NRA - Put Armed Good Guys In All Schools

[Northern Dominus]

Ah yes, the TEC-9, a "Semiautomatic" handgun which can be converted to fully automatic by any half-wit who can find the parts at gun shows and simply swap them out. It also involved a weapon specifically designed to skirt the assault weapons ban as well, one that now can be fitted with high-capacity magazines.

As for that "crime isn't affected by the assault weapons ban" statements, go to any impoverished inner-city neighborhood and ask around about the big local gangs. Odds are that they'll have some sort of stockpile of weapons that includes assault-rifle pattern firearms, mostly AK pattern or AR-15 pattern. Weapons obtained via straw purchases then smuggled over state lines into those cities, sometimes converted illegally to fully automatic before winding up in the hands of psychopathic criminals.

So you hold onto that NRA tag line as much as you'd like. Try and sleep as well as Wayne LaPierre does while telling yourself that an assault weapons ban will do nothing, but try to remember that the gun show loophole lets all kinds of weapons, including military pattern ones, flood inner city streets across the US and stains the pavement in hemaglobin red.

I'm for gun control. As I've said: citizen should show cause to own a gun before being granted a licence. Gun quotas per person (I suggested ONE GUN as the baseline, with one sidearm and one long-arm in exceptional circumstances). Strict storage conditions (for most gun-owners, storage in a secure facility like a police station or strictly licensed and secure gun range). Possession of an unlicensed firearm a felony, and failure to present a licensed firearm subject to harsh fines. I'm for really quite strict gun control.

And I wish you would shut up. You're making us all look like nuts.

Excuse me but I'm not in favor of an outright ban either. Neither am I for the way we do things right now in this country.

However, no meaningful and reasonable firearms legislation is ever going to be enacted until Wayne LaPierre and all of the other disciples of the Gun Cult (if his speech didn't make its existence and mindset obvious yesterday then I dunno what will), are muzzled in some shape or form. Right now we're paying for their warped and mutated version of the 2nd amendment in bodies and blood every damn day. I live in Chicago, and our citizens are victims of the gun show loophole being exploited day in and day out and having those straw-purchased firearms end up on the streets. That needs to be closed and it needs to be closed as of 5 years ago, and yet it still remains open and the most vicious violent street gangs get their weapons.

And how am I making you look nuts? In deference to Tsuntion's suggestion, here's the Huffington post article in question:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/2 ... 48466.html

100 firearms related deaths since December 14th. That river of bodies and blood I mentioned may not be literal but it sure as hell metaphorical.

Fast and Furious wasn't the most well-thought-out operation I admit, but part of the reason it went so badly was because, again, the firearms laws surrounding gun show loophole sales and straw purchases are extremely lax.

But since you seem to think that nothing will work, how about an idea from you? How do we reduce the appalling rate of gun violence in this country?

The ATF told specific sellers and gun stores to be lax. And then, seemingly, forgot to track the actual firearms.
Hundreds if not thousands of rifles, handguns and shotguns were just walked out of the fucking country and sent down to shoot at Mexican Federal Police, Army and government officials. And, in some cases, American officers, too.

I already explained how to reduce gun violence.
Guns are not the sole cause of gun violence. They are the sole tool of gun violence.
It's like tackling any other kind of crime. Go for what drives people to crime. The causes for firearms crimes are typically common to other kinds of crime.

Right, so that would be education and a war on poverty instead of drugs. That's one step.

But there's still the issue of firearms and ammunition being too easily available to anyone who wouldn't pass a background check. It doesn't address the fact that a firearm, a device which is constructed for the purpose of making killing effortless, can be had for less effort than it takes to obtain a driver's liscense.

So let's hear specifics. How would you tamp down on gun violence specifically? What mandates, actions, etc. would you be willing to employ?

[AiliailiA]

I'm for gun control. As I've said: citizen should show cause to own a gun before being granted a licence. Gun quotas per person (I suggested ONE GUN as the baseline, with one sidearm and one long-arm in exceptional circumstances). Strict storage conditions (for most gun-owners, storage in a secure facility like a police station or strictly licensed and secure gun range). Possession of an unlicensed firearm a felony, and failure to present a licensed firearm subject to harsh fines. I'm for really quite strict gun control.

