The NRA Finally Responds With Its "Meaningful Contributions"

[downtown]

We also have FIVE administrators. If I recall correctly, only about 6K students or so.

Five administrators for 6K students is more than reasonable. Depending on their specific duties and organizational chart, you could very easily argue it should be more. That wouldn't make me bat my eyes at all.

You'll forgive me if I don't trust that a Rothbard-quoting high schooler would be the best judge of educational system waste though.

Why do University Presidents oppose concealed carry? At that point all the students are adults aren't they?

It isn't a universal opposition, but I imagine they also agree that it would be highly unlikely that they would serve as a detriment to an attacker (they're mostly suicidal anyway), and that a lone student would be more likely to cause additional confusion or harm during an attack situation. Plus, I can imagine there would be situations on campus outside of a lecture hall where a loaded weapon might be an additional risk, like a basketball game, or an on-campus bar, or around very expensive lab equipment. The risks can outweigh the rewards.

 

[Formaldehyde]

I'm pretty sure they are already risking their lives whenever an armed intruder is on campus. Trying to keep themselves and their charges safe until the cops arrived would be a lot easier with a gun than with nothing.

But that isn't what you seem to be suggesting here. You apparently want them to act like they somehow got stuck in a bad Hollywood movie where they are going to track down and disarm or kill the mass murderer who is at least in some cases wearing body armor and using an assault weapon before he can kill even more children. Otherwise, they aren't a substitute for armed guards unless you arm almost all of them.

I think their best chance is to do what the teachers actually did. Lock the doors and keep the children away from sight until the police can arrive. At least they no longer set up a perimeter like they did at Columbine. Instead, they immediately assault the school to minimize the victims.

Even if the mass killer knows that a handful of teachers might be armed in a limited number of schools, I seriously doubt it will act like the deterrent the NRA likes to claim it would. It also means that handguns left in purses and the like may very well fall into the wrong hands. It would be almost impossible for male school teachers to even hide a handgun unless they were always wearing suits, which few now do.

 

[GhostWriter16]

Five administrators for 6K students is more than reasonable. Depending on their specific duties and organizational chart, you could very easily argue it should be more. That wouldn't make me bat my eyes at all.

I might agree if I didn't see them policing class transitions as often as they do... They have administrators frequently acting as security guards, and both seeming like they are overemployed. Of course, I can only guess based on what I see.

You'll forgive me if I don't trust that a Rothbard-quoting high schooler would be the best judge of educational system waste though.

I'm actually not a Rothbarian. I like the quote I put in my sig, but I don't subscribe to Rothbardian philosophy. I think he had some valid things to say, of course, but I don't think Rothbardian anarchy (Or any other kind) could actually work.

 

[Kaitzilla]

But that isn't what you seem to be suggesting here. You apparently want them to act like they somehow got stuck in a bad Hollywood movie where they are going to track down and disarm or kill the mass murderer who is at least in some cases wearing body armor and using an assault weapon before he can kill even more children. Otherwise, they aren't a substitute for armed guards unless you arm almost all of them.

I think their best chance is to do what the teachers actually did. Lock the doors and keep the children away from sight until the police can arrive. At least they no longer set up a perimeter like they did at Columbine. Instead, they immediately assault the school to minimize the victims.

Even if the mass killer knows that a handful of teachers might be armed in a limited number of schools, I seriously doubt it will act like the deterrent the NRA likes to claim it would. It also means that handguns left in purses and the like may very well fall into the wrong hands. It would be almost impossible for male school teachers to even hide a handgun unless they were always wearing suits, which few now do.

I'm not advocating a concealed carry teacher act like Rambo, but I can see your point. A teacher would only be defending their one classroom with a locked door and a gun which doesn't really help with the rest of the school.

However, there is no denying that these crazies seem to target gun free zones and tend to kill themselves or surrender at the first sign of resistance, whether it be cops approaching or someone shooting them back.

I agree that it's good that the police go straight in now.

Maybe banning the 30 round clips nationwide is a good idea if door locking is the main safety measure.

 

[peter grimes]

1. The government has no right to even more of my money just because I own a gun.

2. The government has no right to know whether or not I have a gun.

3. The government has no right to know where I keep my guns.

4. No government bureaucracy ever charges 50 cents in administrative fees.

5. This is a "sin tax" and would be treated as such. Ever wonder why cigarettes are so expensive?

Its too stiff because it turns a right into a privilege. If the penalty was a penny I'd still be against it.

I guess from my point of view all of our rights are already privileges that may be revoked under certain circumstances. For instance, if I choose to commit a felony, I lose the right to vote. If that right were non-negotiable, then clearly we as a society would agree that all convicted felons should retain the right to vote, rather than give up the privilege.

Same thing with guns - Yes, you have a right to ownership. But that right is regulated as a privilege that may be withdrawn under certain circumstances.

Regarding sin taxes, I'm really on the fence. If we had universal health care I'd be in strong favor of much stronger sin taxes. As it stands now, I think they could still be a bit higher, but not as high as I'd accept under UHC. The whole idea of a sin tax is to incorporate some of the back-end costs up front, and to discourage excess consumption. Which is why they are applied to things that had adverse effects on society.

