NRA calls for an armed police officer at every US school

[EmployeeoftheMonth]

"Selfish" is wanting to take away the rights and property of others, plus hundreds of years worth of tradition and lifestyle, for what?

[Tortorella's Rant]

I find it hard to agree with any gun enthusiasts arguments, because they all seem to come from a place of selfishness.

They care more about their own ability to own guns than they do about the safety of the general public. That has seemed pretty apparent from listening to most of them.

[Electro Rock]

If you cared about the well being of the general public, you'd toss out all that progressive ideology that's made society increasingly disfunctional since the '60s.

[n00bxQb]

So half of the country is against tax increases and for mass social spending cuts, but wants to fund at least 1 armed guard for every public school in the country?

[Wetcoaster]

So the NRA position comes down to mental health, media, entertainment, Potty training, your childhood, your neighbours, your dog, your friends, not easy access to guns that is cause for the mass killings.

Perhaps someone should refer the NRA to Occam's Razor... but first tell them it is not a weapon.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_razor

[Pouria]

"Selfish" is wanting to take away the rights and property of others, plus hundreds of years worth of tradition and lifestyle, for what?

[Mr. Ambien]

Best comment I've read.

Exactly. Give us one good reason that you need to own a gun. If it is for sustenance and you eat what you kill or for protection against bears, etc. while you're in the wild, ok. But, if your gun should ever be used for anything other than that - gone. Zero tolerance, even if it's a matter of the gun falling into someone else's hands...that's part of your responsibility in owning that gun.

[Bill Sikes]

So if guns aren't the problem, according to the gun nuts they aren't even a PART of the problem, then what is? Are Americans by nature more homicidal than people in other countries? Does the USA have a monopoly on mental illness? Or is it simply the FACT that in the USA, the homicidal and mentally ill can easily get their hands on a gun when they snap, and not just any gun, ones that are specifically designed for killing people in large numbers. It isn't just the mass rampages, consider how many times a simple argument ends in someone being shot because a gun is within easy reach, how many kids die accidentally because there are no storage laws and people leave a loaded gun on the coffee table or in the closet and junior decides to show it to his friend. Gun control is not about "taking guns away", that is NRA paranoia, it is more a bout safe storage laws, closing sales loopholes criminals exploit, reducing carnage by taking ridiculous military style weapons off the street, and basically reducing the "gun culture" that is the root of the problem.

This may come as a surprise to some, but the British are not coming, the Apaches are not on the warpath, very few people need to kill a deer for dinner. The 2nd amendment is not under attack by gun control laws, the NRA simply uses that argument to fuel paranoia and increase there own funding from the gun makers who benefit from this paranoid wild west attitude.

[Mr. Ambien]

So if guns aren't the problem, according to the gun nuts they aren't even a PART of the problem, then what is? Are Americans by nature more homicidal than people in other countries? Does the USA have a monopoly on mental illness? Or is it simply the FACT that in the USA, the homicidal and mentally ill can easily get their hands on a gun when they snap, and not just any gun, ones that are specifically designed for killing people in large numbers. It isn't just the mass rampages, consider how many times a simple argument ends in someone being shot because a gun is within easy reach, how many kids die accidentally because there are no storage laws and people leave a loaded gun on the coffee table or in the closet and junior decides to show it to his friend. Gun control is not about "taking guns away", that is NRA paranoia, it is more a bout safe storage laws, closing sales loopholes criminals exploit, reducing carnage by taking ridiculous military style weapons off the street, and basically reducing the "gun culture" that is the root of the problem.

This may come as a surprise to some, but the British are not coming, the Apaches are not on the warpath, very few people need to kill a deer for dinner. The 2nd amendment is not under attack by gun control laws, the NRA simply uses that argument to fuel paranoia and increase there own funding from the gun makers who benefit from this paranoid wild west attitude.

[Bill Sikes]

I guess we now have to arm the Fire Dept as well, maybe provide them with armoured vehicles?

http://news.ca.msn.com/world/2-firefighters-shot-dead-at-fire-near-rochester-ny

[Bill Sikes]

Government cannot legislate "culture", and in the US, that type of use of government to be social nannies is not acceptable like it might be in countries like England or Australia.

People who own guns aren't sitting by their door or window paranoid of everyone and taking aim at them ready for wild west shootout as you so terribly caricature.

The US and their courts logically views gun control as an enabler for criminals who for one reason or another like to commit crimes, whether it be robbery, rape, murder, and so on, and with whatever weapon they can get their hands on.

Rather than address the motivations behind crime some are wishing to go on a tirade against non-sentient objects. Quite a waste of time, but certainly not an unexpected waste.

[thepedestrian]

I've been sitting here getting more and more fed up with all of this talk about these, pieces of machinery, having no legitimate sporting purpose, no legitimate hunting purpose, people, that is not the point of the second amendment!

