Thread: National Rifle Association Calls For Armed Guard At Every School

The NRA statement, reasonable and logical on its face, brought forth a bellowing hoo-ha of media negativity on tonight's TV news.
All local-news comment was placed in front of a school's "Gun-Free Zone" sign in bright-red-on-blue.
Yup—if you label it a gun-free zone, that'll certainly do the trick. Who needs armed guards?

Reason is not a feature of the reaction.
We had brunch with a close friend, Liberal but not Progressive, whose response to the NRA was something to the tune of, "But what if one of the kids grabs a teacher's gun? Or what if a teacher goes crazy, and starts shooting-up the classroom?"
He just could not grasp the fact that training precludes the former, and that the latter is neither better nor worse than the well-proven result of a "gun-free zone," but also is almost impossible given the emotional attachment to students exhibited by a good teacher.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Related, but Different:

I cannot comprehend how someone who refuses to vote could nevertheless require the right to complain about the results of the election.

I guess that I understand—but do not agree with—the statement: "My one vote can't change anything."
But I also know that if everybody who made that statement were to vote, they would indeed change a great deal.

How can someone demand personal liberty, if he (or she) will not take the most basic, personally-responsible step toward maintaining it?

Originally Posted by Steve M1911A1

I cannot comprehend how someone who refuses to vote could nevertheless require the right to complain about the results of the election.

I gotta get you here Steve M1911A1

In 2008 I voted for McCain. MCCAIN! Dude, aside his admirable service to the country in Vietnam, dude is a partisan, a politician and nothing else. So this year who do I get to vote for? Mitt Romney? Are you kidding me...? Mitt Romney hasn't been for gun rights until he started running for the president. Not to mention having a Obama health care of sorts in his own state. Hes a puppet and a joke!

So I woke up abit this year and realized that its all a joke. I mean I voted for RON PAUL in the caucus and he still didn't win (lotta fishy things to that btw in Iowa but thats another discussion).

There are people that pay for these politicians to get elected and follow their program. 6 major companies own 90% of the media. Goldman Sachs pays for these canidates to get into office. Not to mention that they are all related to each other (Obama and Bush yeah wtf)

And since you talk about me being a YOUNGIN' all the time, here's an old feller to drop some knowledge on you, and sadly hes not alive anymore, but that would make him OLDER THAN YOU.... lol
George Carlin Doesn't vote - YouTube

Voting is dumb, the system is broken, and its time we all woke up alittle bit to fix the problem areas cause they arent going away any time soon...

We have the INTERNET NOW!!! Look we are speaking to eachother the net right now? Why can't we have a true democracy??? LIterally vote online!!!

Well I have theories to this, but sadly not enough time to rant. The gist of it is, that the people in control do not fundamentally believe average citizens have the intelligence to run the country. Maybe they are right... Jersey shore

OK, Jake, Carlin was less than seven months my senior. That's not much, as a point from which to offer me life lessons. We might've been in nursery school together.

Like you, Carlin didn't believe that it was meaningful to vote. But that only applied, I believe, to national elections.

In my own experience, I have been very influential in local elections, both in a really big city (Los Angeles), and on this small island in this really small county. All you need do is let your representative know that you're interested, and that you're watching him/her.
At this point, my county-government representative is a personal friend, and he listens to me. Both my state senator and my state representative know me and respect my opinions. My federal congressman also knows me, and will listen when I speak. Only my federal senators, both extreme and closed-minded Progressives, are unreachable and unresponsive.
I am in this position because I attend meetings and I speak my mind, but also because when I speak I am clear about my position, I am not a member of the lunatic fringe, and I am willing to make meaningful compromises. (Back in L.A., I was somewhat powerful politically because I could deliver audiences to candidates. To a candidate, having a captive audience is tantamount to being given a certain number of assured votes.)

I recommend local activism to you. Try it—you might grow to like it.
The feeling of possessing political power can give you quite a rush—as long as you don't misuse it.

Originally Posted by Steve M1911A1

Sorry, Jake, but I think I am still older than Carlin.

DARN

You still beat me!!! I'll get you next time STEVE

Originally Posted by jakeleinen1

DARN

You still beat me!!! I'll get you next time STEVE

No.
Carlin wins—I looked it up.
See my previous post, which I was involved in writing while you were posting.

I would volunteer, and my wife already does at the school let her use that permit to ccw. Maybe some additional training would be appropriate to be offered. Must people I believe would jump at chance to make a meaningful contribution to there community.
I have noticed how the media have seem to jumped to armed guards being paid. In some cases they may need to happen but that is not what I took from the NRA release I though they were asking for civic volunteers. EMT's train first responders we have volunteer fire fighters, yet the idea of training a volunteer to guard the ones we love seems to upset some.

I emailed this to Wayne LaPierre last night.


