NRA offers solution: Armed guards in every US school

[citizenzen]

Originally Posted by SLC Flyfishing

I don't think anyone thinks that the video games actually cause anyone to become a homicidal maniac, but that what they do is desensitize players to wanton violence. When the objective of the game is to mow-down as many people as possible before you are killed or run out of ammunition then what else are kids supposed to learn? Add to it that some poor saps spend many hours (10+ in some cases) with these things, and supplement them with gory movies and violent music and it suddenly paints a picture of violence as acceptable.

No, what these games do is give disturbed youth a template for killing large amounts of people efficiently. That combined with mental derangement and/or or hopelessness is what (in my opinion) is at the heart of the problem.

Does that make sense?

Yes.

The games are a symptom (not a cause) of a society that glories force and violence.

Our obsession with guns is also a symptom of a society that glorifies force and violence.

The number of people killed by guns is the result of living in a society awash in firearms that glorifies force and violence.

[Merkava_4]

Originally Posted by hulugu

LaPierre's statement pegged my irony meter.

He pegged my irony meter too. Like he says, we have armed protection for our President; armed protection for our soldiers; armed protection for our police officers, and armed protection for our hospitals, but the little kids at the elementary schools are left to be protected by a defenseless school principle and a classroom teacher.

[SLC Flyfishing]

Originally Posted by Mac'nCheese

I think your phrase "combined with mental derangement..." should pretty much end the conversation over the fault of video games in shootings. Even if they do contribute, no one would take away the rights of every one else to play these games because a very few can't handle em. That's like saying we should take away all alcohol because some can't handle it. Or all guns cause some misuse them. Etc etc.

But do alcohol or guns indirectly teach anyone how to kill? Or do they only provide a means to do it?

I also don't think anyone is suggesting banning violent video games, or even laying sole blame on them. Rather, they are pointing out the fact that their content contributes to violent behavior, and published studies have proven this "again and again".

[Mac'nCheese]

Originally Posted by SLC Flyfishing

But do alcohol or guns indirectly teach anyone how to kill? Or do they only provide a means to do it?

I also don't think anyone is suggesting banning violent video games, or even laying sole blame on them. Rather, they are pointing out the fact that their content contributes to violent behavior, and published studies have proven this "again and again".

I'm not sure video games teach children how to kill, directly or indirectly. They don't really explain loading a gun, how to turn off a safety, etc etc. but even if they did, u raise a good question: is one worse than the other: the video game that teaches kids to enjoying killing but doesn't give them the means or the gun that gives them the means but not the instruction?

[glocke12]

Originally Posted by Don't panic

this is completely false.

i live and work there.
i walk its streets every day.
i think i would notice.

----------



maybe they can pay for it with property taxes levied on guns.
for each working gun you legally own you have to pay taxes that will cover the cost of having armed guards in all public places in the country.
tax amount will depend on the type of gun, starting low with hunting firearms and on an increasing scale for increasingly dangerous and powerful ones.

i have been up there several times, and have seen cops with MP5s or M4s in Penn St...in the financial district, out side of St. Pats. and other places..don't tell me its false.

[SLC Flyfishing]

Originally Posted by Don't panic

maybe they can pay for it with property taxes levied on guns.
for each working gun you legally own you have to pay taxes that will cover the cost of having armed guards in all public places in the country.
tax amount will depend on the type of gun, starting low with hunting firearms and on an increasing scale for increasingly dangerous and powerful ones.

This is laughable! Tell me which guns you refer to when labeling some as "increasingly dangerous and powerful". Because based on that statement I can pretty much guarantee guarantee that you don't even know what you're talking about.

[Ugg]

The best comment I have heard today in regards to Wayne's unbelievably callous speech is this: "putting more guns in schools is like dying your white carpet red because you spilled a drop of wine."

Obviously he had never seen "Natural Born Killers" because If he had, he would realize that it was a parody about gratuitous gun violence in movies and the gun crazed public that eats it up.

Next the NRA and its minions will push for laws mandating everybody carry a loaded gun at all times. Just another "invisible" right wing tax on the American public.

[NickZac]

Originally Posted by Tomorrow

I'm disappointed that he tried to blame video games and movies - they're no more to blame than the guns themselves.

