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 -

On the contrary, you're halfway there

by AnsuGisalas In reply to Exactly right

Your tea party is already dumbed down enough for a dictator to step in, let them grow a bit more, or let them or their Creationist pals drive education down enough, and you're right on track for your very own Führer.

Private guns have never stopped a dictator, private guns have put a few dictators into power, though.

Collapse -

private guns have slowed down dictators' invading armies

by Deadly Ernest In reply to On the contrary, you're h ...

and strict gun control laws haven't stopped dictators from getting armed either.

Collapse -


by AnsuGisalas In reply to private guns have slowed ...

Some places don't have armies, so militias are different. But on the whole, most of the scenarios dreamt up in these debates are just plumb idiotic.
People would not have survived this or that shooting if they had been armed. People don't need arms to resist government (instead, they need to stop voting for fluckwits and get rid of the two-party system), etc.

The pro gun side would be a lot more believable if they just said "Sadly, crime in this country is at the level where we feel a need to arm ourselves to be safe". None of that "fluckyeahfreedommotherfluckers" BS.

Collapse -

some of the countries that resisted the Germans during

by Deadly Ernest In reply to Where?

ww2 due to local civilians sniping at them with their local guns, until they were force-ably disarmed. Some of the inter-tribal inter-country conflicts in Africa during the 1960s and 1970s had inbound forces slowed down by armed locals. Didn't always work though.

I agree we need to stop voting for idiots in all countries - except that's all that have the money to stand for election.

Collapse -

Denmark did more good without resisting...

by AnsuGisalas In reply to Where?

Saved all the jews... the jerries weren't in a hurry to stir the populace up by carting off their neighbors.
Armed resistance got the Norwegians and Dutch killed by the droves, and the jews were all rounded up right away.

Gotta resist smart-like, you know?

Collapse -

at that time no one expected the germans to treat the jews etc the

by Deadly Ernest In reply to Where?
Collapse -

Ah, but they did, Ernest

by NickNielsen In reply to Where?

The first concentration camps were established in 1933, shortly after the Nazis took power. After ten years of concentration camps, those who were paying attention were well aware of what was happening to the Jews and other "undesirables" in the SS camps at Dachau & Bergen-Belsen.

The reason the Danes did what they did was to protect fellow Danes; they saw the Danish Jews as Danes first & Jews second. And it didn't hurt that they got to thumb their noses at the Germans in the process!

Collapse -

Really, lets look at some of the historical fact then!

by Deadly Ernest In reply to Where?

The main concentration camps used for extermination were:
Auschwitz opened in May 1940 as an Army barracks at first, pre construction site inspection in February 1940;
Belzec built in November 1941;
Chelmno operated from December 1941;
Jasenovac built in August 1941;
Majdanek operated from October 1941;
Maly Trostenets used as a POW camp for Soviet soldiers when built in the summer of 1941, switched to an extermination camp in May 1942;
Sobibor forced labour camps from 1940 and an extermination camp added in 1942;
Treblinka built in April 1942.

There were other internment and concentration camps built during the war where people were used as forced labour and died in large number due to malnutrition and overwork, but they were not identified extermination camps tasked with deliberately killing people in job lots; they did it by lack of feeding and general abuse. Some the worst were Warsaw Camp (not the city ghetto area), Sajmiste, Janowska, but there were many other camps too, over a thousand of them all up. All but a few built after the war started and most were used as forced labour camps.

In January 1939 Hitler made his first direct annihilation threat against the Jews in a speech, but the establishment of the extermination program didn't start until December 1941.

Prior to WW2 Jews were repressed in Germany, but they were not being exterminate, although some were put in forced labour camps. These were first established as a place to put all the dissidents, nit just Jews, although the Jews made up the majority of the population. They were not well looked after, but those in the camps weren't subject to the abuse they got in the 1940s and they weren't killed indiscriminately during the 1930s.

You mention two specific camps, and here's a bit more on them.