I watched your press conference today and agreed with most of what you said. I know you have been met with criticism over putting police in every school. The general public seems to understand extremes only and doesn't have the attention span to comprehend anything in between. I believe the simple act of removing "gun free zone" signs from school entrances and allowing school employees to exercise, or not exercise, their concealed or open carry rights would cause a potential shooter to think twice about extending his/her fantasies beyond the safe and predictable home computer.

Originally Posted by Steve M1911A1

I cannot comprehend how someone who refuses to vote could nevertheless require the right to complain about the results of the election.

I guess that I understand—but do not agree with—the statement: "My one vote can't change anything."
But I also know that if everybody who made that statement were to vote, they would indeed change a great deal.

How can someone demand personal liberty, if he (or she) will not take the most basic, personally-responsible step toward maintaining it?

100%

If everyone who didn't want Obama to serve a second term had gone to the polling station on 6 November and simply filled in one oval, pulled one handle, etc...then we'd be preparing to shuffle Obama OUT of office, we'd be telling the progressives that they can't fundamentally change America, and we'd soon be appointing Supreme Court Judges who respect the Constitution.

But we can't, because most would rather sit around and bitch than do something that affects change, like taking an hour out of their life (once every 4 years) to keep this country great.

And this b.s. about one vote not making a difference. Thats the biggest lazy copout ever. I've never seen an ant hill built by one ant either.

Time for people to wake up.

I also agree about the armed guards in schools, but even the NRA acknowledged that while this was a solution communities could be put into action almost immediately, it was not the entire solution. One thing I do know is that violence today has nothing to do with "assault weapons" or guns/weapons of any kind. Among other things, it is about training and desensitizing youths to violence with entertainment instead of real life & death interaction and respect for others, doctors pushing dangerous medications/chemicals to control young minds making them more like docile class cattle than individual humans, the collapse of the family unit, taking responsibly for our actions, holding people accountable for their actions and the dumbing down of Americans in general (crappy public school systems). I think we should blame ourselves because of the way this nation has raised up our children and our children’s children. TV and music often got the blame for the violence in my older generation just like the video games and internet is contributing to this today. We should not outlaw TV, music, games and internet any more than assault weapons, but it is the duty of parents, teachers, schools and communities to see that our children do not live their entire waking lives surrounded by fantasy and entertainment instead of spending personal time interacting with children. They also need to know that there are always consequences for their actions and those punishments must equal the transgression. A child should know that Time Out is not the only punishment they could receive for bad behavior. That is only a physiological preparation for doing prison time. We all know that many in prison are in a warped way proud of their education and time spent in prisons, as is evidenced by their prison tattoos.

Originally Posted by MitchellB

...One thing I do know is that violence today has nothing to do with "assault weapons" or guns/weapons of any kind...

...And, contrary to the NRA's statement, it also has nothing to do with violent movies and video games, either.
That's a huge red herring, thrown in as a scapegoat to counter talk of weapons being violence-producing. It was a cheap shot, and it vitiated the otherwise-rational NRA argument.

The trouble with such red herrings is that they give the opposition further oppositional talking points, and can even derail the entire discussion into a "Do too/Did not/Do too/Did not" circularity.

I think the best thing is to look at examples already in place dealing with school security. I am sure there are other examples, but the first thing I think of is Israel. Israel has dealt with their children being targeted regularly by organized and state sponsored terrorists. The United States is a newcomer to dealing with this sort of threat. Yes, I know targeting school children is not new here, but it has been seen a a local problem until recently.

I did not think the NRA showed they were fully on top of the political aspects of this problem. Perhaps it is due to the short timeline and the political left seeming to blame guns. I work on a Army post that has schools. I will not go into the details, but in the post 9/11 world, they have done substantial security upgrades. Another example is the daycare center that was built for employees at the Pentagon. It was fairly expensive and was about to open when it was realized that it was going to be an easy terrorist target. Again, the Department of Defense knows that people target children and that the proper response it to secure the facility.

I have seen no local off-post schools implement anything close. To most schools, security deals with non-custodial parents trying to pick up kids without authorization.

Applying security to existing facilities is more expensive than planning it that way to begin with. Making an area a gun-free zone is simply a way of designating it as a soft target. This is easily seen by the targets chosen. If you consider features a secured facility will need, it is not going to be cheap. The ability to perform in place lock down, adding entrapment areas, adding new access controls, maintaining fire evacuation standards, dealing with the insider threat (security is often defeated from within), establishing and maintaining security policies, dealing with threats when evacuating, being able to have fast access by emergency medical personnel, etc... is very costly.

The methods to undo security is much cheaper than the costs to secure things. As is often said, the good guy has to be right every time but the bad guy just has to be right once.

