The NRA Response

Ive thought about this alot since i have grandchildren in school and we have had two school shootings in my local area in the past. Luckily both turned into a shot or two fired that missed anyone and then hostage situation that turned out ok.
I keep seeing mental health brought up. Which is ridiculous as far as preventing anything. Lanza was a quite smart weird kid as far as I can read about him. One of the wall flower kids that pass through schools by the thousands that wouldnt hurt a fly.
Mental health professionals are notorious for getting it wrong all the time. If they could pick out who was the next Green River Killer I would imagine we would not have any serial killers roaming about.
Something prompted this guy to do this. Something rational to anyone else? No. But he didnt just get up and decide today ill kill my mother and then go shoot a bunch of kids cuz shucky durns i got nothin better to do.

Life isnt fair. Bad things happen to good people. The day we think we can legislate that fact out of existance is the day we all need a mental health check.
 
So many great posts it's hard to know who to respond to, who to quote and how to build a post that covers all the posts I'd like to respond to. I think I'm just going to say that whether I agree with you or not, every single post (I'm counting from since the last time I posted) has been well thought out and defended.

@Al Norris
I get what you're saying and I think you've made a very strong point. I can't say that it swayed me to your way of thinking but aside from the things you know I disagree with I actually agree with a good deal of your post/article.

I'm not here to bash the NRA, that isn't my "mission" or whatever you want to call it. I cried foul when the NRA/Wayne LaPierre started using the same arguments towards restricting other rights, from the Bill of Rights, as has been used to attack the 2A.

Having said that I can see what you're saying but I just can't bring myself to saying "well that makes it OK" since I don't feel it's OK.

To me, and apparently to the media (which you rightfully said was at least one step ahead of Wayne) the position of the NRA is very hypocritical. For me, it ends with the hypocrisy, for the media not so much.

I'm glad that the NRA has 10,000 new members per day, that's fantastic news. Having said that I don't think that it's Wayne LaPierre that is packing them in as much as the President scaring them into the arms of the NRA. This is a bit of dealing with semantics and really doesn't matter who is "packing them in."

What really drives me crazy is that we are all members of the NRA here, we all pay our membership dues as well as contributing extra money in the form of donations. With 8000 or 10,000 new members per day you'd think that the NRA would have enough cash on hand to get a professional PR firm to do what they do best and get some good PR for the NRA and the 2A.

It just drives me crazy to the point of wanting to pound my head on my desk that with all the resources that Wayne LaPierre and the NRA have they somehow refuse to do the obvious and smart thing. We've now had 2 massive PR disasters from Wayne and the NRA and I can't understand why that is.

If I had the kind of deep pockets that the NRA has I'd be the most loved person in the United States by now because I'd hire professionals to make my image as revered as that of the Statue of Liberty or something. So why is it that we're getting amateur hour time and time again from the NRA?

I don't know what President Obama has in mind. I don't think of him as the "Devil" because I suppose I could be best described as a "Reagan Republican" or "Blue-Dog Democrat."

For those of you who are already thinking it, no, being a Democrat of any sorts does not make one automatically anti-2A or the NRA.

I am tremendously saddened by the massacre still.
I am tremendously disappointed with the NRA and the two PR flops that they provided.
I truly believe that the only realistic solution to the issue is not new legislation but rather the enforcement of existing laws we already have, for years, on the books.

I'm not convinced that an armed teacher, even if he/she carries a gun routinely, is the best idea. For the reason already explained in this thread. A teacher has one classroom and can't go rushing out of that classroom in hot pursuit of an unknown "shots fired situation."

I'm not against the idea of armed, plane clothed cops or security people on school property at all times but the question of money rears it's head here. The other problem is the Columbine situation as that school had armed people who were prevented from engaging the two shooters.

Having thought a lot about this issue since the Sandy Hook massacre I'm finding it harder and harder to leave thing up to Psychiatrists or Psychologists because they are not fortune tellers. They don't know what every, or even most of their patients are going to do in the future and better than the rest of us do.

Banning anything is just plain dumb and isn't going to solve anything. No, I believe that what we need to do is simply enforce existing laws aggressively.

The thing is that the stuff that needs to be illegal already is illegal so maybe the answer can't be something "new and sexy" but rather as dull and mundane and enforcing the laws we've already passed.

Sorry for the long post, I wasn't expecting to write a book but I got a little wordy I guess.
 
