The NRA Response

R

Romeo 33 Delta

New member
Personally, I'd have liked more fire ... but I'm also mindful that we're trying to calm things down, not escalate the fight ... YET!

My attention was piqued when he was talking about school security guards and the numbers of retired LEOs and military, among others who might be tapped for these positions. I immediately thought of the question that will be raised: Where will the money to pay for this come from?

Well, how about a fast change in Federal and State tax law that would make the it possible for a tax deduction, of equal value to the salary, in lieu of payment for services. Certainly it can be a paid position ... but if you are fortunate enough to be retired and financially well-enough off, why is this not a workable solution?

I haven't thought about what level of salary we should consider since I was only fixed on the fact that folks are already under enough financial pressure that I wanted a work-around to the payment of actual dollars for services rendered.

I could use a $30-50K tax deduction ... any of you other retired guys out there see this as an option? Money's nice (can't live well without it), but there's also a "public service" aspect to this option ... like "pay it forward", if you will.
 
Overall I thought they did a pretty good job. I was a little disappointed that they did not seem better prepared to deal with protester and allowed them to disrupt the event more than they should have. I like the fact that he spoke specifically to the news media about their misinformation related to firearms. He made some excellent points, but not sure how many folks will actually hear what was said.

In case you missed it here is a link to the transcript.

http://home.nra.org/pdf/Transcript_PDF.pdf
 
I failed to mention how genuinely overcome with emotion Mr. LaPierre seemed to be. I know the fact that the NRA really does care about victims of violent crime does not always fit the media’s narrative. It would be nice if we could all stop demonizing each other and have logical discussions about the facts, but I’m afraid that ship may have already sailed.
 
You wanted more fire? You are aware that 20 children died right? Words can't describe how bad that is. This isn't a game.

I failed to mention how genuinely overcome with emotion Mr. LaPierre seemed to be. I know the fact that the NRA really does care about victims of violent crime does not always fit the media’s narrative. It would be nice if we could all stop demonizing each other and have logical discussions about the facts, but I’m afraid that ship may have already sailed.
Click to expand...

One side has to start. Our side is just as guilty of the perpetuating divisiveness as the other side.

I keep seeing the "focus on mental health" argument thrown around. Without a workable plan to do so, how is that a counter argument? Keep in mind that we can't just lock people up because we think they're crazy.
 
Anything with the NRA letter head or spoken words needs luck, especially after the recent and other shooting tragedies. The outspoken, anti-gun voices have the media on their side right now. It's going to be a tough sell. Time, maybe a long time will be needed for things to settle down. Then again, maybe we witnessed an event that will start the political process for gun control in America. I hope someone remembers the Bill of Rights.
 
Thanks, BarryLee

A lot of good points made. About time someone corrected the "what is a machine gun" issue and the "high-powered" .223 belief.

I'm not sure about anyone else, but my parents actually read the provided information on the games I played, the music I heard, and the movies I watched - if a movie was rated PG-13, guess when I got to see that movie?

Why not armed guards in schools or some manner of police presence? About time that the "protect" in the "serve & protect" on every marked police car was actually put into use
 
Over all I was impressed. I was a bit afraid the NRA would wimp out. Not so.

As a side note, regarding school security. This is not the first time I've heard about those pushing to hire retired cops.

I see that coming. Gonna be lots of job openings coming up for retirees.

After all they have 15 + years of experience and already have to re-qualify once a year.

But IT WILL WORK. Think about the CT school, where would the security be setting???? I'm thinking in the office with the principal.

Not sure I'd hire out, but I would provide free security to school activities such as my granddaugthers Vally Ball and Basketball games.
 
I keep seeing the "focus on mental health" argument thrown around. Without a workable plan to do so, how is that a counter argument? Keep in mind that we can't just lock people up because we think they're crazy.
Click to expand...

Yes, you are correct that is not the answer. We all know at one time way too many people were institutionalized for way to long for often dubious reasons. However, I wonder if the pendulum has swung too far in the opposite direction to where we have people on the street that should not be. Many of the most recent horrific incidents were committed by people who had previous interaction with the mental health system.

