NRA Calls For Armed School Guards

The NRA held a press conference today calling for armed guards in schools.

"The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun."

The NRA says our existing gun laws are sufficient.

Mr. LaPierre said Friday that thousands of gun laws already are on the books. He suggested, though, that the prescription was not more legislation, but more security in schools.

Former Congressman (and DEA Director) Asa Hutchinson will lead their effort to get Congress to adopt their ideas. [More...]

He called on Congress to immediately appropriate whatever is necessary to put police officers in every single school in this nation, but he said massive funding should not be required for this effort. Asa Hutchinson, a former congressman from Arkansas, will lead the NRA's effort to develop a school shield program.

La Pierre says kids are used to seeing armed guards at airports, sports stadiums, banks and other public places.

La Pierre says armed guards at schools is just one component of their proposed solutions.

La Pierre also blamed violent video games. The full text of his remarks are here.

< Thursday Night News and Open Thread | John Kerry Named Secretary Of State >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    LaPierre and NRA blame everyone and (5.00 / 6) (#1)
    by caseyOR on Fri Dec 21, 2012 at 01:26:10 PM EST
    everything, except guns, for all the killing with guns.

    Yes, we have mentally ill people in the U.S. We have violent video games and violent movies and TV programs. And so does every other industrialized nation. Yet, the U.S. is the only industrialized country plagued with so many shootings and gun deaths.

    What makes us different are our lax gun regulations. Great Britain has all those violent things minus an armed population. Ditto Australia. Ditto so many other countries.

    No mental illness data base will ever be as effective a deterrent to mass shootings as smart and sensible gun regulations will be.

    Either we are serious about dealing with our epidemic of gun violence or we are not. It's time to put up or shut up.

    Odd about switzerland... (1.00 / 1) (#42)
    by redwolf on Fri Dec 21, 2012 at 09:17:51 PM EST
    The murder rate in Switzerland has been almost nothing for centuries and they're armed with fully automatic weapons.

    By contrast England has banned all guns and their gun homicide rate continues to clime year after year.  Face it folks, it's the make up of your country that determines how violent it is.

    The only possible thing that would have prevented this tragedy is committing Adam Lanza as soon as requested by his mother.  We've got a real problem in this country with crazy people committing horrible crimes.  The solution is simple:  Place the mentally ill in humane treatment centers.   Don't let them run free.  They'll be better off, we'll be better off and we won't have children murdered in class rooms.


    Mythbusting: Israel and Switzerland (5.00 / 2) (#44)
    by MO Blue on Fri Dec 21, 2012 at 09:46:28 PM EST
    are not gun-toting utopias

    Janet Rosenbaum: First of all, because they don't have high levels of gun ownership. The gun ownership in Israel and Switzerland has decreased.
    Both countries require you to have a reason to have a gun. There isn't this idea that you have a right to a gun. You need a reason. And then you need to go back to the permitting authority every six months or so to assure them the reason is still valid.
    Everyone in Switzerland serves in the army, and the cantons used to let you have the guns at home. They've been moving to keeping the guns in depots. That means they're not in the household, which makes sense because the literature shows us that if the gun is in the household, the risk goes up for everyone in the household. link

    Not really "odd" (5.00 / 3) (#59)
    by Yman on Sat Dec 22, 2012 at 08:19:37 AM EST
    You're citing a favorite, gun-advocates myth.

    Everyone does not have automatic weapons in Switzerland.  You need a permit and you must register your gun.  People who have completed their military service may choose to keep their converted semi-automatic weapon, but they get no ammunition.  Ammunition sales, gun sales and even transportation of guns is highly regulated.

    BTW - Nancy Lanza's attempt to have her son committed is a rumor reported by Fox and a couple tabloids.


    Switzerland's gun culture is different because (none / 0) (#45)
    by Angel on Fri Dec 21, 2012 at 09:53:29 PM EST
      the Swiss believe their guns should be used to protect their country, not themselves against other Swiss citizens.  

    Switzerland has more suicides by gun than any (none / 0) (#46)
    by Angel on Fri Dec 21, 2012 at 09:56:35 PM EST
    other European country.  

    Switzerland is not a high-crime area (none / 0) (#47)
    by Trickster on Fri Dec 21, 2012 at 09:57:04 PM EST
    But 40 of 53 homicides in Switzerland in 2010 (apparently the most recent year reported) were gun homicides.

    Odd (5.00 / 2) (#2)
    by vicndabx on Fri Dec 21, 2012 at 01:26:54 PM EST
    The NRA bemoans the violence in our society and proposes to expose more kids to it.

    The NRA and gun makers also dishonestly accuse (none / 0) (#82)
    by shoephone on Tue Dec 25, 2012 at 02:43:18 PM EST
    video games of being the real culprit, in an effort to say "our hands are clean." But their hands are not clean, because the video game industry has a direct marketing relationship with gun manufacturers.

    While studies have found no connection between video games and gun violence, the case of Medal of Honor Warfighter illustrates how the firearms and video game industries have quietly forged a mutually beneficial marketing relationship.

    Many of the same producers of firearms and related equipment are also financial backers of the N.R.A. McMillan, for example, is a corporate donor to the group, and Magpul recently joined forces with it in a product giveaway featured on Facebook. The gun group also lists Glock, Browning and Remington as corporate sponsors.

    Makers of firearms and related gear have come to see video games as a way to promote their brands to millions of potential customers, marketing experts said. Magpul and Electronic Arts made a video posted on YouTube about their partnership.

    "It is going to help brand perceptions," said Stacy Jones, the president of Hollywood Branded, a company that specializes in product placement in movies and television shows.