While I don't believe that most teachers & other school employees would choose to be armed, I don't think arbitrary laws & regulations should prevent them from making that choice on their own. I do believe that principals, assistant principals, and other trained personnel should have secured access to carbines (Beretta CX4, Ruger PC9, etc.) to protect the students until police arrive. And school employees who choose to carry would have the ability to protect themselves and their classrooms.

Any of these steps would have turned a mass shooting into an attempted mass shooting. All of these steps in place would have turned an attemped mass shooting into a case of vandalism stopped at the door....
 
Predicting aggressiveness has been studied. There is really nothing that works except:

1. Past violent behavior

2. Explicit making of threats, maybe with delusions, and a focus on collecting weapons and materials.

There have been massacres short circuited when the potential shooter starts to blab. Changing culture so that such utterances are reported has worked.

Without the violent behavior and/or threats, playing video games or owning guns doesn't separate out rampagers.

After the fact, they have guns and played games - like a zillion other folks.
No predictive use.
 
Secured access sounds good but it is too slow to save the first class room.

Might as well wait for the cops. In my high school of 8000 students, it sprawled across a large area. To expect the old coot principL to grab a long arm and hoof it across a city block to get to the shooter - forget it.

Those who want to carry should have the ability to do so. Thus, if you are not immediatley shot you can respond. If you are next door, you can defend the kids.
 
Last edited:
Ok, at this point you guys are walking down my alley of knowledge, 20 years in nursing, plus a child with a severe mental illness.
Here's how it works in the real world in america when it comes to that.
It is close enough to impossible to commit someone against their will even with a documented history of violence it's almost not worth trying.

There were numerous warning signs with this kid from Mom warning a baby sitter "Don't turn your back on him" to Mom's statements to more than one person that she was "losing him" There were unconfirmed reports that the reason that this happened at this time is he got wind she was trying to commit him.
If (and depending on the people involved this is a big if) she were to establish that he was a danger. He would have gone into a psych ward for 72hrs to be observed. Even if his Doc's felt he was a danger the possibility of keeping him there against his will without something like a witnessed violent attack on a patient or care giver would be small.
Even with that, if he responded well to meds they would almost immediately release him, even if he told them he wasn't going to take the meds once he left.
Even though there is no question some of these people are very dangerous off of their meds there is almost no legal way to require them to stay on them. It's their right to go off of them because it's their body as the laws currently read.
I have watched my mentally ill daughter who is a danger only to herself nearly die more than once because all of us (the Family and the Docs) were powerless against the system.
As this is something I've had an interest in with these shooters I've paid attention to the news reports about the mental illness angle.

Here is what I can share with you, without hesitation.

Just off the top of my head I can remember,The Fort hood shooter, the Aurora shooter, the Columbine shooters, This kid, Timothy Mcveigh, the Amish schoolhouse shooter, they all had a clergy member trained in psychology or a Psych professional of some sort who became very nervous about them. I can probably find references to back those up if needed.
Seems to me I had a longer list I wrote down at some point.
My personal opinion is if you are going to leave me in a position where these sick individuals are walking the streets free you had better put armed guards at my childrens school and allow me whatever firearms I want to be able to defend my family with.
 
Some years ago, there was a big push for ETS-ing soldiers to have their military education and experience transfered to college credits so they could be fast-tracked to teaching careers. Where did that go?
Click to expand...

The "Troops to Teachers" program still exists. I and others I know looked into it more than once. The requirements to qualify and the benefits it provides make it a self defeating program for most of the people I know. I even had a college professor ask me why I and none of the other vets that ever came through the teaching program used it. It sounds like a great program but it only works for a few people.

On the topic of the "face and voice of the NRA". It is a bit of cliche but what we need is a soccer mom with a carry permit and couple of gun racks in her minivan. Do not smirk or laugh. Soccer moms listen to other soccer moms. Politicians listen to them because they are one of the biggest and most consistent voting blocks in the nation. I know a lot of men that are NRA members and all wound up about the situation but when I ask if they vote most of them do not and have some BS about why.

Edit: I would like to point out the first line of my signature. It sums up my long standing attitude about compromise on the 2nd. BUT! some political savvy and gamesmanship is called for.
 
Last edited:
Glenn: You & I are in agreement. Teachers who choose to carry should be allowed to do so. I'm suggesting that another layer of security by having carbines accessible throughout the campus available to designated trained personnel to engage the threat. Teachers with their CCW pistols can remain in the rooms to protect their students.

Remember the phrase "use your pistol to fight your way to a rifle"?.....
 
