After Hours

General discussion


The NRA says put armed guards in schools..

By CharlieSpencer ·
Tags: Off Topic

Putting armed guards in schools -may- be a solution for schools, but what about movie theaters, malls, houses of worship, and other locations that have been the sites of killings this year? Is the solution to put armed guards EVERYWHERE? Maybe this is some kind of jobs program? How are we paying for all these guards? How about a fat tax on ammunition?

NRA CEO Wayne LaPierre :"The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun,"

No mention of even trying to prevent the bad guy from getting the gun in the first place. No call for stricter enforcement of existing laws, or suggestion of improved mental health diagnosis and treatment, or mention of closing the screening exception for gun shows. Just let the bad guy get his gun; we can wait until he's using it and then shoot it out.

"Will you at least admit it's possible that ... 26 innocent lives might have been spared that day," he (LaPierre) said, if the shooter had encountered "qualified armed security."

Sure, if Mr. LaPierre will admit it's possible that confiscating personal firearms might also have spared innocent lives. His armed guards are a reactive force, neither proactive nor preventative. No anti-social gunman is going to be deterred by their presence; he's ready to dying anyway. They won't get there in time to save the first half-dozen people, but they might reduce the body count (assuming they get there before the gunman suicides). It doesn't solve the problem, it only minimizes the consequences. Maybe only 8 parents will bury a child, instead of 20.

This conversation is currently closed to new comments.

Thread display: Collapse - | Expand +

All Comments

Collapse -

Pally easy answer to your Question of Who Pays is

by HAL 9000 Moderator In reply to The NRA says put armed gu ...

Make the NRA pay for the Guards and see just how long that they are willing to continue.


Collapse -

It's got to be NRA posturing

by aidemzo_adanac In reply to Pally easy answer to your ...

A way to look good in the face of a disgruntled public. Show how safe guns are, when the right people possess them, show how order is maintained by having armed security at a child's school (gross) etc.

Probably give them something to rally behind as more and more people wake up and smell the bacon and work to enforce stricter gun control laws...which being me to another thought.

When gun control is discussed, the first thing you hear many say is that they have a right to own a gun and why should THEY be penalized for someone else's actions. In some ways that makes SOME sense, in others it does not.

First of all, and correct me if I am wrong, gun "control" does not mean stripping people of their right to bear arms. Upstanding citizens would still pass through stricter checks and would still be able to exercise their right to bear arms. And I have no problem with that, mostly.
It seems that, like always, its taken to an extreme. I have friends here that are the same way, they see everything they read or are told as a be all and end all for anything similar. Instead of hearing that a short guy couldn't make the basketball team, because he sucked, they read/hear it as all short people are being banned from playing basketball. They then spend a week gathering LIKES on Facebook to make their senseless point and others follow suit. "Stop the discrimination against short people!"

Step back and think about exactly what was said and how, and things often look very different.

Collapse -

Sorry, but the world wide experience is that Official Gun Control is

by Deadly Ernest In reply to It's got to be NRA postur ...

'No one is allowed to own a gun of any sort unless they can prove an absolute need for it in their work, such as an armed security guard.' England has it, Australia has had it since 1996 and it's almost impossible for most people to get approval to own a rifle or shotgun, and handguns are harder still (but they always have been).

Collapse -

They are seeking closer alignment with Canada's regulations.

by aidemzo_adanac In reply to Sorry, but the world wide ...

The Gun control law that expired in 2004, had banned the manufacture of semi auto weapons. If they seek closer alignment to Canadian laws, you CAN own a gun, not an assault rifle, but Canada's background checks are more stringent.

Mandatory safety training, mental assessments, criminal checks and ensuring that guns are kept locked up has proven effective here.

There is a delay in getting a gun, it's not a half hour process with a fax machine or email. There is a standard waiting period, I believe something minor like two weeks. This was found effective in stopping spur of the moment assaults as people have time to cool their heels and can't just run out and quickly buy a gun when pi$$ed off at someone.

This "gun control" is seen by many Americans as a blatant disregard of their rights ? Because it takes an extra couple of weeks and they want to make sure you are safety trained and responsible????

I was reading a blog just now and it's absolutely mind boggling how many people refuse to listen to one another as they are so focused on left vs right, Liberal weenies etc. They can't all be redknecks from a swamp in south central US. These are just idiot Americans having their say. One guy commented "who would break into a Liberal's house to steal a gun? All they'd find was a laptop with a pink ribbon for cancer awareness and a hash pipe. I've been in a liberal's house and it was like a hippie town."

"I've been in a LIberal's house" LOL, what a statement!
OMG, I was at the mall today and there were Liberals EVERYWHERE! Typical US numpty clown! From the posts here, I can say that, despite the individual's stand, the two sides as a least SOMEWHAT reasonable. Whether it sees my own logic or not, there are at least some valid opinions, and I have to take into account that this is from a society where they know no different, any control APPEARS to be a blatant infringement of rights.

Then when you read what OTHER, clearly far less educated, Americans feel, it's enough to make you want to cut off the hands of all Americans and remove ALL firearms of ANY sort at all.

You wouldn't let your 6 year old play with your Ruger in the kitchen, why let these freakshow clowns own semi auto weapons, when they clearly have an even smaller mentality ?!

Seriously, THIS is the mentality of some of the Americans fighting to carry concealed weapons and the right to buy a semi-auto or assault rifle!!

Collapse -

So what you are saying is

by HAL 9000 Moderator In reply to It's got to be NRA postur ...

Reading Ability 5

Reading Comprehension -25,965

Common Sense Absolutely Nonexistent?

But what I do need to ask is Why the Hell Face Book that has got to be the biggest waste of time and the biggest Security Hole into any system that it's possible to make.

OH did I mention that the Wifes Daughter announced her engagement on FB and got the Living Daylights Blown out of her by her Mother? :^0


Collapse -

Didn't you know?

by NickNielsen In reply to It's got to be NRA postur ...

Control=confiscation. It's in the [NRA] dictionary.

Collapse -

well, that's what happened here in Australia

by Deadly Ernest In reply to Didn't you know?

new gun control laws meant you had to hand in your gun and the gov't destroyed it - few were paid any compensation (despite claims they would) as they assessed most of the guns handed in as of being 'no intrinsic value' and totally ignored any other value it may have. I saw one fellow crying as he handed in his semi-automatic rifle with fancy engraving and inlaid silver - it was real fancy and been in the family for generations.

Collapse -

Agree with you Palmetto

by magic8ball In reply to The NRA says put armed gu ...

Columbine had an armed guard. Didn't change the outcome unfortunately.

http://www.huffingtonpost. com/2012/12/21/columbine-armed-guards_n_2347096.html

(remove the space between the . and com)

Collapse -

Secret Service & Other Countries

by Clendanielc In reply to The NRA says put armed gu ...

Here my point that I make when I hear this argument. The President of the United States has the best trained individuals who are armed with technology that hasn't hit the market when it comes to guns. Look what happened to Reagan or even JFK. The Secret Service was not able to stop a bad armed person from doing harm.

The second point I make is why are we the only ones facing this issue? What did the UK, Germany, France, Russia do to prevent this from happening?

Collapse -

RE:- What did the UK, Germany, France, Russia

by HAL 9000 Moderator In reply to Secret Service & Other Co ...

Simple really they have Gun Control Laws.

But here the real question after the Hub Bub has died down is what can be done about preventing this happening again?

However what I did find funny if that is even close to being an accurate description is that while this Gentleman was speaking State Troopers where under attack and being shot at.

So I suppose the obvious question is if State Troopers can not adequately defend themselves what chance does anyone else have?


Related Discussions

Related Forums