world

U.S. gun-rights lobbyist says ad attacking Obama 'ill-advised'

57 Comments

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

© (c) Copyright Thomson Reuters 2013.

©2020 GPlusMedia Inc.

57 Comments
Login to comment

Too late now, the NRA has shown what its made of and how ancient they're thinking is.

6 ( +8 / -2 )

News! The NRA are a bunch of hillbillies! Just a bunch of good old boys who want to keep the white man and women "safe" from "others."

0 ( +5 / -5 )

@El

IF you say that, then you should be equally disgusted with the Democratic mostly White Senate and Harry Reid who himself is an avid gun rights supporter.

-4 ( +5 / -9 )

What's so disgusting about it? Isn't it a fact that any President's kids are under SS protection? Is it taboo to bring up "kids" when the whole country is talking about and acting on the "20 kids"? Politicians can bring in kids but others can not? "when Obama announced his plan to respond to the gun violence, he was flanked by four children."

-11 ( +2 / -13 )

Elbuda MexicanoJan. 26, 2013 - 08:21AM JST News! The NRA are a bunch of hillbillies! Just a bunch of good old boys who want to keep the white man and >women "safe" from "others."

On what do you base this allegation that the NRA is a racist organization? Do you have to be White to be a member? I thought it had something to do with gun ownership and stuff.

-1 ( +5 / -6 )

@Ossan

If you want to be a leader of the NRA, the most important qualification is you have to be a lobbyist. The NRA's main function is kissing up to politicians. Owning a gun is peripherial to their job--you think NRA lobbyists are allowed to tote guns in the halls of Congress?

This article is an indication of how the NRA is alienating portions of their industry. When Kevin Nugent, one of Wisconsin's largest gun sellers whose clients included the state's most recent mass murderer Wade Michael Page, can openly brag in a recent interview about throwing NRA officials out of his store, you know a big rift is developing.

5 ( +6 / -1 )

Torafusu, I read the article again and I still don't see how stating the fact that the POTUS' kids are protected by the SS is "disgusting". I agree with you that the NRA's main raison d'etre is lobbying, which understandably includes kiussing up to politicians, who in turn kiss up to various interest groups for votes and support. None of which explains why some people felt that bringing up what is a commonly known fact is somehow " repugnant and cowardly" or "reprehensible".

0 ( +2 / -2 )

@Ossan,

Then why doesn't the NRA run ads admitting that their lobbyists rely on federally funded security for their own lobbying work. They sure the heck do not provide their own security detail when visiting our nation's top politicians.

Calling out the president's kids for being well secured, while mooching off taxpayers for NRA lobbyist security is the height of hypocritical rhetoric.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

OssanAmerica: "What's so disgusting about it? Isn't it a fact that any President's kids are under SS protection?"

If you really can't see the problems with this add then you've got more problems than I thought. As the children of ANY government leader, the children are naturally going to be targets to those wishing to harm said leader and/or the nation, whereas the school massacres are random events with the targets, for the most part, not pre-selected (save for location in some cases), etc. etc. This moronic allusion by the NRA would be like them saying it's hypocritical to have soldiers in Iraq carry guns (and assault rifles for that matter) while Cletus in backwater Kentucky is denied the right to the same thing.

4 ( +7 / -3 )

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W8crdWLgfDk

=This "elite" school has its' own armed guards besides the secret service for Obama's kids.

When Kevin Nugent, one of Wisconsin's largest gun sellers whose clients included the state's most recent mass murderer Wade Michael Page

-You must seriously be joking if that little hole of a shop is "one of Wisconsin's largest gun sellers" https://plus.google.com/115183037439557267295/about?hl=en

=that little hole of a store is a boutique store

Gander Mountain has a "Gun World" on i41 north of Milwaukee in Germantown http://www.gandermountain.com/modperl/storelocator.cgi?r=storeDetails&storeID=121

-this is basically a grocery store of guns (guns only etc) and you have a monster Cabelas (monster sporting goods store like a Bass Pro shops) a few miles north of that at the i45/i41 split). I would say "Gun World" is the biggest, but with internet sales it is hard to tell these days.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

In the US, with guns so omnipresent and easy to get that any looney and his just-outta-jail psychopathic best friend can buy assault rifles and uzis, the necessity for everyone to carry guns becomes a kind of circular argument.

