Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
injury

NRA: Put an armed guard in every school, yeah guns!

Recommended Posts

YEA, TOTALLY. THEN IF EVERYBODY IS ARMED NOTHING BAD WOULD HAPPEN, JUST LIKE WHEN IT WAS STOPPED AT FORT HOOD. OH, WAIT.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I started to write a response, but the premise just pisses me off so I'm not going to complete the thought.

 

Sacrificing liberty for security and such, This goes against so much of the NRA base's typical rhetoric I simply don't understand why they settled on this as their first thing to say after sandy hook.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nearly as well thought out as arming teachers in Texas.

 

The funny thing is, they blame the media, but without the media, the NRA's perceived 'power' wouldn't even exist. It's been shown in the last two elections that they can't really do a god damn thing. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I was under the impression every single candidate they backed failed?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

After 9/11 federal agencies like the IRS and SSA started putting armed guards at their branches.

I am friends with a few guys who work these posts, and the general consensus from the public is "why the fuck do we need armed guards at the social security office?"

Some of the problem offices have gone so far as to install metal detectors, which causes a hilarious uproar among the gun nuts.

 

As federally trained, licensed, and supervised guards they get paid around $25+ an hour (in WA, I don't know about other states). which means the company that pays them is probably charging the fed at least $50/hr per guard. Some posts are 24/265, some just regular business hours.

 

Lets pretend that you could get guards with that grade of training for the school guards. Lets pretend you could do it for 1/2 the cost and stick to 180 days/yr of school, and assume the guards only stay for school hours (6) not til all practices and such are finished.

 

There are close to 99,000 public schools in the US.

 

so by my math thats about $2,673,000,000 that will be billed to the federal government, this does not include gear, uniforms, training, background checks, supervisory costs, rounds, qualification shoots etc etc.

 

 

its possible that my math is fucked, so let me know. (99k schools X 180 days x 6 hours a day x $25/hr billed to fed per guard)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I had this conversation with a bloke from Texas the other day;

 

Best I can tell, there are about 100,000 public schools in the US. On the conservative side for a retired police officer or ex military member, say you pay them $30k a year. Thats 3 Billion in security spending, if you only have 1 per school, for a country that already borrows .42 for every dollar it spends.

 

Your maths add up to me.

 

Is there any firm data on the revenue generated by gun sales? It could well make that $3B look like pocket change, no?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I haven't seen any data like that, but assumedly yes.

 

This just seems like such a poorly thought out argument from the NRA, I don't know what I expected, but more than this I guess.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And movie theaters...and temples...and shopping malls...hell, internationally? Better cover cafes and youth camps, too.

 

Ironic for an organization that gets all masturbatory about individual rights to advocate beefing up the security complex that's already wild present in most inner city public schools, but since it's the NRA I'm not exactly surprised.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The NRA is in the gun selling business, requiring 100,000 more guns is just good business.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The NRA is in the gun selling business, requiring 100,000 more guns is just good business.

 

that's what im thinking, and that disgusts me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the idea that we need an armed gaurd at all our schools is redonkulous. people need to chill out like your kids are really in a whole lot of danger of being shot up. they aren't. this type of shit rare. i for one am not going to live my life in fear whenever i go to a theater or a college that im gonna get my head blown off.

 

something to ponder. fully automatic guns are used in less than 1 percent of all gun related deaths. semi auto rifles only make up about 1-5 percent. the vast majority, about 70 percent are done with handguns. why? because fullys are no longer manufactured or imported in the united states, and the ones that are still on the market are extremely regulated and expensive as all hell. so it makes it very hard to get ahold of. not to mention its alot harder to go around unnoticed with an ak or ak variant than it is with a handgun. they just aren't very practical.

 

will arming everyone necessarily mean that we will stop all these mass shootings? no. probably not. some will fold under the pressure, or will fuck around and shoot the wrong person. but the point the nra was making or SHOULD have made is that having one means you aren't completely fucked when a life threatening situation arises. its the great equalizer so they say. it doesnt mean that you'll never get taken out, but it does mean you have the tools to defend yourself if need be. but anyone can get caught slippin.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
but the point the nra was making or SHOULD have made is that having one means you aren't completely fucked when a life threatening situation arises. its the great equalizer so they say. it doesnt mean that you'll never get taken out, but it does mean you have the tools to defend yourself if need be. but anyone can get caught slippin.