And I wish you would shut up. You're making us all look like nuts.

What about collectors.

What about them? With Northern Dominus online and active in the thread, and my post very obviously directed at them personally, you couldn't just wait five minutes before blurting the first thing which came to your mind?

Fuck the collectors. To hell with them. They can collect disabled weapons, with the breach welded shut and a barrel-block, and they can present them for inspection on demand, or they can collect something else instead. Like Barbies maybe. Fuck the collectors.

I'd prefer if we can find a way to exclude them, but if it comes down to either a no restrictions or restrictions that effect collectors, i'd go for the latter.

No, fuck the collectors. Most collectors are investors, they're buying things in the expectation of later selling them at a vastly inflated price. If they're speculating on stricter gun laws in future, to make their "collectible" rarer, then they are speculative criminals: they're counting on owning contraband to sell illegally at inflated prices. They are not what I would call a "law abiding gun owner". That is a criminal intention. So fuck 'em.

[Samozaryadnyastan]

More stringent background checks, for one.

Find a way around the database bans in the 1986 and 1994 gun control acts and register firearms (yes, they actually banned firearms registries). If you want to privately sell a firearm, you have to notify your local police department of the sale, and provide the information of the buyer, who is also prompted to inform his local PD of his purchase.
Both departments would then inform the ATF of the purchaser and buyer's intentions and do their own background check. This will be an awkward process as it will introduce long waiting periods to private sales, which seems an odd thing.

Alternatives would be to acquire certification that you are 'fit' to own and use a firearm (we licence cars, after all, why should firearms be different, especially when less people die as a result of more of them?), which could do away with the need for background checks entirely, and merely provide evidence of your certification in order to qualify for a purchase. Re-qualify every few years, unless an active member of a shooting club, who would presumably take your scores on the range and your observed proficiency as your 'qualification'.

[Northern Dominus]

More stringent background checks, for one.

Find a way around the database bans in the 1986 and 1994 gun control acts and register firearms (yes, they actually banned firearms registries). If you want to privately sell a firearm, you have to notify your local police department of the sale, and provide the information of the buyer, who is also prompted to inform his local PD of his purchase.
Both departments would then inform the ATF of the purchaser and buyer's intentions and do their own background check. This will be an awkward process as it will introduce long waiting periods to private sales, which seems an odd thing.

Alternatives would be to acquire certification that you are 'fit' to own and use a firearm (we licence cars, after all, why should firearms be different, especially when less people die as a result of more of them?), which could do away with the need for background checks entirely, and merely provide evidence of your certification in order to qualify for a purchase. Re-qualify every few years, unless an active member of a shooting club, who would presumably take your scores on the range and your observed proficiency as your 'qualification'.

Thank you. See, that's whats missing from the firearms debate discourse. You and I may be willing to meet in the middle but gun fetishists like Ted Nugent and weasels like Wayne LaPierre are the problems. They're the ones that whip up the Cult of the Gun into a frothing frenzy, and suddenly any reasonable attempt at regulation becomes scapegoated as circumventing the Constitution.

And for the record, I'm not completely for an assault weapons ban. As you mentioned, I'd like to know where the registered ones are and pry the unregistered ones out of hands which probably shouldn't have thing. Another idea that I'd like to see implemented is the addition of a secondary magazine or bolt locking mechanism to all future assault-rifle pattern firearms, meaning that in order to reload a civilian spec weapon of that type would require the use of both hands off of the trigger group either to release the magazine or re-set the bolt, thereby slowing down the reload time and circumventing one of the hallmarks of an assault weapon; extremely fast reloads.

[Rubiconic Crossings V2 rev 1f]

More stringent background checks, for one.