Now, obviously we can’t solve that in a month as the President asked nor will it be solved by the NRA, VP Bidden or the national media. This will require the American Psychiatric Association to seek diagnostic tools that can assist professionals in making this determination. Maybe it needs to be part of the DSM or a separate document. I am by no means a mental health professional, but it does seem that it has to be part of the conversation.
 
Last edited:
Folks, talk about Wayne's speech - not petitions that you just came up with or liberals, blah, blah. Thanks.

One thing that was interesting was his views on violent media culture. The same empirical work that demonstrates gun bans don't work also don't support video games as a major cause of violence.

The idea is that some instrumentality primes violence. The literature on such would argue that that the presence of guns AND violent media prime aggression. It's a touch of a double edged sword. BTW, some aspects of religion are claimed also to prime violence.

It is probably the case that with people who are already mentally ill - all of these can push them over the tipping point. But it doesn't make them ill. That's a subtle point.

As far as new diagnostic instruments - that would be great. The latest reviews don't show we have anything predictive that would work well and without a tremendous rate of false positives.

The only thing that predicts well is the behavior itself and when people start making threats of violence. When threats appear and the person has access to weapons, then you have some predictability. But to catch the silent planner is not something we can do with testing.

it is also the case that our liability fearful culture has made us reluctant to act when threats or minor violence surfaces. The rush to gun bans might also produce a rush to psychiatric gulags.
 
IMO, he made one huge mistake. "The only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is with a good guy with a gun..." was a horrible line, mark my words it's going to be the only sound bite played on the news. Nothing else will likely be mentioned from the entire speech as a result of that poorly chosen quip, the the full context will be lost on the public. I'm in the news business (so please don't hate me;))...but trust me on that one. Unfortunately it did nothing more than play into the 'see they're all gun nuts' view of the anti-gun faction. This isn't the time to employ cute catch phrases.
 
IMO, he made one huge mistake. "The only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is with a good guy with a gun..."
Click to expand...

Yes, I sort of thought the same thing. However, he did predict that the media would lead with that headline, but challenged them a bit.

LaPierre said, "Now, I can imagine the shocking headlines you'll print tomorrow morning: "More guns," you'll claim, "are the NRA's answer to everything!" Your implication will be that guns are evil and have no place in society, much less in our schools. But since when did the word "gun" automatically become a bad word?

A gun in the hands of a Secret Service agent protecting the President isn't a bad word. A gun in the hands of a soldier protecting the United States isn't a bad word. And when you hear the glass breaking in your living room at 3 a.m. and call 911, you won't be able to pray hard enough for a gun in the hands of a good guy to get there fast enough to protect you.

So why is the idea of a gun good when it's used to protect our President or our country or our police, but bad when it's used to protect our children in their schools?"
Click to expand...
 
You wanted more fire? You are aware that 20 children died right? Words can't describe how bad that is. This isn't a game.

One side has to start. Our side is just as guilty of the perpetuating divisiveness as the other side.

I keep seeing the "focus on mental health" argument thrown around. Without a workable plan to do so, how is that a counter argument? Keep in mind that we can't just lock people up because we think they're crazy.
Click to expand...

What can I say, I agree with you.

A Cop in every school in America? Really? Aren't police already stretched thin as it is?

This is an iffy proposition to start with but if there is to be ANY chance of having armed folks in the schools then the only ones I can think of are members of the National Guard.

They are already serving and adding a rotating schedule of serving, 2 months at a time, in our public schools does make some sense without breaking the budget. Maybe 2 months is too short so lets say 3 months or more before they are rotated out.

They would need to be in a more civilian looking uniform to not frighten kids and adults alike and they can't be carrying a rifle around the halls of a school so it's got to be a very good pistol of some sort to be determined later.

Frankly, I was somewhat disappointed in the NRA response and the fact that they made their statement on Friday is not lost on me as the news cycle will be kindest during the weekend. The NRA should be proudly giving solutions Monday morning and then discussing their positions instead of making their presser on a Friday and then hiding.