    When asked for comment, the gun makers and the NRA don't want to answer the phone. Surprise, surprise.


    Mark Kelly, husband of Gabby Giffords, (5.00 / 4) (#5)
    by shoephone on Fri Dec 21, 2012 at 02:04:52 PM EST
    posted this statement, following LaPierre's speech:

    "Gabby and I are extremely disappointed by the NRA's defiant and delayed response to the massacre of 20 children and six adults at Sandy Hook Elementary School. 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."

    He made the mistake... (none / 0) (#63)
    by unitron on Sat Dec 22, 2012 at 09:15:40 AM EST
    ...of thinking that the NRA represents gun owners, and not gun makers.

    Yves Smith has a good post up on (5.00 / 3) (#6)
    by Anne on Fri Dec 21, 2012 at 02:09:23 PM EST
    all of this, which I highly recommend, here.

    From the post:

    Against these costs, the arguments made by gun enthusiasts are remarkably unpersuasive. The one that has merit is that many people who live in rural settings hunt, and for some, hunting is an important source of food. But it would not be difficult to devise either taxes or prohibitions around this use.

    The other arguments made are defense against crimes and to combat the power of the state. The latter can be dismissed pretty easily; we already HAVE a police state. What exactly have our heavily armed gun enthusiasts done about it? Now that New York City has the seventh largest army in the world, states and cities are looking at buying drones, and state of the art crowd control technology includes sound weapons and friction-reducing liquids (so if you try moving you can't get your footing), the time for well armed militias to defend our liberties has come and gone.

    Really informative chart, from Charles Blow, that is well worth a look.

    From that post:

    In the wake of the horrible school shooting in Connecticut and on the heels of politicians finally being smoked out into the open to talk seriously about sensible gun control policies, it's important that we understand just how anomalous America is on the issues of guns and violence among developed countries. This table shows how shamefully we measure up against other countries in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. Among the O.E.C.D. countries that the World Bank groups as "high income," America has the highest gun homicide rate, the highest number of guns per capita and the highest rate of deaths due to assault. In fact, America has more homicides by gun than all of the other high-income O.E.C.D. countries combined.

    It's just shameful.

    Yes, it sure is.

    And at a time when state and local school districts are laying off teachers, it wouldn't sit well with me for funds to magically be found so armed guards can be stationed in schools, either.

    yves smith (1.00 / 2) (#39)
    by TeresaInPa on Fri Dec 21, 2012 at 08:44:13 PM EST
    is a moron apparently, or a spineless sea creature.  His answer is we are already f*cked so bend over and enjoy it?  It's both tinfoil hattish and gutless at the same time.  It's truly stupid, not worthy of you Anne

    As for Mr Blow, his information falls in to the category of "No Shit Sherlock".  Anne, don't you ever just want to say "Now can we have some suggestions that will actually work, that are new and creative and not just the same old talking points that set people to digging in their heels?"


    Not familiar with Ms. (yes, it's "Ms") (5.00 / 5) (#41)
    by Anne on Fri Dec 21, 2012 at 08:59:09 PM EST
    Smith, I see, nor did you apparently read her post; if you had you would know that the last point she was trying to make was was that "we are already f*cked so bend over and enjoy it."

    Didn't look at the chart in Charles' post, either, did you?

    I'd suggest you might be embarrassed to know how wrong you are on this, but I don't think you do embarrassment.

    I'll say one thing - you take chutzpah to a whole new level.

    Amazing to me the amount of vituperation you can spew and the assumptions you can pull out of your a$$; gotta say, it sure makes me hope you don't own any guns.


    The Bureau of Justice Statistics (none / 0) (#14)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Dec 21, 2012 at 02:57:39 PM EST
    has this chart.

    Here is the full report, issued in Feb. 2012.


    Well, that's certainly wiser than (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by Towanda on Fri Dec 21, 2012 at 02:39:18 PM EST
    calling for arming the union thugs!

    Of course, this also could be a way to increase the salaries of teachers -- because you can count on more leaving schools turned into military zones, and you can count on accelerating the decline already in education-degree enrollments, since the increase in the demonization of teachers and destruction of their unions.  

    But I am surprised at the news that the school districts have funds to hire more armed guards, as they don't have funds to hire more teachers.  Or so they said.  Has the NRA exposed that as a lie?

    Or perhaps the armed guards will be funded from a new tax on every gun and every bullet sold.  I'm all for that.

    Last night google news (none / 0) (#10)
    by oculus on Fri Dec 21, 2012 at 02:45:52 PM EST
    included an article about a man who volunteered to stand guard at a local school. He did so for a couple days in a Marine uniform. He was armed. But he misrepresented his military background and was asked to leave. He was 't in the reserves, he had been on active duty, but only for 6 months, and was never deployed to Iraq or Afghanistan. .  

    So he is a liar and perhaps (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by Towanda on Fri Dec 21, 2012 at 03:05:05 PM EST
    with mental health issues?  Oh, boy.  I saw a bit of that story on the tv, before this backstory emerged.

    For every seriously disturbed student in my daughter's class, there are seriously disturbed parents, siblings, etc.  They tend to be pro-gun.  They will be the first to volunteer.  What a wonderful idea.  

    <heading to the want-ad sites to find a different career for my daughter, as ed degrees fortunately are quite transferable to other fields>


    I really can't go w/ such generalities. (none / 0) (#25)
    by oculus on Fri Dec 21, 2012 at 05:11:55 PM EST
    Peter Overby, on NPR, just reported (none / 0) (#22)
    by shoephone on Fri Dec 21, 2012 at 04:29:45 PM EST
    that it would cost $80,000 a year for every armed guard posted at a school. $80,000 for each one. LaPierre says this is something that Congress needs to pay for. Translation: You and I are being asked to pay through our tax dollars for this insanity. But, wait, isn't the rest of the GOP still screaming that we need to drastically cut spending? I guess LaPierre and Boehner and McConnell are gonna haveto hold a little pow-wow over that.

