world

NRA chief defends call for armed guards at schools

78 Comments

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© (c) Copyright Thomson Reuters 2012.

©2021 GPlusMedia Inc.

78 Comments
Login to comment

The State has become the tyranny the Founders tried to prevent

So it's safe to say that you and others with your guns have failed to protect us.

8 ( +8 / -0 )

The lunatics are running the asylum.

6 ( +7 / -1 )

Wayne LaPierre: “If it’s crazy to call for putting police and armed security in our schools to protect our children, then call me crazy.”

OK. You're crazy. (Gee, that was easy.)

Do you seriously think armed guards in schools will make society safer? Wouldn't we also need armed guards in every shopping mall, movie theater, post office, playground, sports field, park, office building, street corner, etc. The security guard business could be the fastest growing industry in the country - perhaps greatly reduce the unemployment rate while we're at it. But who is going to pay for it? The American economy is already in a poor state...

However, the biggest issue here for me is that, with so many armed personnel needed to give this proposal even the slightest chance of being effective, it would essentially turn the U.S. into a military state. Are we going to have Iraq style Green Zones? Is this really what the people of America want? It seems that it's what the NRA want.

5 ( +6 / -1 )

I don't care. Let Americans have their guns.

It's sad, but I'd agree with you here, Ishiwara. It's just like fundamentalist Islam in the Middle East. Heck, if you people really want to live like that then go ahead. Who are we liberal, lefty Europeans to try and talk sense into you?

5 ( +5 / -0 )

Right, Tamarama - when gun nuts are allowed to write gun laws, nuts own guns.

5 ( +6 / -1 )

But at last, there is momentum in the rigth direction!

4 ( +5 / -1 )

Do you really honestly think that banning semi-automatic rifles such as AR-15s is really going to make a dent in gun crime in this nation?

Absolutely spot on. This isn't about one type of gun, it should be about all guns.

Whether the founding fathers anticipated internet, telephones, etc, is really neither here nor there when the US is the only major economy to be suffering so many deaths from guns. Is it just coincidence that the laws allow ownership there?

4 ( +5 / -1 )

SuperLibDec. 24, 2012 - 07:02PM JST

The State has become the tyranny the Founders tried to prevent So it's safe to say that you and others with your guns have failed to protect us.

Zing! ;)

4 ( +4 / -0 )

As usual the NRA is tying to narrow the focus of the debate and dumb it down for their own purposes. The debate is NOT simply about school safety. There were recent mass killings in malls and movie theatres. The debate is about all too often gun violence. School safety is just one aspect of that. But if LaPierre can throw up the usual smoke-screen and refuse to focus on the bigger issues, which he did again today, then they win. It is time for this kind of tail wagging the dog process to end. I'm tired of 4.3 million folks insulting my intelligence with these straw-dog arguments and pushing their agenda on the majority. The founding fathers never envisioned thirty-round magazines or hollow-point bullets, being shot from assault rifles when they drew up the Second Amendment.

3 ( +5 / -2 )

Guns have a positive place in our society Numerous studies have conclusively shown that those states with high gun ownership and high numbers of Conceal Carry have the lowest crime rate.

Not compared to other developed nations.

The NRA statement is not controversial for anyone who is aware that armed uniformed police officers are on duty in many of our schools.

I truly believe that there is somethnig fundamentally wrong with a society that needs armed guards at schools. Its just wrong. It may not be JUST guns, but they are certainly part of the equation.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

So cynical it's almost hard to believe. Then if the guard isn't around/ in another part of the school it's all his fault, or a tactical mistake and ridiculous gun laws continue. Not only that, it's a chance to sell more guns and expand the security industry further. I do think though that time is not on these guy's side. Smoking is banned in many areas, public healthcare is in the rise and the US is generally raising the standards. Just because a culture of something dangerous has developed, that doesn't mean it can rely on support from the rest of society forever, especially when they become it's random victims.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

Respectfully disagree, globalwatcher. The guy is doing what he is paid to do, which is tor represent the gun manufacturers and sellers of America. As I mentioned the other day, the NRA's sole responsibility is to broaden the permitted extent of gun ownership and deepen the permitted lethality of weapons - the former expands their market; the latter, the expense of each item. Do not pretend that the NRA is anything else but a marketing tool for the American arms industry.

If and when what the NRA is, who it is beholden to do, and the fact that it stands for nothing but greater gun sales - if and when these are more universally recognized, it can thus be excluded from consideration in any rational discussion of gun ownership in America.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

I don't care. Let Americans have their guns. It's their constitutional right. The rest of the civilized world (East-Asia and Western Europe) knows and has proven better.

3 ( +6 / -3 )

Herve Nmn L'Eisa: Those are facts that the ill-named liberals blatently ignore. I say ill-named because their agenda is in direct opposition to the cause of liberty.

The only fact that you need to know is that the US has hundreds of millions of guns and an extremely high rate of death by guns. Hint: more guns isn't the solution.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

Noliving: "AR-15's are not assault rifles smiths o what is your point?"

It's hard to tell what you are asking given the cherry picking you do on comments. My guess is you cherry-picked the 'assault rifles' in my reply to Herve's quotation of George Washington, and so you really, really did miss the point indeed. But I'll spell it out for you: when George Washington said what he said, there were no assault rifles or any of the weapons around today, nor are you defending against the British, so it is moot to quote as such.

3 ( +5 / -2 )

**On NBC, Graham said he himself owns an AR-15, the type of assault rifle used by 20-year-old Adam Lanza in Newtown.

“I own an AR-15. I’ve got it at my house. The question is if you deny me the right to buy another one, have you made America safer?”**

Nice! And I bet the AR-15 he has was most likely a GIFT from the NRA along with all the $$$$, bribes etc..these scum senators like Graham must be getting to say the "right things in favor of the NRA!" So scum like Graham, go to hell! Along with the NRA!