Sorry to anyone who may not agree but this got me somewhat hot behind the collar and I'm just voicing my frustration.

Edit: I personally also felt like LaPierre was deflecting with his talk of movies from the 1990s and video games. The video game industry has shown that they can police themselves fairly well and if parents ignore the rating system on games then they only have themselves to blame.

The MPAA is another can of worms but you can't protect the 2A by shredding the 1A. Also movies are also rated so that parents can make decisions on what their kids watch.

Does the NRA have a rating of any sort for firearms? I'm not sure that this type of thing would even make sense but the point is what has the NRA done. To my eyes they haven't done much of anything. Sorry.
 
Last edited:
Terrible response. Minimally, tactically, they would have been well advised to give some appearance of being willing to talk. Closing the gun show/private sale 'loophole' would have been a good start.

I think the NRA needs to learn to talk to people that aren't solidly in their camp. Thus, I think the line "The only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun" will sound really terrible to a large swath of the public and the elected officials.

I think it is better to be at the table and involved in discussions, and I really think that this response makes it less likely that they will be invited.

Moreover, there are 23,200 schools in the country already with armed guards, but that is only 1/3 of the total. If each one is paid the median police salary of $55k, then we're talking about $2.5 billion. Besides, Columbine had an armed guard.
 
The NRA should be proudly giving solutions Monday morning and then discussing their positions instead of making their presser on a Friday and then hiding.
Click to expand...

Well, they stated that they would be available starting Monday to answer specific questions and do interviews.
 
Minimally, tactically, they would have been well advised to give some appearance of being willing to talk.
Click to expand...

Willing to talk about what, exactly?

Anti- has already offered their position and it struck me as leaving no room for discussion whatsoever. "Ban assault weapons, whatever those might be" was what I gleaned from every interview I have seen since last Friday.

What is to be discussed? Anti- wants their way, Pro wants their way and the only "compromise" involves Anti- not giving up anything, simply agreeing not to go after more.

The only reason we are even having this discussion is because everyone wants something done, but no one knows what to do aside from BAN things that are scary.
 
Terrible response. Minimally, tactically, they would have been well advised to give some appearance of being willing to talk. Closing the gun show/private sale 'loophole' would have been a good start.
Click to expand...

Problem is that if we continue compromising by giving away our rights to keep our rights, sooner or later, we're going to run out of rights to give away.

Besides, the so-called gun show loophole had nothing to do with this massacre.
 
Well, they stated that they would be available starting Monday to answer specific questions and do interviews.
Click to expand...

Barry, yeah I know but I wasn't impressed by the leadership and it doesn't sound like you were all that keen on it either.

It certainly wasn't the type of response that was going to make things better for anyone all around.

Frankly what really got me hot was that he was, to my ears, sounding like he was ready to give away the First Amendment in order to save the 2A. That bothered me quite a bit and kinda made me see that the NRA is just not representing me in the way I'd hoped. Not sure what I'd hoped for but this was NOT it.
 
1 deputy, armed security; $$$, TSA....

The big NRA press event today brought up many points.
I may add more remarks later on the forum but here are a few;

The concept of having armed security officers or sworn LE officers in every US school seems highly unrealistic & expensive. Even a "TSA" type federal agency would be difficult to set up or fund.
My local county mayor(the title, the same as county executive) told the media she wants at least 1 sworn uniformed deputy in every school.
What many citizens & the media don't understand is how hard it is to select, arm, train, and manage a security force. Look at all the - events that took place with the armed PSCs/PMCs(private contractors) in SW Asia. These contract guards(many ex-military or LE) had a lot of scandals & criminal problems.

Another point is that armed security or force protection(a military term) is only a part of a security plan. Cameras, lights, access control, etc are also required.

Some US educators & districts want students to use special IDs or RFIDs to track them all over campus. I'm 100% against that plan. A sex offender or nutcase could hack a school system's records & ID a child to snatch. F that!

More guns or uniformed guards aren't the answer, common sense & good judgement are.

Clyde
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top