NRA Press Conference: Guns in Schools

[Svifnymr]

NRA guy did a bit more than just offer his opinion. He went on an ignorant rant demanding congress take action to put guards in every school and blamed... Well, hehe, what didn't he blame? Besides gun owners of course. He even offered to volunteer gun owners and training, if I recall correctly, to guard schools. If that is what the NRA is wanting, then I don't see the problem with expecting them to help pay for it. In this case, donating the firearms needed to arm all these guards. Of course they already pay taxes, this is a new need, so a new tax should be used.

Nope, no more than anyone else demanding the government does something is sent a bill for it.

Again, these mass shooting were facilitated by legally owned firearms. See the distinction? These mass shootings were not facilitated by submachine guns bought in a back alley and executed by a drug cartel. These were gun owners turning their weaponry on random people or letting their guns be taken, and then turned on random people, including children.

Pretty sure the mother, the actual gun owner, was the first victim. In addition, the system already in place prevented the shooter from getting the guns legally. And did he walk to the school? If he had no car, would he have been able to shoot up the school?

Since legal gun owners were responsible for these mass shootings, I don't see the problem with them helping to pay for the NRA's claimed fix.

And again, if the NRA went about putting guards in every school that currently lacked them, would that mean that gun owners get their current restrictions removed? Of course not, only "new" restrictions make sense. All the compromises made through the decades mean absolutely nothing, only the next ban matters.

Maybe they should streamline the NFA process, allow new manufacture of machine guns, and use the $200 tax's from that system towards schools. As a compromise to gun owners to increase tax revenue as you want.

In this case, taxing gun owners extra to cover the almost eight billion it could cost to have armed guards protecting our children from those same gun owners' weapons.

None of MY guns are the problem, perhaps you should bill the estate of the shooter and his mother?

Since roads have so many different uses, I'm not sure why you think the car industry should pay extra. Of course if someone was taking a car from a legal car owner, driving into a classroom, running over twenty kids, one eleven times apparently, and the car industry demanded that we put guards in every school? Then, yes, absolutely the car industry should be taxed extra. So should car owners.

Considering those details. I don't see how having the responsible parties pay extra, since stricter gun controls are not being offered, to handle mass shootings they themselves are facilitating, is somehow pointless. Nor how reminding those supporting or considering that option of the fairest way for it to be implemented, would induce nausea. The legally purchased and owned semiautomatic rifle killing twenty six-year and seven-year old children, should be the nausea inducing part.

Do explain how they facilitated the shooting? Was it through their gun safety programs? Was it their lobbying for ATF to actually enforce laws? Or wait, I guess they should be taxed extra for ATF to do the job we already pay them for.

Is the NRA smuggling guns into CT or something?

If they do pass a ban of some sort, who foots the bill for that? Do we charge the schools for the money to enforce the ban? Is that why this happened, because they didn't tax the kids in CT to enforce the states ban?

Not that it matters. The NRA won't be hiring any security guards, I don't believe gun owners should be forced to pay for it, and I doubt many that aren't just taking shots at the NRA would suggest such a thing either. At least you're not tweeting about how NRA members should be shot, so I guess you're ahead of the politicians in your hyperbole.

[SirRobin]

Nope, no more than anyone else demanding the government does something is sent a bill for it.

So apparently you never heard of the Superfund. As in those, or the industry, liable for the environmental damage are taxed for it. Or at least were, the tax expired. You think he went in and air-gunned, like an air-guitar, twenty kids to death? The gun owners' weapons are being used to commit these mass shootings so they should share liability in cleaning up afterward. The clean up in this case? Putting armed guards in every school.

Pretty sure the mother, the actual gun owner, was the first victim. In addition, the system already in place prevented the shooter from getting the guns legally. And did he walk to the school? If he had no car, would he have been able to shoot up the school?

The "gun owner" not having her weapons sufficiently secured is what gave "the shooter" access to them. So the system already in place did not prevent the shooter from getting the guns from a gun owner. Whether he drove, hiked, or biked, he still didn't drive into the classroom and run over twenty children.

And again, if the NRA went about putting guards in every school that currently lacked them, would that mean that gun owners get their current restrictions removed? Of course not, only "new" restrictions make sense. All the compromises made through the decades mean absolutely nothing, only the next ban matters.

Maybe they should streamline the NFA process, allow new manufacture of machine guns, and use the $200 tax's from that system towards schools. As a compromise to gun owners to increase tax revenue as you want.

Hehe... So you too are going to automatically imagine stricter gun controls if we do what the NRA wants and put guards in every school? I don't recall NRA guy bringing up new gun controls, just guards.

None of MY guns are the problem, perhaps you should bill the estate of the shooter and his mother?

