The NRA Response

[shortwave]

Lets get our priorities straight before we start talking about who we're trying to stop. Cause I'm trying to prevent more killings...

I think that's what we're all trying to do.

And if this important thread is to stay open, we may need to keep our tempers while discussing things or this thread will be rightfully shut down in a New York minute.

This whole heart breaking issue isn't about Liberal, Democrat or Republican and should not be about politics period. The obvious issue is about how to prevent future tragedies from happening again with anti gun people saying more restrictions and pro gun people knowing that won't stop anything...but...

... this thread is about what we felt about Mr. LaPierre's statement and if we don't politely stay on topic, again, say bye, bye.

 

[JWT]

I agree with No1der. LaPierre did more damage than good with his press conference. He was confrontational and basically threw down the gauntlet at a time when something 'softer' was in order. At least say the NRA is willing to listen to what Congress comes up with. Maybe throw a bone like the so called loop hole or some such thing.

 

[No1der]

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?

I agree with you that there is a conversation to be had about violent movies and video games. The Video game industry agrees with you and the MPAA agrees with you. They have been self regulating for a very long time and they are open to doing even more.

Perhaps it is unfair that they are able to self regulate and the NRA isn't. I dunno.

 

[wayneinFL]

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.

Yeah, this is pretty much a no-win situation for us. The best we can hope for is to remain unscathed, or mitigate the damage.

Funny that it's too soon for the NRA to make a point when anti-gun politicians with an agenda jumped in before the bodies were cold.

 

[SSA]

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.

I read the transcript. I left the NRA, years ago.
This isn't going to get me back.

 

[BarryLee]

Perhaps it is unfair that they are able to self regulate and the NRA isn't. I dunno.

You know very respectfully I dunno either. But, as of now it does not even appear the NRA is being given the opportunity to offer input into regulation of the industry.

I would just like to see a fair and rational discussion that does not start with a lot of preconceived ideas that are not supported by the facts. When Mr. Obama formed his commission he charged them to look at all issues.

However, he has wasted no time stating what he wants to see happen even before the committee met for the first time. To the best of my knowledge the commission is made up of Obama Cabinet members and other political appointees. It is difficult to imagine that this commission will do little more than rubber stamp the Presidents proposals.

It would seem like to even have an appearance of being fair this commission should include Gun Rights groups like the NRA, but it does not.

 

[Webleymkv]

Like a few others, I've only read the transcript and not seen the actual video so bear that in mind when reading my comments. Overall, I thought the NRA's response was a good one. Of course the anti's are trying to eviscerate it as they always do, but that's to be expected. LaPierre was really walking a fine line here between trying to be sensitive to the situation without rolling over to the anti's. While I think it was good that the NRA took the high road in choosing not to immediately go on the attack, I think that waiting much longer would have probably allowed the anti's, who wasted no time in beginning to dance in the victims' blood, too much time to dominate the conversation. For those who think that the NRA responded too soon, consider that the anti's and their allies in the media would probably like to drag their coverage of the tragedy out so long as to say that anytime short of President Obama signing a new AWB is too soon and insensitive. While its effectiveness is yet to be seen, I think that attempting to channel the emotion in a direction other than a gun ban is a good idea. So, let's look at the proposals:

LaPierre seemed to spend the most time on school security and rightly so as I think that focusing on that aspect of the problem will probably have the most positive effect. I would have liked to have heard about the prospect of allowing teachers to carry. Now, let me make it clear that I'm not advocating that we mandate all teachers be armed nor start passing out guns to all of them. Instead, I simply think that, if a teacher meets the legal requirement to carry a gun in their state of residence that they should be allowed to do so while on school grounds if they wish.

The notion of armed security in schools isn't necessarily a bad one, but it needs to be done very carefully. I do not think that a uniformed police officer is the best way to go but rather someone in plain clothes with a concealed weapon. This has two advantages in that it doesn't upset the delicate sensibilities of parents and students and it does not give a potential attacker a heads up on who to shoot first.