Find a way around the database bans in the 1986 and 1994 gun control acts and register firearms (yes, they actually banned firearms registries). If you want to privately sell a firearm, you have to notify your local police department of the sale, and provide the information of the buyer, who is also prompted to inform his local PD of his purchase.
Both departments would then inform the ATF of the purchaser and buyer's intentions and do their own background check. This will be an awkward process as it will introduce long waiting periods to private sales, which seems an odd thing.

Alternatives would be to acquire certification that you are 'fit' to own and use a firearm (we licence cars, after all, why should firearms be different, especially when less people die as a result of more of them?), which could do away with the need for background checks entirely, and merely provide evidence of your certification in order to qualify for a purchase. Re-qualify every few years, unless an active member of a shooting club, who would presumably take your scores on the range and your observed proficiency as your 'qualification'.

Both those measures would certainly make a huge impact. It does not have to be an either/or situation. I would also look at insurance as well...

[AiliailiA]

I'm for gun control. As I've said: citizen should show cause to own a gun before being granted a licence. Gun quotas per person (I suggested ONE GUN as the baseline, with one sidearm and one long-arm in exceptional circumstances). Strict storage conditions (for most gun-owners, storage in a secure facility like a police station or strictly licensed and secure gun range). Possession of an unlicensed firearm a felony, and failure to present a licensed firearm subject to harsh fines. I'm for really quite strict gun control.

And I wish you would shut up. You're making us all look like nuts.

Excuse me but I'm not in favor of an outright ban either. Neither am I for the way we do things right now in this country.

Yeah it's bad, but it's also terribly entrenched. The people who want to personally own a gun (and are legally entitled to, and can afford to) are at most a third of the adult population: they already own guns. The entrenchment is that they own so damn many guns: four each on average, and the most fanatical of them own far more.

You also have to consider that people may lie to pollsters, including the US Census. Even if their distrust of government is not so strong that they will undertake the risk and expense of keeping a firearm, they may think it prudent to say that they do. But this probably is offset by some gun owners who lie the other way: owning one or more guns they may lie and say they have none. I have some stats on actual gun ownership, based on outcomes of house searches, but I don't trust it much because obviously houses searched with a warrant are more likely to house a criminal than all household are. I don't want to introduce such dubious sources to prove such a peripheral point, so if it's all right with you we'll go with Gallup and the US Census. About one quarter of eligible adults own at least one gun, and about a third of Americans live in a household with at least one gun owned by a member of the household.

It doesn't take a lot of statistical nous to derive that there are huge numbers of small households where the head of household has no children, but does have a great many guns. Not having children to care for, or perhaps even a partner, they have a lot of time to spend defending their right to own a gun. Guns are easier to care for than children I guess.

However, no meaningful and reasonable firearms legislation is ever going to be enacted until Wayne LaPierre and all of the other disciples of the Gun Cult (if his speech didn't make its existence and mindset obvious yesterday then I dunno what will), are muzzled in some shape or form. Right now we're paying for their warped and mutated version of the 2nd amendment in bodies and blood every damn day. I live in Chicago, and our citizens are victims of the gun show loophole being exploited day in and day out and having those straw-purchased firearms end up on the streets. That needs to be closed and it needs to be closed as of 5 years ago, and yet it still remains open and the most vicious violent street gangs get their weapons.

And how am I making you look nuts?

By stupid repetition of slogans.

"Streets running red with blood" for instance. Address the arguments of those you reply to! Not mine so much, but those you oppose most ardently. Don't give them a big fat target like that, to call you a propagandist exploiting a tragedy. Don't be emotive, don't exploit emotions. Stay the course, see the whole problem and work towards a compromise which minimizes harm and suffering. Not all gun owners are gun nuts, so let's win more of them to our side of gun control. We're not fighting a last ditch defence, it's not the war to end all wars. We gun control folks have actually done pretty well, and we should show no fear. Their hands will be cold and dead some day, without a shot being fired.

Don't call names. "Cult of the Gun" is calling names. We can be better than that.

In deference to Tsuntion's suggestion, here's the Huffington post article in question:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/2 ... 48466.html

100 firearms related deaths since December 14th. That river of bodies and blood I mentioned may not be literal but it sure as hell metaphorical.