2 ( +5 / -3 )

“If it’s crazy to call for putting police and armed security in our schools to protect our children, then call me crazy,”

You're crazy. That wasn't pretty tough, was it? And since you're crazy and think crazy people need to be put on a database and denied guns, hand yours over pal.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

For those of you interested in reading some research on the risks that widespread firearms present to society in general, (a systematic review by a Harvard researcher, originally published in a peer-reviewed journal), have a look at Hemenway, D. (2011). Risks and Benefits of a Gun in the Home. American Journal of Lifestyle Medicine, 5(6), 502-511. There's a free version online here http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/753058

His conclusions - For most contemporary Americans, scientific studies indicate that the health risk of a gun in the home is greater than the benefit. The evidence is overwhelming for the fact that a gun in the home is a risk factor for completed suicide and that gun accidents are most likely to occur in homes with guns. There is compelling evidence that a gun in the home is a risk factor for intimidation and for killing women in their homes. On the benefit side, there are fewer studies, and there is no credible evidence of a deterrent effect of firearms or that a gun in the home reduces the likelihood or severity of injury during an altercation or break-in.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

So the NRA's stance is, "Let's put guns in schools"? Because that's what I see when I look at this plan. Now instead of having to go home and get a gun a student will just have to wait for one of the guards to drift off, or misplace their gun in the bathroom, or knife a guard and take their gun... that'll REALLY shortcut the process for someone looking to go on a shooting rampage.

GREAT thinking NRA.

Of course the NRA's funders will be happy, because they'll get to sell guns to all those guards at every school.

I can just see how this goes: Year 1 - Sharp and alert professional guards Year 2 - Bored guards. Year 3 - First round of budget cuts. Guards replaced by chimpanzees with shotguns. Year 4 - Chimpanzees raid caffeteria for bananas, killing 50.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Armed guards in schools may or may not be a good idea, but that should be just the start of the debate, not the end of it. They should be putting other discussions on the table too. How about the NRA also talk about the guns themselves? Or improving safe practices by gun owners? Etc. Not just focus on one thing they think is a silver bullet that would cure all the ills.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Sailwind,

"But let's just keep focusing on guns and that getting rid of guns is somehow going to magically change rotten human beings hellbent on maximum carnage into good ones who somehow now can't reek unspeakable carnage. "

Yes, lets keep focusing on taking away the freely available tools in the US for these rotten humans hellbent on carnage.

I actually watched your Youtube video. It all felt good and Chuck Norrisy (nice grouping of shots on the windshield if I may add), right until the end where the report goes on to say a lot of the bullets the guy was firing at the wood-be robbers, actually struck his neighbours house across the street....

...luckily there wasn't a 6 year old kid in the ay, but it can, will and has happened.

More gun are not the answer.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

The second amendment says very simply - "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Individuals holding weapons is not the same as a "well regulated militia", if anything it is the opposite, and could lead to anarchy. How on earth is this translated as ordinary individuals being given rights to possess weapons? Piers, you probably went over the top talking to (Larry) Pratt, but your sentiments are spot on - must be a first that I agree with anything you say!!

2 ( +2 / -0 )

It is HIGH time Americans re-visited that anachronistic 2nd Amendment !

1 ( +4 / -3 )

Laguna, good point. I agree. The problem is deep rooted in gun culture associated with gun suppliers here more than we want to admit. I just want you to know currently we are working hard for a change just like we did for the MADD. I am one of the 57% of Americans who are against Automatic Assualt Weapons and the magazines sales. They do not belong here.They have to be totally banned.

1 ( +4 / -3 )

What more could we have expected from this person with a perverted propensity for pistol packing ?

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Ishiwara: I don't care. Let Americans have their guns.

I would agree with this too, but unfortunately this isn't just a problem for the one country. A lot of Mexican drug violence is at the end of guns easily purchased in the U.S. In my own country, local motorcycle gangs are arming themselves with weapons smuggled in from contacts in the U.S, who can buy them easily. The NRA argue that gun control will give criminals the advantage over honest citizens. Here, it's the lack of gun control on the U.S. that's doing just that. Seriously, no hunting or range shooting requires assault weapons or large magazine clips. The only animal you hunt with those are people. Restricting these things does not stop people own weapons for self defense of for sport, or take away someone's 2nd amendment rights. The NRA simply throw in strawman arguments to distract people from looking at actual ways to make things better.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

That is not true at all, you can hunt deer with them as well as the wolves and smaller game.

Sure, the wolves all over in the US. And the vampires no ?

It was legislators of their neighbor, Missouri, who introduced a bill which would allow any public school teacher or administrator with a concealed-weapon permit to carry guns in Missouri schools.

That would make things easier for kiddos. They wouldn't take so much risk stealing Mom and Dad's rifle at home, having to hide it in sports bag, in the bus, all the way to school, try to figure out if it's ready to shoot and all. They'd just get the guns already in the class. Grasp one from the teachers pocket... And fireworks !!!

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Korlacan Khanthavilay

How about we look at violent crime. http://www.dailymail.co.uk

No offence but if you quote the Daily Mail as evidence you lose 99% of credibility right there. I don't blame you for not knowing that but that's the way it is. It's on a par with the National Enquirer for truthfulness. What constitutes violent crime differs in definition from country to country so the statistics are almost meaningless. The murder rate is still massively higher in America than other developed countries although the robbery rate may be average, but I would hazard robberies in America are literally a lot more violent, not just in the terminology for statistics, and include the use of firearms more often than in other countries.

To me what the gun debate comes down to is Americans would rather have less robberies and more murders so long as the robbers get killed, whereas most other westerners would rather try to fend criminals off using other means, and don't think killing someone is a justifiable response even to someone trying to rob you, however much you might want to.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

No offense, but this attitude is also I've noticed quite prevalent in a Liberal mindset. ... There are bad guys in this world and that target the innocent and that is real life, we ignore this basic fact at our own peril.

The basic fact being ignored by the NRA and its advocates is that often times "goodness" is ascribed to those merely based on the fact that they have no criminal record and are therefore fit to own firearms. I believe the requisites for gun ownership should rest on a much higher standard of responsibility -- and should be subject to community review as well as inspection.

We should never assume that someone who was a good and responsible person in their 20s or 30s will automatically remain so with the passage of time.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Agreed.