The second amendment is not about duck hunting, and I know I'm not going to make very many friends saying this, but it's about our right, all of our right to be able to protect our selves from all of you guys up there.

[Mr. Ambien]

I see so it is better to make it EASIER for criminals to get their hands on weapons by putting more of them out there, or are US criminals just a lot more ambitious than other countries?

BTW you might want to try answering some of the questions and addressing the points brought up rather than trying to insult or belittle me, your NRA prepared reply's are just making you look quite silly.

[Zamboni_14]

Best comment I've read.

Exactly. Give us one good reason that you need to own a gun. If it is for sustenance and you eat what you kill or for protection against bears, etc. while you're in the wild, ok. But, if your gun should ever be used for anything other than that - gone. Zero tolerance, even if it's a matter of the gun falling into someone else's hands...that's part of your responsibility in owning that gun.

[dudeone]

Even Israel Is Fact-Checking the NRA Now

ADAM CLARK ESTES

DEC 23, 2012

http://www.theatlant...-nra-now/60292/

On Sunday morning, Wayne LaPierre, CEO of the National Rifle Association, told the world that armed guards stopped school shootings in Israel. Israel begs to differ. "Israel had a whole lot of school shootings until they did one thing," LaPierre said sitting calmly on Meet the Press. "They said, 'We're going to stop it,' and they put armed security in every school, and they have not had a problem since then."

Well Mr. Pierre, that would be awesome if it were true. But according to Yigal Palmor, spokesman for the Israeli Foreign Ministry, it's not. More specifically, the two situations are "fundamentally different," and Israel's actually tightened its gun control laws in recent years. "We didn't have a series of school shootings, and they had nothing to do with the issue at hand in the United States. We had to deal with terrorism," Palmor told the New York Daily News. "What removed the danger was not the armed guards but an overall anti-terror policy and anti-terror operations which brought street terrorism down to nearly zero over a number of years."

Well this is awkward. It's kind of like the first time two days ago that LaPierre told the nation that we needed to put an armed guard in every American school to prevent more school shootings. This, despite the fact that there was an armed guard at Columbine High School in 1999, but 13 people died from gunshot wounds anyways. Within minutes, journalists pointed out myriad examples of other shootings where armed guards or bystanders failed to stop massacres as well as plenty of data about how ineffective the strategy would be.

LaPierre's creative understanding of the truth isn't necessarily the issue here, though. LaPierre has failed to check his facts on quite a few other issues lately, and that's fine because plenty of good reporters did it for him after the fact. He's not doing anybody any favors by trying to rope other countries into this problem, though. In Palmor's words, "It would be better not to drag Israel into what is an internal American discussion."

[Mr. Ambien]

LaPierre wasn't considering the fiscal implications of placing guards/officers, tactical training, a Dunkin Donuts on school grounds, etc.

[RUPERTKBD]

"Selfish" is wanting to take away the rights and property of others, plus hundreds of years worth of tradition and lifestyle, for what?

[woofwoofmoomoo]

Reading posts like this I'm pleased there has been emphasis on freedoms in the court.

Because according to this forum, despite not owning a gun, I'm a selfish criminal apologist gun-nut teabagger.. merely recognizing what common sense dictates, the inanity of blaming an object for it's ill uses and then making the heinous error of applying that to the many gun owners who don't break the law with them to effectively strip them of their rights of defence with a gun.

There are good and bad things about every country but one thing I'm glad still somewhat remains in the US is freedom with personal responsibility rather than handing over long standing rights to government due to a whim like subjectively not finding them necessary. Removal of such long standing rights would logically cause such necessary use of these weapons against a tyrannical government as was the case early in American history, one which Suzanna Hupp bravely reminded Congress (looked like one of the specific people she was talking to was a smirking Democrat Senator Chuck Schumer):

[woofwoofmoomoo]

give me one good reason that anyone needs to own a car. With all the public transportation that is available there is no need for anyone to drive their own car. If you don't like public transportation, then you also have the ability to ride a bike. But if you figure out a real need for a car and it falls into someone else's hands and that car is used in a way other than the absolute need - gone. Zero tolerance, that's part of your responsibility in owning a car.

See how that works? Just because YOU don't feel the need, doesn't mean everyone else should feel the same way. I don't own a gun, nor will I ever. But that doesn't mean I think everyone else shouldn't own a gun if they feel they need it.

[woofwoofmoomoo]

The government isn't putting more guns out there into citizens' hands. People wilfully buy them, whether it be from a store or from the black market, the latter of which is extremely prominent in border states (bordering Mexico). Logical concessions can be made to require more training and backgrounds to purchase firearms however adding barrier after barrier of legal purchases hasn't, and certainly won't stop murderers from acquiring them and using them.