The mindfrack comes when the NRA and their apologists try to justify this necessity for ANYBODY to have the RIGHT to possess guns. The whole reason all people need the right to have guns, they say, is precisely because EVERYBODY(looneys included) has the right to possess guns.

Wow! mind-bogglingly circular and idiotic.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

https://plus.google.com/102849390246423823479/about?hl=en

Gander Mountain "Gun World" really doesn't have the feedback that a true "gun store" should have. =You should have used guns, reloading, firing range with a gunsmith(s) on site. Maybe they are the biggest in new gun sales -but that doesn't make you the biggest gun shop. A model that may wow the people from Chicago, but Wisconsin takes its' guns way more serious than that. I see the highway banner almost everyday, but haven't stopped in yet.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

" The ad, which cast Obama as hypocritical for having expressed skepticism about putting armed guards in schools, when “his kids are protected by armed guards at their schools,” drew widespread criticism when it first became public on Jan 15.

Nationwide outrage over the shooting of 20 children and six adults at an elementary school in Newtown, Connecticut, on Dec 14 moved gun violence and gun control to the center of the U.S. political debate."

While it IS true that political leaders' children need heightened security protection due to the particular risks(as evidenced by SS omnipresence ), it is also true that the children of both haves and have-nots should be equally safe. Does that mean all schools should have armed guards? To me, that question is best answered on the local level.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

To be denounced in an NRA ad is a singular badge of honor.

4 ( +5 / -1 )

Herve: "it is also true that the children of both haves and have-nots should be equally safe."

Everyone deserves to be safe, of course, and the best way to do that is to remove the ease at which psychos can commit mass murder -- get rid of the guns. That's the only way this kind of thing won't happen again with such frequency. One incident that was NOT reported on JT was that a teacher in a school somewhere in the US (I'm sure you can look it up) managed to TALK down a student who brought in a shotgun and heaps of ammo into a California classroom earlier this month.

http://fox8.com/2013/01/11/teacher-talks-armed-student-into-giving-up/

Did the teacher need to be armed to stop the young man? NO!

Back to the ridiculous NRA ad, though, while everyone does indeed deserve to be protected, that is not what the main message of the NRA was with the add -- it was obviously just a stab at Obama, and a very, very poor and detrimental attempt to spin it as hypcrisy.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

One incident that was NOT reported on JT was that a teacher in a school somewhere in the US (I'm sure you can look it up) managed to TALK down a student who brought in a shotgun and heaps of ammo into a California classroom earlier this month.

Yes, I'm familiar with that instance. A brave teacher. The USA-Today article had more info: " http://fox8.com/2013/01/11/teacher-talks-armed-student-into-giving-up/" Authorities say the shooter planned the attack and targeted students he felt had bullied him for more than a year.

The Sheriff's Department did not release the boy's name because he was a juvenile and had yet to be charged. But many students and community members said they knew the boy and said he was often teased, including Alex Patterson, 18, who went to Taft with the suspect before graduating last year.

"He comes off as the kind of kid who would do something like this," Patterson said. "He talked about it a lot, but nobody thought he would."

Trish Montes, who lived next door to the suspect, said he was "a short guy" and "small" who was teased about his stature by many, including the victim.

"Maybe people will learn not to bully people," Montes said. "I hate to be crappy about it, but that kid was bullying him."

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Not only was it ill advised, but it factually incorrect, which just continues to reveal that the NRA are bunch of desperate, self serving, lying lobbyists for the gun manufacturing industry.

Guns don't kill people, people with easy access to guns kill people. Statistics and fact show, that the more guns in an environment results in a far higher number of people killed by guns. "Wow thats rocket science!"

More Americans have been killed IN AMERICA by hand guns in the last 20 years than all the Americans killed in the Korean, Vietnam and Iraq wars combined.

But do not talk to the NRA about facts or data because they only believe in their god given rights.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Smith, sorry, I forgot to put quotations around your statement at the beginning of my last post .

I also meant to add that the action of the teacher defused the situation before the police arrived. However, the teacher was lucky that the student with the gun had respect for him. It very well could have ended more tragically.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Herve: Don't worry about the quotation marks.