And I concur that we do not want to take guns away from responsible and law-abiding citizens.

For me, all this talk about types of guns is all moot and not worth the time and effort: Someone who is truly responsible and qualified can be trusted with just about any weapon.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

I think that this is a bad idea in general. And just where are they going to get the funding for all of those guards? Do they even realize how much money will cost this country to have armed guards at every Elementary, Middle, & High school?

1 ( +1 / -0 )

In the wake of the the Oklahoma City bombing, LaPierre wrote a fundraising letter describing federal agents as "jack-booted government thugs" who wear "Nazi bucket helmets and black storm trooper uniforms." Former president George H. W. Bush was so outraged by the letter that he resigned his lifetime NRA membership

We are dealing with a big fish of NRA-a hard core. He is blaming everyone else but NRA. I have no respect for this guy. He has to go! We have heard enough.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

"“If it’s crazy to call for putting police and armed security in our schools to protect our children, then call me crazy,”

You're crazy. Not too difficult, was it. And since you're crazy, and think that the mentally ill should never be allowed to purchase or own firearms, hand yours over, bud.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Laurence Lance: All the attacks, except ONE were in "Gun Free Zones" where it is a Federal crime to have a firearm. What that means is no licensed, FBI cleared, concealed weapons permit holders are allowed in these areas. Criminals, unfortunately, do not obey such laws. "Gun Free Zones" are in fact Federally sponsored "Criminal Safe Zones".

Everyone knows this is bogus. People go to where other people congregate so their gun can do more damage. If you want to talk about criminals not obeying laws, then perhaps you should add that opinion when we discuss how you want to strengthen gun laws. Those are the laws they are not obeying, yet the pro-gun crowd seem to fully expect criminals to follow them.

The NRA statement is not controversial for anyone who is aware that armed uniformed police officers are on duty in many of our schools.

In elementary schools? How about kindergartens and daycare centers? Some of us see the NRA's position as one that intentionally sidesteps the issue of easy access to guns because it's one they don't want to talk about.

The claim that because the founders could not have envisioned modern weapons, and that it follows that some portion of the Bill of Rights is no longer valid is to be completely blind to history as it was understood at the time, to the history of firearms ownership in the US since the founding until today and to be willfully ignorant of law.

Some of us want responsibilities to go along with rights. We want conversations about how much firepower one person should reasonable be expected to have and how he handles them. We also want to make sure that the wrong people don't get them.

Semi automatic rifles of all types, according to the FBI Unified Crime Report as of 2011, account for 2 1/2 % of all homicides. The Semi auto rifles which cosmetically resemble military weapons but do NOT function as full auto, account for less than 1% of homicides. In 2011 there were a total of 324 homicides where a rifle was involved.

Consider yourself lucky on this one. People are snooping in the wrong areas, in my opinion, and I'm sure you know it helps your case. We need to do more to make sure the wrong people don't get weapons and as it stands now they are much too easy to get. Gun owners and manufacturers have dropped the ball on this issue.

Guns have a positive place in our society Numerous studies have conclusively shown that those states with high gun ownership and high numbers of Conceal Carry have the lowest crime rate. Criminals, like any predators, prefer victims that are as helpless and who have no means of self defense. Gun owners use firearms up to 2,000,000 times per year in circumstances of self defense. The majority of the time the firearm is not discharged.

I'd like to see the details of the study. I've seen 1 million, 2.5 million, and now you're throwing out up to 2 million. Statistics shouldn't have that much of a range. I'd like to know the criteria and who was doing the analysis.

And let me ask you this: If guns were not on the street how many people would feel the need to own a gun to protect themselves?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Herve: "" Firearms are second only to the Constitution in importance; they are the peoples' liberty's teeth. George Washington"

In what year did Washington say that, just out of curiosity, and what kind of assault rifles did they have then?

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Allow me to reiterate, " Firearms are second only to the Constitution in importance; they are the peoples' liberty's teeth. " George Washington

I don't think this was meant to mean that ordinary citizens were supposed to be armed ready for battle (or massacre). Similarly, government fearing the people isn't supposed to mean that politicians need to be wary of Joe Public walking up and shooting him because he doesn't like his policies. Sadly, the arguments for arming citizens are beginning to look somewhat ridiculous.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Folks the bad guys will always carry a gun no matter what gun restriction laws are passed,and they love commiting crimes in places with the most strict gun laws....

Which is why you need to get rid of the guns. 300 million of them. Australia did a good job via a buy back scheme, and the effects can be witnessed in gun crime stats dropping. Not a big surprise really, eh?

0 ( +1 / -1 )

@Passage that's wishful thinking. Aint gonna happen here in the USA. Even local,and federal law enforcement disagree on it too..

This is a good article

http://www.naturalnews.com/038391_gun_confiscation_executive_orders_cops.html

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Is everyone really crazy who shoots someone? Many know what they are doing. What about the Japanese student trick or treating on Halloween in the 80's somewhere in the south? It's "Halloween" and the guy still shot! Was he crazy? A marriage gone sour, the spouse kills another. Are they crazy? Are soldier kills a civilian! A Neo-Nazi takes out Indian church goers.

You won't like what I have to say...The 2nd Amendment is obsolete. If Washington, Jefferson, Franklin could come into the future with a time machine. I'm pretty sure they would have a double take on this Amendment. After all, We don't need to hunt for food (one can go to a supermarket) , don't have to protect ourselves from Native Americans and British attacking...

But, why need guns! "To protect ourselves"! Wooowwwww, that means no one trust each other. What a great country of Freedom!

Anyway, I wonder how many gun crimes were prevented by having a gun. And place a rifle bearing security guard in every school. Wouldn't it have to be in very room? Columbine had one. He was in a different area. Then they don't want to pay more taxes anyway. You know what that would cost? I'm sorry for my fellow Americans!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Folks the bad guys will always carry a gun no matter what gun restriction laws are passed,

If that was where I lived, I'd prefer my taxes to serve paying a million cops over the bad guys, gangs, drugs, pedophiles, Wall Street crooks, etc... rather than only a few thousands cops with the task to deal with crimes because there would be 2 millions of snipers guarding schools and shopping malls against "good guys" with concealed war equipment. In case "good guys" don't get respected, and that sl*t doesn't fill their cup of joe to the rim, they can shoot the f... counter into confetti. That's a real risk. In Japan, they no longer fill us the paper cups of monkey piss, because we have no real men with bazookas.

and they love commiting crimes in places with the most strict gun laws....