 

There were police at Virginia Tech and Columbine, wasn't there a shooting a couple years back at a army base? The marketing and mythology behind guns is that they are a equalizing force but that does not hold true with the actual numbers.

 

If you have a pistol in your house it is more likely that you will kill yourself or your wife than a armed intruder.

 

The NRA is representing their true constituency which is the MANUFACTURERS rather than the gun owners.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

thats what i said in the first sentence of the paragraph you qouted. im not saying that having a gun is going to necessarily mean you will be safer. but it does mean that if you are put into a situation where you might be attacked you have a way to defend yourself.

 

the way i look at it is that we have a second amendment to protect us from tyranny (though at the time the founding fathers probably didn't envision tanks and drones lol) because its much harder to pull any slick shit with an armed populace, which is why one of the first things corrupt governments want to do is limit the use of arms in their citizenry. but the downside to having that second amendment is that occasionally crazy or stupid people will get their hands on them. but i don't think that means that the rest of the people should be stripped of their rights to own weapons.

 

"but you don't need a semi automatic rifle" why the fuck not? whether they have a need for it or not is not the issue. you don't NEED a sports car, and it seems more likely that you'd speed in one, therefore making it more dangerous to the general public. but we don't ban sports cars do we? if you fuck up and smack into an old lady crossing the streets that on you, not the car. you drove it, the car can't drive itself. nor can a gun shoot by itself. you have to make the decision to pull the trigger.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the term semi-auto also refers to handguns.

 

the number of mass killings (4 or more deaths) that include semi-auto weapons (like AKs and ARs) is significant.

 

final_weapons2.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm an NRA life member and even I think their suggestion of having an armed guard at every school is totally ridiculous. I really don't understand how that sounds like a good idea. I'd back the idea of teachers/school employees having the option to carry concealed if they are already licensed though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think having cops/metal detectors/guns in public schools simply reveals their true purpose, so depending on where you stand on things like full disclosure...

 

Since parents don´t want to admit that public education is part of the problem, they´re going to have to put up with militarized campuses until they get serious about how (and what) their kids are being taught.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
the term semi-auto also refers to handguns.

 

the number of mass killings (4 or more deaths) that include semi-auto weapons (like AKs and ARs) is significant.

 

final_weapons2.png

 

because trying to take out alot of people with a bolt action rifle is alot harder of a process, unless you are like the austin campus shooter and have a clock tower to hit people from. it makes sense that they would use semi automatic weapons, especially considering that most weapons made today in particular handguns are semi automatic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ask a parent who buried their kid in CT this week what they think about this... I know one personally... no bullshit.

 

 

 

The only thing that can stop a bad guy with a gun, is a good guy with a gun.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

perhaps,

but why not work towards a society that makes fewer bad guys and even fewer bad guys with guns instead of pretending that guns have nothing to do with murder.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sounds great... dont hold your breath... what do we do in the mean time?

 

This piece of trash wouldnt have said "awwww shit... i dont have a gun... looks like I cant flip out and cause harm to anyone... I'll just stay in my basement."

 

A person intent to harm will harm...

 

Watch the footage of the responders... hundreds of guns on the scene in the hands of police... not a single one was fired or harmed anyone... because of the person holding it. the PERSON kills...

 

more people are killed by drunk drivers every week than by guns... where is the car-control? the alcohol - control?

 

Banning guns is the window dressing...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Asking where the control is on cars/fast food/alcohol/tobacco/whatever ignores the glaring fact that a gun is something solely designed to kill.

 

It literally serves no other purpose in the grand scheme of things, which is why you're never going to hear the "control" debate being applied in a similar way to any of those other things...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Asking where the control is on cars/fast food/alcohol/tobacco/whatever ignores the glaring fact that a gun is something solely designed to kill.

 

It literally serves no other purpose in the grand scheme of things, which is why you're never going to hear the "control" debate being applied in a similar way to any of those other things...

 

 

ironic that something designed "solely to kill" also happens to be the least dangerous in terms of deaths per year than everything else listed (cars, alcohol, tobacco) and lets just say fast food can lump in with obesity lumped in with heart disease.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Register for a 12ozProphet forum account or sign in to comment

You need to be a forum member in order to comment. Forum accounts are separate from shop accounts.

Create an account

Register to become a 12ozProphet forum member.

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×