What A Coward - Parkland Armed School Resource Officer Never Went Into The School During Shooting

[Lancaster]

If you're not willing to put your life on the line, you're not fit to be a cop.  Not saying they all should have a death wish, but you join because you want to protect something greater than yourself.  

As for arming teachers and stuff.... we'll never know if it would have made any difference in this situation.  A couple of things we probably do know.... the people that had guns didn't do their job.... the staff that sacrificed their lives probably wished they had guns.  

 

Best compromise.... schools should allow staff to have gun if they feel it's needed.  Have it paid out of pocket and have extensive mandatory training, reviewed every few years, then have the status and number of armed staff a secret.  If a situation arises where a gun is needed, maybe someone will have one.  If it's never needed, even better.  It doesn't have to be an all or none situation.  

[SabreFan1]

10 minutes ago, Toews said:

80% of Americans are for DACA and yet that is in jeopardy as Trump is trying to leverage the issue to get his stupid wall.

 

The reality is that people need to show up and vote to get things to change, until they do that the NRA and other lobby groups will continue to maintain this political gridlock and nothing meaningful will ever be passed. Start with anyone who receives campaign funding from the gun lobby and vote them out whether it be a Democrat or a Republican.

In the US, the squeaky wheels get the grease, especially if they have money to go along with the squeak.  You have to either threaten the lawmaker's power and/or legally bribe them.

 

Right now the minority feels much more strongly about keeping unfettered access to their guns than the majority feels about limiting them.

[Undrafted]

1 minute ago, SabreFan1 said:

The one thing that the leaders and lifers in Congress are most fearful of is losing their power.  The NRA and other clubs supplement their legal bribes with credible threats of working to oust any politician who is against them.

 

The people who want the laws changed need to follow the same playbook.  If they do, the laws would soon change.

The NRA has been funded by the firearms industry for decades to the tune of billions of dollars.  Who's going to fund an opposing lobbying group?  Grassroots organizations can't compete with that.

 

6 minutes ago, SabreFan1 said:

I think if you ban assault rifles, killers will just use similar but legal rifles.  There are hunting rifles out there that are every bit as dangerous, except the only difference is that they don't look like military weapons.  I used to have a picture on my computer from a previous conversation that showed regular looking rifles that were functionally the same as assault rifles.

 

As for licensing, most states already require it.  Some states like New Hampshire and Nevada have no license open carry.  You'll find that the vast majority don't take advantage of it because businesses have the right to refuse service to anybody with a gun and many businesses won't even let them on their property.

Do those hunting rifles hold the same amount of ammunition?  Have the same rate of fire?  If so, would you object to banning those along with assault rifles?

 

As for licensing, perhaps I should've been more clear: how do feel about much stricter licensing?  Or limits to the number of guns one can own?

[Undrafted]

5 minutes ago, SabreFan1 said:

In the US, the squeaky wheels get the grease, especially if they have money to go along with the squeak.  You have to either threaten the lawmaker's power and/or legally bribe them.

 

Right now the minority feels much more strongly about keeping unfettered access to their guns than the majority feels about limiting them.

And you don't think there's something wrong with that?  I don't know about you, but that seems rather undemocratic to me.  You're basically saying it's perfectly fine for an industry-supported lobby group to usurp the will of the majority of citizens just because they have more money and power.

[SabreFan1]

1 minute ago, Undrafted said:

The NRA has been funded by the firearms industry for decades to the tune of billions of dollars.  Who's going to fund an opposing lobbying group?  Grassroots organizations can't compete with that.

It's not Billions.  It's in the millions.  http://www.businessinsider.com/gun-industry-funds-nra-2013-1

 

A grassroots campaign could definitely match that.

 

5 minutes ago, Undrafted said:

Do those hunting rifles hold the same amount of ammunition?  Have the same rate of fire?  If so, would you object to banning those along with assault rifles?

Ammunition is dependent on the size of a clip.  All semi-automatic guns have the same rate of fire.  They fire as fast as your trigger finger.  No, I'm not for a semi-automatic gun ban.

 

7 minutes ago, Undrafted said:

As for licensing, perhaps I should've been more clear: how do feel about much stricter licensing?  Or limits to the number of guns one can own?

Stricter licensing: absolutely. 

 

Number of Guns one person can own:  It would be a pointless thing to put a limit on.  You can only effectively use one gun at a time. 

[SabreFan1]

5 minutes ago, Undrafted said:

And you don't think there's something wrong with that?  I don't know about you, but that seems rather undemocratic to me.  You're basically saying it's perfectly fine for an industry-supported lobby group to usurp the will of the majority of citizens just because they have more money and power.