Since the US has the less strict gun laws now, the country should be free of crimes. So why so many guys in jail there ? Political prisoners ?

Also Columbine massacre happened when President Bill Clinton's 1994 Assault Weapons ban was in effect.....

And the ban on imports of French cheese has been ineffective in lowering American cholesterol rates. Try a real ban, like the Australians did, with all the residents being given a few weeks to either hand back the stuff to the cops or if they are the minority that meets the requirements comply with strict registration.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Herve Nmn L'Eisa

Smith, you obviously completely miss the point of George Washington's quote and the reason the Second Amendment was and is required, regardless of the date and period weapons. The State has become the tyranny the Founders tried to prevent(other than the Hamiltonians, Clay, and eventually Lincoln ).

And I guess you have never heard of the words, "Pen is mighter than the sword." Guns are not going to turn tyranny within a state it never had it never will. It is the will of the people who follows a conviction that does. Within a true democracy the will of the people is stronger than any tyrant.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

All he is doing is promoting more guns,to meaning more money.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@sailwind

A person that targets totally defenseless human beings on purpose whether in acting out a psychotic fantasy or due to cold blooded act of terrorism is evil, there is no moral relativism involved here. There are bad guys in this world and that target the innocent and that is real life....

If only it were that simple. In fact, what people like to label "evil" is always a result of poor upbringing or chemical abnormalities in the brain. There's no such thing as an "evil" newborn baby. It's what happens to it after birth that produces behaviour we don't like.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

But let's just keep focusing on guns and that getting rid of guns is somehow going to magically change rotten human beings hellbent on maximum carnage into good ones who somehow now can't reek unspeakable carnage.

The problem that the NRA and its defenders keep ignoring is the formerly "good person" whose mental health and/or personality has deteriorated into becoming someone who is anti-social. Those people need to be separated from whatever guns they have access to -- and there needs to be a protocol in place that enables the local authorities to respond to citizen complaints/concerns and do just that.

The recent shooting in Pennsylvania, in which several were killed and at least three police officers injured was perpetrated by a 44-year-old former "good guy" whose mental health had gone on a years-long downward spiral. We see this pattern again and again and again in many of these crimes. Bringing up the increase of knife attacks in Australia or the 1927 attack on a school in Michigan is simply ludicrous, and speaks to the inability to provide an intelligent response to the conditions underlying so many of these crimes.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-20838925

Firefighters apprently just shot to death on Christmas Eve...

I suppose the crazies amongst us will be advocating fireman carry too.

Who else should we add to he list to be armed at all times to keep your precious guns?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Why the home-owner, of course. He fired the shots.

This is insanity, 4 men charge at a guys home with weapons drawn and your claiming since he had unmitigated gall to use a gun to fire back at this very obvious threat to his life that he should be denied the ability to defend himself all because one of the bullets happen to go stray?

Ever occur to you that if these 4 criminals didn't pull off this home invasion attempt that no shots would have been fired at all?

Yabits,

Yes, but he prepared for over a year -- despite plenty of anti-social warning signs -- and used materials not readily available to the "average" person in the USA today.

Timothy used commonly obtained fertilizer and didn't use a gun either,..nuff said.

Bringing up the increase of knife attacks in Australia or the 1927 attack on a school in Michigan is simply ludicrous, and speaks to the inability to provide an intelligent response to the conditions underlying so many of these crimes.

Back to that nasty liberal habit of insulting those that disagree with them. Now my responses show a lack of intelligence and an inability to grasp high minded concepts such as total gun bans work in preventing crime and mass shootings. Worse school attack in America would have been stopped with a gun ban I just can't grasp it somehow, increased knife attacks in the absence of not being able to obtain a gun to commit crime is just silly and no one could have seen that one happening as a result. After all gun bans eliminate crime any intelligent person knows that,. Well except me of course.

I believe the requisites for gun ownership should rest on a much higher standard of responsibility -- and should be subject to community review as well as inspection.

And this community review should also be immune to anti-discrimination lawsuits as Gawd forbid a Muslim homeowner with no criminal record wants a firearm to protect his house and was denied due to "suspicious ties". And heaven forbid that this review board engages in anything like profiling, ACLU gets upset when that occurs.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

For me, all this talk about types of guns is all moot and not worth the time and effort: Someone who is truly responsible and qualified can be trusted with just about any weapon.

Now this is something that we both can totally agree on.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Timothy used commonly obtained fertilizer and didn't use a gun either,..nuff said.

And since that time, as a result, purchase of the fertilizer involved has undergone much greater scrutiny and regulation. As it should be. Nuff said.

Now my responses show a lack of intelligence and an inability to grasp high minded concepts such as total gun bans work in preventing crime and mass shootings.

The fact is that kids murdered in schools today tend to be killed by guns more than any other weapon. Countering a dramatic decrease in gun deaths (in Australia) with an increase of knifings does tend to undermine your own point, just as glossing over the details of the 1927 bombing -- committed by a disturbed, anti-social individual similar to the others who, living in the USA, found guns much easier and convenient weapons-of-choice. Yes, I haven't seen anything resembling an intelligent response from Sailwind, as it relates to securing weapons from unstable and anti-social individuals.

And this community review should also be immune to anti-discrimination lawsuits as Gawd forbid a Muslim homeowner with no criminal record wants a firearm to protect his house and was denied due to "suspicious ties". And heaven forbid that this review board engages in anything like profiling, ACLU gets upset when that occurs.

You are not listening, or perhaps unable to listen or understand. A community review would be prompted by actual, observable behaviors -- much as the afore-mentioned strange behaviors of people like Loughner, Lamza, and the guy who just killed four people and wounded three officers in Pennsylvania.