As has also been brought up, funding may be problematic but I don't think that's an insurmountable issue. Given the enormous amounts of money that the federal government spends on other things, some of which are downright frivolous, I have a difficult time believing that the money necessary to fund school security could not be found by simply trimming some of the fat from other areas of the federal budget. The best solution, as I see it, would be allocation of federal money to small communities that cannot afford school security personnel and equipment much in the same way as is done with other vital services.

As to the mental health issue, I agree that we need specific proposals and that LaPierre was rather brief and vague on this issue. At this point, I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt and assume that the NRA will be addressing this issue in more detail soon. As to specifics, consider the following: A psychiatrist who diagnoses a patient with a mental disorder known to be associated with violent behavior, such as paranoid schizophrenia or antisocial personality disorder, be required to report this diagnosis to the federal government and the person diagnosed as such be put on the list of prohibited persons for NICS checks. If said person can go a specified amount of time without psychotic episodes or violent behavior, then their doctor is required to report such to the feds and the patient will be removed from the prohibited persons list so long as they continue to be responsive to treatment. This is not dissimilar to how other health conditions are handled, the process for someone with epilepsy obtaining a driver's license comes immediately to mind.

Of course, in order for this proposal to work as intended, we would have to ensure that people suffering from mental illness have adequate treatment available. The quality and availability of mental health care for many is, in my opinion, severely inadequate as there are far too few mental health care facilities and far too little qualified staff to run them. Given the enormous amount of taxpayer money we spend and are about to spend on health care, I think we need to ensure that a good portion of it be spent on maintenace and expansion of existing mental health facilities and establishment of new facilites in areas that don't have one. Likewise, we can give incentives such as tax credits and federal student loan forgiveness to people who choose careers in mental health, particularly in under-served areas.

Finally, the part about the media didn't really sit all that well with me. While the 2nd Amendment is the most concerning civil rights issue to me, I'm not willing to throw away my 1st Amendment rights for the sake of the 2nd. As Glenn so astutely pointed out, there is very little compelling evidence that violent media, in and of itself, creates violent behavior in otherwise healthy individuals though it may be a tipping point for people who are already mentally disturbed.

That being said, please remember that the NRA is a single-issue special interest group and their responsibility to their members right now is to ensure that gun rights are not unjustly and unnecessarily abridged. The NRA is certainly not the only special interest group that should be involved in this discussion. I think that 1st Amendment special interest groups, such as the ACLU, should also be at the table here to ensure that whatever reforms come out of this don't unjustly and unnecessarily abridge freedom of speech and press.

Also, I do think that the media carries a bit of responsibility here due to the manner in which mass murders are covered. While such events should certainly be reported on, I think that the manner in which the victims are paraded across our TV screens continuously for days, if not weeks, on end is in poor taste and that it may serve as encouragement for future homicidal, attention-seeking lunatics. Many of these individuals seem to want to end their lives in whatever manner will garner them the most attention and, thanks to our news media, killing a bunch of innocent children is one of the most effective ways to do it. Similarly, the reporting of whatever tidbit of information, accurate or not, as soon as someone hears it is nothing more than a tactic to keep the audience glued to the TV screen in my estimation and, quite frankly, I find such practices disgusting. If the talking heads on TV really want to do something about tragedies such as this, I think they should start by taking a long, hard look in the mirror.

 

[12GaugeShuggoth]

The obvious issue is about how to prevent future tragedies from happening again with anti gun people saying more restrictions and pro gun people knowing that won't stop anything...but...

And that's the heart of the issue. NOTHING, absolutely NOTHING that any politician or corporate big-wig can do will stop things like this from happening again. But they can't admit that to themselves or the public, because doing so would recognize that this isn't a policy issue that can be resolved with this bill or that law. You can't just sign on that dotted line and make these things go away.

When a tragedy like this happens, the public always wants "something" to be done, so those in charge have to do "something"; or at least make it appear as if they are. But the truth is that nothing the president (or anyone) does will accomplish the big goal here. Humans are a violent species by nature, to deny it is foolish and dangerous.