Dachau was opened as a camp for German political prisoners in March 1933 with Germans of all religious persuasions and any strong politics that weren't in support of the Nazis. Later ordinary German criminals were added to the camp population and then when the war started prisoners from other countries were added, many were Christian religious leaders. There were also a number of satellite sub-camps. The camp was originally intended to hold only 5,000 people, but as the numbers grew it became very overcrowded and since they were all political enemies the guards didn't care about their welfare. With a few exceptions said to be related to escape attempts, the deaths in the camp did not start until after the severe crowding during the war when many died due to malnutrition or being worked to death as it was a labour camp, there is no evidence of mass exterminations going on at Dachau the way they occurred at the extermination camps listed above.

Bergen-Belsen started life as a labour camp for the workers building a nearby military barracks and base. It was empted when the base was completed in late 1938 early 1939. However it was reopened as a POW camp after the invasion of Poland in September 1939. It remained primarily a POW camp for French, Belgians, and Soviets, but part was taken over in 1943 as a civilian holding camp. Thousands died due to malnutrition and over work. It was also the main hospital for POW in the region.

There were a few other pre WW2 camps built for political prisoners and used as forced labour camps as well, but not many - I think, from memory, it was about 8 to ten all up.

From the above it's clear that the world did know or expect the extermination of prisoners prior to about 1940 or 1941 when reports started coming out of the German occupied areas about some of the camps. There were a few indicators about poor feeding and mistreatment in the labour camps prior to the war, but at that time there weren't large death tolls either. The heavy abuse and deaths started in 1941.

If you want to discuss this in detail, we need to make a whole new thread of it, but I doubt much will come out of it as a lot of the real facts were buried during and just after the war, and what is known is well established now and in lots of history books etc.

Collapse -

Yep, you're right

by NickNielsen In reply to Where?

I used the wrong camps as examples. On the other hand, a reading of Mein Kampf puts to rest any claims that nobody knew Hitler's ultimate aims re Jews, Gypsies, and other undesirables. Additionally, claims that nobody knew what was going on at the time fall flat in the face of stateside headlines from 1942 & 1943:

"25,000 Jews Seized In Southern France," (New York Times, August 28, 1942);
"Jewish Children Interned by Vichy" (Chicago Sun, August 31, 1942);
"35,000 Jews Executed in Five Polish Towns," (New York Herald Tribune, March 21, 1943);
"50,000 Jews Put In Nazi Prison 'Die Like Flies,'" (Washington Times Herald, September 3, 1943);
"50,000 Jews Dying In Nazi Fortress," (New York Times, September 3, 1943);
"Nazi Slayings Near 250,000," (Baltimore Sun, September 22, 1943)

All of these were published before the Danes' silent rebellion in October 1943. In light of these, and considering that geography placed the Danes 3,000 miles closer to what was actually going on, I would find any claim that the Danes didn't know what would happen to the Danish Jews if they were taken into Nazi custody to be detached from reality.

Danish history also reflects their knowledge of the treatment transported Jews would face. The Danes were, in fact, the only government to insist that the ICRC be given access to their citizens. As a result, only 52 of the 450 transported Danes died in German custody at Theresienstadt.

Collapse -

Nick, when I said 'at the time' I was refering to 1938 to early 1940

by Deadly Ernest In reply to Where?

when the Nazis were taking over Europe and what was known to the world at large. You also have to realise that news travelled a lot slower and was not even in those days. Late 1940 and 1941 saw an increasing number of reports coming out of Europe of atrocities and abuse in all the labour camps.

As to Mein Kampf - during the 1930s it had very little distribution and was available in German only. In fact few copies were available outside of the Nazi supporters, so what he stated in it was not really public knowledge. Although, in hindsight, his anti-Jewish actions should NOT have been all that surprising after the support he gave to Henry Ford in his anti-Semitic actions and propaganda, especially the resurrection of the proven lies in the Elders of Zion hoax.

As to what you have to say about the Danes, I'm not that familiar with that part of Europe at that time, so I'll take what you have to say as given. The history books on WW2 that I read didn't have much to say about anywhere north of Brussels in western Europe.

Related Discussions

Related Forums