National Rifle Association Calls For Armed Guard At Every School
http://nranews.com/pressconferencereplay.html
Federal Assault Weapons Ban - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
According to research regarding the 1994 Federal Assault Weapons Ban, "Generally, the research found no impact of these bans on violent crime rates, though the third edition provided some evidence that Assault Weapon Bans slightly increased murder rates." When Feinstein was confronted with these facts and data she replied: ( the ban was effective because "It was drying up supply and driving up prices.) I agree w/ the NRA in that the only way to stop bad guys w/ guns is good guy's w/ guns. The president, staff and other high ranking officials are protected w/ guns. It is indeed a societal, moral, and metal health issue problem. Armed security w/ at least one trained w/ and carrying an AR-15 would curb any further massacres dramatically in my opinion. Likewise, the Columbine massacre and Timothy McVeigh's Oklahoma City bombing all happened during the time of the 1994 weapons ban. If you are a gun owner I strongly suggest you join the NRA.
Re: National Rifle Association Calls For Armed Guard At Every School
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.
National Rifle Association Calls For Armed Guard At Every School
Quote:
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.
National Rifle Association Calls For Armed Guard At Every School
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..
Re: National Rifle Association Calls For Armed Guard At Every School
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.
