jump to last post 1-12 of 12 discussions (26 posts)

Do you think the N.R.A. statement concerning school violence was crazy?

  1. IDONO profile image80
    IDONOposted 5 years ago

    Do you think the N.R.A. statement concerning school violence was crazy?

    At first, I did. But after thinking a bit, I realized that for now, it's the best safety step for our kids until we can come up with something better. All these grandios ideas of government legislating safety with gun rules and mental health aid are all pipe dreams. Knowing that these tragedies of school shootings and mass murders can happen in our own backyard, that is also where the answers lie. Not on some news channel, or Washington or in some book. There are no across the board answers. Watch for upcoming hub.

  2. M. T. Dremer profile image95
    M. T. Dremerposted 5 years ago

    I'm assuming you're referring to his statement that there be armed guards in schools? I don't necessarily oppose the idea of school protectors, but I do feel like stopping gun violence with more guns is kind of a silly concept. It's like looking at a fire and saying 'hey, lets put that out with more fire!' True, a fire doesn't start itself, but once its burning, it can quickly escalate until everyone is dead. I don't believe that gun control or mental health services are pipe dreams, but I do think they would be difficult battles to win. The hardest part is convincing the public that gun control is not the equivalent of a full fledged gun ban. You can't even have a discussion about responsible gun regulation without someone saying something about the government taking our guns away. And when you can't have a civil discussion about it, you can't get anything done.

    1. IDONO profile image80
      IDONOposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      Maybe my use of the term pipe dream was a little rough, but my point is that these ideas would take a tremendous amount of time to impliment and have effect. In the meantime, we stop the fool from fueling the fire.

  3. profile image0
    JThomp42posted 5 years ago

    No, I did not think it was crazy. In fact I cannot see any other way of making sure of the children's safety. Just imagine the look on his face if the shooter at Sandy Hook would have confronted an armed officer as soon as he entered that school. An ounce of prevention is worth so many of precious children from being killed in schools. Use the National guard, people would volunteer to go through a course to ready them to protect their children. ANYTHING to save these precious lives, Is a GREAT idea.

    1. IDONO profile image80
      IDONOposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      Only problem is that most National guardsmen already have full time jobs. They are only active 1 weekend per month.

  4. scottcgruber profile image81
    scottcgruberposted 5 years ago

    It's not crazy for an organization representing the gun industry to advocate for more guns rather than sensible regulation of guns. That makes perfect sense.

    The plan itself is ridiculous, however. More guns will not solve the problem of gun violence. Especially when school systems can barely afford to pay teachers and buy school supplies - who is going to pay to put armed guards in every school in the country?

    The NRA plan is a classic example of corporate socialism - let the free market do whatever it wants and sell dangerous products without restrictions, but make the taxpayer pay for the consequences - ultimately benefiting the gun manufacturers.

    The NRA's plan is self-serving idiocy. The problem of gun violence will only be solved by regulating guns more strictly. No civilian needs a military-grade assault rifle. None.

    1. profile image0
      JThomp42posted 5 years agoin reply to this

      They will get them one way or another. Illegally or legally.

    2. Wesman Todd Shaw profile image97
      Wesman Todd Shawposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      Make no mistake about it.  If the people let one kind of gun be taken from them, the illicit globalist government will take ALL guns.  Now isn't the time for kidding one'self.

    3. scottcgruber profile image81
      scottcgruberposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      Fine by me. The government can take them all, as far as I'm concerned. Gun owners are obviously not responsible enough to prevent these mass shootings from happening, so it's time to take the toys away.

    4. Express10 profile image88
      Express10posted 5 years agoin reply to this

      Guns aren't toys. My father saved me and my sisters with one of his by shooting a burglar. If you want to give up your right, great. Don't infringe upon others right. I agree with ToddWesmanShaw, no time for kidding around.

    5. Express10 profile image88
      Express10posted 5 years agoin reply to this

      I am in total agreement with WesmanToddShaw and JThomp42. Lawbreakers don't care about rules, only law abiding citizens do. Saying all gun owners are irresponsible is irresponsible in and of itself.

