NRA Press Conference: Guns in Schools

[Nadev]

Except that is NOT reasonable. We have history and examples to show this.

Such as...?

[Lenonis]

Of course. The only thing you need to teach your 7 year old about guns is to treat every gun as though it is loaded and the safety is off.

No arguments here. The poster I was responding to seems almost proud of his 7 year old's access to his guns. It's a recipe for disaster since kids just don't think about things like safety and danger like adults do...and all it would take is one moment of forgetfulness for tragedy to hit.

I can understand teaching your kids how to handle guns safely (although at 7 seems young even for that). But to give them unrestricted access? Seems irresponsible.

[Aeluron Lightsong]

At the very least gun laws need to be like license tabs for your car. Every view years you pay a sum and (in this case you should retake a test as well) keep the license.

Aeluron approves of this statement.

Yes. Its the way I was raised and the way I will raise my children. I don't own a gun safe to keep my family from getting in. I have one to keep others from getting in. I understand you might think its wrong, but I guess that's just your opinion.

You better hope for your sake your son really is *afraid*. Then again I try to not inspire fear in people, that's just me.

[Deleted]

The NRA is basically a front for the firearms producers, so guess what they want? oh yes, more people buying guns.

Its totally immoral, not to mention plain stupid.

There are few issues where I refuse to even consider the other side may have a point, this is one of them. Anyone against strong gun control is a nutter.

[Kathandira]

You mistake me for a strict constructionist.

There are, as always, reasonable bounds to gun ownership in the same way that there are reasonable bounds on free speech. Even though I am not sure it is even illegal to buy a tank. :|

This is what concerns me about the 2nd Amendment.

It's purpose was to take up arms if we ever needed to rebel against our government. So why wouldn't i be able to own a tank with ammo and all? People just want to have guns to protect themselves against civilians, but that was not the point to the 2nd amendment, it was to protect against the authorities.

Disclaimer: this is how i have always understood it. please don't flame me for my mistake if i have made one.

[Lenonis]

I understand you might think its wrong, but I guess that's just your opinion.

Just be aware you are putting your family more at risk having your guns unrestricted. Of course that is your choice and as I said earlier I hope for your family's sake you don't end up a statistic.

[The Riddler]

I don't agree with all the NRA's conclusions, but I do agree with much of the general sentiment.

Having armed people in Schools makes sense. Perfect solution? No - but there is no perfect solution. In most places, there are free training and certifications courses that are offered gratis to teachers or other school officials so this would be a low to no-cost fix. Having an armed guard would provide a critical buffer between a potential lunatic and students that would give time for law enforcement to arrive and prevent deaths. Gun-free zones were a terrible idea. "Maximum mayhem at minimum risk" indeed. Chicago was 'gun free' and gun violence skyrocketed. Derp.

There is no "one size fits all" solution. However, the media is clearly proposing a "one size" solution in their narrative by focusing only on gun-banning, increased regulation, and bad-mouthing the NRA while ignoring everything else. This is clearly a politically motivated and biased attitude. If the media is disdainful of the NRA and considers their position biased (they do), then they need to look in the mirror because that exactly what they're doing - just the other way around. If regulation of guns is good, then why wouldn't the nation also benefit just as much (or more) from regulating other areas like a mental-health registry or restrictions on violence in movies, music, the news, and other media?

But of course the media would drop their jaws in protest if anyone seriously said that they were just as culpable in this situation by glorifying violence, fixating on violence in their broadcasts, and talking about every violent event ad nauseum 24/7/364. The media would cringe at the suggestion that just maybe violence would decrease if they were regulated and restricted from vomiting violent content into the public discourse. The media would howl with outrage at the prospect that maybe there should be some "assault violence bans" on their speech for the benefit of the nation.

That's how we know it is hypocrisy and selfish political motivation that drives the media narrative. The media has hated guns and wanted gun bans for decades, and they leap like gazelles to exploit these massacres every time. But point the finger at THEM? Oh no - their precious free-speech is a sacred right that dares not be restricted. Ooo - but that evil NRA though...! Hypocrites. Hypocrites and ghouls every one of them.