 

[MLeake]

I find it interesting that people want to argue against arming teachers, basing the argument on the bizarre dual assumptions that this would 1) apply to ALL teachers and 2) that it would be required of teachers.

People making these arguments ignore the fact that proponents advocate allowing trained, licensed teachers to voluntarily arm themselves.

By ignoring that, they can make such asinine arguments as: Teachers have no calling to arms! (Tell that to my retired teacher Uncle, who earned two Bronze Stars and three ArComms with V during his time in Vietnam...); or Teachers did not sign up to carry a gun! (Similar vein, tell my Federal Flight Deck Officer friends how they only signed on to fly...)

Actually, what has been proposed has been very similar to the FFDO program.

It is really aggravating to listen to some of our own forum members act not only as apologists, but worse to hear them help the antis create straw men to use against us.

 

[Warrior1256]

Liked the message, how Wayne kept it low keyed for now.

Not at all suprised about the reception from the public. Our friends were supportive, our enemies demonized it.

 

[globemaster3]

No1der, I think where most of us are getting sideways with your line of logic is that you believe that something can be done to prevent this from happening again. Sadly, despite any new laws, policies, or ordinances, it will happen again.

No system is perfect. We have current laws that should have prevented this tragedy. Did they work? Laws are only obeyed by the law-abiding.

Limit high capacity mags... There are millions on the street already.

Institue another AWB... The last one reportedly had no effect on crime, we think something different will happen if we do that again?

Close the gun show loophole... would not have prevented this tragedy.

In the emotion of this last week, a lot of folks are wanting some kind of action to prevent a tragedy like this from happening again. Enacting laws that restrict the freedoms of the law-abiding are a red herring. As someone already mentioned, the schools are soft targets. If you want to improve the security of the schools, you have to look at how to make the target harder to get at.

Yes, the economy is not well, money is becoming more scarce, but as mentioned, there are plenty of non-value added programs or studies that could be cut to fund something like school security. Remember the shrimp stress testing after the gulf oil disaster? Seeing that shrimp running on the treadmill in the fishtank really made me think my tax dollars were being well used!

And if its not guns, then how about knives? China just had a 36-year-old man walk in and stab 22 kids.
http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/14/world/asia/china-knife-attack/index.html
Should China then act to restrict knives?

Or what about the 100-year-old gentleman who injured 11 kids when he lost his brakes?
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nat...s-elementary-school-11-hurt-article-1.1147505
Maybe if you are above a certain age you should not qualify for a license, because anywhere would have been a better place to go than into a group of kids.

I'd be interested to see the rate of death for kids from guns, pools, drunk driving accidents, amongst other things, to see where really is the largest loss of life. I did come across this listing:

http://listosaur.com/miscellaneous/top-5-causes-of-accidental-death-in-the-united-states.html

and death by guns didn't even rate in the top 5. Auto accidents are #1, so should we try and ban cars? We have traffic laws, mandatory training and licensing requirements, and yet where is the national outcry?

It's the emotion of the moment. Nobody likes to see kids killed or injured, especially this Dad! However, taken in context, once you take the emotion out of it and look at this realistically, new laws are not going to stop this.

Should the NRA be a part of the national discussion? Sure, as well as the other pro-2A organizations out there. But automatically jumping to action in areas that will have no benefit in preventing these tragedies is wasted effort.

 

[leadchucker]

In the current political climate we have few friends and allies. Like it or not, the NRA is all that stands between Shumer, BloomingIdiot, Fienstein, et.al, and US!