"It very well could have ended more tragically."

We are in agreement -- and it could have ended more tragically because he had a gun and could have killed many. That aside, the point was that the teacher did not need to be armed, and no armed security needed to be present to avoid a massacre. Imagine if the teacher had been armed with guns instead of courage and the respect for human life; let's say he struggled to whip out his gun while the teen then opened fire -- it would have ended in slaughter instead of how it DID end. It's proof that the staff do not need to be armed. Let's look at another case: Columbine, where at least one armed guard was at the school -- did that stop the massacre? Nope. It certainly did help a lot more bullets fly around than would have otherwise, and created the potential for even more death.

Anyway, the main point I intended to make in regards to the ridiculous ad and the lunacy of the NRA comparison, as well as to those who support it, is that you are ABSOLUTELY right that everyone equally deserves to be safe, regardless of status or anything else. The difference between your average Joe and the president's family, however, is that the latter have more need for PROTECTION than the former, due to the reasons many have posted previously. That's just plain common knowledge.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

@OssanAmerica Elbuda is spot on. We AMERICANS, whether we be white, black, hispanic or asian, know exactly who represents the NRA. Think you should cut him some slack. Just because they don't sport those old white bed sheets doesn't mean they can blend in.

Elbuda knows exactly what he's talking about. He's telling it straight, just as if he was in his living rooms. The only difference between you and him is that he's not being false or sugar-coating it.

People who love the NRA and their guns live mostly in sun-down towns. I suspect you've never driven through a sun-down town. You might want to Google that and then switch over to images. Welcome to NRA land.

It's the kind of town that makes you check your fuel so that you have a full tank. All those homegrown hillbillies have guns. God forbid you miss your off ramp.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

@OssanAmerica Elbuda is spot on. We AMERICANS, whether we be white, black, hispanic or asian, know exactly who represents the NRA.

Yes, the very ethnic groups you just outlined.

Think you should cut him some slack. Just because they don't sport those old white bed sheets doesn't mean they can blend in.

So ALL people that support the NRA ( liberals included ) are card carrying KKK members and racists???

Elbuda knows exactly what he's talking about. He's telling it straight, just as if he was in his living rooms. The only difference between you and him is that he's not being false or sugar-coating it.

I'm not sugar-coating it either. As a person that grew up around guns, I'm still here, never had a problem with guns, most people I grew up with don't have a problem with them, oh, most of them were liberals....shock!

People who love the NRA and their guns live mostly in sun-down towns.

What the heck does that mean? CA is famous for sunsets, so.......

I suspect you've never driven through a sun-down town.

Now you're OVER generalizing.

You might want to Google that and then switch over to images. Welcome to NRA land.

I live in a mostly liberal area,cue got a lot of NRA supporters, my family are the only conservatives on this block.

It's the kind of town that makes you check your fuel so that you have a full tank. All those homegrown hillbillies have guns. God forbid you miss your off ramp.

It's always nice to hear prejudiced people pigeonhole a segment of society as one monolithic group. very intelligent.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

@elbuda, " The NRA are a bunch of hillbillies! Just a bunch of good old boys who want to keep the white man and women "safe" from "others." "

Hate to break it to you, but there are lots of us mixed race and other race members in NRA, many of which also reside in cosmopolitan areas. Point of fact, though, is that I WOULD prefer to live in a rural area and probably do so in the near future. I even have hispanic friends who are members, so please leave racism out of it.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

It is amazing how so many people can voice their opinion about things they have no knowledge of. Spoon fed by the mainstream media so they think they have all knowledge. I think most of you people need to learn what you are talking about before opening your mouth. Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt. Abraham Lincoln.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@Herve

Does that mean all schools should have armed guards?

I think you may be missing the point entirely. What has a society become when it even needs to just ask that question? How low can it get from here?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Never mind the armed school guards, why not arm all the children directly! AK-47s for kids in the upper grades, and lighter arms (smaller cliber handguns?) for those in the lower grades. This would make the NRA overlords and masters, the gun manufacters really happy! Yeeeeehaaaw!

