NRA's media event today: your thoughts?

[baptizo]

[hue jass]

Many say, "This entire problem is all due to one thing - easy access to assault weapons." How about easy access to homicidal thoughts.

This isn't a gun problem it's a people problem. We don't need gun control we need massacre control. Last time I checked, every action starts with a thought.

[rsvRidr]

Columbine had an armed guard...

Columbine was during the Clinton AWB.....

[swingset]

Many say, "This entire problem is all due to one thing - easy access to assault weapons."

That's provably wrong, and it bugs the shit out of me that people are so unwilling to think it through.

75 years ago you could mail order a machine gun through Sears and Roebuck. No background check, no nothing.

People generally didn't keep guns under lock and key, ownership was high, and kids often took rifles to school for rifle club, for hunting, even for show and tell.

School shootings were very rare, gun violence much lower.

Access was as easy as it has ever been, the power of the weapons just as awesome as today (more, actually), and restrictions barely existed.

It's not the guns, or the access...that's a matter of historical record.

Edited December 21, 2012 by swingset

[cOoTeR]

Columbine had an armed guard...

"An" armed guard completely unsuspecting of a shooting. 1 armed guard is just the first target. What is needed is armed teachers. They also need to do away with these bullshit policies of hide under a desk and wait to be shot. Fuck that kids need to run and be provided with more than one way out other than a couple of main hallways. Such as emergency exits in the rooms on the exterior of the building. If there was a fire the kids don't wait for the fire department to come for them they leave the building.

[Gunner75]

Im waiting for Mag's socialist comments will be. I figure itll be something along the lines of armed guards in schools then there will be mass shootings everywhere

[Disclaimer]

Columbine was during the Clinton AWB.....

What is it with that line of reasoning? Clinton AWB huh? That makes a lot of sense. Ya know, since apparently the armed security guard (a sheriff deputy named Neil Garder) must've only been armed with a single shot musket? Is that what sheriff deputies are issued?

The reason the armed sheriff deputy in Columbine wasn't able to stop two armed kids was because of Clinton's AWB...

[cOoTeR]

What is it with that line of reasoning? Clinton AWB huh? That makes a lot of sense. Ya know, since apparently the armed security guard (a sheriff deputy named Neil Garder) must've only been armed with a single shot musket? Is that what sheriff deputies are issued?

The reason the armed sheriff deputy in Columbine wasn't able to stop two armed kids was because of Clinton's AWB...

No its proof the AWB will not prevent school shootings.

[Disclaimer]

"An" armed guard completely unsuspecting of a shooting. 1 armed guard is just the first target. What is needed is armed teachers. They also need to do away with these bullshit policies of hide under a desk and wait to be shot. Fuck that kids need to run and be provided with more than one way out other than a couple of main hallways. Such as emergency exits in the rooms on the exterior of the building. If there was a fire the kids don't wait for the fire department to come for them they leave the building.

What's the point of having an armed guard then? If you don't expect a gunfight, why do you need a firearm? Just give the guy a taser and be done w/ it.

I still don't know how you can force some teachers who don't WANT to be armed to arm them. I'm opposed to it for the simple fact that all the teachers in the system now were not informed that would be part of the job requirement, and some don't feel comfortable with it. The 99.9999999999% of the time a firearm wouldn't be necessary requires a ton of precautions so kids don't access them. I had an English teacher that was just shy of 327yrs old... the smallest girl in the class could've easily overpowered her in a quick manner -- so now what if you get a group that wants to bumrush the teacher. If they just tackle a teacher, is that justification for lethal self-defense? Teachers shooting midschoolers? You just want to make the legal assumption they were going after the weapon and it's justifiable? How many scenarios do you want to run? Or would you just be in favor of mandating it and "seeing how it plays out"?

[Disclaimer]

No its proof the AWB will not prevent school shootings.

I never claimed it would, the point was to refute the claim that an armed guard would've stopped anything. Columbine happened, and armed guard was on premises; therefore that theory has been proven invalid on that case study.

It has nothing to do with promoting and discouraging an AWB.

[cOoTeR]

What's the point of having an armed guard then? If you don't expect a gunfight, why do you need a firearm? Just give the guy a taser and be done w/ it.