    Well, sure (none / 0) (#23)
    by Zorba on Fri Dec 21, 2012 at 04:46:54 PM EST
    What did you expect, shoephone?  Money for the military-industrial complex, and let us now include armed guards at every school in this (not to mention money for more prisons and money to monitor our citizens) = good.  Money for social programs, educational programs that actually teach our kids, protecting our environment, for old people dependent upon Social Security and Medicare (people who have paid into the system their whole lives), money to make sure that the drugs, food, and consumer goods that we buy do not sicken or kill us or the workers producing them = bad.  

    As Christie points out schools have (none / 0) (#28)
    by MO Blue on Fri Dec 21, 2012 at 05:25:12 PM EST
    several doors.

    New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie (R) on Friday said he doesn't think putting armed guards in every school is a sound response to last week's massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary in Newtown, Conn.

    "In general I don't think that the solution to safety in schools is putting an armed guard because for it to be really effective in my view, from a law enforcement perspective, you have to have an armed guard at every classroom," Christie said while appearing at an event in Newark, N.J. "Because if you just have an armed guard at the front door then what if this guy had gone around to the side door? There's many doors in and out of schools." link

    $80,000 times the number of doors in each school times the number of schools could add up to some serious $$$.


    Christies argument is rather ridiculous (none / 0) (#30)
    by Slayersrezo on Fri Dec 21, 2012 at 05:32:49 PM EST
     Even buying into the argument you need "armed guards" instead of doing as some schools do and having a gun available in a locked place to a Principal or something of that nature, this is still ridiculous.

    The presence of the armed person will probably deter some would-be shooters, and for those not deterred by knowing there's an armed presence, there's still the fact that not everyone would be helpless. In the present case IF she had been armed it's possible the school principal would have taken this guy out thus saving quite a few lives, instead of wasting her life and merely delaying him. The idea isn't to guard every door but to have a first responder nearly immediately available.

    Seriously, "gun free" zones might as well be called "kill here" zones. After all, the shooters in these things often have free reign of the area for at the minimum several minutes because it takes quite a bit of time for external help to arrive.


    15 people were killed at Columbine (4.20 / 5) (#31)
    by MO Blue on Fri Dec 21, 2012 at 05:59:43 PM EST
    Columbine had a armed Jefferson County Sheriff's Deputy at the school when Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris killed 13 people and themselves.

    And he was told to not go in (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Dec 21, 2012 at 10:48:16 PM EST
    and to wait for the SWAT team.

    Had he went in, as requested, it is obvious that lives would have been saved.

    Here are some more examples:



    A link to a conservative blog - heh (5.00 / 2) (#60)
    by Yman on Sat Dec 22, 2012 at 08:31:43 AM EST
    BTW - He was actually pinned down at his patrol car, outgunned by Harris (and Klebold).  But maybe you're right - maybe lives would have been saved if he had entered the school and faced the two armed people with more weapons/ammunition instead of following orders.  Or, he would have died, too.

    If only our hero Jim was there.


    Some of you may have noted that (2.00 / 1) (#62)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Dec 22, 2012 at 08:56:14 AM EST
    I never respond to Yman.

    After years of personal attacks by him and his continual demonstration of an inability to debate the issues I am forced to note that discussing anything with him is not worthwhile. Simply put, he is incapable of a reasoned debate.

    In this case I provided a link with details.

    Note that he doesn't dispute the content. Instead he claims that it is "conservative."

    As we debate the serious issues that we confront as a society do any of you doubt that calling a source "conservative" or "liberal" shows that the person has a closed mind and wants only to disagree??


    You just did, Jim (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by Yman on Sat Dec 22, 2012 at 03:31:18 PM EST
    But, as usual, you do it indirectly, rather than head-on.  Says a lot.

    BTW - You provided a link to a conservative blog, as opposed to an actual news source or study.  On those rare occasions that you actually do provide a link, that's as good as it gets.

    But your outrage about "personal attacks" - followed immediately by a personal attack - was very funny.  It's also pretty funny that you call me "incapable of a reasoned debate", considering that you usually provide no evidence or links, and when you do it's opinion pieces on winger blogs.  When confronted with actual news reports and scientific studies, you run and hide.  we won't even get in to your use of logic.


    You mean (5.00 / 2) (#68)
    by NYShooter on Sat Dec 22, 2012 at 08:47:58 PM EST
    like rejecting climate change science?

    "Our own Pentagon, the insurance industry, the World Bank, the United Nations, the American Meteorological Society and virtually every other country in the world accepts the science."

    Jim, show Yman he's wrong. Debate the facts and prove to him these organizations are full of hooey.


    No shooter, he ain't worth the effort. (2.00 / 1) (#73)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Dec 23, 2012 at 01:31:49 PM EST
    I'd rather let him show who he is. I mean he does such a good job of it.

    As for global warming, or is it now "climate change?"

    The world stopped getting warmer almost 16 years ago, according to new data released last week.

    The figures, which have triggered debate among climate scientists, reveal that from the beginning of 1997 until August 2012, there was no discernible rise in aggregate global temperatures.

    This means that the `plateau' or `pause' in global warming has now lasted for about the same time as the previous period when temperatures rose, 1980 to 1996. Before that, temperatures had been stable or declining for about 40 years.


    BTW - Is Canada a country????