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Did you see the story about the kindergartner who got suspended for threatening to shoot another student.....with a bubble gun? Pretty soon kids will be banned from saying the words "gun" or "shoot." All to protect us from tyranny.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

http://www.myfoxtwincities.com/story/20707196/dad-points-ak-47-at-daughter-for-grades

Charges: Dad points AK-47 at daughter for getting two B’s in school

A St. Paul man has been charged with terroristic threats for pointing an AK-47 rifle at his daughter during an argument over the fact that she got two B's instead of straight A's in school.

According to the charges, 52-year-old Kirill Bartashevitch recently purchased the AK-47 due to fears that such weapons would be banned under President Obama's push for gun control legislation.

The protectors from tyranny.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

According to the charges, 52-year-old Kirill Bartashevitch recently purchased the AK-47 due to fears that such weapons would be banned under President Obama's push for gun control legislation.

I see President Obama's gun control policy is really being super effective at keeping the guns out of the hands of people that really shouldn't own them in the first place.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

If Obama didn't want his children brought into the debate he should have left out the kids he used as props while announcing his own gun control policy prescriptions. Surveys have shown that a majority of Americans support placing armed guards in schools just as the President has. The American public believes that their own children are just as valuable as Obama's are. You can make the case that as children of the President, that they are targets - which is true. No one begrudges that his children are protected with the semi-automatic weapons used by the Secret Service. But as far as I know, there has never been an attempt on the life of a Presidents child. There has been attacks against the lives of children in the general public. If it is possible, why not offer the same protection to every child? This reminds me of how Liberal elitists - like Obama - insist that every citizen must put their children in public schools yet will nearly always put their own in an exclusive private school. Hypocritical? Absolutely.

@Elbuda Mexicano

News! The NRA are a bunch of hillbillies! Just a bunch of good old boys who want to keep the white man and women "safe" from "others."

I'm getting sick of reading so many "enlightened" Lefties denigrate people based on their race. Why not consider how ignorant you sound and examine your own morality when you attack people based on skin color and not the "content of their character". Perhaps being racist against whites is okay these days. You can bet that any comment denigrating any person of any other race - because of their race - would be rightly criticized by all here (if not stricken by the moderators). Yes, the NRA is mostly white - but they are not organized around race as are groups like Laraza and the NAACP. The NRA is organized around the second amendment of the Bill of Rights. You may not support the Bill of Rights, but their is a reason for each of them.

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

Did you see the story about the kindergartner who got suspended for threatening to shoot another student.....with a bubble gun? Pretty soon kids will be banned from saying the words "gun" or "shoot."

There was one where a kid was busted for paper cut out in a gun-like shape.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@wolfpack Way off the pace in many ways.

If Obama didn't want his children brought into the debate he should have left out the kids he used as props while announcing his own gun control policy prescriptions.

Truth be told, Obama is happy the pro-gun lobbyists used his kids as it really emphasizes how weak their position is. The comparison is insane at best. Pro-gun team couldn't have done a better job of galvanising US public opinion against guns, maybe so much so that they would now be eligible for the Nobel peace prize!

Lets skip past Elbuda comments, they do seem quite racist, I will agree.

The NRA is organized around the second amendment of the Bill of Rights.

No it isn't. it is TWISTED around the Second amendment. Pro-gun lobbyists have managed to twist the wording in a way that the whole of America has become a well organised militia. It isn't, and never will be because it is not a country that has just been born. Over two hundred years of intelligent growth have given birth to a great country that should no longer fear "tyranny" from its own leaders. Time to move into the 21st Century at last. EVERY other civilized country is already there, NRA and its followers are the ONLY things holding back the US.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Charges: Dad points AK-47 at daughter for getting two B’s in school

Only the Yakuza are able to do this in Japan with guns. But there is a big difference between two A's and two B's here and most likely as a student you are now looking at mandatory cram school. When this first happens parents both cry, the mother get blamed, and a plan is hastily constructed to "save the student". This is the big turning point in the student's life.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Over two hundred years of intelligent growth have given birth to a great country that should no longer fear "tyranny" from its own leaders.

