NRA hasn’t changed its blustering self
I had to smile, and not happily, when I read this from Politico:
“The National Rifle Association stunned Washington observers Friday when the group’s CEO announced a plan to install armed guards at every school in the country — its response to the Connecticut shooting last week that left 20 children dead…
… Close observers had expected the NRA to strike a more cooperative tone at the unusual press conference, as pressure is mounting in Washington for reform.”
I don’t know who these “close observers” might be, but most people who have paid attention to the NRA over the years are not stunned or surprised in the least. “The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun,” NRA executive Wayne LaPierre told the press conference, in statements that could have been scripted five years ago.
LaPierre did make valid points in his statement about the need to improve school security and, oddly, about the dangerous Cult of Guns. But he made not the slightest nod toward even addressing the role played by the easy availability of high-powered weaponry. He and other NRA officials also refused to take questions afterward.
Personally, I take that as a good sign. It looked to me as though LaPierre and his friends are a bit worried this time and afraid to engage in the debate, fearful that at moments such as this, their bumper-sticker rhetoric won’t play well in front of a general audience.
Anything to change the subject, right Wayne?
– Jay Bookman
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
562 comments Add your comment
josef
December 21st, 2012
3:21 pm
JHM
This is what you said and what I quoted before quoting from the Declaration…
“Armed rebellion isn’t a *right,* nor is is spoken of as such at any time by any of the Founders.”
getalife
December 21st, 2012
3:21 pm
I will keep trying to get the cons to show some respect for our President.
williebkind
December 21st, 2012
3:21 pm
Joe Hussein Mama
Good luck and Merry Christmas!
JamVet
December 21st, 2012
3:22 pm
So science is right if it is a theory.
Exhibit number one to prove my point.
The kid dos not even know what a scientific theory is…
williebkind
December 21st, 2012
3:22 pm
getalife
December 21st, 2012
3:21 pm
I respect the office of the president.
Jay
December 21st, 2012
3:23 pm
Besides, Indigo, it’s simply not true that suburban schools don’t get armed guards. There was this one high school out in Colorado back in the ’90s, for example. It had an armed deputy sheriff on duty at the scene at all times.
It was called Columbine. ever hear of it?
Somehow, Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris didn’t find that fact too intimidating.
williebkind
December 21st, 2012
3:23 pm
Oh please tell me what your observations are?
larry
December 21st, 2012
3:24 pm
Does an individual state get block grants for mental health treatment from the federal government?
Because from what i have read, funding has been a problem , long before Obama.
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/newtown-shootings-put-spotlight-mental-health-care/story?id=18001556
TaxPayer
December 21st, 2012
3:24 pm
Okay, so it’s settled. Gun toters will just have to figure out how to load those 3-round clips real fast in order to simulate their rapid-fire thrill or they could do the lip thingy and make their own rapid-fire sound and then they’ll pay more, a lot more, taxes to fund putting police officers in every school and they’ll do without their military-grade assault rifles, etc. Works for me. And I do hope President Obama and the Democrats have even more ideas to add to their amendment to the budget bill to help instill some much needed involuntary responsibility into the Republicans.
booger
December 21st, 2012
3:25 pm
I live in a small town in the mountains. Our county has one high school, two middle schools, and three elementary schools. In this weeks weekly paper a reader asked the county commissioner if there was adequate school security. The answer was that we have a full time sherrif’s deputy at each school, and have for many years. We have never had an incident in the school system involving guns.
Somehow when the NRA suggests this approach it’s viewed here as outrageous and blustering, while in my county it seemed rather reassuring.
stands for decibels
December 21st, 2012
3:25 pm
That doesn’t sound unreasonable to me and I support gun rights.
I suspected we weren’t that far about, atchully. (remember, part 3 of what I quoted above was considered the “extreme” bit–and if we were to literally confiscate assault weapons, it’d have to be through buybacks.)
curious
December 21st, 2012
3:25 pm
Why doesn’t the NRA recommend armed guards at movie theater? I’d feel safer with an armed professional instead of the kid selling popcorn carrying heat.
stands for decibels
December 21st, 2012
3:26 pm
It was called Columbine. ever hear of it?
apparently the hundred pounds of crap in a fifty pound bag calling itself “Wayne LaPierre” hasn’t.
getalife
December 21st, 2012
3:26 pm
“I respect the office of the president.”
Prove it by showing the President some respect.
td
December 21st, 2012
3:26 pm
larry
December 21st, 2012
3:09 pm
Military assault rifles are already not legal for most citizens to own.
So i cant go to a gun show and buy an assult rifle here in the state of Ga?
If you mean can you go to a gun show in GA and buy the same weapon the military uses the answer is not unless you are a Federal credentialed person with the authority to do so.
josef
December 21st, 2012
3:26 pm
JHM
Again, I was saying why PARENTS choose to home school…those of us who do curriculum development are motivated by altruism and love of learning or we wouldn’t be putting in the time. But the money is nice, too, which is why I put in the smiley…and, just for the record, I operate on a sliding scale. I have been known to do them for free, and I have been known to charge out the ying yang. Laissez-faire!