And heaven forbid that this review board engages in anything like profiling, ACLU gets upset when that occurs.

If you don't have enough faith in local citizens to conduct a basic review, why would you trust them with firearms? Again, a rather self-nullifying argument that lacks real discernment.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Noliving: That has been true though for the other mass shooters in terms of showing warning signs for some time before they strike, for example the columbine shooters prepared for over a year. The virginia tech shooter was declared a threat to himself and others before he even bought his first gun. The Arizona shooter was knows to be "strange" that scared people

As it stands today, there is no way that someone can be deemed a threat to himself or others until the point where they threaten someone. It's a matter of personal rights and it won't be changing anytime soon. You can't lock someone up on the premise that you predicted violent behavior unless they actually announce plans to hurt someone. That means we have to depend on the unstable person effectively self reporting. Either that or you have to start locking up a lot of people simply based on strange behavior. That would include most homeless people.

A good friend of mine has an ex who is bipolar. In the past he was off his meds and threatened someone with a gun. He went into an institution and was later released, but he slips in and out of taking his meds. He's off his meds now and spouts all kinds of crazy things, and despite his violent past he hasn't technically threatened anyone so there's nothing anyone can do. We all just have to wait and see if he will turn violent or goes back on his meds. And it's a strange situation where if you don't know the guy maybe you won't see anything wrong unless he starts talking about one of his crazy theories. I live in a state where you can buy a gun from a gun show or a private party without background checks, so at the end of the day it comes down to just hoping he doesn't decide to get a gun. I'm sure with enough phone calls he can get his hands on one since a stranger doesn't know his history. If you've ever dealt with someone like this you'll know what I'm talking about.

The point is that there is no perfect test that you can administer to predict what he will do next, and as long as his situation is limited to crazy theories he won't be locked up anytime soon. And if you want a battle to swing the pendulum more into the favor of public safety and err on the side of caution I'm guessing the biggest fight will come from the NRA. In the end it comes down to his easy access of guns that is the only problem that society can solve without him. Expecting mental care to handle this situation for us is complicated, controversial, and ineffective as long as patients have rights.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

What did Americans do after the shooting? Why, they bought more guns

This is just delusional insanity. The only solution is to go door to door and remove guns from the country.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Tamarama: It's wierd that Americans just can't grasp that entire countries, states, cities and communities exist beautifully all over the world with an almost complete absence of guns.

And it's weird to some of us that you can't see Americans here doing everything we can about gun control, instead opting to describe us as all the same. Old habits die hard.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Do you think it's some massive universal co-incidence that those who are commonly ascribed as "good" were those brought up in nice safe well-educated households and those who are attributed to as "bad" are those who were brought up in poor, dangerous, drug-addled-parent areas?

Sorry I think nothing of the sort, I class "good" and "bad" based on an individuals actions. I judge by the content of ones character, not on the color of skin or social and cultural background. This fool that shot up Sandy Hook is from one of the most privileged backgrounds you can imagine. The county there is ranked as one of the 10 most richest in the U.S. His family is quite rich and well off, so what?

He targeted innocent kids on purpose, that is the action of an truly evil human being, being rich or poor has nothing to do with it.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sorry I think nothing of the sort, I class "good" and "bad" based on an individuals actions...He targeted innocent kids on purpose

And was it good or bad that the individual had access to the kind of lethal firepower he used? And the social/legal construct that enabled him -- via his mother -- to gain that access: Can that be judged as good or bad?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Oh, and Sailwind, given that most mass murders are committed over a period of less than ten minutes, even a koban in the neighborhood would serve nothing more than traffic control in the aftermath.

Given that there is no 100 percent way to prevent this evil flaw in humans beings from occurring, whether the carnage is delivered by gun, bomb, or any other lethal conveyance, one at least takes the best measure one can to either discourage or prevent the ones that haven't crossed over into the most determined evil threshold yet from acting out their fantasy. That means Koban's in Japan manned and ready with the gun available to discourage that behavior or respond. We want to prevent this happening but we are fooling ourselves if we think we can be 100 percent effective at the effort and claiming that Columbine had a security guard and he was worthless is only proving that they knew who to avoid. Now if there was CCW staff members there whom these two evil bastards wouldn't then know who to avoid and if that was well known that Columbine allowed staff to legally carry it just might have changed their calculus. It might have made a difference and that is something to think hard about. Anything that can prevent is on the table and that includes CCW.

Everyone knows this is bogus. People go to where other people congregate so their gun can do more damage.

Ton's of people congregated at the gun shows yesterday according to the article here at J.T. I hardly doubt even your most determined mentally unstable loser would be stupid enough to go after that "target".

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Folks the bad guys will always carry a gun no matter what gun restriction laws are passed,and they love commiting crimes in places with the most strict gun laws....

Also Columbine massacre happened when President Bill Clinton's 1994 Assault Weapons ban was in effect.....

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Similarly, government fearing the people isn't supposed to mean that politicians need to be wary of Joe Public walking up and shooting him because he doesn't like his policies.

They are wary, not of John Q Public but wary of psychos and the unhinged. They have armed security carrying concealed weapons. The Secret Service carries, when President Obama makes a speech at a college, High School or Elementary School he has that protection. The "gun free" zone laws are thrown out the window during those occasions as they should be.

Yet some here don't even want to consider the same protection we provide to protect our President not be made available in our schools after he leaves to protect our kids by never allowing competent law abiding citizens to conceal carry at our schools.

Something to seriously think here.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Sailwind

But let's just keep focusing on guns and that getting rid of guns is somehow going to magically change rotten human beings hellbent on maximum carnage into good ones who somehow now can't reek unspeakable carnage.

I find this kind of attitude very prevalent and very strange, continually referring to bad guys, good guys, criminals, and as NoLiving wrote, whether other countries would actually have comparable murder rates if they had as many guns. These arguments, I'm sorry, display a worrying lack of intelligent thinking. It's not a competition as to how many guns you can have in circulation while retaining a low murder rate, and if other countries did have comparable murder rates if they had more guns then it should be obvious that it precisely proves the point that more guns do add to an increase in murder rates. Secondly, it's not about good guys and bad guys. This is not a 60s western for crying out loud, it's real life. There is no devil and god, no such thing as "good" guys and "bad" guys. All there is is actions, and if changing the gun laws slightly will lower the ability of someone who would otherwise have murdered someone to do that then it doesn't make a blind bit of difference if a "rotten" human being has changed into a "good" human being.