Another issue with security controls is that it does not eliminate the threat; it simply shifts the threat around. This means, security is a process and not an end state. To be able to effectively establish security, one must recognize that risk and danger is the new normal. It is not a problem to be solved, but rather, it is an environment in which one must live. As one squeezes a balloon in one area, the balloon simply pops up somewhere else. The expertise to deal with a dynamic threat will not be found in schools or with people whose expertise is limited to combat. One example is that you harden the school as a target and the school bus now becomes the primary target. I can think of other possibilities but I do not want to give out ideas.

The NRA is thinking correctly in seeking to establish security standards that can be referenced by school systems. Establishing standards and a common security language is what the federal government does. The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) takes the lead in many of these efforts. Federal agencies and anyone else can reference these documents freely.

Ultimately, once schools have become less attractive targets, other places will move up the list. Movie theaters, malls, amusement parks, sporting events and any gun-free zone with people will become more likely killing zones.

There are those who do not live with knowledge of the risk who will learn the hard way as other targets are hardened. The least rational thing is to expect the disarming of law abiding citizens will make those who live outside the rule of law less dangerous. A ban is impossible to implement, as we see with the current bans. It only shifts the balance of power in the favor of criminals and organized crime..

I certainly don’t advocate banning games, TV or anything else, but it is not going away either. I think dismissing violent games and video influence as red herrings is just sticking our heads in the sand, refusing to acknowledge part of the problem. Certainly not the worse problem but a contributing factor to shaping the mentality of our culture. Or perhaps it can be augured the culture shapes the media. Either way, I think most people can easily distinguish between reality and fantasy, but to some the fantasy becomes their escape from reality to the point where the lines are blurred. Just like if you tell a lie long enough someone will be convinced it is true, even if it is only the person telling the lie. I grew up when the guys in the white hats were being replaced by the anti-heroes on screen. However, I can honestly say, my desire to own certain firearms, like a model 92 Winchester with a big loop lever, or sawed off bounty hunter Winchester are direct influences by the media I was exposed to as a youth. So I can only assume those media influences are still at work on young minds today. All too often some mothers or parents (not all), allow their children to sit in front of a TV or video game screen all day just to keep them pacified, entertained and out of their hair. If media was not an influence then why do corporations spend millions on advertising? Why has the news reporting for adults now considered entertainment media? Did the recent liberal bias reporting on TV have no effect on many peoples voting choices in November? Just like proper firearm handling needs to be taught to our youth (and some inexperienced adults), so does the entertainment medias today need some kind of proper adult supervision if it is exposed to impressionable young minds.

Originally Posted by MitchellB

...All too often some mothers or parents (not all), allow their children to sit in front of a TV or video game screen all day just to keep them pacified, entertained and out of their hair...

...Thus my statement that the problem is not violent media and video games.
As you point out, the real problem is extremely bad parenting.

Unless parents take some responsibility, even banning violent TV and games will have no real effect. Boys are, by nature, somewhat violent.
And if parents do take responsibility, controlled and supervised doses of violent TV and games will have no particularly bad effect. Boys' natural violence is controlled by proper supervision.

Blaming media is merely scapegoating. It's not at all different from blaming guns.

I personally think this was a mistake by the NRA......another knee jerk reaction is what I'm thinking.
I say the department of Homeland Security needs to step up and provide some answers here. They've been increasing their ranks for plenty of time now.....time to put them to work on the taxpayer's dime. Metal detectors, personnel, etc. Call it the PSA instead of the TSA. Pretty common sense if you ask me.

+1 Steve M1911A1

As usual

Originally Posted by Ram Rod

I personally think this was a mistake by the NRA......another knee jerk reaction is what I'm thinking.
I say the department of Homeland Security needs to step up and provide some answers here. They've been increasing their ranks for plenty of time now.....time to put them to work on the taxpayer's dime. Metal detectors, personnel, etc. Call it the PSA instead of the TSA. Pretty common sense if you ask me.

I disagree, the schools where I live already have armed off duty PO's on campus, all the University's that I have ever attended either had their own campus police or had uniformed police on campus. It's nothing new, but needs to be implemeted at every school. I don't know why you think this is a mistake by the NRA, in my view it is a direct and immediate answer to an immediate issue of those schools wishing not to have armed guards. Metal detectors are fine, but you still need the teeth of armed guards or trained faculty having firearms to combat a direct threat w/ deadly force. The left wing anti second amendement anti gun democrats were outraged by the suggestion and seek to ban certain firearms as an immediate and sensible solution? Will that work? It didn't during the last so called Assault weapons/magazine limit ban implemented in 1994 to 2004 where we had over 10 school shootings, including Columbine, and a rise in violent murders w/ firearms compared to the preceding 10 years before the ban. FACT

I think metal detectors are a waste of money anyone that wants to do real carnage just shoots the person operating the metal detector on the way in.

Originally Posted by swany66675

I think metal detectors are a waste of money anyone that wants to do real carnage just shoots the person operating the metal detector on the way in.

Yep, besides, the evil phychopath at the Sandy Hook tradegy shot out and went through a window as far I know.