NRA Press Conference: Guns in Schools

[Cuj0u812]

The NRA's scapegoat is media sesnationalization of gun violence and violent video games.

They fail to address why those same factors do not lead to gun rampages in countries such as Australia, England, Japan, Germany, China, etc...

Hint: They don't let you get your hands on the guns in the first place.

China? Do we really want to go down that road? We could just take all the kids out of the schools and put them in sweatshops while we are at it. I mean if you really think we should model ourselves after a country then we should go all the way. Oh yeah, and then there is that whole human rights thing too.

[Roose]

http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp Nice graph on #127.

Guns are very safe and the number of accidents that happens with them is slim.

So you trust some doctored "facts" that a guy made up using his own formulas in the 90s. U.S. civilians use guns to defend themselves and others from crime at least 989,883 times per year....ya, right...

I see why you believe that gun use is far more prevalent than it really is. Almost everyone I know carries guns. Nobody has ever used one to prevent jack shit. No place in the world with more guns than right here.

Guns are so safe that more guns means less violence. That is the mentality that we are fighting. That is why this will be such a tough battle. We are up against people that refuse to accept logic, choosing to embrace spurious statements as gospel. Not a stretch for many because they already base their lives on myths.

[Deleted]

However, what you can't possibly seem to do, is label a gun a weapon. It's a tool, remember? Your comparison is as ridiculous as telling me the wild bear you have as a pet is "just an animal", without even understanding the danger it presents.

Even a wild bear still as a dangerous animal it just wants to live and go about as he does by instinct. So even that is just saying it midly where the "gun" is just a weapon with only one purpose, to kill and damage as much as possible what ever you aim at.

Only thing is with strict gun regulations the market for guns in US will go down, a thing that NRA never ever want. So they try to blame anything they can to keep or even make the law more easy so more people buy guns. You know people who don't even know how to use it, clean it, maintain it, who don't report it once it's missing...

Illegal weapons in USA are not made in a secret underground factory somwhere in Russia, they are mostly a reflection of what the US market has on sale legaly. Since why risk transport+customs check/bribes when you can get them from the inside. So basically in the current state legal weapons sustain illegal ones.

[crakerjack]

For all those saying there needs to be a ban on guns... could you please tell me how well prohibition worked for drugs and then tell me how it's going to work for guns when the average american has a gun or more. They've been apart of this country for so long that we've learned how to live with them for reasons other than killing... Going to a gun range is a big hobby for some people... it's no different from people in the middle ages shooting arrows at a target. Until someone can show me a gun lift itself off from the ground and pump a full magazine into someone, I won't ever be part of some bullcrap prohibition. The same concept liberals are trying to use to make guns sound horrible can be applied to anything... needles are bad, because you can get stabbed in the eye and become blind, vicadin is bad since you can OD on it, vegetables are bad, because if you eat too many you'll become mal-nurtured.

[kittysox]

For all those saying there needs to be a ban on guns... could you please tell me how well prohibition worked for drugs and then tell me how it's going to work for guns when the average american has a gun or more. They've been apart of this country for so long that we've learned how to live with them for reasons other than killing... Going to a gun range is a big hobby for some people... it's no different from people in the middle ages shooting arrows at a target. Until someone can show me a gun lift itself off from the ground and pump a full magazine into someone, I won't ever be part of some bullcrap prohibition. The same concept liberals are trying to use to make guns sound horrible can be applied to anything... needles are bad, because you can get stabbed in the eye and become blind, vicadin is bad since you can OD on it, vegetables are bad, because if you eat too many you'll become mal-nurtured.

The average American does not own a weapon, gun owners are not even a majority in this country but most gun owners own multiple weapons. And if you want to own a gun that's really ok with me. Whats not ok with me is the lack of regulation on background checks and the total and complete inability to control cash weapon sales in an open unregulated market such as a gun show or peer to peer. The NRA stands adamantly in the way of even a psychological profile as a requirement to purchase a gun. Let's not even get started on the irrational fear that leads to stockpiling weapons, ammunition, food and water and training yourself for the supposed "end of days" that has become so common place.

[Deleted]

For all those saying there needs to be a ban on guns... could you please tell me how well prohibition worked for drugs and then tell me how it's going to work for guns when the average american has a gun or more. They've been apart of this country for so long that we've learned how to live with them for reasons other than killing... Going to a gun range is a big hobby for some people... it's no different from people in the middle ages shooting arrows at a target. Until someone can show me a gun lift itself off from the ground and pump a full magazine into someone, I won't ever be part of some bullcrap prohibition. The same concept liberals are trying to use to make guns sound horrible can be applied to anything... needles are bad, because you can get stabbed in the eye and become blind, vicadin is bad since you can OD on it, vegetables are bad, because if you eat too many you'll become mal-nurtured.

