NRA offers solution: Armed guards in every US school

[Zwhaler]

http://www.democracynow.org/blog/201...wtown_massacre

Im sitting next to this lady that works for code pink, check out the media stunt they pulled at the press conference!

[VulchR]

Seriously NRA? I am ambivalent about an outright ban, but seriously NRA? Why stop at armed guards? Why not park tanks at the entrances to all the schools, make the windows bullet proof, and require the kids to wear Kevlar? We could go back to the 'duck and cover' drills we used to have at schools. Anything to distract attention from the serious lack of balance in the US's guns laws.... The NRA is engaging in the Big Lie - I hope the people will see it for what it is.

[stroked]

Originally Posted by Macaroony

Teachers are there to teach, the police is there to police. Simple as that. We'd rather put more effort in educating and helping young children so they won't even get close to the idea of killing other people out of hurt and revenge.

It isn't as simple as that. If it were, there wouldn't have been so many people murdered. There were not any police there, until it was too late.

We should end the ridiculous so called "no gun zones". They just make sitting ducks out of the law abiding.

We do need to figure out why this keeps happening. There is something wrong with people today, that wasn't there when I went to school, a few decades ago. When I was in high school, I took a shotgun to class, for an assignment, and no one thought anything of it.

[NickZac]

Originally Posted by Happybunny

Hey that's not fair, don't blame us if we are better engineers.

If you look at the engineering achievements to come from Europe, it is mind blowing. Some of the wood work and engraving, such as that done by Krieghoff, Sako, or Holland and Holland for example, quickly illustrate why there are people who collect these things. There have been some great ones to come from the US too, but something like the Glock pistol from Austria is just an engineering marvel and the fact remains that most American law enforcement guns are not of US-origin. Our most elite special forces teams often utilize very different tools than the general military, most which are imported. The innovation seen with Fabrique National has presented new solutions to old problems. Generally, the larger-scale high-end production items seem to come from Europe and smaller-scale from the US...not sure why this is.

I've not cleaned my HK in a long time (I probably should)...but it has no issues whatsoever functionally speaking, and it's had over 8,000 rounds through it since it was last cleaned (it's insides look like a dust bowl). Very few guns can do this. It can also have a squib round (one which doesn't have enough powder to propel the bullet from the barrel and so it gets lodges in the barrel) cleared by a second round without damage to the gun that prevents it from functioning where as this has historically destroyed the gun and harmed the user (it's not advised to try at home though). The ability to design something to that degree of expertise is just fascinating, as are the safety mechanisms that are build into it (one which the user can physically lock with a key, which is a great idea if you think about it as this in itself can reduce 'accidents'). I'm not a hunter and the only thing I've ever shot is paper, wood, glass, gelatin, and the occasional dead tree or old car and that is all I ever intend to shoot. But I appreciate the minds that go into designing these things and the variety of them, and it's a major reason I want to see an effort to reduce gun violence, but with every attempt to preserve gun rights.

----------

Originally Posted by webbuzz

__________________

They all have assembly operations in the United States

Some...many of the makers would send guns directly from their headquarters tho for their Law Enforcement programs, such as Sig and HK. I do believe Glock has some operations stateside tho, but it's essentially just putting them together.

[angelneo]

Seriously, do they think an armed guard or 2 can handle the situation? When those situations happen, they need to correctly identify the perpetrators, the numbers, what kind of firepower etc. Furthermore, the last thing anyone wants is to engage the perpetrator in a shootout when there's children running around.

Even then it's naive for them to think the perpetrator will not target the armed guard first (even worse is that they can be so easily identified), and bullet proof vest does not magically protect them from all gunfire.

Half the americans are already complaining about the police officers and how badly they handle certain situations, having all these armed guards is just adding more fuel to the fire.

[hulugu]

Originally Posted by glocke12

Machine gun = more than one bullet is fired with a single pull of the trigger...

http://www.atf.gov/firearms/guides/i...achinegun.html[COLOR="#808080"]...

Ah, thanks, my definition was too narrow.

Originally Posted by thewitt

...Capitalism is what motivates people to be great at what they do, not just put in their time. As the US moves towards socialism, mediocracy will become the norm.

Again, your definition of socialism fails to include Germany's social democracy, which sustains one of the most powerful economies in the world.

Originally Posted by zioxide

...Oh yeah? You going to use that gasoline to put out the fire too?..