    LOL!!! From the Daily Mail Online, (5.00 / 4) (#74)
    by shoephone on Sun Dec 23, 2012 at 02:10:41 PM EST
    a wacko right wing operation. That opinion piece (and that's what it is) doesn't even link to the study which was "issued quietly on the internet."

    The new data, compiled from more than 3,000 measuring points on land and sea, was issued  quietly on the internet, without any media fanfare, and, until today, it has not been reported.

    Absolutely hilarious. Good one, Jim. Thanks for a Sunday morning laugh.

    Here's some legitimate information from a legitimate organization called NOAA (you may have heard of it?), based on peer-reviewed studies, which are linked to.

    An excerpt for your viewing pleasure:

    Although each of the proxy temperature records shown below is different, due in part to the diverse statistical methods utilized and sources of the proxy data, they all indicate similar patterns of temperature variability over the last 500 to 2000 years. Most striking is the fact that each record reveals a steep increase in the rate or spatial extent of warming since the mid-19th to early 20th centuries. When compared to the most recent decades of the instrumental record, they indicate the temperatures of the most recent decades are the warmest in the entire record. In addition, warmer than average temperatures are more widespread over the Northern Hemisphere in the 20th century than in any previous time.

    The similarity of characteristics among the different paleoclimatic reconstructions provides confidence in the following important conclusions:

    *Dramatic warming has occurred since the 19th century.

    *The recent record warm temperatures in the last 15 years are indeed the warmest temperatures the Earth has seen in at least the last 1000 years, and possibly in the last 2000 years.



    Uh, the Daily is a NEWSPAPER (2.00 / 1) (#76)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Dec 24, 2012 at 09:39:31 AM EST
    and it does things like quote experts and publish results..... IT DOES NOT do studies.... Now, speaking of experts....

    Some climate scientists, such as Professor Phil Jones, director of the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, last week dismissed the significance of the plateau, saying that 15 or 16 years is too short a period from which to draw conclusions.

    Others disagreed. Professor Judith Curry, who is the head of the climate science department at America's prestigious Georgia Tech university, told The Mail on Sunday that it was clear that the computer models used to predict future warming were `deeply flawed'.

    So we have a study that says the change has plateaued and existed for as long as the increase that is used to claim we must destroy our economy even further.... So what do we do?? We say... wait!!! That study doesn't count!!!!!!!!!

    Really??? And we shouldn't pay attention to professors from Georgia Tech.... I mean that school is just so non-technical and non-scientific...

    shoephone, you can't make a point because you, unlike me, are a believer. You see it as a religion. And we all know religions are faith based...not fact based.


    A "newspaper" - heh (5.00 / 2) (#78)
    by Yman on Mon Dec 24, 2012 at 12:11:53 PM EST
    No, Jim.  It's a right-wing tabloid that has no journalistic standards, which is why you always manage to quote it - along with its American counterpart Faux News.  The reason it's important to cite reputable sources is because the others have trouble with basic journalism and reporting.  For example, Judith Curry herself has pointed out that she was not saying and did not say what the Daily Mail claimed.  She felt so strongly about the mischaracterization of her statements that she posted about the article on her blog:

    "I have no idea where the `deeply flawed' came from, I did not use these words in any context that Rose should be quoted (perhaps I used them somewhere on my blog?)  Also, I agree that 16 years is too short,  given the timescales of the PDO and AMO, to separate out natural versus anthropogenic variability (but this cuts both ways:  the warming period between 1980 and 1998 was arguably amped by the PDO and AMO)."

    Turns out, Jim, that the "deeply flawed" conclusion was merely the Daily Mail's mischaracterization of what she actually said.  Your expert actually agrees with the point Phil Jones was making.

    Double fail.


    BTW - Here's a link (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by Yman on Mon Dec 24, 2012 at 12:16:27 PM EST
    ... to the article on her blog where she points out she did not say what the Daily Mail claimed.

    Hint - If you had actually provided a link to the Mail article, I might not have searched for it and discovered that the Mail's quotes were false!


    Jeez Jim (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by MyLeftMind on Mon Dec 24, 2012 at 01:25:35 PM EST
    You're smarter than that. Go outside and look at the sky. It has a brown tinge to it. When we were kids, the sky was blue, now it's brownish. Do you think a change in sky color was caused by "natural events?" Are cancer rates skyrocketing because of something in nature other than increased pollution and massive use of pesticides? What's so bad about trying to protect the earth from corporate polluters? Will the economy tank if billionaires aren't allowed to poison us? Even if there's a chance we could save endangered species (and ourselves) by polluting less, wouldn't that be worth the effort to try?

    FAIL. (none / 0) (#77)
    by shoephone on Mon Dec 24, 2012 at 11:19:33 AM EST
    Very good, Jim! (5.00 / 2) (#75)
    by Yman on Mon Dec 24, 2012 at 09:27:22 AM EST
    Canada IS a country, but sadly (for you), they also recognize the huge body of data and science that supports the concepts of MMGW.  From the Canadian government's very own website:

    Human activity has now become the main cause of recent climate change. The strong global warming observed since the mid-20th century has been largely attributed to human influences on the climate. Global warming refers to the observed long-term rise in global average surface temperature and is one manifestation of climate change. The rate of global warming over the last half of the 20th century was about twice that for the whole century. This human influence results primarily from the burning of fossil fuels such as coal, oil, and natural gas. Burning these fuels generates carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas. Land use changes, such as deforestation and conversion of land to agriculture, have also contributed carbon dioxide to the atmosphere.


    Climate change is considered one of the most important environmental issues of our time. This concern reflects the reality that so much of human activity is sensitive to climate change, and that adapting to current and projected rates of climate change could be very challenging. It also reflects the understanding that human perturbation of the climate system is essentially irreversible, for many centuries at least. How much climate change future generations are exposed to will be determined by the actions that we take over the coming decades to reduce human impacts on the climate system. ...