You really have to stop putting words in my mouth.

 

I'm acknowledging that it's a reality in the US.  I'm not for it personally.  I just understand it well enough to know that there is only one way that can change.  The people on the other side of the issue need to do the same thing.  So far, the will isn't there.  People get angry for a week after a shooting and then go on and care more about what video game they are going to play next or which fast food restaurant they feel like eating at.

[Undrafted]

2 minutes ago, SabreFan1 said:

It's not Billions.  It's in the millions.  http://www.businessinsider.com/gun-industry-funds-nra-2013-1

 

A grassroots campaign could definitely match that.

The article you cited reported over $100 million just for that ONE year alone from industry and the NRA's own advertising revenue.  Cumulatively, that would amount to over a billion across less than ten years.  I don't see how a grassroots organization can match the funding, never mind the level of influence in DC

[SabreFan1]

1 minute ago, Undrafted said:

The article you cited reported over $100 million just for that ONE year alone from industry and the NRA's own advertising revenue.  Cumulatively, that would amount to over a billion across less than ten years.  I don't see how a grassroots organization can match the funding, never mind the level of influence in DC

Quote

Since 2005, the gun industry and its corporate allies have given between $20 million and $52.6 million to it through the NRA Ring of Freedom sponsor program.

 

[Undrafted]

I think it's worth posting the bulk of the text of the article in question, since there's more revenue from the industry aside from that little blurb you quoted:

 

Quote

Since 2005, the gun industry and its corporate allies have given between $20 million and $52.6 million to it through the NRA Ring of Freedom sponsor program. Donors include firearm companies like Midway USA, Springfield Armory Inc, Pierce Bullet Seal Target Systems, and Beretta USA Corporation. Other supporters from the gun industry include Cabala's, Sturm Rugar & Co, and Smith & Wesson.

The NRA also made $20.9 million — about 10 percent of its revenue — from selling advertising to industry companies marketing products in its many publications in 2010, according to the IRS Form 990.

Additionally, some companies donate portions of sales directly to the NRA. Crimson Trace, which makes laser sights, donates 10 percent of each sale to the NRA. Taurus buys an NRA membership for everyone who buys one of their guns. Sturm Rugar gives $1 to the NRA for each gun sold, which amounts to millions. The NRA's revenues are intrinsically linked to the success of the gun business.

The NRA Foundation also collects hundreds of thousands of dollars from the industry, which it then gives to local-level organizations for training and equipment purchases.

This shift is key to understanding why a coalition of hunters, collectors and firearm enthusiasts takes the heat for incidents of gun violence, like the shooting massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School, rather than the companies that manufacture and market assault weapons.

The chief trade association for gun manufacturers is the National Shooting Sports Federation, which is, incidentally, located in Newtown, Conn. But the NRA takes front and center after each and every shooting.

"Today's NRA is a virtual subsidiary of the gun industry," said Josh Sugarmann, executive director of the Violence Policy Center. "While the NRA portrays itself as protecting the 'freedom' of individual gun owners, it's actually working to protect the freedom of the gun industry to manufacture and sell virtually any weapon or accessory."

I'm pretty sure all that will amount to billions of dollars fairly quickly

[SabreFan1]

Just now, Undrafted said:

I think it's worth posting the bulk of the text of the article in question, since there's more revenue from the industry aside from that little blurb you quoted:

I think you should remember that you said Billions which isn't true.  For many years the NRA solely depended on it's members for it's funds.  Taking corporate cash is a relatively new phenomenon in comparison to the years that it subsisted on it's own dimes.

 

You got caught taking a wild guess which was wrong.

[Undrafted]

4 minutes ago, SabreFan1 said:

I think you should remember that you said Billions which isn't true.  For many years the NRA solely depended on it's members for it's funds.  Taking corporate cash is a relatively new phenomenon in comparison to the years that it subsisted on it's own dimes.

 

You got caught taking a wild guess which was wrong.

I realize I added the blurb at the end late, but I stand by the word 'billions'.  That was not a wild guess.  If you add up all the avenues of revenue cited that I bolded in the first part, it far exceeds the excerpt you mentioned.  Those kickbacks from sales are annual revenue, not just a one-time donation.

 

And really, does it make that much of a difference whether you're right and it's only hundreds of millions?