The funny thing is is that there are a lot of coherent and logical arguments for being quite pro-gun, given the state America is in now, but the only person I've seen on these boards at least to being anywhere near them is bass4funk. At least he stated that he thinks his right to bear arms, but even then just a handgun securely locked up at home, trumps the risk of tragedies like last week occurring. Almost everyone else, I'm sorry to say, exhibits little logic or basic common sense.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Them guns is good. My three year old and his baby sister are already trained by me to shoot to kill, nyuk, nyuk.

Them bad guys is out there and i'll blow them away if they come near my family, d'ya hear me?

I have a right to own my guns and i am holding one now as i type, in fact i am caressing it like i would a lovely woman, hehehehehe. Any bad guys or Muslim fanatics come a calling at my door or come near my family and i will blow their evil commie brains out.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Sailwind,

"Who would have really put that child in danger Madverts? The homeowner defending his property? Or the 4 armed man who were charging in the house fully armed with an assault rifle"

Why the home-owner, of course. He fired the shots. It's no different to firing at targets randomly in the garden and it all going Pete Tong, something we've also seen in the past.

Really, this is the nub of the issue of responsible gun-ownership you and all the others gun lovers fail to grasp. It's a great big responsibility to be taken seriously and clearly draconian laws need to be put in place to remind those that demand such responsibility.

If you don't want to be held accountable for the guns you're so desperate to own, as per the demands of us people sick of gratuitous gun violence, then don't buy a gun. It can't get any simpler really.

Really, yo couldn't have better proved my point on this one.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

and so you really, really did miss the point indeed. But I'll spell it out for you: when George Washington said what he said, there were no assault rifles or any of the weapons around today, nor are you defending against the British, so it is moot to quote as such

No I understand your point completely Smith that is why I called you out on them not being Assault Rifles. What guns are we talking about regulating here Smith? Machine guns or semi-automatic rifles? I have a very strong feeling this thread is about Semi-automatic rifles and due to the fact that the media incorrectly refers to them as "assault rifles" and because you have historically incorrectly called semi-automatic rifles "assault rifles"........

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

It's wierd that Americans just can't grasp that entire countries, states, cities and communities exist beautifully all over the world with an almost complete absence of guns.

And the absence of guns doesn't mean crime doesn't exist. Of course it does. But the perpetrators don't have guns when they commit them. I am absolutely confident I won't see a gun pretty much in my lifetime, unless I visit a farm, whereby the farmer might have one for his purposes, and I specifically ask to see it. At which point, he would probably refuse me on the suspicion I am a nutter.

Last year I came home to find a guy in my back yard who was clearly intending to break into my house - I caught him, he knew it, and he wigged out. But not at any point did I fear he had a gun (he had a bag with him), and likewise, it wouldn't have crossed his mind that I had one. But even if I did have one - which is virtually impossible where I live, had I decided to use it I would most likely have faced criminal charges for using excessive force. I knew that a confrontation with the guy would mean a fight, but not a shooting.

Essentially, there are no guns here, except on policemen. The exception might be very hardened underground criminal elements, but I can't actually remember the last time there was a shooting. Honestly. Perhaps 1 in 5 years? 10, maybe? There are stabbings from time to time, bashings, but no shootings.

It's a culture. Guns are not part of ours. I'm real glad for that.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Sailwind

Secondly, it's not about good guys and bad guys. This is not a 60s western for crying out loud, it's real life. There is no devil and god, no such thing as "good" guys and "bad" guys.*

No offense, but this attitude is also I've noticed quite prevalent in a Liberal mindset.

Because it's quite simply true. Do you think it's some massive universal co-incidence that those who are commonly ascribed as "good" were those brought up in nice safe well-educated households and those who are attributed to as "bad" are those who were brought up in poor, dangerous, drug-addled-parent areas? This is no way absolves anyone of any responsibility for their own actions, quite the opposite, because people can and do escape from a bad situation, or indeed make a good situation worse, but do you really think the correlation is due to people being born inherently "good" and "bad"?

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

that is the action of an truly evil human being,

A mentally incompetent human being. What exactly is "evil" to you?

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

And, for causing sheer carnage in terms of fatalities per minute -- nothing appears to top guns in terms of what is available to the ordinary person.

Wrong,

The worse school massacre ever was also on U.S soil.

The Bath School disaster is the name given to a series of violent events perpetrated by Andrew Kehoe in Bath Township, Michigan, on May 18, 1927, that killed 38 elementary school children, two teachers, and four other adults and injured at least 58 people. Kehoe killed his wife, set off a major explosion in a school building, and committed suicide by detonating a final explosion in his truck.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bath_School_disaster

But let's just keep focusing on guns and that getting rid of guns is somehow going to magically change rotten human beings hellbent on maximum carnage into good ones who somehow now can't reek unspeakable carnage. The 9/11 hijackers accomplished their horror with just......... box cutters, mull that over for a minute. There is no denying that guns in the wrong hands is a terrible thing but so are box cutters in the wrong hands. The problem is so much deeper in that we are dealing against the cunning of very deranged human beings who will not be stopped by more bans or more laws. The worse of these types are the ones that are going to commit suicide and are using their victims as nothing more than bloody extras in their warped world before they kill themselves. Working on how to best face this absolute evil is the only prudent course we can take . Getting more involved in the community and not ignoring possible warning signs in your neighbors or community at large is a huge step. And so many other solutions that can looked at hard and merits serious discussion.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Sure, the wolves all over in the US. And the vampires no ?

Cos, maybe it applies more to me because my state of Minnesota has over 3,000 wolves and we had our first wolf hunting season.