However, legal gun owners' guns are being used. So actually, yes, your guns are part of the problem. If you are in the U.S. of course and legally acquired your weaponry. These guards are not being called for to protect schools from the submachine guns of a drug cartel hit squad. Nor from whatever guns that she, or her family, still own. They are being called for to protect the children in our schools from "gun owners" guns.

Do explain how they facilitated the shooting? Was it through their gun safety programs? Was it their lobbying for ATF to actually enforce laws? Or wait, I guess they should be taxed extra for ATF to do the job we already pay them for.

Is the NRA smuggling guns into CT or something?

If they do pass a ban of some sort, who foots the bill for that? Do we charge the schools for the money to enforce the ban? Is that why this happened, because they didn't tax the kids in CT to enforce the states ban?

Not that it matters. The NRA won't be hiring any security guards, I don't believe gun owners should be forced to pay for it, and I doubt many that aren't just taking shots at the NRA would suggest such a thing either. At least you're not tweeting about how NRA members should be shot, so I guess you're ahead of the politicians in your hyperbole.

Again with bans? Again, again, the NRA isn't offering a ban or stricter gun controls. They are calling for guards in every school. Come on, focus.

How do they facilitate? How about selling semiautomatic rifles with high capacity magazines that let "shooters" send dozens of rounds downrange before needing to reload. Or do you mean gun owners not securing, nor being required too, such weaponry sufficiently enough to keep someone else from walking off with the assault weapon and however much ammunition they can carry?

Spent years as an armorer so I not only have some insight into their variety and capabilities. I also have a fair bit of knowledge on securing them as well.

[Svifnymr]

So apparently you never heard of the Superfund. As in those, or the industry, liable for the environmental damage are taxed for it. Or at least were, the tax expired. You think he went in and air-gunned, like an air-guitar, twenty kids to death? The gun owners' weapons are being used to commit these mass shootings so they should share liability in cleaning up afterward. The clean up in this case? Putting armed guards in every school.

And gun ranges are responsible for environmental damage, makes sense. And no, the cleanup isn't for those that misuse a product and inflict harm. If a bar keeps serving someone that is drunk and sends them out to drive, they can be held liable. If a guy gets drunk at home and goes for a drive, they don't randomly charge nearby bars in some fashion.

The "gun owner" not having her weapons sufficiently secured is what gave "the shooter" access to them. So the system already in place did not prevent the shooter from getting the guns from a gun owner. Whether he drove, hiked, or biked, he still didn't drive into the classroom and run over twenty children.

The guns included securing devices, which the owner declined to use apparently. She should be held liable for misusing the product as it was sold to her.

Hehe... So you too are going to automatically imagine stricter gun controls if we do what the NRA wants and put guards in every school? I don't recall NRA guy bringing up new gun controls, just guards.

Not sure if you misread what I wrote, or just assumed something else into it. If the NRA puts a security guard in every school, will the gun control lobby rescind the current regulations in any way? They won't, because they just want more bans.

However, legal gun owners' guns are being used. So actually, yes, your guns are part of the problem. If you are in the U.S. of course and legally acquired your weaponry. These guards are not being called for to protect schools from the submachine guns of a drug cartel hit squad. Nor from whatever guns that she, or her family, still own. They are being called for to protect the children in our schools from "gun owners" guns.

They are a statistically insignificant anomaly. 99.9% of guns are not the problem, and we should not base policy on the .1%.

Again with bans? Again, again, the NRA isn't offering a ban or stricter gun controls. They are calling for guards in every school. Come on, focus.

"they" in that case obviously being the gun-ban lobby, I would have thought that obvious, but my mistake for not clarifying. If the gun ban lobby bans more guns, who foots the bill for that? Will Feinstein guarantee the security of every person whose gun she takes? Will she reimburse them?

How do they facilitate? How about selling semiautomatic rifles with high capacity magazines that let "shooters" send dozens of rounds downrange before needing to reload. Or do you mean gun owners not securing, nor being required too, such weaponry sufficiently enough to keep someone else from walking off with the assault weapon and however much ammunition they can carry?

Spent years as an armorer so I not only have some insight into their variety and capabilities. I also have a fair bit of knowledge on securing them as well.

You spent years as an armorer and believe that the limitation of how many times a shooter needs to reload will account for lives in a 20 minute encounter?

There is a law that requires every gun includes a locking device, which obviously the mother did not utilize as she should have. Someone should sue her estate for negligence.

[SirRobin]

And gun ranges are responsible for environmental damage, makes sense. And no, the cleanup isn't for those that misuse a product and inflict harm. If a bar keeps serving someone that is drunk and sends them out to drive, they can be held liable. If a guy gets drunk at home and goes for a drive, they don't randomly charge nearby bars in some fashion.