Why should they no longer fear that? Over these same two hundred years, fascism arose in nations that were democracies at one time and plunged the entire world into a war that still reverberates to this day. Also communist revolutions in other countries that plunged them into dictatorships. If history of the past two hundred years is the guide, it tells us that no nation including the U.S will ever be immune from the possibility of a Government going tyrannical and authoritarian over its people. The founders were wise and knew this unfortunate impulse in human nature of those that end up in positions of ruling over others. The saying, "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." is still apt and is not going in the foreseeable future. The 2nd amendment makes this as difficult as possible in the U.S from occurring no matter the events of the day and acts as the final check on the U.S Government to remind it that it only governs at the consent of the people, and the people are armed if the Government forgets its place in the people lives as its servant and not its master..

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

@sailwind

communist revolutions in other countries that plunged them into dictatorships.

OK, so you and the neighbours are going to stop that should it ever occur in US? DO YOU REALLY THINK YOU CAN (that is after you consider it would ever be possible??)?

The founders were wise and knew this unfortunate impulse in human nature of those that end up in positions of ruling over others

The founders were very intelligent men, who lived over two hundred years ago. The World moved on, and threats are not what they used to be, which is why the second amendment relates to a militia guarding freedom as opposed to individuals shooting burglars. Big, no, a very big difference.

The 2nd amendment makes this as difficult as possible in the U.S from occurring no matter the events of the day and acts as the final check on the U.S Government to remind it that it only governs at the consent of the people, and the people are armed if the Government forgets its place in the people lives as its servant and not its master.

You have described "anarchy" very well!

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Still the ad is true and you will see how evil this government is going to get. It s only the beginning of their hypocrisy and hate for freedom. Ego maniacs

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Still the ad is true and you will see how evil this government is going to get. It s only the beginning of their hypocrisy and hate for freedom. Ego maniacs

It is a true reflection of how wrong the pro-gun lobby are, and as indicated before, I truly believe that lobby will win the Nobel Peace Prize for uniting America against guns. Odd - but true!

1 ( +1 / -0 )

@the passage, you quoted Herve as saying,

" Does that mean all schools should have armed guards? "

But you skipped the answer he provided,

"To me, that question is best answered on the local level."

Seems to me, he was saying that the answer didn't lie in the Federal government, but in the state or even city/town to decide. Maybe you're unaware that in fact, some places have been doing that for years already.

It's also worth noting that such shootings have not occurred at public places that have actual security, i.e. secure access, metal detectors, and armed guards, places such as airports and capitols. But they have happened in places with a false image of security.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Wolfpack: If Obama didn't want his children brought into the debate he should have left out the kids he used as props while announcing his own gun control policy prescriptions.

Presidents often have people behind them when they sign legislation that gets so much attention. But you already know that. You're manufacturing an argument to try to take the heat off of a very bad decision by the NRA and it's obvious.

Sailwind: it tells us that no nation including the U.S will ever be immune from the possibility of a Government going tyrannical and authoritarian over its people.

And the founding fathers created a wonderful system of checks and balances that makes sure no one part of government has too much power. To me, that's much more effective and doesn't carry the human cost of hundreds of millions of guns on the street.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

@surfoholic

It's also worth noting that such shootings have not occurred at public places that have actual security,

Keep riding those waves, because you are way off topic here. Do you really think for the a fraction of a second that armed guards at an ELEMENTARY school are really, in the 21 first Century FHS, a real and positive option? Is life really that bad in the USA?

2 ( +2 / -0 )

TorafusuTorasanJan. 26, 2013 - 09:16AM JST @Ossan, Then why doesn't the NRA run ads admitting that their lobbyists rely on federally funded security for their own >lobbying work. They sure the heck do not provide their own security detail when visiting our nation's top politicians.

I fail to see what the aboive has to do with "kids" "schools" and "guns". You're simply stating something that irks you about the NRS, fine, but it doesn't answer my original question.

Calling out the president's kids for being well secured, while mooching off taxpayers for NRA lobbyist security is the >height of hypocritical rhetoric.

If I understand correctly the POTUS' kids were mentioned because the Newtown incident took place in a school and many children were victims. Lobbyists and their security seem rather distant from the issue of kids and schools. So I ask again. what exactly is "cowardly" or "repulsive" about pointing out a fact that is widely known?

1 ( +1 / -0 )

@the passage,

The reality is that some communities HAVE hired SROs for their schools, serving multiple functions, one of which is on-site defense. These officers provide a deterrent and reduce drugs as well as violence.