Except in one respect... It is quite fascinating that in one breath the political left scoffs at the idea that music, movies, and TV cause violence, but then in the next breath they will agree with the idea that video games cause violence. It is basely hypocritical, and only reinforces that they are looking for a scapegoat grind a political axe on rather than have a real discussion.

As with all things, my solution is "more freedom solves the problem". I'd rather see a 'more freedom' solution than one that regulates, restricts, and oppresses millions of innocents people in the interest of 'safety'. I personally think that talking about regulating guns is bad, because it removes freedom. Likewise - talking about restricting free speech and assembly rights relating to the media violence also leaves me cold. If it is "bad" to consider censorship of speech, then it is equally bad to talk about restricting gun rights no matter how beneficent and self-righteous you may think your cause.

[tombstoner139]

Insane cost and it will probably not prevent a single shooting. So far the numbers are not in NRA's favor if we say so.

Cost is the deciding factor and why people are reaching for regulation. The low cost i did "something" so i can feel good and get reelected solution.
Dropping 5 billion a year to protect schools is a much better use for our money then lets say...... invade Iraq or Afghanistan.
More people have died and are going to die then what happened on 911. We consider the cost of military action justified. yet balk at protecting 7-10 year old's
yea our priorities aren't screwed.

[Lenonis]

Disclaimer: this is how i have always understood it. please don't flame me for my mistake if i have made one.

Honestly I'm not sure anyone knows for sure anymore the real intent of the 2nd amendment. The rapid change in technology of weapons has really made it unclear how the founding fathers would have stood on this issue.

No amount of guns is going to protect you from a government that has tanks and bombers and nuclear weapons so....who knows what they would write if they were to re-write the amendment today.

[Deleted]

Ok, fair point.

Give Blackwater (or Xe / Academi... whatever they are now called) a contract to protect every school?

Or better hire some more counsellor/social workers and additional teachers to pick up kids/teens who have problem and risk to derailing, think how much money the society will save for each individual who will not go on rampage, become drug-addicts or professional criminals.

[walkingtall]

In a way you've got to admire the NRA for sticking to it's guns and advocating a policy to solve the gun problem with more guns. That's a damn impressive gymnastics feat. Heck, they even hit the conservative talking points that it's all the media and video games that are causing the problem.

I'm also impressed with all the GOP members advocating restraint on "gun control". Where were these voices in 2003, I wonder?

[Angryst]

Just be aware you are putting your family more at risk having your guns unrestricted. Of course that is your choice and as I said earlier I hope for your family's sake you don't end up a statistic.

See, that's where you and I differ. I'm not putting my family at risk. I've raised my kids to understand what firearms are used for. They are educated. Do they do things alone and unsupervised, no. Never. Unrestricted access.....kids all over the have unrestricted access to their parents car keys..are they all out joyriding??? Yes I know those are on two different levels, but the idea is the same.

[Elegiac]

This is what concerns me about the 2nd Amendment.

It's purpose was to take up arms if we ever needed to rebel against our government. So why wouldn't i be able to own a tank with ammo and all? People just want to have guns to protect themselves against civilians, but that was not the point to the 2nd amendment, it was to protect against the authorities.

Disclaimer: this is how i have always understood it. please don't flame me for my mistake if i have made one.

The idea was not necessarily just to provide individual protection from the government, but also to give the States a pool of potential combatants from which to draw in case of invasion or civil war.

[buck008]

I don't get the conservative response to violence. It's always a bloody arms race. The problem is guns, then the answer is more guns. The problem is nukes, the answer is more nukes. We ignore that this has never actually once worked. We escalate the situation, and the bad guys move to one up that. So yea, let's take the already maxed education budget and make them pay to keep cops or armed guards there. Because what we really need in our schools is more guns. Even better, let teachers carry! So civilians with no training and no experience can try to respond in a panic situation. That should go well. I really don't think we should be encouraging our society to move towards a situation where everyone is carrying a gun at all times. Just one extended Mexican standoff until some nutjob sets off the powder keg.

Maybe the answer is restrictions. No one needs a semi automatic weapon for anything. You don't need high capacity mags, high calibre rounds, armor piercers, etc. If you want a concealed permit you should have to take courses in safety and crisis/conflict management, and you should be held to an accuracy standard that needs to be renewed from time to time. There should be exhaustive background checks on everyone. Felonies and history of mental disorder should automatically disqualify you from legal ownership. Take that money you were going to spend on armed guards and use it to counsel troubled kids, the ones that display the warning signs that they could be capable of shit like this.