These arguments, I'm sorry, display a worrying lack of intelligent thinking. It's not a competition as to how many guns you can have in circulation while retaining a low murder rate, and if other countries did have comparable murder rates if they had more guns then it should be obvious that it precisely proves the point that more guns do add to an increase in murder rates.

It is not a competition, what the article I posted a link to shows is that gun ownership rates don't correlate to higher murder rates. What it shows is that what is responsible for crime rates is that cultural and sociological reasons are what drive them, that includes homicide and suicide.

Did you even read the article that I posted Oikawa?

Yes, but he prepared for over a year -- despite plenty of anti-social warning signs -- and used materials not readily available to the "average" person in the USA today.

That has been true though for the other mass shooters in terms of showing warning signs for some time before they strike, for example the columbine shooters prepared for over a year. The virginia tech shooter was declared a threat to himself and others before he even bought his first gun. The Arizona shooter was knows to be "strange" that scared people. The Aurora shooter scared a lot of the graduate interviewers he even sent in to the person whom he was seeking mental treatment with his plans for the attack. In fact when the Aurora shooter tried to join a gun club the gun club owner instructed his employees to tell him when Jason arrived and not to deal with him but that he would because he was concerned about the guy.

The problem that the NRA and its defenders keep ignoring is the formerly "good person" whose mental health and/or personality has deteriorated into becoming someone who is anti-social. Those people need to be separated from whatever guns they have access to -- and there needs to be a protocol in place that enables the local authorities to respond to citizen complaints/concerns and do just that.

Agreed.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

The best reason for not having "Gun Control" is that criminals and even a lot of "nut-jobs" do Hazard Risk Analysis (HRI). Criminals don't like being caught or injured on the job which is committing crimes. Widespread private ownership of arms and concealed weapons permits makes them seek out softer targets which is why the Aurora theater shooter passed up several places until he found the one with the Gun Free Zone. Conversely, has anyone shot up a Starbucks lately?

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

assault rifles

AR-15's are not assault rifles smiths o what is your point?

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

I'd like to see the details of the study. I've seen 1 million, 2.5 million, and now you're throwing out up to 2 million. Statistics shouldn't have that much of a range. I'd like to know the criteria and who was doing the analysis.

Stats will always be twisted to suit one agenda. But the best I could find from a pretty reliable source was done in 1994 by the Center for Disease Control, criteria was classed under three definitions:

(1) retrieved a firearm because there might be an intruder, (2) retrieved a firearm and saw an intruder, and (3) retrieved a firearm, saw an intruder, and believed the intruder was frightened away by the gun.

Numbers ranged that included all three as ....1,896,842 (95% CI [confidence interval] = 1,480,647 - 2,313,035) incidents. And went progressively lower number 2 where the intruder was seen was 503,481 (95% CI = 305,093-701,870) Number three was incidents occurred in which an intruder was seen, and 497,646 (95% CI = 266,060-729,231) incidents occurred in which the intruder was seen and reportedly scared away by the firearm

I believe this was the most reliable study that has been bandied about on the subject that ever conducted by a pretty non-partisan source.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9591354

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

For those interested in whether gun control laws have any effect on overall homicide or suicide rates check this article out that was published in the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy.

http://www.garymauser.net/pdf/KatesMauserHJPP.pdf

The conclusions is that there has been no evidence to show that gun control has any impact of any significance on reducing overall homicide and or suicide rates or just violent crime in general in nations that have them. Instead the conclusion is that Social/Cultural factors are what drive crime rates to go up or down including homicide and or suicide, not weapon ownership rates or even just the availability of weapons.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

Secondly, it's not about good guys and bad guys. This is not a 60s western for crying out loud, it's real life. There is no devil and god, no such thing as "good" guys and "bad" guys.

No offense, but this attitude is also I've noticed quite prevalent in a Liberal mindset. A total denial that evil in the world can even exist or if acknowledged that it is somehow just relative or related to something such as a "rotten childhood" or in case to a terrorist attack the result of misguided "American Foreign Policy" .

A person that targets totally defenseless human beings on purpose whether in acting out a psychotic fantasy or due to cold blooded act of terrorism is evil, there is no moral relativism involved here. There are bad guys in this world and that target the innocent and that is real life, we ignore this basic fact at our own peril.

Also I do not know who vested you with the authority to proclaim with such certainty that there really is no devil or God. Rather presumptious I would say.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

I actually watched your Youtube video. It all felt good and Chuck Norrisy (nice grouping of shots on the windshield if I may add), right until the end where the report goes on to say a lot of the bullets the guy was firing at the wood-be robbers, actually struck his neighbours house across the street....

...luckily there wasn't a 6 year old kid in the ay, but it can, will and has happened.

More gun are not the answer.

Who would have really put that child in danger Madverts? The homeowner defending his property? Or the 4 armed man who were charging in the house fully armed with an assault rifle and sure not intending on singing to owner happy birthday. As far as more guns not being the answer, the 4 guys that ran so fast backwards after they found the house they were going to ransack all of the sudden had an owner firing back at them, would agree with you100 percent.

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

There is a lot of opinion here, but some are pretty short on facts.

All the attacks, except ONE were in "Gun Free Zones" where it is a Federal crime to have a firearm. What that means is no licensed, FBI cleared, concealed weapons permit holders are allowed in these areas. Criminals, unfortunately, do not obey such laws. "Gun Free Zones" are in fact Federally sponsored "Criminal Safe Zones".

The NRA statement is not controversial for anyone who is aware that armed uniformed police officers are on duty in many of our schools.

The claim that because the founders could not have envisioned modern weapons, and that it follows that some portion of the Bill of Rights is no longer valid is to be completely blind to history as it was understood at the time, to the history of firearms ownership in the US since the founding until today and to be willfully ignorant of law.

Semi automatic rifles of all types, according to the FBI Unified Crime Report as of 2011, account for 2 1/2 % of all homicides. The Semi auto rifles which cosmetically resemble military weapons but do NOT function as full auto, account for less than 1% of homicides. In 2011 there were a total of 324 homicides where a rifle was involved.

The Clinton Gun ban was repealed when after 10 years of records, it was found to have no impact on crime.