    Although climate change can be caused by both natural processes and human activities, the recent warming has been largely attributed to human activity, primarily the release of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases to the atmosphere. These gases enhance the insulating properties of the atmosphere, reducing heat loss, thereby warming the planet. Continued emission of these gases is the primary cause for concern about climate change now and into the immediate future.

    I presume you're asking about Canada because they withdrew from Kyoto and (in your mind) that means they reject climate change.  Of course, they withdrew from Kyoto for a number of reasons (mainly potential financial penalties for their failure to meet agreed benchmarks), but not because they deny climate change.  Even Harper's conservative government is spending large amounts of money to combat the effects of climate change while they pursue the Durban agreement in lieu of Kyoto.  Moreover, Canadians themselves aren't dumb, either.  86% of Canadians acknowledge that climate change is caused by either human sources or a combination of human and natural source.  Only 9% believe it is due to natural cause, while 2% think it isn't even happening.

    Care to try again?


    Whoops (4.20 / 5) (#40)
    by Yman on Fri Dec 21, 2012 at 08:54:51 PM EST
    That doesn't fit the fairy tale narrative designed to deflect gun control measures.

    Virginia Tech also had its own police force including an Emergency Response Team.


    Unless he is planning to give this program (none / 0) (#71)
    by MO Blue on Sun Dec 23, 2012 at 10:50:36 AM EST
    and services away free, it appears that LaPierre  may be using this tragedy to line NRA's pockets.

    Mr. LaPierre said the NRA would create a model school-safety program, including suggestions for the use of armed security at schools, for school design and other security elements. The NRA suggested that such a program could draw on volunteers, such as retired law-enforcement and military personnel, to help provide security.

    His remarks were, simply, a call to arms (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by Trickster on Fri Dec 21, 2012 at 09:46:02 PM EST
    Clearly, he threw down the gauntlet.

    Not very smart, and too hubristic. Yesterday, the NRA was the weakest it has been probably in decades. Today, after this farce of a "press conference," it is significantly weaker than it was yesterday. Meanwhile, gun-control advocates are the strongest they have been in decades.

    He wants war. Let's give it to him.

    Even the New York Post realizes that the NRA (none / 0) (#66)
    by caseyOR on Sat Dec 22, 2012 at 02:17:21 PM EST
    and Wayne LaPierre have gone over to the dark side.

    Today's NY Post front page.

    If you've lost Rupert Murdoch have you lost the country?


    When my grandchildren were living (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by Amiss on Sat Dec 22, 2012 at 01:53:00 AM EST
    near me, their schools had armed guards at each door and they were not allowed to bring a backpack to school.
    In Camden county Ga. (Kings Bay nuclear sub base), there are no arrmed guards, they have what I would call an ante-room with an attendant on duty and you must be "buzzed" in to gain entrance to any part of the school. I am not familiar enough to know if all of the glass is "bullerproof", but I feel it is a much better arrangement, especially for kindergartten and elementary aged childen than "good men" carrying more guns.
    It has been my experience in life that fighting fire with fire doesn't work and you are still left with a fire.
    I believe the NRA is way off-base with their suggestions and are only looking out for themselves and have no idea how to
    "Protect" our children.

    Boy Howdy (5.00 / 2) (#70)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Dec 23, 2012 at 10:00:51 AM EST
    Can't wait for our children to try to survive crossfire, as if avoiding one person shooting isn't difficult enough.

    Sad to say, but I'm not at all surprised at the (3.67 / 3) (#9)
    by Angel on Fri Dec 21, 2012 at 02:41:33 PM EST
    NRA's desire to arm our schools to the teeth.  The NRA is an organization controlled and comprised of selfish, slaughter-happy, soulless morons.

    I've read the majority of dues-paying (none / 0) (#11)
    by oculus on Fri Dec 21, 2012 at 02:48:07 PM EST
    members favor some regulation of firearms.  

    If I were one of those NRA members, (5.00 / 2) (#13)
    by Anne on Fri Dec 21, 2012 at 02:56:59 PM EST
    and my dues were going to pay Wayne LaPierre to make the kinds of proposals he's making, and pay lobbyists to push LaPierre's insane agenda, my membership card would be on its way, in little bitty pieces, right back to NRA HQ, along with any bumper stickers, patches and paraphernalia.

    Maybe they need to take that kind of hit before they wake up and start listening to their members.


    Membership is soaring (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Dec 21, 2012 at 03:18:24 PM EST
    since the shooting. 8,000 new members a day. There are 310 million non-military firearms in the U.S. There are 314 million people. By the numbers.

    You would never be an NRA member so what you do with your membership after hearing Wayne La Pierre is meaningless. They are listening to their members and their members don't think more firearm restrictions are warranted. Gun control advocates don't speak for NRA members. That they can find a few NRA members who disagree does not mean a significant number of members disagree. You do, we get that.


    Have you ever had a gun... (5.00 / 3) (#19)
    by Dadler on Fri Dec 21, 2012 at 03:59:27 PM EST
    ...pointed at you in anger?  Just curious. Jeralyn, I'm sure you realize a good percentage of people on this site seem to find your views on guns both unpersuasive and poorly explained.  You talk in a very academic and constitutional manner (and several horrible things written into the original constitution have been excised), not in a personal or experienced one.