Indigo
Essentially Big Daddy beat me to it and, as he does sometimes, said it better than I could’ve….
Real Scootter
December 21st, 2012
3:26 pm
getalife
December 21st, 2012
3:14 pm
Don’t bet on the NRA being marginalized there buddy. The odds ain’t good!
Speed Racer
December 21st, 2012
3:26 pm
http://townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/2012/12/18/invincible-ignorance-n1468784/page/full/
Tom Middleton
December 21st, 2012
3:26 pm
Real Scootter@3:11 pm: “The shooter was a NRA Member? “
Yeah, and for the crazed kid who learn to kill from video shoot-outs, wouldn’t knowing he had to get through a cop become part of the game? Poor Wayne!
Doggone/GA
December 21st, 2012
3:27 pm
“while in my county it seemed rather reassuring”
I don’t think the neighborhood around Columbine would agree with that.
Class of '98
December 21st, 2012
3:27 pm
“in statements that could have been scripted five years ago”
Heck, it could have been scripted a hundred years ago because it was as true then as it is now.
williebkind
December 21st, 2012
3:27 pm
“Prove it by showing the President some respect.”
NO, He has to earn it.
monty
December 21st, 2012
3:28 pm
Guns, knives, homemade explosives you can find on the internet, it doesn’t matter, a criminal is a criminal and he will attack the most vulnerable and least well guarded. Seems like all you elite thinkers can understand that one. Why should our schools be the least protected when they consist of the most vulnerable? I went to a church Christmas play last weekend and they have a security team where members are packing, and I felt safe as a babe in his mom’s arms.
Any looney deciding where to plan his attack, hum, let’s see this school has trained administrators who are trained in weaponry and self defense and crisis situations and this other school is dependent on the golden rule and people always acting the right way,which one do I attack? Hum! Hard decision.RIght? Schools need protection either by officers or staff trained in weaponry. Enough is enough. How many more hundreds of laws are going to make us safe? WHen good decent folks don’t have arms, only the criminals will. Unless you believe they won’t be able to get them, giggle. Blame the kid’s mom for not keeping them locked up, but don’t blame her right to own them. Cars,and booze kill more kids evey year than anything, don’t see anyone wanting to outlaw booze and cars on your site or make it harder to get either. In those cases that is more of an AMerican right than the 2nd Amendment. RIght?
williebkind
December 21st, 2012
3:30 pm
“Real Scootter@3:11 pm: “The shooter was a NRA Member? “
Was he? Was he a liberal? Did he come from liberal parents? Did he live in a liberal community or state?
larry
December 21st, 2012
3:32 pm
If you mean can you go to a gun show in GA and buy the same weapon the military uses the answer is not unless you are a Federal credentialed person with the authority to do so.
So i cant go to a gun show, or the parking lot somewhere and buy one?
Are you sure about this?
curious
December 21st, 2012
3:32 pm
“Cars,and booze kill more kids evey year than anything, don’t see anyone wanting to outlaw booze and cars on your site or make it harder to get either. In those cases that is more of an AMerican right than the 2nd Amendment. RIght?”
At least there is an effort and established criteria that must be met before driving a car or drinking booze.
Real Scootter
December 21st, 2012
3:33 pm
Why doesn’t the NRA recommend armed guards at movie theater
Because they aren’t Gov. property.But they can hire an armed guard if they feel the need.
williebkind
December 21st, 2012
3:34 pm
Well, I am bored. Liberals say the same old thing over and over and over. INCANTATIONS. MERRY CHRISTMAS everybody and a happy new year.
TaxPayer
December 21st, 2012
3:34 pm
At least there is an effort and established criteria that must be met before driving a car or drinking booze.
And we will require more of gun owners in the future.
Towncrier
December 21st, 2012
3:36 pm
“I think you’ll find that you’re not particularly respected by many of the liberal posters here, at least in part due to your own history of often making ideological, ‘ankle-biting’ posts and not responding to some of *our* arguments made in good faith.”
We all have acted as “ankle-biters” here, JHM – you included. It is extremely difficult to not get emotionally hooked by what others post here. And it just struck me that one of the reasons I engaged in “ankle-biting” myself was to get some kind of response from someone. The other reason was just aggression or vindictiveness.
I am not sure you can speak for the other liberal posters here so why don’t you let them do that for themselves? And, in truth, you do not so much debate as enter into p***ing contests with others and invariably always must have the last word (as if that wins an argument). Nonetheless, there have been a few times when we have had enjoyable and reasonable exchanges. And I am thankful for that and still respect you for it – even if you don’t respect me.
I have clearly engaged people in debate and have provided reasoning and evidence for my arguments. I have not always been right, but nobody is. And there have been a few times that I have not bothered to follow up on challenges. Mea culpa.
“If you don’t like others posting that way at you, then perhaps you should refrain from doing it yourself.”