Yes indeed. Gun policy should not be made in response to horrific "headline" cases of gun abuse, but instead to deal with the vast mainstream of gun abuse. The US has a very high homicide rate, among comparable countries in prosperity and culture. That high rate is mostly attributable to gun policy, and gun culture (a part, but not whole, of which is is the "cult of the gun").

It's a big problem for the US, and a problem for other countries who import US culture (and I don't say they are wrong to do so, the US has a lot to offer).

While the US works this out for themselves, it would be nice if they stopped exporting weapons. Heading a bit off-topic perhaps.

[Samozaryadnyastan]

The firearms industry in the US is a multi-billion dollar a year industry, why should they stop exporting?

More stringent background checks, for one.

Find a way around the database bans in the 1986 and 1994 gun control acts and register firearms (yes, they actually banned firearms registries). If you want to privately sell a firearm, you have to notify your local police department of the sale, and provide the information of the buyer, who is also prompted to inform his local PD of his purchase.
Both departments would then inform the ATF of the purchaser and buyer's intentions and do their own background check. This will be an awkward process as it will introduce long waiting periods to private sales, which seems an odd thing.

Alternatives would be to acquire certification that you are 'fit' to own and use a firearm (we licence cars, after all, why should firearms be different, especially when less people die as a result of more of them?), which could do away with the need for background checks entirely, and merely provide evidence of your certification in order to qualify for a purchase. Re-qualify every few years, unless an active member of a shooting club, who would presumably take your scores on the range and your observed proficiency as your 'qualification'.

Both those measures would certainly make a huge impact. It does not have to be an either/or situation. I would also look at insurance as well...

Well, personally I think the better option would be to scrap background checks in favour of certification.
That way, the 'private seller' loop is much easier closed, and people might stop getting pissy about waiting periods.

Though I am really confused that firearms registries are banned in the States. You have a vehicle registry, which it is a felony to not be a part of, yet prohibited the registry of firearms, a tool whose only purpose (not use, a whole different kettle of fish. I've finally conceded this 'design' point, because the purpose is not necessarily limited to the use) is to inflict bodily harm or death?

[Fnordgasm 5]

Guarding schools because of weapons wont solve anything. They are trying to cure the symptoms, not the disease. Giving people guns to kill people with guns will just backfire. Because then even more people will have guns. And what if a good person proves to not be that good?

The question is more like, why all the guns? Why should it be so easy to acquire a gun? Who do you need all those guns? If you say self-defense, then you can respond with the fact that if the bad person could not get a gun so easily in the first place, then would the good one need one?

How do you cure the disease? Looking at the statisticsit would seem that the USA has almost four times the amount of murders per 100,000 people than the most of what could be considered the first world. People like to blame violence in the media but is the American media that much more violent than the rest of the world? People like to blame the amount of guns. Switzerland has about 45 guns per 100 residents compared to the US' 88 but has a murder rate of 0.7 deaths per 100,000 residents compared to 4.2 for the US.

On paper it seems that the US is significantly more violent than the rest of the first world. Of course there's a possibility that these other countries have a similar rate of attempted murders and the prevalence of firearms in the US means that you Americans are just better at turning intention to murder into success at murder. I don't know. My google-fu fails me. However, if these stats are an accurate reflection of reality why is the USA that much more violent?

[Samozaryadnyastan]

Massive social and financial inequality.
Poverty breeds crime.

[Ifreann]

At what point did this stop being about armed guards in schools and just became about gun control?

[Samozaryadnyastan]

Since the internet was asked to debate the merits of a system using guns to control gun crime.
It's the perfectly logical tangent.

[Fnordgasm 5]

At what point did this stop being about armed guards in schools and just became about gun control?

It was always about gun control.

[Rubiconic Crossings V2 rev 1f]

At what point did this stop being about armed guards in schools and just became about gun control?

You're right...this thread was created to discuss the use and implications of armed guards in schools. Not gun control.

Can we get this back to the topic? Thanks!

[Rubiconic Crossings V2 rev 1f]

At what point did this stop being about armed guards in schools and just became about gun control?

