NRA calls for armed police officers in all U.S. schools

[Caged Great]

I for one am thrilled that the NRA decided to take such a stand.

Now they will become irrelevant as they should be.

Bunch of crazy gun nuts.

[Igottago]

I love that the NRA seems to think any American with a gun could could turn into "Rambo" within seconds of an incident about to take place and outgun the bad guys to save the day. It would actually be funny if there weren't so many people that buy into the idea.

[Caged Great]

Another thing I love is how all these gun nuts were such brave men that they never joined the military when they were young and fought in the wars of their generation.

Such brave men.

They are so pathetic.

[RougeUnderoos]

In his defense, Wayne LaPierre was 20 years old in 1968. There wasn't exactly a war for him to go to.

Edit:
Wait, apparently there was. According to one website, he had himself excused the Vietnam on the basis of a "nervous disorder".

Geez. I hope someone puts him on the list of the mentally deranged. He's too crazy to join the military? He shouldn't be owning guns!

[HPLovecraft]

Originally Posted by Igottago

I love that the NRA seems to think any American with a gun could could turn into "Rambo" within seconds of an incident about to take place and outgun the bad guys to save the day. It would actually be funny if there weren't so many people that buy into the idea.

A big part of this gun culture is an obsession with "manliness". Don't have a gun? You're not a man. Someone posted an advertisement directed at that earlier, and I really think many of these gun guys really do believe they could take out an armed individual that's in the process of shooting people with little trouble, likely with a shot straight between the eyes.

Not that surprising in a society where the soldier is viewed as the ideal citizen, a form of military worship where the man with the gun is seen as the bravest and most dedicated amongst all the rest. In a democracy, that kind of belief seems a dangerous thing to me.

[flamesfever]

Originally Posted by HPLovecraft

A big part of this gun culture is an obsession with "manliness". Don't have a gun? You're not a man. Someone posted an advertisement directed at that earlier, and I really think many of these gun guys really do believe they could take out an armed individual that's in the process of shooting people with little trouble, likely with a shot straight between the eyes.

Not that surprising in a society where the soldier is viewed as the ideal citizen, a form of military worship where the man with the gun is seen as the bravest and most dedicated amongst all the rest. In a democracy, that kind of belief seems a dangerous thing to me.

I think the highlighted is taking the idea in your first paragraph too far.

[AltaGuy]

Quite a few of my esteemed pro-gun facebook friends are posting this article: http://larrycorreia.wordpress.com/20...n-gun-control/

So now that there is a new tragedy the president wants to have a “national conversation on guns”. Here’s the thing. Until this national conversation is willing to entertain allowing teachers to carry concealed weapons, then it isn’t a conversation at all, it is a lecture.
Now when I say teachers carrying concealed weapons on Facebook I immediately get a bunch of emotional freak out responses. You can’t mandate teachers be armed! Guns in every classroom! Emotional response! Blood in the streets!
No. Hear me out. The single best way to respond to a mass shooter is with an immediate, violent response. The vast majority of the time, as soon as a mass shooter meets serious resistance, it bursts their fantasy world bubble. Then they kill themselves or surrender. This has happened over and over again.

It's worth a read because it's not complete baloney - as in, despite its many, many flawed arguments, at least it somewhat makes sense (as opposed to most views from the NRA's boosters). Anyway, this is the best I've seen from the pro-gun nutjobs in the states, and even this isn't very good.

[HPLovecraft]

Originally Posted by flamesfever

I think the highlighted is taking the idea in your first paragraph too far.

The soldier should not be seen as the pinnacle of a democratic society. Obama a few months back mentioned the soldier ideal as something every citizen should aspire to (paraphrasing, don't have the exact quote on hand). Guns and the military are two things that are deeply, deeply linked and ingrained in the American conscience, and military strength is prioritized over just about any type of social strength in the country.

I don't agree with you. Explain why you don't agree with me, and I'll respond.

[flamesfever]

Originally Posted by HPLovecraft

The soldier should not be seen as the pinnacle of a democratic society. Obama a few months back mentioned the soldier ideal as something every citizen should aspire to (paraphrasing, don't have the exact quote on hand). Guns and the military are two things that are deeply, deeply linked and ingrained in the American conscience, and military strength is prioritized over just about any type of social strength in the country.

I don't agree with you. Explain why you don't agree with me, and I'll respond.

Having relatives that served and died for their country, along with a number of law enforcement people in my family, I find your comment offensive.

[HPLovecraft]

Originally Posted by flamesfever

Having relatives that served and died for their country, along with a number of law enforcement people in my family, I find your comment offensive.

I don't particularly care if you find it offensive, to be honest.

Many of us have had relatives that served for their country and died in that service -- I certainly have, so you're not special there. Having relatives, or even if you've served yourself, in the military does not mean -- not even for a second -- that we need to idealize the military establishment for its own sake, and it certainly doesn't mean questioning the position and importance of military culture in our society means a disrespect of those who have fought before. A discussion does the military and our democratic society far more respect than burying your head in the sand and waving a flag.