    6. Charlu profile image81
      Charluposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      Gee how much sense does that make?  Gun advocates wanting more guns, wanting teachers to carry concealed weapons without parents or other staff knowing.  Why don't we just hand all the angry, depressed, medication deprived kids a gun.  Great answer!

  5. FatFreddysCat profile image99
    FatFreddysCatposted 5 years ago

    It was, more or less, the response I expected to hear from them. "Got a problem? Just throw more guns at it. Guns solve everything. Guns guns guns."

    I hear throwing gasoline on a fire is a great way to put it out, too.

    ... what we need to do is examine how the hell we've reached a point as a society where it's become necessary to even CONSIDER putting armed guards in each and every school in America.

  6. ahorseback profile image79
    ahorsebackposted 5 years ago

    In chicago this year over three hundren kids were  killed in Gang violence ! In La. darned near the same !  Who do you think is crazy ?

  7. profile image0
    Old Empresarioposted 5 years ago

    Not really. I just thought it was a little dumb. But the only thing that should change after a school shooting is that the administrators need to be more careful about whom they let into their schools. I know lots of people who own a gun or two. I own a few myself as heirlooms. But I have met enough gun "enthusiasts" to call the NRA what they truly are: nerds--just simple nerds. If they had picked up a 12-sided die before learning about the guns they play with, they would all be playing Dungeons and Dragons in their parent's basements instead of pretending like they need these "toys" that they mess abround with now. They aren't out to harm anybody. And I don't think they really worry about crime as much as they say they do. They just have one issue that they happen to care about, which actually renders our standing "defensive" military obsolete if we want to be honest about it. Having an armed populace negates the need for a defensive military establishment in this age of guerilla warfare.

    1. IDONO profile image80
      IDONOposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      Along with your point, If that statement would have come from someone other than the N.R.A. people would probably have a different take. Many don't understand what they are all about.

  8. flacoinohio profile image80
    flacoinohioposted 5 years ago

    The NRA has yet to make any decision that reduces or limits gun ownership.  While I don't think placing armed security guards on school grounds is a bad idea, I don't think they should be inside the school in plain sight of the children.  I would say a school area should be secured by a fence with an entrance and an exit separate from each other.  Have a couple of armed men monitoring the security cameras from a secure monitoring room inside the school building.  Arm the principals and their assistants, they are already in charge of physical security of their school anyway.

    1. IDONO profile image80
      IDONOposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      Gatehouse idea isn't bad. Uniformed guards would be intimidating to the children. With all the comments about armed guards, who's going to pay for this? This would cost more than a war.

  9. Express10 profile image88
    Express10posted 5 years ago

    I did not think it was crazy. There is a fact that many people are overlooking. Armed security has been in use by schools across the country for years. I find it strange that so many people seem shocked by the NRA's statement. Further it seems strange that it wasn't taken seriously when proposed years ago by Bill Clinton.

    A recurrent theme is that criminals and killers want sitting ducks, many places we go create the perfect environment. Schools are just one place that advertise they are to be gun free.

    The never ending problem is that criminals and killers don't follow laws and rules. Law abiding citizens do. Law abiding citizens don't need to be separated from guns. It's the illegal owners and sellers that need to be. But I think that the energies need to be focused on illegal sellers, owners, and other enablers of such illegal deals.

    1. IDONO profile image80
      IDONOposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      With millions of schools in the U.S. that would be a lot of armed guards. What if they formed a union. That would be a strong union. No, an army. Bigger than the U.S. military. Scary thought isn't it? Movie idea??