It was always about gun control.

No. There are at least two other threads where gun control is being discussed. This is about the use of armed guards in schools...a very different subject.

[Fnordgasm 5]

It was always about gun control.

No. There are at least two other threads where gun control is being discussed. This is about the use of armed guards in schools...a very different subject.

And why was the idea for armed guards in schools put forward?

[Samozaryadnyastan]

It was always about gun control.

No. There are at least two other threads where gun control is being discussed. This is about the use of armed guards in schools...a very different subject.

How is gun control not a relevant topic?

[Farnhamia]

No. There are at least two other threads where gun control is being discussed. This is about the use of armed guards in schools...a very different subject.

And why was the idea for armed guards in schools put forward?

The head of the NRA proposed it on Friday.

[Farnhamia]

Speaking of numbers, do we have any for the number of times an armed civilian - not an off-duty cop - stopped an armed rampage? I'm off to bed but it's something to look into.

Good idea, though it's to late for me as well

one thing is for sure, it's hardly ever reported or brought up as vigorously as massacres.

This in Mother Jones is somewhere to start, perhaps. http://www.motherjones.com/politics/201 ... map?page=1

[Samozaryadnyastan]

Good idea, though it's to late for me as well

one thing is for sure, it's hardly ever reported or brought up as vigorously as massacres.

This in Mother Jones is somewhere to start, perhaps. http://www.motherjones.com/politics/201 ... map?page=1

http://dailyanarchist.com/2012/07/31/au ... tatistics/

[Raziac]

By commenting on the following post you observe that:
1) I am not a mass murderer.
2) I have no intention to become a mass murderer.
3) I am not implying that pouring water on a drowning person will save them.
4) I am pro-gun, not a retard.
5) I am not for students carrying guns, nor for faculty members to abandon their students to grab a gun.
If you do not wish to observe the above, kindly fuck off and comment on somebody else's post.
Thank you.
I think that armed guards should be stationed at schools. And by armed guards I mean the police. Why? Lemme see:
1) They're trained for it.
2) They're the living embodiment of the law, dammit!
3) Kevlar vests: they have access to them.
4) If you can't trust them, who can you?
Am I for teachers, with appropriate training to have guns on their person? Yes. Why? Because cowering on the other side of a wooden door in a tightly packed group backfires pretty damn quickly. And so does huddling in corners. And who said the gun has to fire bullets? Tranquilizer darts, tasers, beanbag rounds, rubber bullets; we have plenty of less than lethal ammunition.
Thanks for listening to my opinion.

[Samozaryadnyastan]

*less lethal

Most 'non-lethal' ammunition marketed has probably had fatalities associated with its use, and are far more dangerous than believed.

[Poorisolation]

Guarding schools because of weapons wont solve anything. They are trying to cure the symptoms, not the disease. Giving people guns to kill people with guns will just backfire. Because then even more people will have guns. And what if a good person proves to not be that good?

The question is more like, why all the guns? Why should it be so easy to acquire a gun? Who do you need all those guns? If you say self-defense, then you can respond with the fact that if the bad person could not get a gun so easily in the first place, then would the good one need one?

How do you cure the disease? Looking at the statisticsit would seem that the USA has almost four times the amount of murders per 100,000 people than the most of what could be considered the first world. People like to blame violence in the media but is the American media that much more violent than the rest of the world? People like to blame the amount of guns. Switzerland has about 45 guns per 100 residents compared to the US' 88 but has a murder rate of 0.7 deaths per 100,000 residents compared to 4.2 for the US.

On paper it seems that the US is significantly more violent than the rest of the first world. Of course there's a possibility that these other countries have a similar rate of attempted murders and the prevalence of firearms in the US means that you Americans are just better at turning intention to murder into success at murder. I don't know. My google-fu fails me. However, if these stats are an accurate reflection of reality why is the USA that much more violent?

Hi been inactive around here a while and have just got back in time to see that I missed the whole, "Well I need to get a new long count calendar", Debate oh woe is I.