When metaphors fall apart. I like this attack on, as you said, the tired cliches. Certainly anything can be a weapon if you hold it right, but gun advocates are like the local fire department treating a single house-fires as a wilderness fire, and rather than just pouring water on that sole residence, decide to set backfires throughout the neighborhood.

Originally Posted by NickZac

...But I appreciate the minds that go into designing these things and the variety of them, and it's a major reason I want to see an effort to reduce gun violence, but with every attempt to preserve gun rights...

That's the goal, I think. We have a serious problem in the United States, highlighted by these spectacular, horrifying events. And, we need to think seriously about how to solve them.

In the future, we need to balance and the NRA is an elephant dancing on the end of the beam.

[Eraserhead]

Originally Posted by hulugu

Again, your definition of socialism fails to include Germany's social democracy, which sustains one of the most powerful economies in the world.

Lets not forget China .

[MacNut]

David Gregory proving a point might have stepped in it himself.

NBC's David Gregory is under investigation by the Washington Metropolitan Police Department following Sunday's Meet the Press.

Officials are evaluating whether any city laws were violated when Gregory, while interviewing the National Rifle Association head Wayne LaPierre, displayed what appeared to be a 30-round gun magazine.

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/new...igation-406381

[Squadleader]

Why was it such a good idea when President Clinton proposed it...?? ......Hypocrites....

[Moyank24]

Originally Posted by Squadleader

Why was it such a good idea when President Clinton proposed it...?? ......Hypocrites....

I honestly don't remember Clinton proposing it (and I was a kid during his presidency), so I can't comment on that. However, I'm not sure if it is only what they are proposing, but the whole tone of the speech. They don't seem to be in touch with reality - we have a problem and instead of acknowledging that guns may be part of the problem they blame video games and offer the solution of putting MORE guns in public places.

I think we can all agree that guns have killed more people than video games have. And for a group who seems SO VERY upset when the Second Amendment is threatened (and let's face it, nobody is taking all their guns away), they don't seem to give a crap about any of the other amendments. Speaking of hypocrites...

They're a joke and call me a hypocrite if you want - but I take great pleasure in the fact that they continue shooting themelves in the foot everytime they speak. (pun intended).

[APlotdevice]

Originally Posted by Squadleader

Why was it such a good idea when President Clinton proposed it...?? ......Hypocrites....

The difference is that Clinton was also for stronger gun control.

[CorvusCamenarum]

If having armed guards in schools is sich a bad idea, why does Sidwell Friends School have police officers (not USSS) on its staff? Police officers are those people with the badges and guns, right?

Are some children more worth more than others, or is it a case of "ok for thee but not for me"?

[APlotdevice]

Originally Posted by CorvusCamenarum

If having armed guards in schools is sich a bad idea, why does Sidwell Friends School have police officers (not USSS) on its staff? Police officers are those people with the badges and guns, right?

Are some children more worth more than others, or is it a case of "ok for thee but not for me"?

The issue there is one of funding. Some schools... especially private schools... can afford to have cops or other armed security guards on campus. Others can't. The NRA is suggesting that the federal government should fund these programs with money it doesn't have.

[Moyank24]

Originally Posted by CorvusCamenarum

If having armed guards in schools is sich a bad idea, why does Sidwell Friends School have police officers (not USSS) on its staff? Police officers are those people with the badges and guns, right?

Are some children more worth more than others, or is it a case of "ok for thee but not for me"?

Apparently in your quest for the ultimate tit-for-tat you have completely missed the point.

The "solution" they offered up was to place armed police in schools. Do you honestly think that armed police in every.single.school is going to solve the problem the United States has with gun violence?

Instead of bringing rational thought and allowing for any discussion, they blamed video games and suggested more guns in public places. Why are you trying to defend them?

[rdowns]

Originally Posted by CorvusCamenarum

If having armed guards in schools is sich a bad idea, why does Sidwell Friends School have police officers (not USSS) on its staff? Police officers are those people with the badges and guns, right?

Are some children more worth more than others, or is it a case of "ok for thee but not for me"?

Who cares what a private school does? That's between them and the parents who send their children to school there. It doesn't surprise me that there is security given the children of many famous and powerful people attend. My niece attends a very expensive NYC private school with armed guards. My nephew goes to another with no armed guards.

As for the NRA, please explain to me how putting police in schools will help with our gun problem. And yes, it's a gun problem.

[hulugu]

Originally Posted by Squadleader

Why was it such a good idea when President Clinton proposed it...?? ......Hypocrites....