  10. ocbill profile image58
    ocbillposted 5 years ago

    Chief of police - L.A.P.D. guns buyback program received 8,000 firearms in 3 years. In that time, they saw a 33% drop in violent crimes. Guns don't deter, they kill or injure others. - For those NRA violence supporters. New laws will be made, statewide and.or national, with or without NRA,

    Armed guards in a school.
    So ridiculous to even consider. If they are not at your neighborhood bank, why the ____ would they be in a learning environment? Put them in all libraries, cafeterias, each dorm, each building of science,language, bldg of arts, am-pm gas station, every movie theater, every restaurant, and so on?  Say the ridiculous law goes through. You now have a trained guard with a .45? or AR? What if there are 2 armed criminals, one who is unsuspecting with a taser and tases out the guard and secures his weapon. An armed guard will not stop or deter them. Sounds like fight fire with fire. What's to say the armed guard doesn't just go berserk. You could not profile the Denver movie shooter nor could you profile Lanza as dangerous. So, now you arm 1000s more potential people who could lose it?  Thanks NRA

    I don't know the solution but arming more people is 1000% wrong and definitely another sign of a America on the decline.

    1. ocbill profile image58
      ocbillposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      I meant no thanks NRA . As you know, HP has limited time to edit posts.

    2. Express10 profile image88
      Express10posted 5 years agoin reply to this

      Armed security has been used at schools throughout the country for years. I support of it. My personal experience is that criminals don't care about gun laws & seek unarmed people. Also, my family was saved with a good shot from one of dad's guns

  11. Charlu profile image81
    Charluposted 5 years ago

    https://usercontent2.hubstatic.com/7513379_f260.jpg

    Not crazy INSANE maybe because the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again expecting a different result.

    Is the armed guard going to search every student when they come in, or are we going to have metal detectors in all schools and agents there.  What about the teachers that are now training to carry a concealed weapon to class without parents or other staff members knowing.  All they keep harping about is daily criminal checks for them which of course makes perfect sense since NONE OF THE SHOOTERS HAD CRIMINAL RECORDS Wow that coming from gun manufacturers and dealers (please don't tell me they don't support them all)

    As others have said do you not think these mentally unstable individuals are not capable of taking out a guard from a distance and how is the guard going to patrol the entire school while the shooter has already barricaded a certain room and finished off 20-30 kids and himself before the guard gets there. 

    Now lets add the pissed off, depressed teenager who on one particular day gets pushed to the limit and decides to just cut the teachers throat while grabbing their buldge/gun they noticed the week before, as he shoots the rest of the ones who caused his bad day and himself.

    Hmmmm why don't we take that money, the money we give parents to medicate their children for mental health disorders (which often is nothing more than an act to get more money) and put it back in the schools to teach basic coping skills.  You know like maybe alternative releases of anger, education of self motivation, things (including nutritional aspects) for treating depression, an attitude of gratitude and the true essence of nature and spirit (no matter what their beliefs).

    What about taking animal rescues, child counseling/volunteers/after school programs, elderly assistance, and combine them teaching them a better respect for LIFE in every aspect. It is a proven fact that animals dramatically improve those with medical and emotional disorders  Were paying for them all anyway!  Naaah now that just sounds crazy.

    1. profile image0
      JThomp42posted 5 years agoin reply to this

      ANYTHING to save another precious child's life.

  12. junkseller profile image85
    junksellerposted 5 years ago

    I love how when a gun is used offensively it isn't the gun's fault, it is the person's (guns don't kill people...blah blah blah), yet when guns are used defensively, it's all about the gun and the person doesn't really matter. The mere existence of the gun is somehow believed to erect a magical force-field around all the good guys and shoot death bolts out at all the bad guys.

    It doesn't work that way. GUNS DON'T DEFEND PEOPLE EITHER. Look at how many shots the Fort Hood shooter got off on a military base. The armed guard at Columbine shot at and missed the assailants. Or how about the shooting at the Empire State building, where police hit nine innocent bystanders.

    There's no reason not to talk about possibly hardening our schools, but I don't want the NRA to have anything to do with that. They have no business being anywhere near our schools. Even so, it is impossible to harden all soft targets. Some will always remain. Ans so we will still be left with talking about the real problems, which are things like mental health, but more importantly, in my opinion, the grotesque saturation guns have in our culture and country. To look at the fact that we have such high gun ownership rates, very lax gun regulations, and very high rates of gun violence and to then say there is absolutely no correlation between those things is simply illogical.

 
working