The Superfund is very much about those that inflicted harm. Just as the sites are about the harm inflicted. A tax was imposed on the industries responsible. The NRA, the largest and most influential gun owners association that I know of, says the response should be putting armed guards in every school. A response to a legal gun owner's weapons being used to inflict harm on those that did nothing to earn it. You're the guys who want the guards. I certainly don't recall any other gun association countering NRA guy's ignorant rant. Was there? You seem to want to distance yourself from his ignorance, on one hand, but I'm sure as hell not hearing any other gun owners association go public about it.

Bueller? Bueller?

The guns included securing devices, which the owner declined to use apparently. She should be held liable for misusing the product as it was sold to her.

Was the gun owner required to use them? Is there any sort of punishment for not using them? Besides a wacko walking off with them of course.

Not sure if you misread what I wrote, or just assumed something else into it. If the NRA puts a security guard in every school, will the gun control lobby rescind the current regulations in any way? They won't, because they just want more bans.

Why would we need less gun regulation? How would putting guards in schools suddenly mean we don't need the gun controls we have anymore? This isn't a swap meet. A "okay, you give us guards in schools and we'll let you buy machine guns," sort of thing this is most definitely not. Gun owners' weapons are being used to commit mass shootings. You are hardly the "victims" we are concerned about here.

They are a statistically insignificant anomaly. 99.9% of guns are not the problem, and we should not base policy on the .1%.

Wow, okay... You see whether its true or not, as an example, that killing a person is statistically insignificant compared to the world's population? Or even a country's? Society still, tends to at least, take a "dim" view on it. Now lets take that times twenty, last just ten minutes or so, and make them first graders in a suburban school.

Yeah, whether you think its "statistically insignificant" or not? Their parents probably sure as hell don't. And as a parent myself? I don't either.

"they" in that case obviously being the gun-ban lobby, I would have thought that obvious, but my mistake for not clarifying. If the gun ban lobby bans more guns, who foots the bill for that? Will Feinstein guarantee the security of every person whose gun she takes? Will she reimburse them?

When you don't actually need a semiautomatic rifle to "protect" yourself? I don't think the gun-ban lobby needs too. Again though, you seem to be mixing gun bans and armed guards. They don't have to be.

You spent years as an armorer and believe that the limitation of how many times a shooter needs to reload will account for lives in a 20 minute encounter?

There is a law that requires every gun includes a locking device, which obviously the mother did not utilize as she should have. Someone should sue her estate for negligence.

You don't? When the potential victims are trying to not die and the cavalry, so to speak, is on the way? When every minute can count? Every second? Of course it will make a huge difference. Not to mention that every break to reload is an another opportunity for a misfeed or other malfunction.

While there may be a law requiring locking devices. Apparently there is no law requiring their use. Or at least the punishment was no where near severe enough to inspire obeying it.

[Ghostpanther]

What I find amazing in all of this is that other types of weapons are very heavily restricted/regulated.

Look at the fact that while you can own a knife, there are limits to how big it can be, how long the blade is allowed to be, and it must be carried at all times on one's person, unobstructed from view. The only time I have seen a knife allowed to be concealed is if the blade was an inch and a half and was a small pocketknife (but I'm sure that changed after 9/11, so who knows what the laws are regulating them now). Hell, I have replica swords and one time while transporting one that I purchased from a convention, I got the nastiest look from an officer until I showed them that it wasn't even sharp. I have to wonder what I would have gone through if it had an edge?

Granted, knives (or swords) don't have the killing power that a gun has, yet they are heavily regulated by law. So, why is it such a problem to even try and put common sense safeguards, laws and regulations on guns?

Huh? I donot know what country or state you live in, but in mine, there are hardly no restrictions to buying or owning a sword. They donot have to have any serial numbers or a permit to buy. Of course you cannot go into a public place swinging one over your shoulder, as this would be a display of possible threat to others. The legal size of a pocket knife's blade lenght cannot exceed 3 1/2 ". Also it is not uncomon to see people with ones longer out in public with them strapped to thier belts in plain view. The point is, " concealed " knives have a limit on how long the blade can be. Now schools and some goverment buildings may have stricter restrictions on this. Such as courtrooms, etc.

[Deleted]

Huh? I donot know what country or state you live in, but in mine, there are hardly no restrictions to buying or owning a sword. They donot have to have any serial numbers or a permit to buy. Of course you cannot go into a public place swinging one over your shoulder, as this would be a display of possible threat to others. The legal size of a pocket knife's blade lenght cannot exceed 3 1/2 ". Also it is not uncomon to see people with ones longer out in public with them strapped to thier belts in plain view. The point is, " concealed " knives have a limit on how long the blade can be. Now schools and some goverment buildings may have stricter restrictions on this. Such as courtrooms, etc.