    For heaven's sake, the country is in the middle of a huge economic debate, the foundation of which is the paradigm that people don't matter as much as money. Indeed, and obviously so, we are a country that operates on the principal that money matters more than humans, that is just a fact, or we would not even be having the discussions we're having, in the context we are having them.  And the debate about guns right now that you are proposing is, in many odd ways, operating on the same level: these inanimate killing objects are too important to radically alter our views on, or to diminish in supply, so they are off limits; too bad humans.

    Very strange.

    And I'm serious about my earlier question: have you ever been held at gunpoint, ever pissed your pants because you were convinced that was it, you were about to get shot? Because if you have, and still have the view on gun proliferation that you do, it would be enlightening. I have been in that position twice, once as a 12 year-old kid, once as a young adult, and both times I assumed I was dead and soiled myself. Whether you believe this or not, I know and remember exactly how I felt both times, the fear, the anger, the disgust, the rage, the helplessness. And I never felt the need to go buy a gun, I never want to hold one. But I am forced to live in a world where proliferation of guns is what matters first, human safety a distant second: guns matter more than people, just like money.

    But they are small and easy to hide, I realize, and we have allowed so many to spread around. So our lax enforcement and piecemeal social solutions bring even worse consequences.

    And violent video games, many of them disgust me as well, my kid will never play them in my house, but is LaPierre going to criticize the US government for training soldiers on those same types of games. Of course not. But hey, no disgruntled, PTSD suffering soldiers ever come home and commit acts of desperate violence. Uh...

    Because yes, on top of it, we are a dying military empire killing people all over the world every day for capricious reasons.

    We are a very screwed up place psychologically. Tragically so right now. But we have still have a chance, if we cafe to have it.


    that should read "if we CARE to have it" (none / 0) (#20)
    by Dadler on Fri Dec 21, 2012 at 04:01:34 PM EST
    I can't answer for Jeralyn (none / 0) (#24)
    by Slayersrezo on Fri Dec 21, 2012 at 05:00:09 PM EST
    But I can answer for me:
    I was held at gunpoint once as I've detailed on this site before.

    The fact that my city has a ban on handguns, a ban on tasers, a ban on pepper spray and doesn't allow bulletproof vests did absolutely nothing to protect me. I should also point out I was two blocks away from the main police station in Baltimore.

    Now the question here isn't objects over people, Dadler. It's do you trust people with certain objects or not? For most people have access to at least two deadly tools daily: cars, knives.
    Given that there are so many guns and so few of these crimes, I'm inclined to trust people. Esp. since I've been in both a gun-culture state, and an "anti-gun culture" city, and I know which place I feel safer.

    I'm for reasonable gun control -though lots of the reasonable stuff has already been done, and I'm not sure much can be done beyond what I've already proposed to lower the incidence of already rare instances such as this. But while I might discuss gun control with someone like you, it's hard to do so with so many people on these threads who either demonize or otherwise dehumnize gun owners or act as if guns are objects of intrinsic evil instead of tools that can be used for both good and bad purposes.


    Slayer, while I have not (none / 0) (#29)
    by Zorba on Fri Dec 21, 2012 at 05:32:22 PM EST
    been held at gunpoint, I have a very close friend who was.  And we do own a rifle (a single-shot, though) and two shotguns (one a single-shot and one that holds five shells), and our son, who lives with us, has a legally registered (and locked in a gun safe) handgun.
    So I am not at all one who would demonize gun owners, since I am one.  However, I cannot for the life of me understand why there has to be available magazines that hold 10, 20 or more bullets.
    In fact, why have magazines at all?  I can load five shells in our shotgun.  If I cannot shoot an intruder with five shells, then I am too incompetent to own a weapon (and, BTW, I hold a Marksman rating from the ROTC class I took in college).  If a deer (or whatever) hunter cannot bring down his/her game with five or six shots, then that person does not need to be hunting.
    Yes, people certainly have access to knives and to cars.  Although they are not quite the same thing.  A knife (or, for that matter, a Samurai sword) can stab and injure/kill a lot of people.  A car, in the hands of someone impaired or incompetent, can do the same.
    But I do not see that knife-wielder (despite the person in Japan who stabbed a bunch of people, who, BTW, are injured but not dead), or that car driver deliberately killing a bunch of little kids.
    This type of thing is, indeed, an anomaly.  I do not have any final answer.  I am not that wise.  I just wish that I were.

    Well, I'm not Slayer, but back in the day (none / 0) (#32)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Dec 21, 2012 at 05:59:54 PM EST
    when I lived in AZ, my buddies and I used to hunt javelina (delish!).

    I had a little .22 cal semi-auto rifle with a 10 round magazine (I don't think they make a smaller mag).

    Granted, I probably should have been using something more powerful, but with the distance, intervening shrubs & trees, etc., and the fact that javelina are fast and tough SOBs and often didn't go down after just one hit, and not wanting to have a situation where there was a wounded animal suffering unnecessarily, it often took more quick shots than you might think would be needed to bring the animal down.

    Also, when plinking cans, it's fun to make them dance by hitting them repeatedly shot after shot.

    It's a lot more convenient. I use about 1 gallon of gas to get to and from work. I don't need the 20 gal tank I have in my car, but I sure wouldn't want a car with a 2 gal tank.

    And, of course, there is the self-protection/2A aspect of having multiple rounds that I think we've already seen your opinion on...


    Yes, well (5.00 / 3) (#35)
    by Zorba on Fri Dec 21, 2012 at 06:42:51 PM EST
    "plinking cans" repeatedly, shot after shot, I'm sure it's fun, sarc.  Although I would not say that "fun" is a great argument for Second Amendment rights.  ;-)
    And as far as self-protection, yes, you certainly do know my opinions on that.  I think that we, here, are fully capable of repelling any home invaders.  I would not, in fact, invite you to try it.  
    OTOH, I admit that we are not capable of going against a rogue government.  And I'm betting that neither are you.  Just saying.

    recipes, I see no reason for anyone to invade your home. I very well may not be capable of "going against a rogue government," but I certainly prefer having the the option to do so instead of having no choice at all.