I still don't know how you can force some teachers who don't WANT to be armed to arm them. I'm opposed to it for the simple fact that all the teachers in the system now were not informed that would be part of the job requirement, and some don't feel comfortable with it. The 99.9999999999% of the time a firearm wouldn't be necessary requires a ton of precautions so kids don't access them. I had an English teacher that was just shy of 327yrs old... the smallest girl in the class could've easily overpowered her in a quick manner -- so now what if you get a group that wants to bumrush the teacher. If they just tackle a teacher, is that justification for lethal self-defense? Teachers shooting midschoolers? You just want to make the legal assumption they were going after the weapon and it's justifiable? How many scenarios do you want to run? Or would you just be in favor of mandating it and "seeing how it plays out"?

There is no logic to what you say.

1. I'm pointing out a single known guard is inadequate and not tactically sound.

2. I never said ALL TEACHERS HAD TO BE ARMED.

3. A ton of precautions? Such as keeping your gun on your hip? That's hard I carry a gun sometimes 2 pretty much every day (at least 5 times a week) and have never had to worry about anyone getting my gun. A teacher with a concealed gun that the students don't know if they have it or not doesn't need to worry either.

4. A group that wants to bum rush a teacher? Where did you come up with that? Yes being attacked by multiple people would justify deadly force if the person being attacked felt they were in danger of death or serious bodily harm regardless of if they were armed or not.

[ReconRat]

Let me fix it. I don't care if the "gun free zone" sign stays up or gets taken down.

Put up another sign that says "criminals with firearms will be shot".

Isn't that policy? Do something simple and cheap and claim it's fixed?

[Tonik]

Quite the contrary, what I have read is the NRA explicitly mocked the COPS portion of the bill which really had nothing to do with guns. I could understand if they didn't agree with the AWB, but then to go through and mock portions that are non-weapons related just shows it's all a political game. I understand that a lot of bills have additional "stuff" attached to them, but they went out of their way to mock the COPS part of it to score political points because it was a Dem in the Whitehouse. Now all of a sudden, because it's the NRAs idea now, the basic premise of the COPS program is a good idea and they can be hypocritical to score more political points by saying "Obama cut the 'Secure our Schools' funding -- for shame you silly Democrat". Please

That was close to twenty years ago under Charlton Heston. Do you hold Obama accountable for what Bush did?

The current leadership are the people that lobbied their butts off to get mental health into the ncis. They are not the same people or views.

[Disclaimer]

There is no logic to what you say.

1. I'm pointing out a single known guard is inadequate and not tactically sound.

Ok, so now we're just down to how much people want their property taxes to go up (in Ohio at least), or whether the school decides to supports sports or a few cops on the beat. And, what if the school/community decides they don't want guns around their kids or to pay for multiple armed personnel at the school? If another massacre happens do you just shrug it of and say, well, they got what was coming to them?

2. I never said ALL TEACHERS HAD TO BE ARMED.

Ok, so what's stopping a cold blooded planned killing from occurring in an unarmed classroom? Socially engineer your way into the school the day of, or hide a weapon the day prior to be retrieved in between classes, bring it to the classroom that is reasonably expected to be unarmed (or known to be unarmed via research), lock the door, pop the teacher first (just in case), and you have an entire classroom at your picking.

I can paint as many hypothetical situations where it wouldn't work for as many as you can surmise that it would be a deterrent.

3. A ton of precautions? Such as keeping your gun on your hip? That's hard I carry a gun sometimes 2 pretty much every day (at least 5 times a week) and have never had to worry about anyone getting my gun. A teacher with a concealed gun that the students don't know if they have it or not doesn't need to worry either.

They'd find out. It wouldn't be a secret long... one student office aid asked to file records of the teachers with CCWs and it's blabbed to the entire student body. Or one hacker breaks into the school database and has the same information.

Regardless, it's moot in an unarmed classroom per the hypothetical above.

4. A group that wants to bum rush a teacher? Where did you come up with that? Yes being attacked by multiple people would justify deadly force if the person being attacked felt they were in danger of death or serious bodily harm regardless of if they were armed or not.

You seriously think that a teacher wants blood on their hands for killing students? "But three of them rushed me?" Ok, explain how little Jessica, sitting in the front row, the 4.0 student on her way to Harvard got killed when she wasn't a part of the melee...

I'm just trying to get your vision on how this would go if teachers were armed, or additional security personnel? The guy in Columbine exchanged fire with Harris and Klebold.

http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2000/columbine.cd/Pages/DEPUTIES_TEXT.htm

Cross-fire, collateral damage, etc... either way, the psycho gets what he wants, innocent people killed.