So, again, if you disagree somehow with what I said, explain why. Don't hide behind taking offense.

[flamesfever]

Originally Posted by HPLovecraft

I don't particularly care if you find it offensive, to be honest.

Many of us have had relatives that served for their country and died in that service -- I certainly have, so you're not special there. Having relatives, or even if you've served yourself, in the military does not mean -- not even for a second -- that we need to idealize the military establishment for its own sake, and it certainly doesn't mean questioning the position and importance of military culture in our society means a disrespect of those who have fought before. A discussion does the military and our democratic society far more respect than burying your head in the sand and waving a flag.

So, again, if you disagree somehow with what I said, explain why. Don't hide behind taking offense.

I believe anyone who puts their life at stake, to save others, or to maintain their way of life, should be held in the highest esteem by society.

[AltaGuy]

Originally Posted by flamesfever

I believe anyone who puts their life at stake, to save others, or to maintain their way of life, should be held in the highest esteem by society.

Unfortunately, you've just justified the Taliban's viewpoint as well. A more in depth analysis required...

[opendoor]

Originally Posted by AltaGuy

Quite a few of my esteemed pro-gun facebook friends are posting this article: http://larrycorreia.wordpress.com/20...n-gun-control/



It's worth a read because it's not complete baloney - as in, despite its many, many flawed arguments, at least it somewhat makes sense (as opposed to most views from the NRA's boosters). Anyway, this is the best I've seen from the pro-gun nutjobs in the states, and even this isn't very good.

I find the mental gymnastics some people will go through to justify the status quo fascinating. Here's a good example from that article where first he talks about why there shouldn't be a limit on the number of rounds in a magazine:

First off, why do gun owners want magazines that hold more rounds? Because sometimes you miss. Because usually—contrary to the movies—you have to hit an opponent multiple times in order to make them stop. Because sometimes you may have multiple assailants. We don’t have more rounds in the magazine so we can shoot more, we have more rounds in the magazine so we are forced to manipulate our gun less if we have to shoot more.

The last assault weapons ban capped capacities at ten rounds. You quickly realize ten rounds sucks when you take a wound ballistics class like I have and go over case after case after case after case of enraged, drug addled, prison hardened, perpetrators who soaked up five, seven, nine, even fifteen bullets and still walked under their own power to the ambulance. That isn’t uncommon at all. Legally, you can shoot them until they cease to be a threat, and keep in mind that what normally causes a person to stop is loss of blood pressure, so I used to tell my students that anybody worth shooting once was worth shooting five or seven times.

Then a couple of paragraphs later he downplays the effect smaller magazines in an effort to suggest that they'll have no effect on a gunman's ability to kill people:

Unless you are a fumble fingered idiot, anybody who practices in front of a mirror a few dozen times can get to where they can insert a new magazine into a gun in a few seconds.

[flamesfever]

Originally Posted by AltaGuy

Unfortunately, you've just justified the Taliban's viewpoint as well. A more in depth analysis required...

I'm talking about our free, democratic society, where all you young whippersnappers have the opportunity to to spend time finding ways to debate things like this.

[HPLovecraft]

Originally Posted by flamesfever

I believe anyone who puts their life at stake, to save others, should be held in the highest esteem by society.

I wouldn't disagree with this, but I do disagree with the assumption that the American, or even Canadian, military is strictly in the business of defending the lives of others. But that's beside the point. This isn't about raising people that save lives onto a pedestal, or else paramedics would be revered as highly as the soldier in the United States. It's about the military and its soldiers being seen as the ideal, no one else.

When a nation glorifies war as much as the United States, when their entertainment industry -- which isn't a cause of their culture but merely a reflection of it -- churns out over and over violent video games and movies revolving around war, when their patriotism is defined by how aggressive they are toward other nations, when their nation was given birth in war, when it was united in war, when its rise to super-power status was due to war, and when its history throughout the 20th century was defined by -- you guessed it -- war, you'd have to be blind to believe there isn't a correlation between its military culture and its gun culture, a linked belief in the two being symbols of virility, aggression, and manhood.

Your response to what I said is exactly what I'm talking about. Merely questioning the position and importance of the military in our democratic society meets with a visceral, negative, response. I said nothing directly offensive. I didn't say soldiers are all cowards. Soldiers are all baby-killers, or some such. I merely said soldiers should not be seen as the ideal citizens of a democratic society, and you are immediately offended by it.

[flamesfever]

Originally Posted by HPLovecraft

I wouldn't disagree with this, but I do disagree with the assumption that the American, or even Canadian, military is strictly in the business of defending the lives of others. But that's beside the point. This isn't about raising people that save lives onto a pedestal, or else paramedics would be revered as highly as the soldier in the United States. It's about the military and its soldiers being seen as the ideal, no one else.

When a nation glorifies war as much as the United States, when their entertainment industry -- which isn't a cause of their culture but merely a reflection of it -- churns out over and over violent video games and movies revolving around war, when their patriotism is defined by how aggressive they are toward other nations, when their nation was given birth in war, when it was united in war, when its rise to super-power status was due to war, and when its history throughout the 20th century was defined by -- you guessed it -- war, you'd have to be blind to believe there isn't a correlation between its military culture and its gun culture, a linked belief in the two being symbols of virility, aggression, and manhood.