I guess that could be said to everyone here, including you. I mean your “home-schooled” insult was just that – a personal insult. And I have done plenty of demeaning here we I have been in the fever. I think Obama getting re-elected has helped me personally, to give up my excessive concern for a lot of political issues. I don;t have much of an axe to grind here anymore – it’s all (to quote Solomon) a chasing after the wind. I think we are on a path to demise and it is not simply because of Obama – he is merely a symptom of the underlying disease. God has given man his free will and is bent on letting him have it.
curious
December 21st, 2012
3:36 pm
Real Scootter
December 21st, 2012
3:33 pm
Why doesn’t the NRA recommend armed guards at movie theater
“Because they aren’t Gov. property.But they can hire an armed guard if they feel the need.”
I thought this was about preventing mass murder.
bman.
December 21st, 2012
3:37 pm
“At least there is an effort and established criteria that must be met before driving a car or drinking booze”
what exactly would that be?
moonbat betty
December 21st, 2012
3:37 pm
The problem with my earlier line of thought, stands, is there are too many assault rifles already in law abiding citizens homes as well as criminals, and if another psycho like the one last week is able to get access to it, there are no gun laws that would be able to stop him.
If the gunman has 3 or 4 for semi-auto pistols, he could have most likely done the same amount of carnage.
This problem is way deeper than “gun control”. I don’t understand (actually I do) why there is so much focus on outlawing guns instead of the many other factors that are more responsible for these tragedies.
stands for decibels
December 21st, 2012
3:41 pm
This problem is way deeper than “gun control”. I don’t understand (actually I do) why there is so much focus on outlawing guns instead of the many other factors that are more responsible for these tragedies.
Well, I’m all about a holistic approach. Use the statistical tools at your disposal (did I mention that the CDC has been hampered from doing that?); improve access to and the public’s perception of mental health treatment; heavily regulate gun ownership so we know who has what stuff; keep that stuff out of the hands of people who clearly should not have access to it.
Those are broad objectives, and I’m perfectly willing to calmly discuss how to achieve them through humane means…
some other time. Gonna have to bail in a minute.
Towncrier
December 21st, 2012
3:42 pm
“Are you referring to Paul Broun who sits on the US House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, and who told the people at Liberty Baptist Church a couple of months ago that “evolution, embryology, and the Big Bang are lies straight from the pit of Hell”?”
No, I was not specifically talking about (and I hope you truly realize that and are merely playing the role of instigator you so often do here). I was merely applying the same rationale people such as yourself used in the healthcare debate – namely, where do we rank in the world? If that question may be applied to healthcare, I think it may also be fairly applied to public education.
moonbat betty
December 21st, 2012
3:43 pm
Thanks for your input, stands.
Obviously, there is no easy answer and no cure all.
josef
December 21st, 2012
3:45 pm
moonbat
“Obviously, there is no easy answer and no cure all.”
Word.
getalife
December 21st, 2012
3:45 pm
Real Scootter ,
Like grover, they are just lobbyist.
Marginalizing lobbyists like the nra and grover are a good thing.
Majority rules and right now they are deep in the minority.
moonbat betty
December 21st, 2012
3:45 pm
Trying to clean guns off the streets would be much like trying to deport all the illegals.
josef
December 21st, 2012
3:46 pm
okay, music sheets and time to “let it gooooo”
Towncrier
December 21st, 2012
3:46 pm
“Besides, Indigo, it’s simply not true that suburban schools don’t get armed guards. There was this one high school out in Colorado back in the ’90s, for example. It had an armed deputy sheriff on duty at the scene at all times.”
Well, Jay, as usual it appears I am going to have to explicitly call you out. Do you think 1) that all of the exposure to graphic violence kids have today in the form of TV, music, movies, games, the media and the Internet has any bearing on the violent behavior we are seeing now and 2) if so, should free speech be restricted just as the right to bear arms might be?
curious
December 21st, 2012
3:48 pm
To drive a car, it must be insured, the driver must be a minimum age, be able to see and identify traffic control devives, and pass a driving test for the initial license and undergo periodic renewals. I’m sure there’s more. An automobile is a deadly weapon that needs to be handled correctly.
To drink booze, a person needs to be a minimum age, not drink while driving, conduct himself in an acceptable manner when drinking, don’t operate boats under the influence, don’t drink on the job, etc. People that drink and con’t control their behavior usually find themselves out of a job or family.
Of course if you don’t mind associating with those type of risk takers, knock yourself out. Most of society will probably elect not to join in.
Real Scootter
December 21st, 2012
3:50 pm
I thought this was about preventing mass murder
curious,
No amount of gun laws or the NRA can prevent mass murder. Sadly.
curious
December 21st, 2012
3:52 pm
Real Scootter
December 21st, 2012
3:50 pm
I thought this was about preventing mass murder
“curious,
No amount of gun laws or the NRA can prevent mass murder. Sadly.”
True, but can we do something to keep guns out of the hands of unstable people that may not have a criminal record?