Source?

Originally Posted by CorvusCamenarum

If having armed guards in schools is sich a bad idea, why does Sidwell Friends School have police officers (not USSS) on its staff? Police officers are those people with the badges and guns, right?

Are some children more worth more than others, or is it a case of "ok for thee but not for me"?

What is with the right and their obsession with the President's security? The US president and his children occupy a unique security situation that does not compare easily to the average American's. We might as well compare the average American's daily commute to a drive along Afghanistan's Hwy 3. It's ridiculous.

So, Sidwell Friends is unique. However, that said, the reintroduction of the School Resource Officer (an old program that has endured serious cutbacks as states tried to control their budgets) might work better than arming teachers or adding in an additional police force with NRA training and Federal money.

The problem with the NRA's solution is answered by the Columbine shootings, when the presence of one SRO and a security guard failed to stop the shootings. A single armed officer may or may not be enough in each school and thus, this "solution" is at best a band-aid on a much bigger and more serious wound.

[CorvusCamenarum]

Originally Posted by rdowns

Who cares what a private school does? That's between them and the parents who send their children to school there. It doesn't surprise me that there is security given the children of many famous and powerful people attend. My niece attends a very expensive NYC private school with armed guards. My nephew goes to another with no armed guards.

As for the NRA, please explain to me how putting police in schools will help with our gun problem. And yes, it's a gun problem.

Do you not find it the least bit hypocritical in that the same people that are calling for yet more gun control are the same people who send their kids to schools protected by men with guns? It's little more laughable than Dianne Feinstein having her own CHL (she does, btw - Chuck Schumer does as well).

Gun bans don't and won't work, chiefly because those who seek to enact or enforce them fail to comprehend why.

Originally Posted by hulugu

What is with the right and their obsession with the President's security? The US president and his children occupy a unique security situation that does not compare easily to the average American's. We might as well compare the average American's daily commute to a drive along Afghanistan's Hwy 3. It's ridiculous.

I wasn't talking about the USSS, unless by some off chance they're not up to the task on their own (which I doubt). So why the need for 10 armed cops in addition? Oh, and they're looking to hire, so eventually make it 11. The point is, if it's not the answer, then why is it already being selectively done?

So, Sidwell Friends is unique. However, that said, the reintroduction of the School Resource Officer (an old program that has endured serious cutbacks as states tried to control their budgets) might work better than arming teachers or adding in an additional police force with NRA training and Federal money.

Actually, I'd prefer it be trained police rather than issuing sidearms to teachers.

The problem with the NRA's solution is answered by the Columbine shootings, when the presence of one SRO and a security guard failed to stop the shootings. A single armed officer may or may not be enough in each school and thus, this "solution" is at best a band-aid on a much bigger and more serious wound.

I don't see it as a gun issue. I see it as a cultural issue that goes far deeper, and sadly is probably irreparable at this stage.

[k995]

Originally Posted by CorvusCamenarum

Do you not find it the least bit hypocritical in that the same people that are calling for yet more gun control are the same people who send their kids to schools protected by men with guns? It's little more laughable than Dianne Feinstein having her own CHL (she does, btw - Chuck Schumer does as well).

ALl the same persons? And do they have any say in this matter or is it just good schools that happen to have this?

Such general statement usualy are largely BS.

Gun bans don't and won't work, chiefly because those who seek to enact or enforce them fail to comprehend why.

Fact remains the gun crime and deaths in the USA are several times higher then any other western nation. Same for homocide rates.

You explain that without the extraordinary number of guns the USA has.
The more legal guns there are in a country the easier it gets for criminal to get there hands on and the more inclined they will be to have them.

Add to that accidents and crazed killers.

I wasn't talking about the USSS, unless by some off chance they're not up to the task on their own (which I doubt). So why the need for 10 armed cops in addition? Oh, and they're looking to hire, so eventually make it 11. The point is, if it's not the answer, then why is it already being selectively done?

To my knowledge schools are free in this.

As columbine showed it matters little. Columbine had 1 armed gaurd and 1 policeofficers who were directly at the scene from the beginning and where unable to do anything .

And an armed gaurd is still not an armed kindergarten teacher.

I don't see it as a gun issue. I see it as a cultural issue that goes far deeper, and sadly is probably irreparable at this stage.

The gun culture is part of the issue. Irrational fear of gouv is another, poverty , religion, general culture,...