Your response to what I said is exactly what I'm talking about. Merely questioning the position and importance of the military in our democratic society meets with a visceral, negative, response. I said nothing directly offensive. I didn't say soldiers are all cowards. Soldiers are all baby-killers, or some such. I merely said soldiers should not be seen as the ideal citizens of a democratic society, and you are immediately offended by it.

In my view the United States is the greatest nation that has ever existed, and I don't have time to explain my reasons right now, as I have to go out and buy some Christmas presents. See you later.

[HPLovecraft]

Originally Posted by flamesfever

In my view the United States is the greatest nation that has ever existed, and I don't have time to explain my reasons right now, as I have to go out and buy some Christmas presents. See you later.

Okay, well, perhaps they are, that's a tough one to define, exactly (lots would agree with you, lots would disagree, I assume), but that's still beside the point I was making. Perhaps when you have the time we could continue the discussion, because I do believe it's an important one (not only for the US, either, but for all democracies), even if it sometimes elicits painful self-reflection.

[Flash Walken]

Letter of Resignation from the NRA by President George Bush:

Dear Mr. Washington,

I was outraged when, even in the wake of the Oklahoma City tragedy, Mr. Wayne LaPierre, executive vice president of N.R.A., defended his attack on federal agents as "jack-booted thugs." To attack Secret Service agents or A.T.F. people or any government law enforcement people as "wearing Nazi bucket helmets and black storm trooper uniforms" wanting to "attack law abiding citizens" is a vicious slander on good people.

Al Whicher, who served on my [ United States Secret Service ] detail when I was Vice President and President, was killed in Oklahoma City. He was no Nazi. He was a kind man, a loving parent, a man dedicated to serving his country -- and serve it well he did.

In 1993, I attended the wake for A.T.F. agent Steve Willis, another dedicated officer who did his duty. I can assure you that this honorable man, killed by weird cultists, was no Nazi.

John Magaw, who used to head the U.S.S.S. and now heads A.T.F., is one of the most principled, decent men I have ever known. He would be the last to condone the kind of illegal behavior your ugly letter charges. The same is true for the F.B.I.'s able Director Louis Freeh. I appointed Mr. Freeh to the Federal Bench. His integrity and honor are beyond question.

Both John Magaw and Judge Freeh were in office when I was President. They both now serve in the current administration. They both have badges. Neither of them would ever give the government's "go ahead to harass, intimidate, even murder law abiding citizens." (Your words)

I am a gun owner and an avid hunter. Over the years I have agreed with most of N.R.A.'s objectives, particularly your educational and training efforts, and your fundamental stance in favor of owning guns.

However, your broadside against Federal agents deeply offends my own sense of decency and honor; and it offends my concept of service to country. It indirectly slanders a wide array of government law enforcement officials, who are out there, day and night, laying their lives on the line for all of us.

You have not repudiated Mr. LaPierre's unwarranted attack. Therefore, I resign as a Life Member of N.R.A., said resignation to be effective upon your receipt of this letter. Please remove my name from your membership list.

Sincerely, [ signed ] George Bush

http://www.nytimes.com/1995/05/11/us...sociation.html

[DuffMan]

Originally Posted by AltaGuy

Quite a few of my esteemed pro-gun facebook friends are posting this article: http://larrycorreia.wordpress.com/20...n-gun-control/



It's worth a read because it's not complete baloney - as in, despite its many, many flawed arguments, at least it somewhat makes sense (as opposed to most views from the NRA's boosters). Anyway, this is the best I've seen from the pro-gun nutjobs in the states, and even this isn't very good.

wrong, not only is it complete baloney, it is fearmongering lunacy,

Gun Free Zones
Gun Free Zones are hunting preserves for innocent people. Period

[CaptainCrunch]

I took a day or two to absorb the NRA's response to this, and the short form answer is I can't believe how oblivious and idiotic these people are.

I find it sad that instead of doing the right thing and entering into a discussion around how harmful guns can be in the hands of unstable people, and how there's really not a real need for overpowering fire power in the hands of citizens, their response is a scathing criticism of gun control and a call to put armed people in schools to protect kids.

I just don't understand how that's even a logical reply, instead of looking at how to make society safe, especially for the innocent and the unarmed, they basically advocate having armed people in place as a reply.

I never thought that the NRA was run by ######s, and I'm sorry about the term so I'll take it back and use the term morons.

The answer to guns can't be more guns, it can't be an arms race among the civilian population, that makes no sense.

I would expect that there will be a full court press lobbying effort now and any changes to gun control will be effectively blocked or delayed or watered down.

This tragedy was a real opportunity to have a constructive dialog around the need for military and highly destructive forms of fire arms in the hands of citizens who might not be responsible or balanced enough to own them. Instead the NRA quashed that.

Shame on you NRA.