Real Scootter
December 21st, 2012
3:55 pm
Marginalizing lobbyists like the nra and grover are a good thing
Agreed getalife! And a few other lobbies as well.
td
December 21st, 2012
3:56 pm
arry
December 21st, 2012
3:32 pm
If you mean can you go to a gun show in GA and buy the same weapon the military uses the answer is not unless you are a Federal credentialed person with the authority to do so.
So i cant go to a gun show, or the parking lot somewhere and buy one?
Are you sure about this?
I have no idea but if you have evidence that this is happening then why do you not call the ATF with it since there is already a law on the books that says they can not sell these fully military grade weapons?
Real Scootter
December 21st, 2012
3:58 pm
True, but can we do something to keep guns out of the hands of unstable people that may not have a criminal record?
And I am all for that curious! Like I said to JHM,there is common ground here somewhere.
td
December 21st, 2012
3:58 pm
curious
December 21st, 2012
3:48 pm
Driving a car and drinking a beer are not Constitutionally protected rights but being able the keep and bear arms are protected. I am willing to bet that there are currently more laws on the books restricting gun ownership the driving or drinking?
indigo
December 21st, 2012
4:01 pm
Jay – 3:23 “it had an armed deputy sherrif on duty”
Oh really?
That’s the first I’ve heard of that.
Where was this sherrif when all the carnage was happening?
Out back smoking a joint?
Hiding?
Towncrier
December 21st, 2012
4:03 pm
“Armed rebellion isn’t a *right,* nor is is spoken of as such at any time by any of the Founders.”
I think the same may be said of a generalized right of privacy or the “right” to “marry” someone of the same gender and so on. Are not liberals always arguing for the expansion of rights via the SCOTUS on the basis of unenumerated rights? It certainly would be odd for the founders to prohibit armed rebellion in a nation founded upon that very thing.
too little time
December 21st, 2012
4:07 pm
“You manipulated idiots fought for years to fund them and their message that cigarettes don’t kill people.”
Seriously? “You manipulated idiots”, in this case, would refer to Southern DEMOCRATS. At the time that the idiots were fighting, states that produced tobacco were solidly Democrat, and completely unrelated to the gun lobby.
USA Patriot
December 21st, 2012
4:08 pm
JB – “Folks, I understand that this kind of discussion gets passionate, but let’s remain respectful of each other. The lack of that basic respect is part of our larger problem”
Says the fire starter…….puuuullllleeeezzzze!
too little time
December 21st, 2012
4:09 pm
“Armed rebellion isn’t a *right,* nor is is spoken of as such at any time by any of the Founders.”
True. It was described more like a moral imperative and responsibility than “right”.
indigo
December 21st, 2012
4:12 pm
Jay – 3:18
Go to those grieving parents in Conn.
Stress to them that we ARE looking out for the poor inner-city kids when it comes to safety in the schools.
I just know that, in the days, weeks and years to come, that knowledge will make them feel just sooooooooo much better.
Buzz Belle
December 21st, 2012
4:13 pm
LOL – is it not logical that the less guns there are, the less chance there is of unstable people getting their hands on them? One other thing, it is easy for all of us to say ALL of these massacres were committed by crazy people, we know they have to be crazy to do such a thing. But were they recognized as unstable BEFORE these incidents – that’s the key. Not just limiting guns, but also ramping up mental health.
too little time
December 21st, 2012
4:14 pm
If the gunman has 3 or 4 for semi-auto pistols, he could have most likely done the same amount of carnage.
If the gunman had 3 or 4 revolvers, he could have done the same amount of damage. That is why focusing on gun features is not productive.
too little time
December 21st, 2012
4:19 pm
So i cant go to a gun show, or the parking lot somewhere and buy one?
Are you sure about this?
You cannot go into a gun show or a parking lot and purchase a fully automatic M16. I am absolutely positive.
You can go into a gun show or parking lot in your own state and purchase a semi automatic AR-15 from someone in your own state. But an AR-15 is NOT a military issued firearm, and AR-15s are not used “on the battlefield”, as our president would like you to believe.
larry
December 21st, 2012
4:22 pm
Okay, so i need federal credentials to buy a military assult rifle………….
What was the difference in what his mother had, which was a Bushmaster AR-15, capable of firing 100 bullets in 1 minute , and a military assult rifle.
Because to me, there isnt much difference at all. If you need credentials to buy one , you would need one to buy the other.
too little time
December 21st, 2012
4:26 pm
stands for decibels said : Well, I’m all about a holistic approach. Use the statistical tools at your disposal (did I mention that the CDC has been hampered from doing that?); improve access to and the public’s perception of mental health treatment; heavily regulate gun ownership so we know who has what stuff; keep that stuff out of the hands of people who clearly should not have access to it.
Those are broad objectives, and I’m perfectly willing to calmly discuss how to achieve them through humane means…
That is a reasoned approach, though, I am not sure how to “heavily regulate” guns without infringing on the rights of individuals to own guns.