Too many people are trying to look for a place to lay blame for bad behavior, instead of laying it squarely on the perpetrator where it belongs.

The perpetrator is the person. Let's get that straight.

With that said, I am very disappointed in the NRA's response...and to be honest I think most gun owners are too. I see their stubbornness actually leading to more restrictive laws rather than a collaboration, and their refusal to consider anything other than, "NO" is infuriating. If you look at the reaction of republican lawmakers, this response is pretty across the board. So now the NRA has alienated themselves FROM gun owners, who are shaking their heads in disbelief...and I have a feeling their membership stats are going to reflect this.

They also refused to consider the state of our healthcare system is somewhat at fault, and rather say mental health itself is the one to blame. Clearly statistics on healthcare in the United States are meaningless to them. Someone said violent outbursts in other countries don't exist as it does here...I would wager a lot of money that this is part of the reason.

I've said previously we should look at things like video games. I've said previously we should look at things like security guards. I've said previously our healthcare system needs to be reconsidered. I've also said we should look at gun laws and procedures. They are lacking the third and forth.

[Moyank24]

Originally Posted by glocke12

i have been up there several times, and have seen cops with MP5s or M4s in Penn St...in the financial district, out side of St. Pats. and other places..don't tell me its false.

It must have been for some special reason or you are exaggerating, because the patrol cops in NYC don't carry those. It is certainly not a normal sight for NY'ers who work and live there.

And thank goodness or those officers who shot all of those people by accident outside of the Empire State Building could have done a lot more damage.

I'm born & bred in NY and the only time I can recall seeing any cops with those types of firearms is on September 13th, 2011. I interned at 40th/Park and there was a bomb threat at Grand Central. I'll never forget the sight of the cops running in with "machine guns" drawn and commuters running out.

[CalWizrd]

Originally Posted by Moyank24

It must have been for some special reason or you are exaggerating, because the patrol cops in NYC don't carry those. It is certainly not a normal sight for NY'ers who work and live there.

And thank goodness or those officers who shot all of those people by accident outside of the Empire State Building could have done a lot more damage.

I'm born & bred in NY and the only time I can recall seeing any cops with those types of firearms is on September 13th, 2011. I interned at 40th/Park and there was a bomb threat at Grand Central. I'll never forget the sight of the cops running in with "machine guns" drawn and commuters running out.

If you venture down to Wall Street you will see them by the NYSE pretty much all of the time.

[Moyank24]

Originally Posted by SLC Flyfishing

But do alcohol or guns indirectly teach anyone how to kill? Or do they only provide a means to do it?

I also don't think anyone is suggesting banning violent video games, or even laying sole blame on them. Rather, they are pointing out the fact that their content contributes to violent behavior, and published studies have proven this "again and again".

How come these video games don't cause such violent behavior anywhere else? Could it be because it's so much easier to access guns here? Guns aren't the only factor in the problem we have, but to ignore the method completely shows either extreme ignorance or denial.

I've been playing MLB on an XBox/Playstation/Etc.. for years. Maybe I should try out for the Yankees. And during the offseason, I'll take my Madden skills to the NY Jets. They can use all the help they can get.

[Moyank24]

Originally Posted by CalWizrd

If you venture down to Wall Street you will see them by the NYSE pretty much all of the time.

Then I stand corrected. I guess if it they would have them, that's where they would be - I'm not sure what the point would be, though. I really never noticed them midtown, or anywhere else for that matter. But maybe I just wasn't paying attention.

[LethalWolfe]

Originally Posted by SLC Flyfishing

Rather, they are pointing out the fact that their content contributes to violent behavior, and published studies have proven this "again and again".

Links?

Another poster earlier in this thread posted numerous links to studies saying there is no evidence to suggest violent games will turn an otherwise nonviolent person violent. I've read numerous studies that show that violent people tend to enjoy violent games but that's not the same thing (obviously).

Also what is the rating of the video games we are talking about? Battlefield, Modern Warfare, GTA, etc., are all rated 'M' which means for players 17 and older. Where are the parents in all of this teaching kids the difference between fantasy and reality? Sure, if an unstable 10yr old plays adult-oriented games all day long and there's no parental intervention I wouldn't be surprised if the kid developed a warped sense of reality but making the game the scapegoat just ignores the real problem.