 

[Ghost1958]

Personally im a bit optimistic. Once the world did not end today as scheduled by the Maya, I read some news and more than one state Governor and a few congressman are also speaking of armed staff in schools. More guns not less based on what may be in some's eyes a bad choice of words but what is actually the truth, that only a good guy with a gun stops a bad guy with a gun. Crass as that may sound truer words were never spoken.
I live near two small ky towns both rather poor and both have had school shootings in the past. Both also since then have an armed city officer at the schools everyday. Neither have huge budgets so it must not take much funding to do that.
I havent sat and counted it up but I can think of at least one and knowing that states laws are more strict than my own states probably more laws that were broken before the shooting ever started. Adding more laws, tossing bones to give away just a little bit more of our rights in the hope of holding onto some of them wont help things one iota.
And before someone says I dont know how these parents feel, trust me that I do. Better than im guessing 99 percent of the rest of this forum does. At least I hope so.
My 13 yr old son was shot and killed by person/persons unknown, for no reason. And the only thing that would have stopped it was had I or another adult with a firearm ready to use it in his defense been present at the time or if he could have gotten to his own 12 ga in time. But it appeared he knew nothing was wrong until it was over.
I dont blame the gun that did it. I blame the person that pulled the trigger.

 

[481]

It is really aggravating to listen to some of our own forum members act not only as apologists, but worse to hear them help the antis create straw men to use against us.

I agree, unless we stop acting as our own worst enemy, the anti-gunners will get what they want- incremental disarmament.

According to Charles Krauthammer as he spoke just a hour or so ago on FNC, the six billion dollars that it would cost to implement the NRA's plan, National School Shield, costs too much and is impractical.

This, in a country that fritters away 1.2 billion dollars per day in interest payments on money that we have borrowed. Our "leaders" have some really screwed up priorities- amazing how they become fiscally prudent where the safety and security of our little ones is concerned.

 

[No1der]

globemaster3, I know all that and I agree with you that outlawing guns is not going to solve anything nor am I even remotely suggesting such a thing.

The arming teachers argument? I am not against having teachers who feel comfortable carrying already and have a CCP to carry their firearm even in school. It's just that some of the methods in which this was proposed made it sound like a mandate to teachers to arm themselves and report for duty.

I think that perhaps what could be done is a bit of rating system based on the type of family unit that the gun is being brought into. So just like with movies and video games, maybe have a rating system where a certain kind of weapon could be rated "Not Recommended" for families with member who have Problems X, Y or Z.

It's got a ways to go so please don't quote me on the ratings system but at least it's something in regards to self regulating and it's something that can be instituted right away without the need for congress to do anything. Also it's harmless to the 2A as the rating is just a recommendation.

That is at least a start. It's certainly not the end all be all but it's something we can do now that doesn't get laughed at by the world.

Background checks are something that unfortunately I think are going to need to be here to stay and maybe even beef the up a bit. My point is that we have to keep 1. (Potentially) Dangerous person away from 2. A firearm.

I'm frustrated and I just want you guys to understand that some of us good guys are frustrated and hurting as well as wanting to plug some holes that may end up saving lives. Not a knee-jerk reaction by any means but some prudent ideas that we should at least be willing to entertain in conversation.

 

[shortwave]

While such events should certainly be reported on, I think that the manner in which the victims are paraded across our TV screens continuously for days, if not weeks, on end is in poor taste and that it may serve as encouragement for future homicidal, attention-seeking lunatics.

Well said Webleymkv.

Just here in Ohio this week, I know of three schools that were locked down due to threats of shootings. One right here at Lancaster, Oh. high school in which a student was arrested for posting a hit list of his classmates on Facebook.

I find it interesting that people want to argue against arming teachers, basing the argument on the bizarre dual assumptions that this would 1) apply to ALL teachers and 2) that it would be required of teachers.

Agree as well MLeake.

Nobody is saying that all teachers must ccw or that ccw'ing was going to be a requirement to be a teacher.
To say that there are no teacher/teachers that would be willing to volunteer to be trained and ccw though is not I believe either. I'd be willing to bet there would be more teachers volunteering then what we might think.

 

[Southern Rebel]

I cannot fathom some of the responses on this thread - from people who should have a little better concept about guns and society. "Common sense' and other catch phrases won't change the three basic options we as a society have in the current situation. (Note: this is not the good old Fifties or the "Happy Days" of Fonzie and Ritchie, if they ever did exist.)

1. Use whatever means available to eliminate guns from our society, including door-to-door search and seizure, long jail sentences, and any other tactic that comes to mind. It would take several years, but would shrink the availability of guns (much like machine gun availability now). It wouldn' totally solve the problem, but would alleviate the relative ease of obtaining a gun in the current setup.