Scuba Steve
December 21st, 2012
4:29 pm
So we’re just going to ignore the “well-regulated” militia portion of the Second Amendment forever, huh?
Scuba Steve
December 21st, 2012
4:31 pm
Someone please explain to me how the American gun-nut idiots (on this blog and elsewhere) qualify as a militia OR well-regulated.
Adam
December 21st, 2012
4:34 pm
See, td? Jay isn’t all about letting liberals say whatever they want and get away with it.
I trust you won’t make the mistake in the future of insinuating otherwise because you were butthurt because he took down posts of yours or scolded you.
Adam
December 21st, 2012
4:37 pm
Here’s the censored version that no doubt falls within Jay’s guidelines (and yes Jay I knew it was over the top):
Guns are a major problem, and you guys KNOW that.
There is no evidence to support the idea that more guns equals more safety. The one person who has suggested this and claims he has evidence has been widely discredited (http://www.salon.com/2012/12/21/why_is_the_media_rehabilitating_john_lott/) and doesn’t know what he’s talking about.
You guys need to face facts. It’s time to restrict these weapons of mass murder, just like we restrict entrance into airports, just like we restrict sudafed because of meth addicts, just like we restrict FREE SPEECH because someone yelled fire in a crowded theater, just like we restrict people’s rights to liberty in the form of operating their chosen form of motor vehicle.
A right to a gun is not paramount. Dying on that hill would be foolish. You gain no security from having a weapon, but you DO create loss of freedom by insisting that it is a required part of everyone’s daily life. Being afraid that someone out there is going to shoot you down and several of your friends/colleagues/classmates all the time is NOT FREEDOM.
Jay
December 21st, 2012
4:38 pm
“If the gunman had 3 or 4 revolvers, he could have done the same amount of damage. That is why focusing on gun features is not productive.
Uh, no. Untrue.
Four revolvers = 24 rounds, fired much more slowly than from the Bushmaster, which has a real-world rate of fire of around 40 rounds per minute. Lanza put three to 12 shots into each of his victims, which is why we saw only one wounded survivor, who was shot in the foot and escaped.
Also, four revolvers make a guy feel like much less of a badass than does the Bushmaster, which is why so many of these nuts have a fondness for it.
too little time
December 21st, 2012
4:39 pm
What was the difference in what his mother had, which was a Bushmaster AR-15, capable of firing 100 bullets in 1 minute , and a military assult rifle.
Because to me, there isnt much difference at all. If you need credentials to buy one , you would need one to buy the other.
“Capable of firing 100 rounds a minute” is not realistic.The difference is: with an M16, you can pull the trigger once and empty the magazine. With an AR-15, you pull the trigger 100 times. Further, even with 30 round magazines, that would be 4 magazine changes. In short, no one is firing an AR-15 100 times a minute.
Further, go out on you tube and see what happens to AR-15s that are subjected to rapid fire like that. Hint: things heat up and start melting. An M16 has a hammer forged, double chromed barrel suitable for rapid fire use. The VAST MAJORITY of AR-15s do not.
But gun control advocates aren’t going to tell you all of this. They want you to believe that these are weapons of war straight from a battlefield somewhere… and they aren’t. The Bushmaster you find at Walmart is not. Look, even airsoft AR-15s LOOK like the real deal, but they still only shoot paintballs. Don’t be fooled by looks. Any semiautomic gun (one bullet per trigger pull) has the capability of an AR-15.
Towncrier
December 21st, 2012
4:40 pm
“Someone please explain to me how the American gun-nut idiots (on this blog and elsewhere) qualify as a militia OR well-regulated.”
I am not sure anyone is going to take the time to explain how the right to bear arms can quite reasonably, based on the historical evidence, to apply to more than just militia. Do some research.
Scuba Steve
December 21st, 2012
4:44 pm
Ohhhhh, I see Towncrier, so what you’re saying is that NOW the Constitution is open to anecdotal interpretation.
Got it.
Scuba Steve
December 21st, 2012
4:45 pm
Funny how that works, isn’t it?
too little time
December 21st, 2012
4:46 pm
“If the gunman had 3 or 4 revolvers, he could have done the same amount of damage. That is why focusing on gun features is not productive.
Uh, no. Untrue.
Please, Jay, don’t wade into waters that you are ignorant. Any large caliber revolver would do more damage than several .223. Ever see what a 357 or 44 magnum does to a watermelon? What about a .223? Go out and research it yourself.
Further, to shoot 10 shots in each kid, The shooter would have had to carry 10 magazines. If he can reload an AR-15, then he can reload a revolver, and is not limited to 24 shots.
Mass murders were committed with revolvers long before the semi automatic pistol or long gun was invented. Just because it isn’t the weapon of choice now doesn’t mean it is unsuitable.
Towncrier
December 21st, 2012
4:49 pm
“Uh, no. Untrue.”
You should probably get your facts straight on this question, Jay. The shooter had (among his 3 guns) a Glock. You could easily aim and unload 4 such pistols with 10 round clips in one minute’s time (the actual firing would take no more than 10-15 seconds).