[rsvRidr]

No its proof the AWB will not prevent school shootings.

^^This^^^ ....reading comprehension is strong with this one

Banning guns was and always will be, unable to thwart crazy fuggars from committing violence.

[Pokey]

Weak, helpless or innocent are targets......not those that can and will fight back. Most cold blooded killers are cowards and opportunists, and that is how it has always been.....and will continue to be. Police state and martial law is on its way, it is on its way. If we became more like Switzerland, this country would shape up real fast.

[cOoTeR]

I never claimed it would, the point was to refute the claim that an armed guard would've stopped anything. Columbine happened, and armed guard was on premises; therefore that theory has been proven invalid on that case study.

It has nothing to do with promoting and discouraging an AWB.

Why do you think they choose schools and malls and movie theaters for these attacks over police stations (there have been attacks in those but less common than the fore mentioned places) or military bases and recruiter offices?

It's because they know that there are no guns to fight them there (schools and malls ect.) Who would attack a place with multiple armed people. Only the really bat shit crazy ones and they would be less successful than attacking a group of unarmed people.

I agree a single armed guard is inadequate, you need several but what school budget has room for several armed guards? Especially in this society where the "it can't happen to me" mentality is rampant.

If no teacher in the school wants to be armed, fine just make everyone think they are all armed. That will help prevent these shootings. Having multiple armed people that the students don't know who's armed or not will be the best defence if a shooter does show up.

[Pokey]

Anonymous carry....that just might work!!!!

[Gump]

^^This^^^ ....reading comprehension is strong with this one

Banning guns was and always will be, unable to thwart crazy fuggars from committing violence.

Agree. A simple perception that random good people have weapons is a huge deterrent vs. a weapon free zone. Fracking stupid. I'm more comfortable knowing where I work, several people pack heat and even if I get shot/killed trying to defend myself or someone, there's more backup just around the corner.

[Pokey]

Watch this.......

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M1u0Byq5Qis

Edited December 22, 2012 by Pokey

[cOoTeR]

Ok, so now we're just down to how much people want their property taxes to go up (in Ohio at least), or whether the school decides to supports sports or a few cops on the beat. And, what if the school/community decides they don't want guns around their kids or to pay for multiple armed personnel at the school? If another massacre happens do you just shrug it of and say, well, they got what was coming to them?

Ok, so what's stopping a cold blooded planned killing from occurring in an unarmed classroom? Socially engineer your way into the school the day of, or hide a weapon the day prior to be retrieved in between classes, bring it to the classroom that is reasonably expected to be unarmed (or known to be unarmed via research), lock the door, pop the teacher first (just in case), and you have an entire classroom at your picking.

I can paint as many hypothetical situations where it wouldn't work for as many as you can surmise that it would be a deterrent.

They'd find out. It wouldn't be a secret long... one student office aid asked to file records of the teachers with CCWs and it's blabbed to the entire student body. Or one hacker breaks into the school database and has the same information.

Regardless, it's moot in an unarmed classroom per the hypothetical above.

You seriously think that a teacher wants blood on their hands for killing students? "But three of them rushed me?" Ok, explain how little Jessica, sitting in the front row, the 4.0 student on her way to Harvard got killed when she wasn't a part of the melee...

I'm just trying to get your vision on how this would go if teachers were armed, or additional security personnel? The guy in Columbine exchanged fire with Harris and Klebold.

http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2000/columbine.cd/Pages/DEPUTIES_TEXT.htm

Cross-fire, collateral damage, etc... either way, the psycho gets what he wants, innocent people killed.

As far as a school or parents not being comfortable with armed staff its not well they got what the deserve it would be tragic proof that more could have been done?

So your saying that since 1 class room that is in armed could be attacked none of them should be armed? Your not making any sense just proving my point that unarmed people are targeted and the teacher should be armed to prevent an attack.

Where are you getting this what happens if the teacher is attacked? It's not really relevant. If a group of people kids or not are attacking a teacher and trying to cause harm the teacher should be able to defend them self. Who in their right mind is going to attack an armed person? If they do they need to be shot.

Yes we can go round and round with your what ifs from left field all day but they are irrelevant.

What is your plan to fix these shootings since what has been said here is so wrong? Just continue the same shit how's that worked out so far?

Edit.... Also you can't lock the door of a classroom to keep people in due to their design and fire codes requiring a panic bar type release.