And refrain from snide insult tactics, please. It's counterproductive to discussion.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@the passage,

The following link should serve to enlighten on the topic of school security. The NRA and the president both support it.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

In order to prevent reoccurances of incidents like Sandy Hook, protection of students and staff by professionals is needed.

http://www.schoolsecurityblog.com/2013/01/obama-school-safety-plan-falls-short-real-target-is-gun-control/

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@surf Can't see any insults in my posts, sorry if you are offended though.

The following link should serve to enlighten on the topic of school security.

You'd be surprised how much common ground there is. Both sides also believe that breathing air is good for you! Saying security is good can mean a million things, from improving the culture of the society in its attitude to a non-gun culture to having several battalions outside each educational establishment. Think about that again please, why would you need a physical security presence in the US? What drivers are behind that?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

OK, so you and the neighbours are going to stop that should it ever occur in US.

I would posit that the second amendment makes this very unlikely that a communist or fascist type of revolution would ever occur in the U.S in the first place. I would also posit in the unlikely event that it would occur it would not be any close to peaceful transition to a dictatorship, it would be quite bloody and those that would try to orchestrate something like this in the U.S knows this. The 2nd amendment prevents any real serious thinking along these lines.

. The World moved on, and threats are not what they used to be, which is why the second amendment relates to a militia guarding freedom as opposed to individuals shooting burglars. Big, no, a very big difference.

True, dictatorships like North Korea armed with nuclear weapons and Islamic religious tyrants seeking nuclear weapons weren't on the founders radar screen. As in Iran wanting to wipe the Democracy of Israel of the map. I am going to assume though that you actually believe the world since the founders time is a more 'peaceable' place and that a citizens right to have arms in the U.S is just so primitive.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@the passage,

This :" Keep riding those waves, because you are way off topic here." is the snide insult. A person's handle isn't part of discussion.

" Think about that again please, why would you need a physical security presence in the US? What drivers are behind that?" That is a pertinent question. Why? Why have the mass killings occurred? Going as far back as the Bath Consolidated School pyrotechnic event, the killers have had known mental issues. Serial killers should also be included in the discussion IMO as they are also responsible for raising the level of fear. The tools used are one factor, but not the motive.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

And the founding fathers created a wonderful system of checks and balances that makes sure no one part of government has too much power.

I see the purpose of the Second Amendment as acting as the ultimate final check on the Government's power. The founders purposely and distinctively separated the words "the people" and " the militia" and clearly defines as to who would be "well-regulated" and who would not to serve as powerful check on the Government regulated militia.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@surf Apologies, absolutely no malintent.

OK, so

That is a pertinent question. Why? Why have the mass killings occurred?

and

The tools used are one factor, but not the motive.

I think 99% of the current problem (mass killings) is that currently is way too easy to get hold of weapons that have the ability to inflict huge numbers of casualties. They have no place in any normal society, and the danger that they pose is just too great. I would argue that ANY gun should not be available to any regular member of the public simply because unless they lock it up and control access very carefully, there is a chance it will get into the wrong hands. Being locked up and controlled is about as useful in defence as a water pistol when the attacker has the advantage of surprise. To take that further, removing all guns from the society at large should be the ultimate goal. To rely on the Police forces for protection SHOULD be the right of every citizen. Now, I concede that that won't happen too soon in the US, but lets take the first step and remove the stuff you don't need - automatic weapons.

Now, as for motive, you will always have people that are going to try to do harm. We need to understand that and act at the earliest possible chance. They need better care, and that issue is not unique to the US. One precaution we can take is to minimise the risk of them being able to get hold of destructive devices as difficult as it possibly can be, hopefully by never having them available in the first place.

Look at other country's and see how it works.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@the passage,

We are in agreement about the motive aspect, but far apart on the other. What appears to work in the countries you may be referring are not for the US. Please read this essay:

Gun Ownership: American Exceptionalism Gun confiscation? Not a chance. Read the full article at: http://www.garynorth.com/public/10596.cfm

I'm not asking that you agree with it, but rather understand the reasons why not.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@surf Interesting piece but it only sets out one side of an argument. Where I disagree with the article (and on this topic in general) is the attempt at ahigh level to politicise it by saying it is liberal vs conservative. I think there are as many conservatives who are sick to the teeth of large scale massacres as they are liberals who would fight tooth and nail to keep their guns ("you and who else" from the article).

