wanted -- higher tax rates on millionaires. He noted that the Senate passed a similar measure in 2010, and asserted that to oppose Boehner's plan now would make Democrats responsible for failing to avoid the fiscal cliff.


That brought a response from a spokesman for Democratic Sen. Charles Schumer of New York, who came up with the 2010 compromise that never won House approval.


Since the 2010 vote, "we've had an election on the president's tax plan, the president won, and Republicans can't turn the clock back," said the spokesman, Brian Fallons.


"It's not surprising Republicans are having buyer's remorse, but we need higher revenues now," Fallons said. "The more revenue we raise up front through a tax rate increase on the wealthy, the less likely the middle class will get hit on the deduction side."


The president previously said that once Republicans agreed to higher tax rates on wealthy Americans, he would be willing to compromise on spending cuts and entitlement reforms sought by Boehner as part of what the president calls a balanced approach.


What happens if the payroll tax cut expires


After weeks of little progress and much ideological pontificating, both sides started making concessions after two face-to-face meetings last week.


Over the weekend, Boehner offered for the first time to accept tax rate increases on household income of $1 million and above, sources said. The speaker also offered to allow the president to raise the debt ceiling in 2013 without a messy political fight, another key Obama demand.


In response, Obama on Monday offered $200 million in new cuts to discretionary federal government spending, divided evenly between defense and non-defense programs.


The president also included for the first time a provision to change the formula for adjusting entitlement benefits for inflation based on the consumer price index, or CPI, and he dropped an extension of a payroll tax cut from the past two years.


According to a source who provided CNN with details of Obama's counteroffer, it included $1.2 trillion in revenue increases and $1.22 trillion in spending reductions.


However, Republicans disputed those figures, saying the Obama offer really was $1.3 trillion in additional revenue and $850 billion in spending reductions.


Working out those differences appeared to be a key to reaching a comprehensive deficit reduction deal by the end of the year.


While Obama's latest offer brought the two sides billions of dollars closer, it also generated protests from the liberal base of the Democratic Party because it included some benefit cuts in entitlement programs such as Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.


Justin Ruben, executive director of MoveOn, the liberal movement that backed Obama's presidential campaigns, said the group's members would consider any benefit cuts "a betrayal that sells out working and middle-class families."


In particular, liberals cited concessions that Obama made in his Monday counteroffer, including the new inflation formula applied to benefits that is called chained CPI.


Obama offers fiscal cliff tax concession


The chained CPI includes assumptions on consumer habits with regard to rising prices, such as seeking cheaper alternatives, and would result in smaller benefit increases in future years.


Statistics supplied by opponents say the change would mean Social Security recipients would get $6,000 less in benefits over the first 15 years of chained CPI.


However, Carney, the White House spokesman, said Obama's CPI proposal includes a provision "that would protect vulnerable communities including the very elderly when it comes to Social Security recipients." He called the president's acceptance of the chained CPI a signal of his willingness to compromise.


Congress had been scheduled to end its work last week, but legislators returned to Washington on Monday and leaders warned members to be prepared to stay until Christmas, return after the holiday and stay until the end of the year.


Last week, U.S. Rep. Chris Van Hollen, D-Maryland, said a deal would have to be reached by Christmas to allow time for the legislative process to approve the required measure or measures by the end of the year.


CNN's Dan Lothian, Dana Bash, Deirdre Walsh and Brianna Keilar contributed to this report.






Read More..