Edited December 22, 2012 by cOoTeR

[cOoTeR]

Them finding out who's carrying if records were required to be kept it shouldn't be kept on school grounds. It can be hidden how many teachers health records were you aware of in school?

Tax dollars going up. Allowing the teachers to voluntarily carry will have a minor affect on taxes to pay for the training. Similar to the required trainings they do anyways such as cpr.

[cOoTeR]

^^This^^^ ....reading comprehension is strong with this one

Banning guns was and always will be, unable to thwart crazy fuggars from committing violence.

Weak, helpless or innocent are targets......not those that can and will fight back. Most cold blooded killers are cowards and opportunists, and that is how it has always been.....and will continue to be. Police state and martial law is on its way, it is on its way. If we became more like Switzerland, this country would shape up real fast.

Anonymous carry....that just might work!!!!

Agree. A simple perception that random good people have weapons is a huge deterrent vs. a weapon free zone. Fracking stupid. I'm more comfortable knowing where I work, several people pack heat and even if I get shot/killed trying to defend myself or someone, there's more backup just around the corner.

All of this ^^^^^^^.

[Disclaimer]

Why do you think they choose schools and malls and movie theaters for these attacks over police stations (there have been attacks in those but less common than the fore mentioned places) or military bases and recruiter offices?

They (I assume you mean the people in need of mental health that commit these offenses) choose the most convienient crowded public areas. Why drive 50 miles to the nearest military base when the school or movie theater is 5miles away?

It's because they know that there are no guns to fight them there (schools and malls ect.) Who would attack a place with multiple armed people. Only the really bat shit crazy ones and they would be less successful than attacking a group of unarmed people.

I'm no psychologist or have the background on this, but I'd surmise an element of the paranoia is attacking the people they perceive as "public", the common man. There is an element of terrorism to it. Engaging military people is combat. Terrorism is doing it to the least suspecting and unengaged.

I agree a single armed guard is inadequate, you need several but what school budget has room for several armed guards? Especially in this society where the "it can't happen to me" mentality is rampant.

If no teacher in the school wants to be armed, fine just make everyone think they are all armed. That will help prevent these shootings. Having multiple armed people that the students don't know who's armed or not will be the best defence if a shooter does show up.

Well, if that's the psychological warfare you want to play -- I don't necessarily agree that it makes a difference to someone with mental health issues, deterrents are only valid for sane and logical people -- but to your point, why not let kids defend themselves in school? You really want a deterrent, let criminals think that even those outside positions of authority in schools can carry. If a child can demonstrate competency with a weapon, that would be a great bullying deterrent as well.

As far as a school or parents not being comfortable with armed staff its not well they got what the deserve it would be tragic proof that more could have been done?

So your saying that since 1 class room that is in armed could be attacked none of them should be armed? Your not making any sense just proving my point that unarmed people are targeted and the teacher should be armed to prevent an attack.

You're the one that said ALL teacher didn't have to be armed... so if not all of them are, it's pretty easy to guess which ones aren't. Jerry, the 6'5" muscular gym teacher, or Ethel, the 66 yr old librarian? I know which one I'd have the upper hand in the reflex and strength department if they ever got close enough -- even if Ethel was packing.

Where are you getting this what happens if the teacher is attacked? It's not really relevant. If a group of people kids or not are attacking a teacher and trying to cause harm the teacher should be able to defend them self. Who in their right mind is going to attack an armed person? If they do they need to be shot.

That's why cops never get attacked and killed in the line of duty, right? You're proving your own point... we're not dealing with people "in their right mind".

What is your plan to fix these shootings since what has been said here is so wrong? Just continue the same shit how's that worked out so far?

I haven't formulated a reasonable solution yet. It takes time to do research on these things and make compromises -- that's why I don't jump on the internet right away and proclaim "Here is the solution to this problem". I'm humble enough to know that I don't have a solution nor am I experienced or educated enough to come up with one at the moment.

We can have a discussion about it and offer options and opinions, but to proclaim "I'm right and all others that disagree are koolaid drinking pussy lib-douches" really doesn't help come to a solution, nor does it paint said proclaimer as the most intelligent being. I'm not saying YOU are proclaiming that, but there are a lot of people that take that stance. It's simple-minded and the reason things don't get solved in this country.

Edited December 22, 2012 by JRMMiii

[Gump]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RR9RN_iSKtg