It's the video gams fault! No, it's D&D's fault! No, it's rock music's fault! No, it's the media's fault! If we point the finger enough times eventually we'll get it right...


Lethal

[Zaid]

Wow, just wow. Looking at this from the outside it just seems completely bonkers.

This is like saying petrol doesn't cause fires. So if there's a fire, we should put it out by pouring petrol over it.

(Yes I know, imperfect analogy - but that's really what this NRA guy sounds like)

[Don't panic]

Originally Posted by glocke12

i have been up there several times, and have seen cops with MP5s or M4s in Penn St...in the financial district, out side of St. Pats. and other places..don't tell me its false.

it's still completely false that it's "prevalent in manhattan".
and in penn station there is (was, it less common now) sometimes more heavily armed military, usually not cops. it is/was part of the anti-terrorism deployment.

Originally Posted by CalWizrd

If you venture down to Wall Street you will see them by the NYSE pretty much all of the time.

far cry from 'prevalent'.
cops in manhattan do not go around with machine guns, plain and simple. unless you like to tail the SWAT teams...

[CalWizrd]

Originally Posted by Don't panic

it's still completely false that it's "prevalent in manhattan".
and in penn station there is (was, it less common now) sometimes more heavily armed military, usually not cops. it is/was part of the anti-terrorism deployment.



far cry from 'prevalent'.
cops in manhattan do not go around with machine guns, plain and simple. unless you like to tail the SWAT teams...

Hey, don't get your panties in a wad. I didn't make the original statement... I was just stating a fact.

[Don't panic]

Originally Posted by CalWizrd

Hey, don't get your panties in a wad. I didn't make the original statement... I was just stating a fact.

yes, but the original statement (which your post was supporting) was:
"ever been to Manhattan? cops with machine guns are prevalent"
this is not even close to being true.

the fact that some special units or military are heavily armed in some sensitive locations, is a completely different story (and has to do with terrorism, not crime fighting)

[CalWizrd]

Originally Posted by Don't panic

yes, but the original statement (which your post was supporting) was:
"ever been to Manhattan? cops with machine guns are prevalent"
this is not even close to being true...

My advice to you... Don't Panic

[thewitt]

Originally Posted by APlotdevice

Once again the NRA demonstrates that the only thing they really care about is profit margins.

What is it about capitalism that you find so utterly offensive?

The NRA doesn't sell guns. The NRA is made up of people, just people, who believe in the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, and the maintenance of your personal freedoms under that document.

----------

Originally Posted by Zaid

Wow, just wow. Looking at this from the outside it just seems completely bonkers.

This is like saying petrol doesn't cause fires. So if there's a fire, we should put it out by pouring petrol over it.

(Yes I know, imperfect analogy - but that's really what this NRA guy sounds like)

Petrol doesn't cause fires.... Hello?

[APlotdevice]

Originally Posted by thewitt

What is it about capitalism that you find so utterly offensive?

The NRA doesn't sell guns. The NRA is made up of people, just people, who believe in the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, and the maintenance of your personal freedoms under that document.

It's not capitalism itself I find offense. It's greed to the point where human life and dignity is completely disregarded. Those members you speak of pay dues to the NRA. Which in part goes to paying its leadership's multimillion dollar salaries. Meaning that a decline in gun ownership would hurt their bottom line. As well as the bottom line of the gun manufacturers whom they represent.

If people really want to be true to the second Amendment then they should use the weapons that the founding fathers were actually referring to:


Single round
Slow to reload
Short range
Expensive

One person could not have caused such a massacre with is kind of weapon.

[LethalWolfe]

Originally Posted by APlotdevice

It's not capitalism I find offense. It's greed and a complete disgregard for human life. Those members you speak of pay dues to the NRA. Which in part goes to paying its leadership's multimillion dollar salaries.

More of a side note but no one at the NRA has a multimillion dollar salary.

Link

As for salaries, fifty-six people in the organization earned more than $100,000 in 2010—and 10 made more than $250,000. Lapierre does not top the list. Kayne B. Robinson, the executive director of general operations does. He was paid just over $1 million. Lapierre was second, pulling in $970,000 in reportable and estimated comp.