The "Troops to Teachers" program still exists. I and others I know looked into it more than once. The requirements to qualify and the benefits it provides make it a self defeating program for most of the people I know. I even had a college professor ask me why I and none of the other vets that ever came through the teaching program used it. It sounds like a great program but it only works for a few people.
Click to expand...

Both my parents were teachers of 30+ years. My father retired right at the time when the states started pushing state wide education test for graduation and the passing of various grades. In brief my father said "Not everyone is born with the same amount of smarts between the ears'. So the nutshell is the testing in his opinion wasn't realistic to the human condition.

Over the years my dad stayed pretty engaged with education and came to see all sorts of idiot (group think) ideas get passed into one law or another... This soldiers to teachers program I believe fell into this category... No matter what the degree attained you have to do so much education every so often... plus whatever mandatory classes as part of your degree.. So here you can do all this and have the fed regulating your daily life as a teacher for not a ton of money or you can go work in a different profession, make more money and have big brother off your back to a greater degree.
 
scrubcedar,

Thank You for the honest, no BS, enlightenment on our system and mental health issue's.

There is just one thing I'd like to add, I have relatives in the psychiatric profession and they would agree with scrubs.
The problem scrubs talked about not being able to have someone committed is not a problem that has just arisen in the last couple years. It has existed for quite some time.

There was a period of time a few decades ago in which it was much easier, (too easy), to get someone committed. Over the years we have made laws that have possibly swayed the pendulum, IMO, to far the other way.

There was a situation in our family in which a relative(a Psychiatrist) had a long term patient that started acting/saying things during counseling sessions that were not outright threatening to my relation but could have been taken that way. Relative questioned patient about taking his meds. in which patient replied he had not been and furthermore was not going to in the future.

After a few more counseling sessions, relative could see the patient was not responding well to the sessions and was getting more aggressive with his talking towards relative so relative finally told patient that if he did not get back on his meds. that their sessions would have to stop.
Patient responded telling relative that relative would see him or else he would be sorry.

Relative is very good friends with the Chief of Police in town so relative contacted him for a informal talk. Come to find out, there was really nothing the law could do at this point cause the patient did not outright threaten in any way. But as a courtesy to relative, a Detective was briefed by the Chief and went to patients house to have a talk with patient. Nothing official as the patient didn't actually break any laws. Patient acted positively responsive
to detective, called relatives office and apologized wanting to schedule an appointment.
Relative did and the day of the appointment things didn't go well at all. He came in the office about 45min. early demanding very vocally from the receptionist that he be seen immediately.
Relative heard the commotion, came out of his office to find a petrified receptionist,scared patients awaiting their appts. and an irate patient refusing to settle down or leave. At that time relative wanted to get patient away from the other people in the lobby so he quickly got his current patient out of his office and got the irate one back in his office.

Relative tried to settle him down to no avail and it was apparent that things were rapidly going from bad to worse as the patient started outright threatening to kill relative and his family.

Relative hit 911 on his phone along with hitting a button which alarms their switchboard to call 911 as he kept trying to calm patient.

Against relatives advice, patient said he was leaving and again threatened to kill relatives family. Patient stormed out before LE arrived.

Relative had to end up relocating his family for about three weeks till this guy was caught. For the first week there was an undercover car posted at relatives house but there was just not enough money to keep one there till patient was caught.

Patient was caught in the very early morning hours(2-3am) by another LE friend of relatives spot checking relatives house. Patient was sitting in a car in the park across the street from the house.

This could have easily turned out very differently.

Worse.... is obvious at so many different levels.

Better.... if today's laws were studied and changed so that at the onset of all this, the patient with a history of psychiatric issue's, whom has admitted to not taking their meds. and exhibited by vocalizing borderline (but not outright) threatening talk could be detained for observation and given their case history, could be detained for more then 72 hrs. with mandatory followup supervision and treatment.

Current law does not make longer detainment possible. Unless the patient does indeed make outright threats. In which case the patient could be charged and held longer cause he/she has officially broke the law.
Threats of suicide is not officially breaking the law and a 72hr detainment can then be applied if certain elements are present. Such as physician,psychiatrist, LE see's reason to believe patient is suicidal due to verbal or physical actions by the patient. Then as scrubs said, if patient responds well to treatment, patient is released back into society and in most cases with no mandatory, enforced supervision or follow-up treatment.

This has to be changed. This person did not get into the psychological condition they are in in 72hrs. and will not be cured in 72hrs.

Many are blaming our mental health physicians and not considering that these physicians have to operate within the confinements of the law.

Oh, one more thing I forgot to mention...this guy is currently back out on the street after being locked for about a year. More then likely with very little psychiatric help while incarcerated....who knows his current mental status!
 
Last edited:
The problem scrubs talked about not being able to have someone committed is not a problem that has just arisen in the last couple years.
Click to expand...

So, I think we all understand the difficulties related to having someone committed. However, what more can be done to have more names of those with mental health issues added to the NICS database? I read in the Wall Street Journal that there are apparently some States that are not reporting names like they should.

I also understand the criteria for reporting someone may be ambiguous at best and wonder if the American Psychological Association could assist. I don’t really know what the answer is, but it does seem that mental health and firearms has to be discussed in more depth than it has been.
 
Probably it would be the American Psychiatric Association.

Here's the run on this. Both APAs are probably antigun. But, they are also against stigmatizing the mentally ill or increasing involuntary hospitalization.

Some psychiatrists see a problem, though. I posted link to a NYTimes op-ed by one who sees the difficulty.

Don't expect these groups to do more than denounce guns. They might argue for more mental health funding as a general principle which isn't a bad idea if done well.

As far as tightening up the NICS reporting - that is a good idea. Cho at VT would have been caught in that, if Virginia was up to speed. However, could he have gotten the guns elsewhere - probably. He was not stupid.
 
I am tremendously saddened by the massacre still.
I am tremendously disappointed with the NRA and the two PR flops that they provided.
I truly believe that the only realistic solution to the issue is not new legislation but rather the enforcement of existing laws we already have, for years, on the books.
Click to expand...

Which of the existing laws would have stopped the situation in Newtown?

I'm not convinced that an armed teacher, even if he/she carries a gun routinely, is the best idea. For the reason already explained in this thread. A teacher has one classroom and can't go rushing out of that classroom in hot pursuit of an unknown "shots fired situation."
Click to expand...

At Sandy Hook, the principal and psychologist were running toward the sounds of gunshots. There were teachers in those classrooms who died trying to save their students. These are the people I want to see armed.

The other problem is the Columbine situation as that school had armed people who were prevented from engaging the two shooters.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but the training has changed for an active shooter scenario. If it had happened today, the situation would have been altogether different. Back then it was save yourself, disengage, set up a perimeter, and call in SWAT. Two hours later when everything is safe (and the victims are dead) they went in and collected evidence. They've re-evaluated Columbine and came up with a new set of rules.
 
I'm not convinced that an armed teacher, even if he/she carries a gun routinely, is the best idea. For the reason already explained in this thread. A teacher has one classroom and can't go rushing out of that classroom in hot pursuit of an unknown "shots fired situation."
Click to expand...

I would like to reply to that. Being a teacher, albeit in another setting, I might not run down the all in a suicide unarmed charge. However, I certainly can defend the class of 30 that I am in, if carrying.

At Virginia Tech, Cho forced himself into three barricade rooms IIRC. At the Montreal university shooting, the same was done by the killer. If I am armed, I have more options than the charge or throwing my body over kids as Ms. Soto did.

Also, knowing the shooter has to come through a fatal funnel gives me an advantage even with handgun. I doubt these folks are pieing their entrance.

One can make entry difficult. I've done this in FOF with furniture. However, if an armed gun man is pushing the stuff out of the way (as was done), I can use Pencil projectiles, laptop fu, Ipad frisbees of death - or shoot him.

So that's that.
 
The problem with the armed teacher idea is that it is a trade off for another problem.

Even well trained people who handle weapons every day have some times fatal accidents. I think a lot of parents in the middle ground area of gun politics would be more concerned about introducing the weapon into the scenario. Armed teachers would trade an ultra low possibility (school mass shooting) fatality for a very low possibility fatality (gun handling accident).

When I lived in Texas a vice principal shot through three walls with his Glock while reaching into his gym bag while changing clothes in his office. Luckily no one was hit. Accidental misfires take place every day, school shootings are much less common.
 
I think the principal that went running to the sound of the guns might have done something besides die valiantly if she had been armed.....

The principal of a school is ultimately responsible for the safety of the student in his or her school..... they ought to have appropriate tools available to ensure they can do the job. If they are unwilling/unable to do the job, they need to find another career.

Just my $.02 .....
 
It is interesting that the fear of shooting an innocent overwhelms the possible good.

The shooting of bystanders by the NYPD at the Empire State Building has been thrown up several times for a reason not to have armed civilians.

Not to harm an innocent even to save others seems a natural bias in humans.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top