And yes its a deep issue but not irreparable, that seems more like an excuse to put guards everywhere.

[rdowns]

Originally Posted by CorvusCamenarum

Do you not find it the least bit hypocritical in that the same people that are calling for yet more gun control are the same people who send their kids to schools protected by men with guns? It's little more laughable than Dianne Feinstein having her own CHL (she does, btw - Chuck Schumer does as well).

Gun bans don't and won't work, chiefly because those who seek to enact or enforce them fail to comprehend why.

And here we have the disconnect. You go from those who want gun control to gun bans. There is a wide chasm between the two.

[Huntn]

While I can see armed guards in schools as an immediate way to address the problem, I've read several articles about how the NRA has hamstrung the ATF's ability to keep track of firearms in the U.S. You know how you can't go into a pharmacy and get your renewals until when they are due? This is because of computers. When it comes to tracing the origins of the purchase of a gun used in a crime, it involves shoe boxes and cards and if there is a record, they are lucky to be able to trace it back.

[rdowns]

Originally Posted by Huntn

While I can see armed guards in schools as an immediate way to address the problem, I've read several articles about how the NRA has hamstrung the ATF's ability to keep track of firearms in the U.S. You know how you can't go into a pharmacy and get your renewals until when they are due? This is because of computers. When it comes to tracing the origins of the purchase of a gun used in a crime, it involves shoe boxes and cards and if there is a record, they are lucky to be able to trace it back.

Armed guards don't address the problem. The problem is easy access to guns.

I believe this is what you are referring to.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/26/us...ewanted=1&_r=1

[Huntn]

Originally Posted by rdowns

Armed guards don't address the problem. The problem is easy access to guns.

I believe this is what you are referring to.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/26/us...ewanted=1&_r=1

Yes this is what I was referring too. Although I did say this was a way to address the issue, I failed to mention that it was probably not an effective way.

For example, under current laws the bureau is prohibited from creating a federal registry of gun transactions. So while detectives on television tap a serial number into a computer and instantly identify the buyer of a firearm, the reality could not be more different.

When law enforcement officers recover a gun and serial number, workers at the bureau’s National Tracing Center here — a windowless warehouse-style building on a narrow road outside town — begin making their way through a series of phone calls, asking first the manufacturer, then the wholesaler and finally the dealer to search their files to identify the buyer of the firearm.

About a third of the time, the process involves digging through records sent in by companies that have closed, in many cases searching by hand through cardboard boxes filled with computer printouts, hand-scrawled index cards or even water-stained sheets of paper.

The paranoid tail is wagging the dog. There is no excuse for this situation. We know who owns cars, there should be a computerized system that identifies gun owners and available to law enforcement. You must realize there is a contingent of gun nuts who don't want any federalis knowing the number and type of guns they own.

[Squadleader]

Originally Posted by hulugu

Source?

Please......http://www.nationalreview.com/corner...control-legis#


Such a hypocrite ...Source...?? What a joke...What a typical response when caught with your pants down...

[Moyank24]

Originally Posted by Squadleader

Please......http://www.nationalreview.com/corner...control-legis#


Such a hypocrite ...Source...?? What a joke...What a typical response when caught with your pants down...

What's your point? Columbine has shown that even having an armed guard in a school may not prevent such a tragic occurence. So if someone was a proponent of this in 1998, maybe the lack of success (Columbine was in 1999) gives them a different point of view 14 years later.

Do you honestly believe that the violent video games are to blame for the problem we have in the United States? And do you honestly believe that placing armed guards in school will have any effect? The outrage people feel towards the NRA is their complete and total denial that there is a problem and their deflection of blame. Instead of taking an opportunity to create a discussion between opposing sides, all they did was widen the gap.

And the fact that the only way you have to defend them is a game of tit for tat speaks for itself.

[samiwas]

Originally Posted by Squadleader

Please......http://www.nationalreview.com/corner...control-legis#


Such a hypocrite ...Source...?? What a joke...What a typical response when caught with your pants down...

How is he a hypocrite for asking for a source? That's not hypocritical, as much as your pinhole view of things might lead you to believe. If he didn't know Clinton did that, and asked for a source, that's called research. If he supported Clinton when he did it, but is against someone doing it now, THAT is being hypocritical (even though it's entirely possible for someone's views to change in 14 years...mine certainly have). However, he provided no opinion on Clinton doing it...therefore, he's not being a hypocrite.

Sorry about your loss.