As to the point raised above though I think you need to observe that the Swiss gun death rate is still much higher that the OECD norm oh and please note the qualifications there, I said gun death rate as in referring to deaths resulting by the use of firearms in all of homicide, suicide and negligent discharge, the figures quoted above seem to have some confusion about them as the murder rate of US firearms while subject to dispute seems to fall somewhere between the 2.8 and 3.2 persons per 100,000 mark, the overall gun death rate is higher though as the numbers of gun related suicides is about 50-60% greater than the homicide rate for example this bares out the oft remarked point that you are more likely to die by your own weapon that shoot someone else with it.

One of the differences that should be noted in the context of the Swiss instance is that increasingly the vast majority of weapons issued to reservists are now being stored in barracks' armouries rather than being allowed home with said personnel. I am not sure how widespread the change over is as it is proceeding on a Cantonal basis rather than being a federal matter for the Swiss Government at large so the process may not be fully complete. However while the number of guns in the Switzerland is large as a count per head their availability and accessibility is far more restricted than in the US.

I make this point being fully aware that I have probably been ninja'd while so doing.

As to the topic point of the NRA wanting more guns in schools I would almost be tempted to recommend such an experiment were it not for the unconscionable consequences. The NRA non-solution is quite simply daft from the beginning. Already at one individual per school you are looking at 100,000 (US Public Schools only) to 140,000 (all public and private schools) personnel. However it ought not take a back ground in either law enforcement or the armed services to strike anyone with familiarity with more that one educational campus to realise that on average most schools would in fact require multiple guards to be considered 'secure'. That is even before considering those institutions with multiple campuses.

Given that the term "Post Office Day" referred to the phenomenon of workers experiencing psychological stress shooting up their place of work the introduction of over one hundred thousand potential shooters into close proximity to their or indeed anyone's children should be cause for concern.

Of course although I was among the many who endured the utter insanity that was the NRA press release (it certainly was not a press conference) I am now, somewhat alarmingly, of the opinion that it was not in fact as mad as it might have seemed. The purpose seems to be essentially to get a countervailing idea into the American public discourse before any attempt to craft an Australian assault weapons ban (i.e one without hundreds of exceptions designed to render it meaningless) is attempted.

The NRA likely does not expect their madcap solution to be implemented as it would be a disaster for their contentions (and sadly for America at large also) were it to be so. The upswing in school shootings would be a gross of nails in the coffin of the "more guns will quell the violence" argument. However if they can ensure that any legislation is watered down to the level of the 1994 US Assault Weapons Ban Selective Curtailment Highly Selective Curtailment then they can expect within a matter of years to have generated data supporting their contention that "legislation does not work".

The NRA it would appear to me wants neither their 'School Shield' nor an effective ban to be implemented but is instead seeking an ineffective piece of legislation in line with previous Congressional efforts. Only American voters can lobby their Congressional Representatives and Senators sufficiently to make sure that does not happen again.

[Raziac]

*less lethal

Most 'non-lethal' ammunition marketed has probably had fatalities associated with its use, and are far more dangerous than believed.

Thank you for that correction, I will edit my post shortly.

[Rubiconic Crossings V2 rev 1f]

No. There are at least two other threads where gun control is being discussed. This is about the use of armed guards in schools...a very different subject.

And why was the idea for armed guards in schools put forward?

Because the NRA hasn't got a clue how to approach this issue in a mature manner. The point being, here in this thread, to discuss whether or not it is a good idea to have armed guards in a place of learning that is full of children.

[Farnhamia]

This in Mother Jones is somewhere to start, perhaps. http://www.motherjones.com/politics/201 ... map?page=1

http://dailyanarchist.com/2012/07/31/au ... tatistics/

Well, we'll have to see. There are differences between the criteria used to choose the incidents, for one thing. I looked at only one in the Daily Anarchist's list, the Odighizuwa shooting, and found that there are conflicting reports as to whether the shooter dropped his weapon in response to the appearance of the armed civilians or before. It seems that most of the civilian interventions consisted of tackling the shooter, not shooting him.