Towncrier
December 21st, 2012
4:53 pm
“Ohhhhh, I see Towncrier, so what you’re saying is that NOW the Constitution is open to anecdotal interpretation.”
Huh? Please trust me when I say there is a VERY cogent constitutional argument for individuals bearing arms. I am simply suggesting you see what it is before challenging people here to prove you wrong, since that information is readily available.
td
December 21st, 2012
4:56 pm
larry
December 21st, 2012
4:22 pm
Okay, so i need federal credentials to buy a military assult rifle………….
What was the difference in what his mother had, which was a Bushmaster AR-15, capable of firing 100 bullets in 1 minute , and a military assult rifle.
Because to me, there isnt much difference at all. If you need credentials to buy one , you would need one to buy the other.
AR-15 equals- One trigger pull, one shot
Military version m-16 equals- One trigger pull keeps shooting until you release trigger or run out of ammo.
Huge difference. BTW: I would love to see a civilian get off 100 shots in a minute with an AR-15.
Adam
December 21st, 2012
5:00 pm
Towncrier: But I trust you are not suggesting that training and arming one or two school personnel is a bad idea.
If he’s not suggesting it, I am. Especially in the way they suggest: Retired officers and such volunteering? What could POSSIBLY go wrong? But even if that were not the case, it’s a bad idea to insist that every school have these for a number of reasons. Yes I know some schools have hem already. One thing they do NOT do is deter crazy gunmen from attacking. It is nonsense to think so. People who have guns and are intent on killing are not scared of other people possibly having guns, nor are people in general scared of “security guards” when they arm themselves with high powered weapons. The entire point of doing this is to “scare” them away, if you believe most people who suggest this. It doesn’t work.
Secondly, the other fallback is that perhaps the shooter would not kill as many people if confronted with a security guard with a gun. Perhaps, but I would like to suggest that we should look at stopping the shooter from even becoming a shooter (which will take a lot of different proposals all rolled together) or that in fact another possibility is that the shooter will add one more body to the count: the security guard.
Otherwise, I would not understand why you might call the police if someone was on your lawn firing shots from a gun.
Police are trained, and even they screw up sometimes. In addition, it should be noted that if you’re going to say we need security guards at schools because some crazy person might shoot up the school, and then use an analogy of someone in your lawn… why would you not suggest everyone who has a lawn have a security guard patrol their lawn? The best solution in a situation where someone is firing a gun, assuming they haven’t already hit you, is to get the hell out of there! Your body is your only property, so you ought to think about saving that before you worry about other things. And simply having a gun on your person or nearby isn’t enough, especially if you don’t know what you’re doing with one. There’s a lot of nuance to this, and yes there may be instances in which shooters are stopped and killed before they can kill others. THese instances are more rare than people who are killed because of crazy shooters even when some people are carrying.
Are you aware that the first mass killing by an individual with a gun was in 1947 and it involved only a pistol and killed 9 people? You simply do not have to have a semi-automatic assault rifle to kill a lot of people.
But you do need a gun to kill a lot of people more effectively and efficiently than any other weapon you can carry with you easily.
our culture and parenting.
Yes but you cannot address that without attacking first amendment rights, which is the amendment they wrote before the second amendment. It also is damn near imossible to have any sort of thought police, which is where that line of thinking is headed. We lose our democracy ifwe even try stuff like that.
Of course, one other otion is to provide mental health care to everyone, whether they need it or not. And by that I mean everyone gets a personal counselor and should be evaluated at regular intervals as part of their own health plans. It should not be looked at as mandadtory, but if it’s provided to everyone and isn’t costly to the people, then everyone will learn better ways of coping with adversity and maybe violence in general would decrease. I’m not saying it’s 100% effective, but it’s as good a solution as I can think of that actually gets at the root of the problem. And if EVERYONE has mental health care and MOST people actually use it whether they are mentally “sick” or not, then that would help to reduce the stigma of mrely TALKING to a counselor.
Does anyone really believe that what is taught to youth in the form of music, TV shows, movies, games, the media at large and the Internet has NO bearing on their conduct?
Again, thought police. We cannot control what people think or how they react to stimuli, and we certainly cannot ensure that all forms of stimuli we dislike are unavailable and can never be even accidentally seen. We should instead allow the stimuli but teach how to respond to it without violence. People need to know what violence is, just as they need to know what sex is, in order to act in a prudent fashion with regard to the subject. Reaction to stimuli can be taught, simply eliminating stimuli cannot be done. If you teach coping mechanisms to people through mandatory educational classes, then you also would not have to rely on parents knowing how to teach that, or trusting that they will. It should be just like sex ed.
Finally, we should have a licensing system for the use and purchase of guns. And there should be no purchase that takes place legally without said license. Israel has such a system in place that could work very well here – lose your gun, face jail time. Gun stolen? Required reporting. Guns requiring tracking would also help.