[APlotdevice]

Originally Posted by LethalWolfe

More of a side note but no one at the NRA has a multimillion dollar salary.

Link

Ah. Got mixed up between collective and singular salaries. Still the point stands that they make quite a bit of money from their membership.

[hulugu]

Originally Posted by Tomorrow

So you're okay with people owning assault weapons, large capacity magazines, etc. as long as they don't harm anybody with them? Just making sure I understand what you're saying, because I'm pretty sure that's the same thing the NRA has been saying all along.

If they could guarantee that no one would be harmed by them, sure. But they can't, therein lies the structural problem.

Originally Posted by glocke12

i have been up there several times, and have seen cops with MP5s or M4s in Penn St...in the financial district, out side of St. Pats. and other places..don't tell me its false.

My understanding of the definition of 'machine gun' does not include either the MP5 (a submachine gun, or Maschinenpistole 5) or the M4 (an assault rifle).

Originally Posted by thewitt

...The NRA doesn't sell guns. The NRA is made up of people, just people, who believe in the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, and the maintenance of your personal freedoms under that document.

I think you mean made up of gun companies, just companies, who believe in the their interpretation of the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution of the United States (as opposed to Jamaica), and the maintenance of their profits under that document.

[NickZac]

Originally Posted by hulugu

If they could guarantee that no one would be harmed by them, sure. But they can't, therein lies the structural problem.

My understanding of the definition of 'machine gun' does not include either the MP5 (a submachine gun, or Maschinenpistole 5) or the M4 (an assault rifle).

I think you mean made up of gun companies, just companies, who believe in the their interpretation of the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution of the United States (as opposed to Jamaica), and the maintenance of their profits under that document.

'Machine gun' generally terms larger caliber than a MP5/MP5SD/MP7. An MP5 is considered a 'subgun' or sub-machine gun as it fires a pistol round. A MP7 or P90 is considered a 'PDW' or personal defense weapon, in that it fires a round often intended to defeat soft armored targets that a pistol round cannot. Some people define a machine gun as something that is belt fed only, but that's getting overly technical for the point of this convo.

Anything that is automatic, that is, you hold the trigger and it fires more than one round (burst or full mag-dump), constitutes an automatic firearm and for those (pre-ban) models that civilians can own (made through 5/1986 but not after) constitute Title 2, (almost always) Class III under the NFA, the same class as suppressors and SBRs (short barreled rifles). The M4 and MP5 are both auto-capable and/or rapid-burst capable (there are rapid, fully, and rapid/fully ARs. A civilian cannot buy an actual M4 because it was not made until about a decade after the ban period went into affect (May 1986). Civilians can by the sem-automatic version, the A4, which has a few other differences from the M4 as well such as a longer barrel and sometimes different stocks and mags and barrels that do not accomodate add-ons like grenade launchers. What actually constitutes an A4 and an AR has really blurred over the years, as has the term H-Bar, or heavy barrel. But by law, the M4 is a machine gun as is the MP5/MP5SD.

The background check for Title 2, Class III is intense. Fingerprinting, a $250 tax stamp, an extensive criminal background check, a multi-month wait, consent to allow your house to be searched and you being demanded to immediately produce the firearm and paperwork at the requests of a federal agency, and sometimes even supplemental state checks including up to in-person interviews make the process slow. Some states have mental health supplemental information as well, such as consent to allow LEAs to see your medical records at any given time. These firearms cannot be used for defensive or hunting purposes, and paperwork must always follow as does formal intentions for interstate transportation IIRC. Given the ban, these firearms are rare so cost is high. The cheapest MP5 we ever delivered was about $18,000 and the closet thing to an A5 (older M16) was about $15,000. We delivered both models in finer condition for over $20,000. Class III firearms are rarely used in crimes as they are rare and closely monitored by the BATF. Many people do not realize that civilians can own these and of those who do, even fewer understand how they differ from a traditional semi-auto pistol or rifle.

And keep in mind most firearm companies are European

[Don't panic]

Originally Posted by CalWizrd

My advice to you... Don't Panic

so witty!