[SabreFan1]

1 minute ago, Undrafted said:

I realize I added the blurb at the end late, but I stand by the word 'billions'.  That was not a wild guess.  If you add up all the avenues of revenue cited that I bolded in the first part, it far exceeds the excerpt you mentioned.  Those kickbacks from sales are annual revenue, not just a one-time donation.

The sales are in the millions, not tens of millions or hundreds of millions.  Let's say they get 10 million from the sales,  it would take a century to reach just one billion dollars.

 

The NRA is well funded by the gun industry, but it isn't as well funded as you initially guessed that it was.  That could change depending on the political climate if a strong gun ban movement ever becomes a reality.

[Undrafted]

Just now, SabreFan1 said:

The sales are in the millions, not tens of millions or hundreds of millions.  Let's say they get 10 million from the sales,  it would take a century to reach just one billion dollars.

 

The NRA is well funded by the gun industry, but it isn't as well funded as you initially guessed that it was.  That could change depending on the political climate if a strong gun ban movement ever becomes a reality.

You don't think the gun industry would contribute even more if a burgeoning gun control movement arose?

[SabreFan1]

Just now, Undrafted said:

You don't think the gun industry would contribute even more if a burgeoning gun control movement arose?

Did you read my whole post?

[Undrafted]

Just now, SabreFan1 said:

Did you read my whole post?

Sorry, my bad--it's late and I'm tired (and I have no idea what you're doing up at 3amET)  And really, we've been debating a useless detail when it comes down it.

 

Do we agree that the amount of influence the NRA has on politicians is insidious and wrong, at least?

[SabreFan1]

Just now, Undrafted said:

Sorry, my bad--it's late and I'm tired (and I have no idea what you're doing up at 3amET)  And really, we've been debating a useless detail when it comes down it.

 

Do we agree that the amount of influence the NRA has on politicians is insidious and wrong, at least?

I think the legal bribery in Congress is wrong period.  The NRA just takes advantage of a wrong that is already there.

 

One thing about the NRA that is irritating to me for some reason is that they obviously lie about their yearly income and expenses.  They want politicians to believe that they are bigger than they are so they claim that they have hundreds of millions in revenues but counter it with hundreds of millions in expenses.  They can get away with lying because they are a non-profit. 

 

The gun industry isn't as profitable as it once was and most of the NRA memberships are courtesy memberships that don't generate large amounts in donations.

[Undrafted]

2 minutes ago, SabreFan1 said:

I think the legal bribery in Congress is wrong period.  The NRA just takes advantage of a wrong that is already there.

 

One thing about the NRA that is irritating to me for some reason is that they obviously lie about their yearly income and expenses.  They want politicians to believe that they are bigger than they are so they claim that they have hundreds of millions in revenues but counter it with hundreds of millions in expenses.  They can get away with lying because they are a non-profit. 

 

The gun industry isn't as profitable as it once was and most of the NRA memberships are courtesy memberships that don't generate large amounts in donations.

OK, on that we can agree. 

 

I don't mean to come off as combative but some of my friends and I watched the opening of the Caps/Panthers game (they're long-time Caps fans) and the pregame thing made us even more emotionally raw than we already were about the shooting.  My friends also have family in FLA (although not in the Parkland area) so that doesn't help either.

 

I bid you good night

[SabreFan1]

1 minute ago, Undrafted said:

OK, on that we can agree. 

 

I don't mean to come off as combative but some of my friends and I watched the opening of the Caps/Panthers game (they're long-time Caps fans) and the pregame thing made us even more emotionally raw than we already were about the shooting.  My friends also have family in FLA (although not in the Parkland area) so that doesn't help either.

 

I bid you good night

I'm just not very emotional about it.  I'm mostly pragmatic about that issue.

 

Good night.

[zombieksa]

Putting myself in his shoes. Trained or not - you have what I assume is a standard issue pistol and you hear clip after clip of an AR-15 going off in the school - I would be terrified to go in.

Now this man will spend every single day of his life ruined in guilt - that is a fate I would wish on no one.

[Ghostsof1915]

Courage: People who are afraid. But do what need to be done regardless. 

 

If I'm paid to protect people. That doesn't mean you go in all Rambo and play hero. It means you keep your head (if you can) and try to assist as best as you can.

 

Fear is natural, it's our fight or flight response. An AR-15 or AK47 will go through most body armour. I think he should have done more. But that's why he resigned I assume.

The Gym teacher who died protecting the students is a hero. 

 

I think this illustrates that arming teachers isn't the answer. Just like I'd rather my pilots be flying the plane, not pulling out a Glock 19 in a cockpit.