injury Posted December 21, 2012 Share Posted December 21, 2012 Discuss the NRA's "solution" to the Newtown shooting from their press conference this morning. http://washingtonexaminer.com/nra-wants-armed-security-guards-at-every-school/article/2516627 this makes me unbelievably angry. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TAXMAN79 Posted December 21, 2012 Share Posted December 21, 2012 YEA, TOTALLY. THEN IF EVERYBODY IS ARMED NOTHING BAD WOULD HAPPEN, JUST LIKE WHEN IT WAS STOPPED AT FORT HOOD. OH, WAIT. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fist 666 Posted December 21, 2012 Share Posted December 21, 2012 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theprotester Posted December 21, 2012 Share Posted December 21, 2012 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? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fist 666 Posted December 22, 2012 Share Posted December 22, 2012 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) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theprotester Posted December 22, 2012 Share Posted December 22, 2012 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? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fist 666 Posted December 22, 2012 Share Posted December 22, 2012 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Realism Posted December 22, 2012 Share Posted December 22, 2012 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bourgeoisie Posted December 22, 2012 Share Posted December 22, 2012 transcript from today's NRA press conf. http://home.nra.org/pdf/Transcript_PDF.pdf Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Walid Jumblat Posted December 22, 2012 Share Posted December 22, 2012 unfortunately predictable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
morton Posted December 22, 2012 Share Posted December 22, 2012 The NRA is in the gun selling business, requiring 100,000 more guns is just good business. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
injury Posted December 22, 2012 Author Share Posted December 22, 2012 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
..romero.. Posted December 22, 2012 Share Posted December 22, 2012 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
morton Posted December 22, 2012 Share Posted December 22, 2012 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
..romero.. Posted December 22, 2012 Share Posted December 22, 2012 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fist 666 Posted December 22, 2012 Share Posted December 22, 2012 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Incognito Posted December 22, 2012 Share Posted December 22, 2012 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shai Posted December 22, 2012 Share Posted December 22, 2012 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
..romero.. Posted December 23, 2012 Share Posted December 23, 2012 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. 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Archie Bunker Posted December 23, 2012 Share Posted December 23, 2012 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fist 666 Posted December 23, 2012 Share Posted December 23, 2012 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Archie Bunker Posted December 23, 2012 Share Posted December 23, 2012 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... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fist 666 Posted December 23, 2012 Share Posted December 23, 2012 explosive vests don't kill people. suicide bombers do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Realism Posted December 23, 2012 Share Posted December 23, 2012 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... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Incognito Posted December 23, 2012 Share Posted December 23, 2012 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fist 666 Posted December 23, 2012 Share Posted December 23, 2012 because irony holds a lot of weight in a conversation about how to limit dead kids. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Incognito Posted December 23, 2012 Share Posted December 23, 2012 Ask a parent who buried their kid in CT this week what they think about this... I know one personally... no bullshit. Actually I would be curious to see what one of them would say. They live in a city with the 4th strictest gun laws in our country. There is no doubt in my mind someone's life, if not multiple others, could have been spared that day had conceal carry been legal on school grounds. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fist 666 Posted December 23, 2012 Share Posted December 23, 2012 http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/12/armed-civilians-do-not-stop-mass-shootings Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Incognito Posted December 23, 2012 Share Posted December 23, 2012 So you're suggesting the teachers/staff who got killed that day really had no chance against this kid because he was a mass shooter? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fist 666 Posted December 23, 2012 Share Posted December 23, 2012 trained police and LE have a hit success rate of about 35% in a stressful situation. surround yourself with children and sheer fucking terror. now unload your magazine (because thats what people do in stressful situations) and know that only 5 of 15 of those rounds is likely hit your target, assuming that teachers are as well trained as LE. what i'm suggesting is that your idea of more guns in the scenario historically has done NOTHING to stop mass shooters, perhaps someday that routine will break, but it hasn't yet. and like typical gun rhetoric your entire argument is based in hypotheticals, not in history or reality. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.