Guns have a positive place in our society Numerous studies have conclusively shown that those states with high gun ownership and high numbers of Conceal Carry have the lowest crime rate. Criminals, like any predators, prefer victims that are as helpless and who have no means of self defense. Gun owners use firearms up to 2,000,000 times per year in circumstances of self defense. The majority of the time the firearm is not discharged.

-5 ( +3 / -8 )

I truly believe that there is something fundamentally wrong with a society that needs armed guards at schools.

NRA is fumbling on this it because it can't grasp that the modern Media no longer even pretends to be fair anymore and has a left wing agenda such as promoting gun bans and pushing that as the only course and answer on this. The NRA just went for a clumsy simplistic solution that it felt the Media wouldn't be able to counter, not grasping that the Media could care less about any suggestions about adding more security guards or police protection, the Media is focused on banning guns and anything else that broaches a different approach is to be downplayed or scoffed at.

If the NRA was Media Savvy and grasps that the Obama and the Democrats excel as exploiting divisions and demonize those that disagree through their all to willing Media allies, they could have come up a much better message. One that stressed national unity over division and one that would help foster a sense of national community instead of battening down the hatches with more TSA style security dog and pony shows.

I would have liked to see the NRA push as part of the solution that it would to seek out and partner with those organizations that already have as members as Americans who have stepped up to plate in the past to protect the national community The VFW, The Wounded Warrior Project for example. These organizitions may well turn it down but it sure opens up the conversation, it brings in other valuable talent and players to the table to contribute to solutions. The NRA could be the catalyst in challenging Congress and the Obama administration to look at Veterans programs already funded and in place that might be able to be adjusted a bit to utilize this talent to provide protection for our citizens at home.

Obama made a big deal promoting his idea of nation building at home instead of abroad during the campaign and that nation building abroad biggest piece involved the U.S military. A media savvy NRA would have gasped that and reminded Mr. Obama of his campaign theme and that we've got our Veterans who have that experience with national building, asked to if they can be utilized to help protect our schools, lets start there, Sir. A media savvy NRA should've done this approach and it would also help to expose the Media for what it has become, nothing but advocates anymore for their pet causes that only they like and are now just actual barriers to having an unbiased national conversation that is truly needed here.

We need real common ground outside the bias media filter and we need to utilize our resources and talent as a nation. We have that talent right now. Let's see if we can engage our Veterans in this endeavor as part of the solution to protect our youngest from harm, I have no doubt that they'll step up to this challenge if tasked.

-5 ( +2 / -7 )

Smith, you obviously completely miss the point of George Washington's quote and the reason the Second Amendment was and is required, regardless of the date and period weapons. The State has become the tyranny the Founders tried to prevent(other than the Hamiltonians, Clay, and eventually Lincoln ).

You're not American, it seems.

-6 ( +1 / -7 )

Allow me to reiterate,

" Firearms are second only to the Constitution in importance; they are the peoples' liberty's teeth. "

George Washington

-7 ( +1 / -8 )

being shot from assault rifles when they drew up the Second Amendment.

Did the founding fathers envision the internet, telephones, or other forms of communication when they created free speech that allow for national security incidents around the world to take place because of what someone said about someone's prophet?

Also they are not assault rifles, an assault rifle is a machine gun, AR-15s are not machine guns.

The debate is about all too often gun violence

Is it? The assault weapon ban isn't about day to day or overall gun violence it is about mass shootings..

Do you really honestly think that banning semi-automatic rifles such as AR-15s is really going to make a dent in gun crime in this nation? Especially when they make up less than 360 homicides, more people are killed by someone's fists than are killed by all rifles in the US each year. In fact more people are killed by someone's fists each year than are killed by the combined homicide numbers of shotguns and rifles. You can still have mass shootings with lever action and pump action firearms, are we going to ban those? You can fire 5 rounds in one second with either one of those types of firearms.

What the US needs is stronger background checks along with mental evaluation annually of gun owners. Banning certain firearms isn't going to make a dent in gun crime in this nation.

-8 ( +3 / -11 )

' Numerous studies have conclusively shown that those states with high gun ownership and high numbers of Conceal Carry have the lowest crime rate. Criminals, like any predators, prefer victims that are as helpless and who have no means of self defense. Gun owners use firearms up to 2,000,000 times per year in circumstances of self defense. The majority of the time the firearm is not discharged."

Those are facts that the ill-named liberals blatently ignore. I say ill-named because their agenda is in direct opposition to the cause of liberty.

"Firearms are second only to the Constitution in importance; they are the peoples' liberty's teeth. "

George Washington

" When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. When the government fears the people, there is liberty. "

Thomas Jefferson

Too many people today, city dwellers especially, fear liberty.

-8 ( +2 / -10 )

The only animal you hunt with those are people.

That is not true at all, you can hunt deer with them as well as the wolves and smaller game.

Seriously, no hunting or range shooting requires assault weapons or large magazine clips.

What type of gun is required for those things?

Restricting these things does not stop people own weapons for self defense of for sport, or take away someone's 2nd amendment rights.

But what happens when people commit mass murder with those guns? For example you can fire a pump action shotgun at a cyclic rate of 300 rounds per minute or 5 rounds per second, same with lever action guns. What happens when a mass murder is committed with them? Do we ban them?

How many gun deaths per year for both, while you're at it? Don't you realize you're defeating your own arguments?

But it is not really about gun deaths but overall homicide rates. I mean what is the point of going by gun deaths and saying look we have lower gun deaths than you even though we have a higher overall homicide rate compared to you.

Columbine: an armed policeman on campus and another in a car in the parking lot looking for smokers. Didn't help.

That is because the armed police officer(s) was not in the school when the shooting started, he wasn't even on school property/campus Laguna. If you did some research you would know that. He was far way from the school property. It also didn't help that the police tactics at the time was to surround the building and then wait for swat teams to arrive resulting in them staying out of the school for 38 minutes from when the first officer arrived on campus till they went into the school. Now the tactic is to just rush into the building and don't wait for back up, so adding a police officer to the schools combined with that tactic would make a difference.

-8 ( +1 / -9 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites