The NRA Response

Absolutely no money to put a cop in every school. One school resource officer is one less patrol officer or one less shift filler. It would be a prime spot (dayshift, Mon-Fri with weekends off) but most agencies are contracting because of declining property tax revenue. Vallejo, CA used to have school resource officers and let the positions go when the city was approaching bankruptcy. Some agencies have been disbanded and the patrol function assumed by the sheriff.

The Israeli model didn't put a police officer in every school. They armed the teachers. Everytime there's a field trip, one teacher has a first aid kit and another a M-1 carbine (though I did see a high school group where the teacher had a M-16).
 
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.
Click to expand...

Agreed, this is going over like a lead balloon. Instead of stressing working with appropriate authorities on solutions or other such blah blah, this strikes me as needlessly stupid.
 
Absolutely no money to put a cop in every school. One school resource officer is one less patrol officer or one less shift filler. It would be a prime spot (dayshift, Mon-Fri with weekends off) but most agencies are contracting because of declining property tax revenue. Vallejo, CA used to have school resource officers and let the positions go when the city was approaching bankruptcy. Some agencies have been disbanded and the patrol function assumed by the sheriff.
Click to expand...

^^^^^THIS^^^^^^^

Also, I am against the idea of arming teachers. Teachers have the calling to teach and you can't turn them into some sort of armed force. Not to mention all the grief they get about their teachers union and the pay cuts and reduced resources. Now, on top of all that we want to arm them? That's a bit crazy, sorry.

If anyone is to be armed at our schools it should be a rotating schedule for members of the National Guard as any other American Armed Forces would be Constitutionally illegal or very tricky at the very least.

Put someone from the NG in a more civilian looking uniform and certainly no M-16 in the hallway. Scaring kids and even their parent with a full on rifle ain't gonna fly. Not sure what sort of firearm would work best for firing (theoretically) inside of a school in a protective manner but an M-16 ain't it. Over-penetration and all that good stuff you know.
 
Quote:
Minimally, tactically, they would have been well advised to give some appearance of being willing to talk.

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.
Click to expand...

Businesses in the line of fire (pardon the pun) that have good management have proven adapt at getting ahead of the curve and working with regulatory agencies to minimize poor regulation, event subvert it to help their business interests against competition. That could have been done in this case. Instead they've effectively chosen the way of fighting. Frankly with the way public sympathies lie, that will lead to a much higher likelihood of much more severe, and frankly stupid regulation.
 
Businesses in the line of fire (pardon the pun) that have good management have proven adapt at getting ahead of the curve and working with regulatory agencies to minimize poor regulation, event subvert it to help their business interests against competition. That could have been done in this case. Instead they've effectively chosen the way of fighting. Frankly with the way public sympathies lie, that will lead to a much higher likelihood of much more severe, and frankly stupid regulation.
Click to expand...

I completely agree with you.

What we were given instead was odd, uncomfortable and badly thought out.

Frankly, what LaPierre was describing sounded more like a Clint Eastwood Spaghetti Western than an actual policy change or solution.
 
Here's how it should have good
*Blah blah tragedy blah blahNRA is made up of moms and dads
*Blah blah NRA has stood for safety and prudent fiream ownership (site safety prorams, police training etc etc.
*Reason are many for recent tragedies
*NRA intends to move forward and work with Congress and States to review and look for methods we can do to reduce the scourge of X.
*We look forward to working with them in the coming weeks (and whatever the Biden commission is called) as part of a multipronged approach to reduce X scourge and improve firearm safety
*As always we stand for blah blah repsonsible ownership and employmnent of our fundamental @econd Amendment rights
*restate empathy with victims, blah blah million members pray for them.
 
*Blah blah tragedy blah blahNRA is made up of moms and dads
*Blah blah NRA has stood for safety and prudent fiream ownership (site safety prorams, police training etc etc.
*Reason are many for recent tragedies
*NRA intends to move forward and work with Congress and States to review and look for methods we can do to reduce the scourge of X.
*We look forward to working with them in the coming weeks (and whatever the Biden commission is called) as part of a multipronged approach to reduce X scourge and improve firearm safety
*As always we stand for blah blah repsonsible ownership and employmnent of our fundamental @econd Amendment rights
*restate empathy with victims, blah blah million members pray for them.
Click to expand...

Would have been better than what we got.
 
Re: Zincwarrior - Exactly. This really isn't rocket science. Any halfway decent speech writer/public relations person could have written a better response.

As I see it, the NRA is going for broke here, and I think they have a good chance of getting rolled.

I know that some think that it is a slippery slope, and that if you give on this, then you will later have to give on something else. That's possible but slippery slope arguments are also a good way to avoid seeking a compromise. I think with the political realities here, some controls are going to get put into place. But also with the political realities, the NRA could ask for and reasonably get 95% of what they want. I think by not giving 5%, they and we will lose alot more than that.
 
^^^^^
I have to agree. I do understand the slippery slope argument I think in this case it is a matter of falling back and regrouping rather than getting over run.
 
I don't think there would have been any response from the NRA that would have pleased everyone. Some will say Mr. Lapierre should have been more forceful in his statement, some will say he was too forceful.

Some say an armed security in each school would cost to much money in an already stressed economy:

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.
Click to expand...

I have to ask those who say this if we would rather have our Fed. tax dollars going to pay for free cell phones for people on gov't assistance or going to paying for school security... or...do I want 2-3 million, Fed. tax dollars being spent on some worthless study(insert any of the ridiculous past or planned future studies) that our gov't funds that doesn't amount to anything or funding school security. My point is, if we're really serious about stopping these tragedies, we can make cuts in other areas of senseless Fed., State and City spending in areas we all know is happening and come up with at least a portion of the money.

Bottom line is, IMO, what the NRA is saying, regardless of the way we feel things were said , regardless of how politically correct/incorrect we feel it was said, and really, regardless of if we are pro or anti gun, more strict gun laws will simply not stop these kind of tragedies anymore then stricter drug laws have stopped drug use in this country.

Pro or anti-gun, if we really want to stop or at least drastically reduce these tragedies, there will have to be some form of armed security present to stop them.
 
Last edited:
Some are saying that there is not enough money to put an officer in every school.

I say that if there is enough money to spend billions on banks and auto makers who are "too big to fail", then there is definitely enough to spend the money for children who are to young to die.

And, what of continuing the program? An additional tax levy in the associated school districts will take care of that. In a school district with a population of 50,000 or more, $1.50 a year will take care of paying one officer to be the school resource officer (SRO). And for those school districts that have fewer residents, Government grants will take care of it.

Or, yes--why not establish positions in the scho0ol districts for ARO (Armed Response Personnel)?

Make the job position look like this: Over 21, pass a background check, polygraph and psychological test, with valid CPL. Preference to honorably discharged veterans and those with LE experience.

Mr. LaPierre is (I believe) giving a viable solution. One only hopes that it will be considered and adopted.
 
I thought the NRA statement was good... not great, but good. Offering a proposal (other than a gun ban) to get the discussion going instead of playing defense. I showed this to two moderate non-gun-owning women in my office and they both thought it was reasonable.

Caveat: I did not see the video, I only read the transcript.

I agree with some of the others here that we the gun-owners community need to be prepared to give some ground politically. The SCOTUS has affirmed that the 2nd is an individual right, and recently Judge Posner has found that the 2nd implies a right to self defense. But there is no way the courts are going to declare that a 30 round magazine for an AR or AK is a protected right under the 2nd. So there is no point in all of us trying to argue that banning large magazines is an infringement. I may believe it is so, but it is irrelavent.

We need to be thinking creatively about gun restrictions which would appeal to people who "want to do something", but still preserve our rights.

Two ideas would be:

(1) closing the gun show loop hole. Would it really bother me if I had to make all gun sale transactions through an FFL holder? for me, No. It is a burden, yes, but it does not prevent anyone from acquiring a firearm.

(2) Requireing a background check to buy large magazines. We could propose 16 rounds as the definition of a large magazine. This could be done in the same way as a gun purchase check, or perhaps some agency could issue us permits with a 180 day experiration... I am sure we could come up with something. This would still allow us to buy, own, and use 30 round magazines, but we would have to make the special effort of applying for the permit.

Neither of these would actually make a dent in crime, but that is kind of the point isn't it? Gun restrictions never do, so let's propose something that preserves our rights and our access to the kinds of guns we want, but allows the general public to feel that "something has been done".
 