That. And as far as I know there are US States where its legal for you to carry in public your own assault rifles, not "concealed" at all. That just blows my mind...

While maybe you could find a reason for what are you carrying a long blade knife in the street, we all know why you carry the assault rifle and as stated before, guns have only one purpose and one function.

[Ghostpanther]

That. And as far as I know there are US States where its legal for you to carry in public your own assault rifles, not "concealed" at all. That just blows my mind...

While maybe you could find a reason for what are you carrying a long blade knife in the street, we all know why you carry the assault rifle and as stated before, guns have only one purpose and one function.

I would not say guns have one purpose and one function " only". That is being pretty bias and narrowed minded when it comes to guns. Some love to target practice for the love of the sport. Annie Oakley comes to mind. I never heard of her ever shooting anyone. Only targets. And the trick shot artist are amazing to watch.

[Deleted]

I would not say guns have one purpose and one function " only". That is being pretty bias and narrowed minded when it comes to guns. Some love to target practice for the love of the sport. Annie Oakley comes to mind. I never heard of her ever shooting anyone. Only targets. And the trick shot artist are amazing to watch.

Every weapon can be used for sports... but that doesnt change its main purpose.


I wanted to post a funny link of a tank shooting at giant clay-pigeons but unfortunately I am not allowed to yet.

[Grizzly Willy]

Every weapon can be used for sports... but that doesnt change its main purpose.


I wanted to post a funny link of a tank shooting at giant clay-pigeons but unfortunately I am not allowed to yet.

The main purpose is largely irrelevant when that purpose isn't likely to be realized.

[Deleted]

Honestly i think the US have kind of dug their own grave when it comes to this. It's too late to do anything. They're just going to have to "deal with" an absurd amount of gun related crimes compared to other countries and frequent massacres.

[Roose]

Honestly i think the US have kind of dug their own grave when it comes to this. It's too late to do anything. They're just going to have to "deal with" an absurd amount of gun related crimes compared to other countries and frequent massacres.

Sadly, I think this is true. Our culture has been forever tainted with gun love. Thank you NRA.

[Deleted]

The main purpose is largely irrelevant when that purpose isn't likely to be realized.

Over 100.000 times per year guns are used to injure or kill people in america, so every 3000th american is directly affected and the chance of being injured by a gun is 2.5 times as high as to die in a car accident.

Guns are made to injure and to kill, thats their main purpose and of course this includes hunting.
So its much more likely that they are used for what they were made for than for sports.

[Deleted]

Sadly, I think this is true. Our culture has been forever tainted with gun love. Thank you NRA.

The irony is that the NRA (I know not all their members are like this, but generally speaking) doesn't give a damn about the constitution, they only defend it because selling weapons is big business


But hey, look at al the jobs guns create ... (I'm trying to see 1 positive thing about having loads of guns in a country)

[Bakis]

The US got a major problem with romantic notions and glorifications of guns and violence in general, coupled with socioeconomic issues.
A ban wont solve anything, regulations will help a tiny bit, but dealing with the root of the problem will do the most good.

[dense]

The US got a major problem with romantic notions and glorifications of guns and violence in general, coupled with socioeconomic issues.
A ban wont solve anything, regulations will help a tiny bit, but dealing with the root of the problem will do the most good.

And what is the root of the problem? Banning cowboy movies and ending poverty?

[chadwix]

Personal accountability, something our society frowns upon. Much like bengahzi, mistakes were made but no one was at fault.

[Niteynite]

This is probably the most appropriate response to Wayne LaPierre's speech at the NRA:

[Roose]

And what is the root of the problem? Banning cowboy movies and ending poverty?

Like most issues, the root of the problem is the lobbying power that organizations have in the US. Enough money will let you create your own legislation. It also lets you control public perception/opinion. The NRA had a whole lot of help making the US the gun nut paradise that it is today. The created an environment for the gun industry to thrive.

[Bullettime]

The problem isn't necessarily guns. If we ban guns, then the psycho who wants to go out with a bang is just going to make an explosive out of materials from his local hardware stores and blow up a few people instead. Are we then going to ban hardware stores or home maintenance material because any idiot can google how to make smaller scales explosives? Mass shootings might draw attention from the media but they're quite rare when you start to consider how many movie theaters or schools or whatever else operate on a daily basis without issues.

The problem is how we diagnose and treat mental illness. When we step up how we identify and deal with the mentally ill, stuff like this won't happen.

[Grizzly Willy]

Over 100.000 times per year guns are used to injure or kill people in america, so every 3000th american is directly affected and the chance of being injured by a gun is 2.5 times as high as to die in a car accident.

Guns are made to injure and to kill, thats their main purpose and of course this includes hunting.
So its much more likely that they are used for what they were made for than for sports.

Can you find me the percentage of gun owners that use their weapons to harm others?