[SageKalzi]

At the very least gun laws need to be like license tabs for your car. Every view years you pay a sum and (in this case you should retake a test as well) keep the license.

What? I can understand wanting people take a test once in awhile (4+ years) just to keep them sharp but in no way should that hinder your ability to own a firearm. If that were true then the government needs to supply a gun to everyone & have everyone be required to do it.

I honestly have never understood why people blame guns on people who are obviously nuts and almost always STEAL these guns. I really want you guys to remember that criminals don't obey the laws so quit expecting yet another law to be followed by criminals.

Edit: Also, I don't really agree with teachers carrying but the first thing I said was they need to put cops or security officers (both armed) in schools because it WILL prevent crimes, especially major ones, from happening. If you need any evidence just go ahead and think of a state like, let's say California, without any police, I'm sure that'd be awful.

[Super Friendly Kitty Cat]

The NRA had an official press conference today chiming in on the massacre last week in Sandy Hook:

LaPierre called on Congress to put a police officer in every school in America, which according to a Slate analysis would cost the nation at least $5.4 billion. LaPierre recognized that local budgets are "strained," but urged lawmakers "to act immediately, to appropriate whatever is necessary to put armed police officers in every school." He offered up the NRA's unique "knowledge, dedication, and resources" to assist in efforts to train those forces, but made no mention of a fiscal contribution.

No, I don't want an armed Police Officer in every school. I don't want barbed wire and security gates. Schools are not prisons.

Violent video games had nothing to do with what happened/happens.

Violent movies had nothing to do with what happened/happens.

Violent music had nothing to do with what happened/happens.

This was all about untreated mental health, and unsecured fire arms.

The guns that were used were legally obtained, and unsecured by the original law abiding citizen.

The blame for this should be on the Mother, and those let this person with serious mental health issues, some of which were obviously caused by the Mother to go untreated.

[WarFalcon1]

This was all about untreated mental health, and unsecured fire arms.

This is the core right here. We need to make basic education on firearms a requirement before getting a weapon. Then we also need to make sure the weapons are properly stored.

While also try and take a look at the mental issues in this country.

[Aeluron Lightsong]

What? I can understand wanting people take a test once in awhile (4+ years) just to keep them sharp but in no way should that hinder your ability to own a firearm. If that were true then the government needs to supply a gun to everyone & have everyone be required to do it.

I honestly have never understood why people blame guns on people who are obviously nuts and almost always STEAL these guns. I really want you guys to remember that criminals don't obey the laws so quit expecting yet another law to be followed by criminals.

Edit: Also, I don't really agree with teachers carrying but the first thing I said was they need to put cops or security officers (both armed) in schools because it WILL prevent crimes, especially major ones, from happening. If you need any evidence just go ahead and think of a state like, let's say California, without any police, I'm sure that'd be awful.

Would you rather ban the guns or have a sales tax on them?

This is the core right here. We need to make basic education on firearms a requirement before getting a weapon. Then we also need to make sure the weapons are properly stored.

It should be FORCED onto us. It should be optional but it's there.

Again I prefer sales tax on guns then banning them outright.

And on the bright side Government gets more money to pay for stuff instead of taxing on housing and what not.

[Lenonis]

I'm not putting my family at risk.

I understand that you think that, but the statistics disagree.

kids all over the have unrestricted access to their parents car keys..are they all out joyriding??? Yes I know those are on two different levels, but the idea is the same.

Not really. If someone taught their 7 year old how to drive, and let them drive regularly for fun, you'd likely see a lot more kids joyriding.

I'm sure you have heard stories of kids accidentally shooting themselves or each other because they were showing off the guns or whatnot. I'm also sure you think that would never happen in your home. I'm sure those parents thought the same. Hopefully you are right.

[buck008]

This is the core right here. We need to make basic education on firearms a requirement before getting a weapon. Then we also need to make sure the weapons are properly stored.

While also try and take a look at the mental issues in this country.

If your weapons aren't secured and someone takes them to use in a crime, you are guilty as well. That'll solve it.