Indeed! Several people being killed because some lunatic fed them too many vegetables by force happens all the time, but the liberal media just won't cover it.

[Zdrasti]

Indeed! Several people being killed because some lunatic fed them too many vegetables by force happens all the time, but the liberal media just won't cover it.

Most people don't want a straight up ban. That's against the second amendment. However, what we want is sensible regulation. There is a substantial difference.

[Dacien]

He makes an interesting point about having armed guards to protect our money, but not our kids. Not taking a side here, but that notion struck me.

However a "national database of the mentally ill," (for the purposes of monitoring, it seems like) sounds pretty scary. Your kid needs treatment for high-functioning autism? Think twice! He could be put on a government watch list! That seems bad.

[Zdrasti]

He makes an interesting point about having armed guards to protect our money, but not our kids. Not taking a side here, but that notion struck me.

We also don't guard our money with flamethrowers. The tool needs to improve the situation and I don't think more firearms in close proximity to our children will do that.

[Lilly32]

How about sorting the root of the problem? No school should need armed police guarding them, if that started happening here I would move country.

So you have a magical cure for the mentally unstable and can also cure bad people who want to to bad things? Id start selling that you will be a billionaire

[Beavis]

I wouldn't say "forgetting" so much as "ignoring." But its the best conservative wannabes can do. Again, its not about stopping every wacko. Its about making it harder for the wackos to puff up their body counts. The NRA wanting to put armed guards in every school is an option. However, I don't see them offering to pay the almost eight billion it could cost. Just tax gun owners extra to pay for it. Its the legal firearm owners this wacko took an assault rifle from to kill twenty kids after all.

Now some try to marginalize the tragedy by bringing up other statistics, like drunk driver fatalities. However, the problem here isn't drunks driving into classrooms and running over twenty kids. The problem here is wackos' access to firearms, like assault rifles, that make it easier for them puff up their body counts. Another option is to restrict that access, through stronger regulation and enforcement. Perhaps even finally renewing the Federal Assault Weapons Ban.

Again, again, its not about stopping drug cartels or keeping fourteen years old's from using a handgun, where was his assault rifle, to defend the homestead. Its about making it harder for wackos to use firearms to puff up their body counts. Through making it harder for people to get firearms in the first place and or requiring enough responsibility and accountability from gun owners that they put more effort into securing their weaponry. This tragedy didn't have to happen and we can do something about it.

Hopefully, though its a slim one, the NRA's ignorance, stalling, and selfishness, won't cost too many more children their lives.

Really? You're going to criticize people for "ignoring" the cops at Columbine and then totally ignore the fact that Columbine happened while the AWB was in force with weapons that were totally legal under it's provisions?

The amount of willful ignorance and doublethink around this topic is absolutely astounding.

[Goatfish]

Of course bombings will have a higher number of potential casaulties. The way you worded your post though, seemed to imply that you thought bombings kill more than guns, year on year. Hence my query for statistics. But putting that aside for a second. Rather than deal with facts and observe other first world nations who have stricter gun laws, and seeing that they don't have regular mass bombings in the absence of guns, you're hypothesising the opposite?

Plenty of things could happen in the absence of guns. There could be more mass bombings, as you're suggesting. There could be more mass knivings. Or they might think of a new ingenious way to kill dozens with relative ease. The point is though to deal with those situations there and then, should they arise. The potential for mass bombings doesn't detract from the need for stricter gun legislature right now, in order to curb the number of mass killings that keep occuring. If X is harming society, you don't say "we can't restrict X, incase Y happens". That's just a lazy defense.

My response was directly towards your statement that everyone who doesn't use a gun is going to just use a knife which is just less dangerous overall, which I can agree it is less dangerous to be attacked with a knife than a bomb. The only place I disagree is that everyone is going to go to knives instead, hence why I said that the people who want to kill people AND have intelligence are going to use a bomb instead. You made an awful lot of assumptions about my post that I never even commented on, and then further changed your defense to skew what I said even further. Perhaps next time you decide to debate back you can actually stick on topic and not make false assumptions, as while mine might not come to pass, and I hope it doesn't, it is a logical conclusion made from facts.