    Peace, Zorba.


    LOL! (none / 0) (#65)
    by Zorba on Sat Dec 22, 2012 at 12:53:16 PM EST
    Only those who are too lazy to cook might perhaps want to invade, to steal already-prepared dishes.    ;-)
    Peace to you, as well, sarc.

    Maybe not plinking with (none / 0) (#50)
    by MKS on Fri Dec 21, 2012 at 10:32:54 PM EST
    a semi-automatic, but it would be fun to have  a couple of hand grenades and just blow stuff up on a firing range.  And they would help me to resist the federal government too.

    What does the Second Amendment protect? (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by MKS on Fri Dec 21, 2012 at 10:48:30 PM EST
    Even under Heller, which I believe was wrongly decided, the focus is on having a weapon for personal safety.  If that is the right being protected, then the long-standing ban on machine guns, and a potential ban on semi-automatic weapons and on magazines holding more than a few bullets, would be just fine.

    As to this idea of armed resistance against the federal government, the Second Amendment did talk about militias.  But modern technology has made the Second Amendment obsolete in terms of resisiting the federal government.  In 1789, muskets could constitute effective resistance against King George or even our then new government here.  Not so anymore--one needs drones, helicopters and RPGs, weapons even the NRA does not suggest are protected by the Second Amendment.

    But the argument I would like to see further explored is that the Civil War has eliminated armed resistance to the federal government as a legitimate reason for having guns.  Ever since Robert E. Lee surrended to U.S. Grant at Appomattox Courthouse, armed resistance to the government has been considered treason....  It seems to me that trumps any Second Amendment right to militarily rebel against our government.


    Heller (none / 0) (#64)
    by Cylinder on Sat Dec 22, 2012 at 12:15:13 PM EST
    Heller, in my layperson reading, prohibits the government from banning firearms a "in common use" so a hypothetical future court upholding that decision would definitely prohibit a semi-auto ban - which is a wider and more common catagory than handguns.

    range to blow stuff up would be loads of fun! And, of course, completely equivalent to the 22 I discussed. Hey, sorry that it doesn't float your boat, but I sure won't hold it against ya.

    If self-protection ... (none / 0) (#61)
    by Yman on Sat Dec 22, 2012 at 08:37:04 AM EST
    ... (particularly from governments) is the rationale behind the 2A, why wouldn't the right to "bear arms" stop muskets/swords?  If it has evolved to include modern weapons, why not machine guns, RPGs and missiles?

    No one can answer such a simple question.


    I have been held at gunpoint by thieves twice. Both times while I was in my mid-20's.

    Seriously? (none / 0) (#26)
    by oculus on Fri Dec 21, 2012 at 05:12:40 PM EST
    Completely. (none / 0) (#27)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Dec 21, 2012 at 05:21:49 PM EST
    Good point (none / 0) (#36)
    by NYShooter on Fri Dec 21, 2012 at 07:51:13 PM EST
    And, I presume you were not "carrying" at the time. But, as research has shown irrefutably, and, as it's impossible to know how you would have reacted if you were carrying, it probably saved your life.

    And, fwiw, if this example doesn't fit you exactly, it does in most generic ones.


    Good point?! (none / 0) (#54)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Dec 21, 2012 at 11:48:39 PM EST
    What, in god's name, was my point?

    That wasn't my read of J. Merritt's posts (none / 0) (#49)
    by Mr Natural on Fri Dec 21, 2012 at 10:21:32 PM EST
    Some or most of us are allowing our biases to colour our reads of each other's posts.  As a result, we are becoming way too harsh with each other.

    There isn't anyone here who doesn't most of the time treat the others here as friends.  Can't we cool off a bit, especially on an issue as raw as this one?


    I was an NRA member (5.00 / 5) (#38)
    by Yman on Fri Dec 21, 2012 at 08:11:32 PM EST
    Did the hunter safety course in school, competed in target competitions, etc.  I left the NRA after they began taking extreme positions against reasonable gun control laws.  The last straw for me at that time was their opposition to the banning of armor-piercing bullets.

    Since the 80's and LaPierre's ascendency, their positions and rhetoric have become even more extreme.  They've opposed federal background checks for firearms purchases, 10 round limits for gun clips, and the assault weapons ban.  LaPieree has only made things worse with his fear-mongering and extremist/paranoid fundraising rhetoric.  In 1994, he claimed to have secret evidence that "the full scale war to ... eliminate private firearms ownership completely and forever" was "well underway".  He compared federal agents to Nazis ("jack-booted thugs") and accused president Clinton of allowing murders in order to further gun control measures.  The NRA has taken positions contrary not to just a "few" members, but large majorities of its members, including:

        1. Requiring criminal background checks on gun owners and gun shop employees. 74 percent of NRA gun owners support the former and 79 percent the latter.

        2. Prohibiting terrorist watch list members from acquiring guns - 71 percent of NRA members.

        3. Mandating that gun-owners tell the police when their gun is stolen - 64 percent of NRA members.

        4. Concealed carry permits should only be restricted to individuals who have completed a safety training course and are 21 and older - 74 percent of NRA member gun-owners support the safety training restriction and 63 percent the age restriction.

        5. Concealed carry permits shouldn't be given to perpetrators of violent misdemeanors or individuals arrested for domestic violence - 75 percent in favor of the violent misdemeanors provision and 78 percent/68 percent in favor of the domestic violence restriction.