But there is one thing you cannot deny: Without the weapons Adam Lanza had, or the weapons the Portland mall shooter had, or the weapons the Aurora movie theater shooter had, or the or the or the, these people would not have been able to kill as many people.
bman.
December 21st, 2012
5:02 pm
security for children….how can that sound like a bad thing? I think it’s a good idea. That said, I think there has to be something better in place for people who want assault-type of weapons.
td
December 21st, 2012
5:02 pm
Jay
December 21st, 2012
4:38 pm
“Also, four revolvers make a guy feel like much less of a badass than does the Bushmaster, which is why so many of these nuts have a fondness for it.”
And you can prove this gun felt like a “badass” how? I call this one liberal imagination. I feel more like a badass pulling out my Dirty Harry 44 mag then I would be walking around with a AR-15. I can guarantee you that if I shot a person 11 times with it then you would not be able to identify the body.
Towncrier
December 21st, 2012
5:02 pm
“A right to a gun is not paramount.”
Neither is the “right” to look at naked people online and see someone blow another person’s head off in a movie. So I am not sure what you are saying. It is a constitutional right – very few people are arguing otherwise.
“You gain no security from having a weapon, but you DO create loss of freedom by insisting that it is a required part of everyone’s daily life.”
I don’t own a gun, but certainly wish to reserve the right to own one should I at any time feel I need to defend myself (especially in my own home). Who is insisting that owning one is “a required part of everyone’s daily life”? I am not following you there.
Adam
December 21st, 2012
5:02 pm
And btw guys, obviously the shooter DID fire in rapid succession because 12 bullets in one kid is a damn FACT
Jay
December 21st, 2012
5:03 pm
Towncrier, his Glock was not a revolver. So I have my facts correct; you do not.
And Too Little Time: If one guy has an AR-15, and his opponent has four revolvers, which are you betting on, all else being equal? Furthermore, if there’s really no difference, then nothing is lost by banning the AR-15, correct?
Your notion that emptying a revolver, followed by another, and then another, and then another, matches the firepower of an AR-15 is simply untrue, and just about every small-arms tactician in the country would agree with me. Yes, the slug of a .45 is larger than a .223. But the Bushmaster more than compensates with a muzzle velocity three times faster.
I’m not an NRA instructor. But I grew up around firearms and as long as they aren’t in the wrong hands, they don’t intimidate me. I can disassemble, clean and reassemble pistols and rifles, and am a pretty fair shot, although it’s been a while since I went to a range.
Your condescension, in other words, is misplaced.
DebbieDoRight - Enough Is Enough Already; BAN The Assault Rife.
December 21st, 2012
5:06 pm
Sorry — duty called and I had to answer! Now your question:
scout: Now I ask you again, what do you propose for stopping an active shooter DURING an attack.
First, I am NOT an officer, i do NOT carry a gun on me at all times; therefore I’d do what a SANE, rational person would do — I’d take cover until the shooting stopped/gunman reloaded. If I could distract him during these periods THEN I’d try to save some lives, my own included; but I do NOT advocate arming Mary, Joseph and Baby Jesus just “In Case” something happens.
I believe in looking forward and trying to PREVENT things from happening, as much as humanly possible that I can to prevent it.
P.S. What about my career do you think I am not truthful about?
You seem to be an advocate for putting OTHER’S LIVES In DANGER. IMO. Just saying….
Gotta Go! Later gators!
td
December 21st, 2012
5:06 pm
Adam
December 21st, 2012
4:34 pm
See, td? Jay isn’t all about letting liberals say whatever they want and get away with it.
I trust you won’t make the mistake in the future of insinuating otherwise because you were butthurt because he took down posts of yours or scolded you.
Nothing personal, I just wanted to know if the rules had changed so that I could play be the same set. I do not think Jay has ever taken down one of my post (could be mistaken) because I attempt to play by the rules.
Adam
December 21st, 2012
5:07 pm
Towncrier: Who is insisting that owning one is “a required part of everyone’s daily life”? I am not following you there.
That is the inevitable conclusion we must draw from those who will simply say we need to accept that crazy people out there might decide to go on a mass shooting spree at any time with weapons that kill effectively, quickly, and make it possible to kill multiple people effectively and quickly. It is what you must draw from those who would say that teachers should be armed. It is what you must draw from the insistence that the police can’t help you. It is what you must draw from the fear-based idea that someone is out there to get you and “the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun” which is patently false as well as being fear-based.
bman.
December 21st, 2012
5:07 pm
“One thing they do NOT do is deter crazy gunmen from attacking. It is nonsense to think so. People who have guns and are intent on killing are not scared of other people possibly having guns”
I suppose this would explain why they always take their own life just before the guns (that they are not scared of) show up.
Jay
December 21st, 2012
5:08 pm
TD, yes, I can prove the “badass” contention. Do you recall the Bushmaster ad featured here? http://blogs.ajc.com/jay-bookman-blog/2012/12/17/will-our-anger-be-buried-alongside-newtowns-dead/
You know, the one featuring the AR-15 and the words “Your mancard reissued”? What exactly are the Bushmaster folks trying to tell you there?