Fact 1- In older days bombings were more popular in mass killings because automatic and semi-automatic guns didn't exist, which meant if someone wanted to kill a few dozen people the best option was a bomb.
Fact 2- Since Automatic and Semi-automatic weapons became the norm in society, bombings have overall decreased (aside from terrorism, which is a very vague term and is more political jargon than a real argument).
Fact 3- Most, if not all mass killings have some planning behind them, or if nothing else are thought about for some time before the actual action.

Using these three facts it could easily make logical sense that with automatic and semi-automatic guns less available that were someone of mind and intelligence to want to cause mass casualties that they would move to bombs, because knives are more of a passionate, reactive crime than a logical planned one. Most of these shootings have been planned and thought of in advance for quite some time, people generally don't carry a gun on themselves and just snap at random and begin shooting people, knives are a different story.

tldr: your rebuttal to my post was lazy and full of misinformation and assumptions. I would just personally rather worry about guns, as a shooting happens over time and has a chance for reaction. A bombing on the other hand is generally better planned and happens explosively (get it) leaving little time for a private gun owner or police enforcement to do much but clean up the mess afterwards. It's honestly your own fault for stating absolutes, there is no sense to tell me I am wrong about things you assumed yourself while back-peddling and agreeing with the statements of mine that actually mattered.

[Numeanor]

Next thing to happen:
Armed cop guarding school go berserk and start shooting on kids... story repeats... Go cowboys!

[Deleted]

Next thing to happen:
Armed cop guarding school go berserk and start shooting on kids... story repeats... Go cowboys!

To be fair I would foresee a scenario down the road the school gets turned almost like a prison in term of security. If they go that way with armed cops. When the next event hits they will prob be "well 1 cop is not enough", then they bring more after that down the line comes a "private sector" companies that offer school protection and so on <insert sci-fi scenario here>

[Grizzly Willy]

He makes an interesting point about having armed guards to protect our money, but not our kids. Not taking a side here, but that notion struck me.

However a "national database of the mentally ill," (for the purposes of monitoring, it seems like) sounds pretty scary. Your kid needs treatment for high-functioning autism? Think twice! He could be put on a government watch list! That seems bad.

Identifying people who shouldn't be given guns should be done, no? I don't see the problem with keeping track of people with severe mental disabilities.

[Roose]

He makes an interesting point about having armed guards to protect our money, but not our kids. Not taking a side here, but that notion struck me.

However a "national database of the mentally ill," (for the purposes of monitoring, it seems like) sounds pretty scary. Your kid needs treatment for high-functioning autism? Think twice! He could be put on a government watch list! That seems bad.

The argument about protecting what is most valuable was obviously a strong one. Common sense dictates that you defend your children. They are using that basic function of parenting to justify their position. After all, what parent does not want their child safe? The difference is, a whole lot more people out there would risk their lives trying to steal valuable goods than arbitrarily murder children. There is a very good reason why robbery is much more prevalent than mass murder. No matter how awesome your kid is, they are not more valuable than gold or cash and therefore will never be as much of a target.

If we did not have anyone guarding our gold reserves that shit would get hit in a heartbeat. We do not have criminals out there that are not currently shooting up schools just because they are guarded, see Columbine.

[Laize]

Identifying people who shouldn't be given guns should be done, no? I don't see the problem with keeping track of people with severe mental disabilities.

You're singling them out.

I've asked this question before. What happens when someone begins developing a disease such as schizophrenia? Do you think they're more or less likely to get help if they know they'll be permanently on a government watch list?

[Roose]

Identifying people who shouldn't be given guns should be done, no? I don't see the problem with keeping track of people with severe mental disabilities.

I do not either, so long as the necessary healthcare comes with that extra unwanted attention.

That is a fundamental issue with mental illness. Most people have no freaking clue about it, much less any idea how to treat it effectively. Yet you think you are qualified to make assumptions.

Live with a schizophrenic family member and get back to us.

[Shadowbane]

"Quick a problem! Throw guns at it! Somethin' about some amendment! Right t'bare arms!!"

I like how they'll blame violence in video games, violence in films, lack of police guarding schools, but not how easy it is to buy a gun and put it to use.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xIpLd0WQKCY

I've heard of guns being given away for free as part of promotions and that in some states.

[MossMonster]

"Quick a problem! Throw guns at it! Somethin' about some amendment! Right t'bare arms!!"

I like how they'll blame violence in video games, violence in films, lack of police guarding schools, but not how easy it is to buy a gun and put it to use.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xIpLd0WQKCY

I've heard of guns being given away for free as part of promotions and that in some states.

This is why foreigners shouldnt worry about this discussion?