And for the record, I disagree with points 2 & 3 on the grounds that the government's primary duty to see to the public welfare. There's a reason you can't horde dynamite and there are rules about storage of explosives - the same rationale behind those rules should apply to weapons. Arguing otherwise seems pretty stupid to me.

 

[JollyRoger]

However, there is no denying that these crazies seem to target gun free zones

Unless you starting counting the Oregon mall shooter, the Arizona congresswoman shooter, the Fort Hood shooter . . .

 

[peter grimes]

...and ignore the majority of gun deaths - which happen in the home..

 

[Cutlass]

I'm not advocating a concealed carry teacher act like Rambo, but I can see your point. A teacher would only be defending their one classroom with a locked door and a gun which doesn't really help with the rest of the school.

However, there is no denying that these crazies seem to target gun free zones and tend to kill themselves or surrender at the first sign of resistance, whether it be cops approaching or someone shooting them back.

I agree that it's good that the police go straight in now.

Maybe banning the 30 round clips nationwide is a good idea if door locking is the main safety measure.

I've never seen anything that indicates that a person going on a shooting spree pays any attention at all to whether or not there will be guns at the place they are headed to. These people are not exactly rationally picking their targets.

 

[Formaldehyde]

You never know. How much would it cost to put a "gun-free zone" sign outside every police station?

 

[peter grimes]

You never know. How much would it cost to put a "gun-free zone" sign outside every police station?

I don't think that's going to work:

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/officers-hurt-shooting-nj-police-station-18082014

Police Chief Harry Earle says gunfire erupted inside the police station at about 5:45 a.m. Friday. The shooter, who was being held at the station, was shot and killed inside the municipal building.

Earle says two of the officers suffered graze wounds and were treated at a hospital and released. The third was hit twice in the leg and was undergoing surgery. Earle says he's expected to recover quickly.

 

[Kaitzilla]

I don't think that's going to work:

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/officers-hurt-shooting-nj-police-station-18082014

Interesting. How many dozens of innocent people died at this latest mass shooting at a police station?

 

[peter grimes]

Did the presence of a room full of trained professionals with firearms deter this attack?

 

[Kaitzilla]

Did the presence of a room full of trained professionals with firearms deter this attack?

Apparently nowhere is truly safe from crazies with guns.

Did being able to fire back at the guy keep innocents from dying? I'd say yes, it did.

 

[Formaldehyde]

How many "innocents" are typically in a police station?

But my comment was a joke. Like Cutlass, I don't think being a "gun-free zone" really has anything to do with these attacks. Most of the shooters were students at these schools and were trying to get even for some sort of perceived slight. In this particular case, it just seems to be someone who decided he wanted to kill a lot of children. Anders Breivik picked his location on similar grounds, although there was also a political motivation behind his selection.

 

[Patroklos]

Unless you starting counting the Oregon mall shooter, the Arizona congresswoman shooter, the Fort Hood shooter . . .

You do realize military bases are gun free zones, right?

Did the presence of a room full of trained professionals with firearms deter this attack?

Given the intended target was police officers...

If your intended target was civilians of any flavor, would you pick a police station? The mall with 10 armed cops or the one with 2 unarmed security guards.

As to Cutlass's extremely stupid question, when was the last time a liquor store/grocery store/convenience store with an off duty armed uniformed cop on site was knocked over via armed robbery?

Massacres like Sandy Hook are statistically irrelevant no matter how tragic given overall gun violence. The vast majority of shooters are sane individuals.

 

[peter grimes]

How many "innocents" are typically in a police station?

But my comment was a joke. Like Cutlass, I don't think being a "gun-free zone" really has anything to do with these attacks. Most of the shooters were students at these schools and were trying to get even for some sort of perceived slight. In this particular case, it just seems to be someone who decided he wanted to kill a lot of children. Anders Breivik picked his location on similar grounds, although there was also a political motivation behind his selection.

Yes, I understood your intent. I simply couldn't pass up the opportunity to note the irony

You do realize military bases are gun free zones, right?

For the sake of safety, right?

 

[Patroklos]

No. They don't want to prolong security access (traffic is bad enough) or confuse private and public inventories. If it was for safety they wouldn't let any weapons on base, they obviously let nearly everyone have a government weapon at some point in time.

If you really want your weapon on base you can do so as people do live on base, it's just a PITA.

 

[downtown]

Massacres like Sandy Hook are statistically irrelevant no matter how tragic given overall gun violence. The vast majority of shooters are sane individuals.

Sane people rarely bring guns to school then, so arming teachers or paying for an armed cop won't have a deterring effect then.

Arming a cop at a store is a totally different dynamic.

 

[Formaldehyde]

You do realize military bases are gun free zones, right?

You must feel very insecure that some mass killer might decide to target a facility with heavily armed guards at every entrance.

I think it speaks volumes that even the US military doesn't want its own soldiers to be armed except when they feel it is necessary to do so.

 

[Patroklos]

Sane people rarely bring guns to school then, so arming teachers or paying for an armed cop won't have a deterring effect then.

Arming a cop at a store is a totally different dynamic.

School shootings themselves are rare, should no attempt be made to deter them. And armed guards at schools are not meant solely for the purpose of deterence no more that cops patrolling your neighborhood are.