2. Use armed guards in the schools so that the crazies would choose another venue to wreak their vengeance against the society in which they cannot find a place to fit.

3. Accept the many suggestions made in this forum that police protection for those too little to protect themselves is too costly and too scary because kids might see a gun being carried by a person who is there to protect them. We then just live with more attacks because they will be forthcoming, whether it be from the mentally disturbed or from terrorists who have found a tempting weak spot.

None of the three are good solutions, but compromises with anti's are not going to solve the problem. All of us who follow this forum know that a gun-savvy individual could be just as deadly with a .22 revolver and a pocket full of ammo as long as he was guaranteed a gun-free zone containing young school children whose only protection is a primarily female group of teachers who are long on courage, but short on physical strength or skills.

In a perfect life, every problem has a good solution. This is not a perfect life............

 

[No1der]

None of the three are good solutions, but compromises with anti's are not going to solve the problem. All of us who follow this forum know that a gun-savvy individual could be just as deadly with a .22 revolver and a pocket full of ammo as long as he was guaranteed a gun-free zone containing young school children whose only protection is a primarily female group of teachers who are long on courage, but short on physical strength or skills.

In a perfect life, every problem has a good solution. This is not a perfect life............

You're absolutely right, it won't stop anything on it's own but maybe with other aspects and cooperations with the medical community for a better "Allert" system to potential problems and then NOT selling guns to those people who are of "Alert" worthy concern might slow the amount of blood that's flowing in this country. I don't have the silver bullet either and I don't pretend to.

 

[ClydeFrog]

The truth behind armed security officers or SROs....

Many forum members have brought up the point(s) about sworn LE/school resource officers(SROs) or having ex-military/LE take security posts.

A: To have SROs on campus will mean they will be involved in fights, drugs, vandalism, domestics, etc. SROs have been around in the US for about 20-30 years. They must deal with much more than security threats. I remember a local media item about a female deputy/SRO having to taser a 14 year old pregnant teenager in a high school fight. With increased security nationwide, you'll see a lot more of that.

B: To those members who say ex-military or combat veterans should work in school systems, I say be aware of who may take these jobs. In 2005 I did a armed security detail for storm recovery(Wilma) in south Florida. We had a few US armed forces veterans & ex-cops in their 20s. Most quit after a few weeks because the jobs were "boring". Note: we got $14.00/hr & a per diem rate of $25.00. If veterans get a hiring preference, there may be a high turn over.
The economy isn't really a issue either. Many PDs have a hard time retaining good officers. How is a school district going to keep qualified security?

And don't get me started on contract/private security.....

Clyde

 

[scrubcedar]

You guys are not seeing the mental health angle of this as strongly as we need to. The Mental health system is deeply, deeply, flawed. I have a daughter with a chronic mental illness that at times threatens her life. The times she has been in the most danger she should have been given no choice but to get better or end up as an inpatient. Under the current rules this is almost functionally impossible. In almost all of these shootings someone was well aware that these people were dangerous.

Let's use the current one as an example. Lets say just for argument he is not able to get ahold of firearms. He was reported to have been very bright and a member of "the tech club" very familiar with assembling electronics. Does anyone believe that in this day of the internet that such a person could not have assembled effective IED's? Bright, intelligent, mentally ill people,who are obsessed with killing will always be able to find a way to kill.

Locking them up is the only proven way to stop them.
I wish it were there were a kinder way than that, these people are damaged in a way they didn't ask for and can't really help.

The suggestion from the NRA about LEOs in the schools is the only practical solution that is not pie in the sky wishes about disarming people that are bright enough to find another way to kill.
This is a societal issue. This is a mental health issue. This is also a constitutional issue, both for gun rights and mental health rights.

When people are scared they quite often act foolishly. If we appear to be saying "We don't care we just want our Guns and your child is never going to be safe" we WILL lose. These are frightened parents who want to feel better again, and they will be happy to the first thing that makes the fear go away, even if in the end it is harmful.