Adam
December 21st, 2012
5:11 pm
bman: I suppose this would explain why they always take their own life just before the guns (that they are not scared of) show up.
Even every shooter knows that if they put their weapons down when caught by the SCARY police that they will not fire. Assuming that the said person is as logically inclined as every gun nut seems to believe they are.
They kill themselves for other reasons, and there is an article on what those reasons are if you are so inclined to Google it. It’s not because they are scared of other people with guns.
td
December 21st, 2012
5:13 pm
Adam
December 21st, 2012
5:00 pm
You do realize that most, if not all, the High schools in Georgia already have armed security on campus each and every day and have as long as I can remember. I know we did when I went to HS in GA in the early 80’s.
Adam
December 21st, 2012
5:13 pm
Bottom line: If you’re out shooting up the place, you’re ALWAYS mentally ill at that point. Even if it’s just you got angry and had to take it out on people (which, by the way, would not happen if there were no guns available and the person had time to cool off)
Adam
December 21st, 2012
5:14 pm
td: You do realize that most, if not all, the High schools in Georgia already have armed security on campus each and every day and have as long as I can remember. I know we did when I went to HS in GA in the early 80’s.
And how many school shootings have they prevented?
bman.
December 21st, 2012
5:17 pm
Adam .. .. do you ever re-read the stuff you post? holy contradictory crap batman!
Jay
December 21st, 2012
5:17 pm
Alright guys, checking out for the night. Christmas duties beckon.
Doggone/GA
December 21st, 2012
5:19 pm
“And how many school shootings have they prevented?”
That’s an unanswerable question. The only question that can be answered is “How many school shootings have they STOPPED?”
Adam
December 21st, 2012
5:19 pm
Future headlines:
NRA official shot with own gun
NRA official unable to defend himself against armed assailant with own weapon
Adam
December 21st, 2012
5:21 pm
Doggone: That’s my point. Armed guards as prevention is nonsense. Armed guards as being potentially able to stop shootings right after they start is also questionable. In fact, my understanding is that Columbine had an armed guard who “exchanged fire” with the kids who shot up that school.
Who Do You Love More....The Bushmaster or Your Children? Hmmm
December 21st, 2012
5:22 pm
PICTURE THIS:
Your CHILD being shot 11 times
11 times
11 times
11 times
11 times
IMAGINE what that child LOOKED like.
One good thing is that when the parents see that child
AGAIN it will be in a PERFECT BODY.
Adam
December 21st, 2012
5:23 pm
So, obviously, even at Columbine, the kids shot several other kids, killed themselves, and did all that OBVIOUSLY KNOWING that there were armed security guards at the school. It’s not a deterrent.
td
December 21st, 2012
5:23 pm
Jay
December 21st, 2012
5:08 pm
They are trying to sell you a $1500 gun. It is called marketing. I am sure if we looked hard enough at gun marketing then we could find similar advertising for different weapons.
If I had to fight in an open field or in the woods then I would want an AR-15. If I had to fight in a place like a school or a building then I would take my 44 or a good 12 gauge shotgun.
Doggone/GA
December 21st, 2012
5:26 pm
“It’s not a deterrent”
And that is an absolute you can’t prove anymore than you could prove how many attacks an armed guard prevents. The most you can say is that an armed guard did not deter THOSE attackers.
td
December 21st, 2012
5:26 pm
Adam
December 21st, 2012
5:14 pm
How many mass killings have there been in Georgia High Schools? That is not even a legitimate question when you can not read the minds of children to know if the presence of an armed officer stopped any planning they might have had.
Adam
December 21st, 2012
5:27 pm
td: They are trying to sell you a $1500 gun. It is called marketing. I am sure if we looked hard enough at gun marketing then we could find similar advertising for different weapons.
That’s a nice way of admitting that Jay is correct about people feeling more badass when they get a Bushmaster.
Hell, I feel badass when I buy a laptop that looks sleek and industrialized and is sold to me as a man’s gaming machine. Marketing has an effect. Did marketing MAKE me buy the laptop? no. Do video games MAKE me perform violent acts? no. If I were so inclined to get the laptop what would I need? Money. If I were so inclined to commit violent acts, what is the best way to do it? With the highest power weapon I can find with as little effort as possible.
Adam
December 21st, 2012
5:28 pm
td: How many mass killings have there been in Georgia High Schools? That is not even a legitimate question when you can not read the minds of children to know if the presence of an armed officer stopped any planning they might have had.
What about the kids from Columbine? There was an armed officer there. Didn’t deter them.
td
December 21st, 2012
5:29 pm
Adam
December 21st, 2012
5:23 pm
So, obviously, even at Columbine, the kids shot several other kids, killed themselves, and did all that OBVIOUSLY KNOWING that there were armed security guards at the school. It’s not a deterrent.
I have never heard that there was an armed security at the school. Can you please link an article or report that states your facts?