Most of the people in this country get most of their news from television.
The NRA set up a television event, and gave the television industry days to prepare to cover it.

The NRA then said that the problem wasn't guns, the problem was television. "How many more copycats are waiting in the wings for their moment of fame from a national media machine that rewards them..."

Doesn't sound like the way to get the response they were after.
 
Doesn't sound like the way to get the response they were after.
SSA
Click to expand...

Read the transcript of the press conference or watch it on the NRA website.

NRA is playing chess, not checkers.

BTW, are YOU a member of the NRA? My guess is you're not. :(
 
Most of the people in this country get most of their news from television.
The NRA set up a television event, and gave the television industry days to prepare to cover it.

The NRA then said that the problem wasn't guns, the problem was television. "How many more copycats are waiting in the wings for their moment of fame from a national media machine that rewards them..."

Doesn't sound like the way to get the response they were after.
Click to expand...

THE ONLY thing the NRA could have said that would make people happy is that they (we) accept full responsibility for last week's massacre and will be disbanding. And maybe encourage the members to shoot themselves.

The same people who have been screaming "what do YOU have to say, NRA?" all week are now saying this was too soon.

I think Wayne did just fine. And I think the biggest enabler here is the media circus every time there's a shooting where the victims are white.
 
Like a lot of you I have watched way too much media coverage over the last week or two. While the central theme has been the need for more gun control almost everyone has also mentioned, increased security, mental health and the role of violent games/moves. However, when the NRA not only mentions those same topics, but starts an actual real life program to address one of them they are seen as out of touch.

Am I the only one that thinks this is unfair?
 
The NRA is for armed security in schools which, i for one... cannot believe did not happen right after columbine. They knew if it happened once it would happen again, and did nothing. As I recall there was a ban in effect at that time,which as i recall did nothing to "limit the carnage" and i believe clinton was president with controll of both house and senate. I wasnt too strong on politics back then i was in high school myself please correct me if im wrong on those points. Bad as folks say they said it the NRA is for taking these measures before compromising on gun control, and we all know very well it is a slippery slope. Feinstein herself already said she would confiscate every gun in the country if she had enough votes, Bloomberg has already said "this is just a start". They all keep saying "just a start" "just a start". Just a start towards what,a police state? a nation of california? A state where litteraly hundreds of thousands of gang members posess and use fully automatic weapons in broad daylight while legal citizens working for a living are limited to 10 round mags and revolvers hows that working for them btw? How about the 58 million people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th alone in multiple countries not just Nazi Germany or Russia?Good or bad as the NRAs response might have been theyre making the right and correct points about security, and the mental health issue.
 
I think we need to drop the emotionalism a little here. There are always dead and some of them are always children. Knee jerk reactions and sensationalism will save no lives. The NRA did not shoot up a school nor kill twenty children either.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I was really hoping that today the NRA would come out and basically show some leadership. Be conciliatory and understanding protective of the 2A while at the same time understanding that perhaps there are many discussions that need to be had. Many of those discussions would have nothing to do with guns or the NRA such as Mental Health and 1A rights vs responsibility in media. To pretend that guns are not to be a part of this conversation is insane.

I've owned guns my whole life. I learned to shoot at the age of 7 and it is hard to accuse me of being Anti-2A. Yet even I can see how there is a conversation to be had about guns and how the leadership (Read NRA) would look into regulating itself in she same style as the MPAA regulates itself and how the Video Game industry regulates itself with a rating system.

I don't know that a rating system is exactly right for guns and I don't think that would make sense but the NRA has a role to play here in figuring out a way for the gun owning community can take care of it's problems by regulating itself somehow to help prevent certain individuals for having access to firearms. Yes I know that that would not have prevented this latest shooting but it may have stopped the Aurora Colorado shooting.

We can't pretend that the MPAA can regulate itself without crying foul. That the Video game industry can regulate itself without crying foul. Yet somehow, those same rules can't apply to the NRA and the community.

We are not responsible for any of these killings, guns are not responsible in any of these killings. A lunatic with a rifle is responsible in these killings and whether we like it or not we have to help figure out how to keep 1. Lunatic and 2. Firearm, as far apart from one another as possible.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top