That said, I still can't see anything positive in armed guards at schools, cinema's, or any public place being a positive culture - and being armed to protect yourself only does one thing. Make the attacker ensure he/she/they have more firepower than you.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

" ...and being armed to protect yourself only does one thing. Make the attacker ensure he/she/they have more firepower than you."

You may think so, but the research proves otherwise: the deterrent effect has been proven.

I would be remiss to not point out that there are progressives and conservatives in both parties, though democrats are largely progressives and republicans largely conservatives.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

When that ad played on TV, moms & dads across the U.S. saw it and and wanted their children safe and...

Oops, sorry I'm wrong, Parents don't value their own children at all, they only value a politician's kid(s).

The ad played well to its intended audience: middle class American parents who vote. This is why the "progressive" crowd is so upset.

RR

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

You may think so, but the research proves otherwise: the deterrent effect has been proven.

Depends who is doing the research, and/or who is funding it. Amazing what can be "proved" if the price is right! I will will stick to common sense and instinct for now.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

That aside, the point was that the teacher did not need to be armed, and no armed security needed to be present to avoid a massacre. Imagine if the teacher had been armed with guns instead of courage and the respect for human life; let's say he struggled to whip out his gun while the teen then opened fire -- it would have ended in slaughter instead of how it DID end. It's proof that the staff do not need to be armed.

That is an example of an exception not the norm. Do you honestly believe that if the teachers or students tried to talk Adam out of shooting it would have worked? How about the guy in Norway, he even had victims plead for their life. How about Aurora or Port Arthur or Dublane or Virginia Tech.

Let's look at another case: Columbine, where at least one armed guard was at the school -- did that stop the massacre? Nope. It certainly did help a lot more bullets fly around than would have otherwise, and created the potential for even more death.

The reason why it didn't work in Columbine was because the armed guards which were police officers, at least one of them was, did not enter the school and waited for SWAT teams to arrive, it took 38 minutes for SWAT to arrive on scene and guess what they would have done if they were on scene Smith when it started? They would have entered the school and engage the shooters. Seeing as one of the Columbine shooters engaged the police officer/armed guard for several seconds that drew fire away from the students and each bullet that shooter shot at the armed guard was one less bullet for a student.

Yes there could have been more bullets flying around that could have created more death but consider the alternative that you are implying/suggesting and that is you let the gunman or woman go around shooting anything and everyone unopposed until they run out of ammo or targets. If you are in a hostage situation and the hostage taker is executing the hostages and the police say they are not going to do anything because storming the compound would lead to a gun fight in which possibly more hostages could be killed even though if you don't he is most likely going to kill all of the hostages anyway would you honestly agree with the police position? You are dealing with a situation like Sandy Hook or Columbine or Utøya(Norway) where these people are there to kill anyone and everyone they can get within their sights, are you honestly saying Smith that in those types of situations that the odds of their being more fatalities are greater by engaging the shooter than if you don't engage the shooter who is going around trying to kill everyone in their sights and you wait until they run out of ammo and or targets?

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

consider the alternative that you are implying/suggesting and that is you let the gunman or woman go around shooting anything and everyone unopposed until they run out of ammo or targets.

No, the alternative is that you don't let nutters get hold of guns in the first place.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

No, the alternative is that you don't let nutters get hold of guns in the first place.

Cleo the argument that was being made by Smith was that in a scenario where a gunman is going around shooting people he is implying that the odds are higher that more people will be killed if the police engage the shooter instead of leaving the shooter alone to shoot people.

No where does Smith talk about there not being a nutter with no gun.

See right here this is him saying that an armed guard confronting someone that is shooting at people would most likely result in more people being killed:

Nope. It certainly did help a lot more bullets fly around than would have otherwise, and created the potential for even more death.

Where is he talking about in the above where the person doing the assaulting does not have a firearm.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

I agree with the ad President Obama nor any member of his family life is more important than mine nor any child in a womb. To too bad he refuse to protect the babies in the womb than the drug addicts of his ill failed health care plan.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

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