         6.  Close the gunshow/no background check loophole - 69 percent support.

    The NRA has been out-of-touch on many issues for a long time.  If I has somehow been able to ignore their extreme rhetoric and positions over the past 3 decades and was still a member, I wouldn't be after LaPierre's press conference today.



    I know we're on different sides of gun control, (none / 0) (#18)
    by Angel on Fri Dec 21, 2012 at 03:39:28 PM EST
    Jeralyn, but I have to say that is one scary statistic.  8,000 new members a day since the shootings?  Truly, I find that frightening.  I don't understand why the membership has soared.

    "Scary" doesn't begin (none / 0) (#69)
    by NYShooter on Sat Dec 22, 2012 at 09:02:42 PM EST
    to describe the situation.

    Statistically, three quarters of NRA members favor tighter regulations on guns, and which people should have access to them. I can just imagine the psychological make-up of the people who rushed out to join after hearing La Pierre's rant.

    Just pitiful.


    Then I take back my comprised and double up on (none / 0) (#12)
    by Angel on Fri Dec 21, 2012 at 02:51:28 PM EST
    the controlled.

    Baltimore city Public schools (1.00 / 1) (#3)
    by Slayersrezo on Fri Dec 21, 2012 at 01:43:25 PM EST
    Have their own police force. Yes, it's real law enforcement with arrest powers, and yes it's armed.


    Seriously, you'd think the schools in many of our inner cities haven't been the next thing to war zones for 30 years now. Heck, my brother used to go to a local school called "Southern" about the time the Baltimore Sun (about 1993 or thereabouts) was running news reports about certain hallways being offlimits to staff due to violent drug dealers coming in off the streets.
    This isn't new, nor is the idea of either having armed guards (private or public) nor is having princpals or even teachers with access to guns something that is unknown in the USA.

    Oh well, back to munching popcorn as the historically ignorant continue to obsess over rare types of killings...

    Stimulus program (2.00 / 1) (#72)
    by diogenes on Sun Dec 23, 2012 at 11:51:43 AM EST
    Actually, in an age of permanent structural unemployment, this is a good job creation program to give jobs to honest, not too smart people who aren't good in math or science and will never get middle class jobs otherwise.  Think of it as a stimulus program.

    Does each Scholl have an armed guard (none / 0) (#4)
    by oculus on Fri Dec 21, 2012 at 01:52:42 PM EST
    Throughout each school day?

    That's also why this sh*t... (none / 0) (#17)
    by Dadler on Fri Dec 21, 2012 at 03:27:46 PM EST
    ...tends not to happen in urban schools. Many have had metal detectors for years. Ironies abound, none of them, not a one, reflecting well on society.

    "Historically ignorant"?!? (none / 0) (#33)
    by Yman on Fri Dec 21, 2012 at 06:04:23 PM EST
    Who is "historically ignorant"?

    Did someone actually say there are no police in any schools, or there are no schools permitting teachers/principles to have access to a gun?

    Gotta love the juvenile insults directed at imaginary/straw arguments.


    Shamefully transparent (none / 0) (#7)
    by hornplayer on Fri Dec 21, 2012 at 02:18:28 PM EST
    What a coincidence that turning our schools into armed camps will help weapons sales?

    The culture of fear that the NRA is encouraging is pretty terrifying.  It borders on Orwellian.

    well obviously our laws (none / 0) (#34)
    by TeresaInPa on Fri Dec 21, 2012 at 06:16:08 PM EST
    are not sufficient.  Some states like Pa have strict laws about gun sales at gun shows and other states do not, so what good is that?  CT has strict laws about who can own a gun, but if your mother has guns she is probably just fine owning....but she ignores the fact that her son shouldn't have access, well what good are CT's laws.  The NRA is almost right that we have sufficient laws, they just don't apply uniformly in the whole nation.  And to tell the truth, we need better methods of keeping guns out of the hands of kids, criminals and crazy people. So yes, there need to be new laws.

    In the meantime, when the left says just take all assault rifles and large clips etc... because people don't NEED them, I really wonder if people know how totalitarian that sounds?  Since when do Americans let the government tell them what they can have according to the government's deciding what they need?  That is just not going to fly.

    If you truly believe that (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by NYShooter on Fri Dec 21, 2012 at 08:05:21 PM EST
    "....The NRA is almost right that we have sufficient laws...."

    Then you believe in their position that no background checks should be required in gun sales/purchases.

    As I've pointed out here before, more than two million sales were denied in potential sales by legitimate, licensed gun dealers. That's two million people with mental problems, felony convictions, and other anti-social backgrounds that would be walking around among us with concealed weapons if the NRA had its way.

    But, thanks to the well financed lobbying efforts of the NRA, they were able to get exclusions for sales at "gun shows" and private sales. Guess where those two million folks who were denied went after being turned down?


    The NRA's got so many lobbyists... (none / 0) (#48)
    by Mr Natural on Fri Dec 21, 2012 at 10:04:39 PM EST
    ... the obvious solution is to put an armed lobbyist in every school.

    Or an armed NRA lobbyist in every (none / 0) (#53)
    by caseyOR on Fri Dec 21, 2012 at 10:48:41 PM EST
    Congressional office.

    I think they're already there (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by shoephone on Sat Dec 22, 2012 at 12:12:44 AM EST
    At least in the GOP offices.

    Arm the schools... (none / 0) (#81)
    by Lora on Tue Dec 25, 2012 at 01:25:37 PM EST
    ...and who's going to protect the firefighters?

    "...what it is ain't exactly clear..."

    SITE VIOLATOR (none / 0) (#84)
    by shoephone on Sat Mar 16, 2013 at 04:47:51 PM EST