Most people I know who are serious hunters have echoed the sentiment “why does someone need an AR-15 with a 30 round magazine?” But most of them also feel that just because they don’t personally see the need, that doesn’t mean the government should prohibit it. But pretty much every serious hunter I know is 100% for licensing of gun owners.
I know one person who would fit the mold of “true gun nut” who is against all forms of gun control, and I guess in a country of 300m+ he’s the archetype of the NRA member these days. FWIW I don’t know anyone I hunt with who is in the NRA, and I’m not in the NRA myself. Most of us consider it a scam organization that we don’t need to be giving money to.
While the NRA’s recommendation is not the worst I’ve heard, it would likely be largely ineffective in most schools. Worse than the NRA is the Gun Owners of America people who are advocating arming teachers and college students. :rolleyes:
Most Americans have already been through this. They screamed about tighter airport security after 9/11 and the result was the TSA.
Good intentions. But the reality is high costs, poor training, many unqualified personnel, lots of intrusive and unnecessary behavior, and a general sense of total hatred of the concept in return for not stopping a single terrorist attack ever.
People seem to generally understand that adding an armed guard to every school cannot be a solution. It’s hard to articulate why so you get a lot of sputtering that comes down to nothing more than the underlying, more guns will help, no they won’t, that is behind every gun control debate.
But this can’t work, and any attempt to roll out a proposal will make it clear that it is the TSA all over again and that will enough to stop it.
One of my friends will not be re-upping on his NRA membership, precisely because of that horrible speech.
He was more upset, just like you said, with the lack of any real arguments.
He also bristled at blaming videos games and pop culture; even if our culture needs reformed, the NRA needs to not be making lame excuses like that.
I think the clearest indication of how the NRA’s plan was received was that it was harshly slammed by the New York Post, a conservative tabloid owned by Rupert Murdoch. A whole lot of people who normally could be counted on to reflexively support the NRA aren’t this time around.
Murdoch has actually tweeted multiple times in favor of gun control since Newtown happened. Remember, he’s originally Australian, not American wingnut. He didn’t grow up steeped in 2nd Amendment rhetoric.
Gun control is a rather nebulous term. I don’t think I know a single person who has a problem with criminal background checks to prevent convicted felons from purchasing firearms. Even the NRA supports background checks. So, from what I can see, I don’t know anyone who isn’t for gun control either. It’s just that people tend to disagree on how much and what type of gun control to support.
This is a bit offtopic, but… I realize the NYP is owned by the Devil, but not all Murdoch publications will take the same editorial stance. They are going to play to their audience. While the NYP’s audience is more sensationalist and reactionary than the average New Yorker, it is still a NEW YORK CITY audience, a dense urban area where people don’t shoot “varmints” and where gun control has broad support.
]
imo the answer is a mix of a few things, if a teacher or other adult employee has a license to carry a handgun they should be allowed to. It means they have passed a background and other test.
Armed guards outside and at entrances whose job is only stopping shooters would be good, I worked as an armed guard for a long time and the problem is people think you’re standing around doing nothing and want you to do things. If they can make it clear they are only there to deter/shoot back at criminal shooters and not there to stop schoolyard fisticuffs I see no problem with that.
More then a few school shootings have been stopped by armed adult employees.
Outlawing guns only cheers tyrants and rapist and murderers.
Thank God they resist stupid laws like that.
I live in a free state where I can sell a gun to the rancher living a few miles away.
“Rights” are called rights because they are rights.
by closing the so called gun show loophole rural people like me have to drive hundreds of miles to sell a tool to the neighbor up the road. Liberty is not a loophole.
If the NRA didn’t do everything it could to stop those idiotic anti freedom laws I wouldn’t give them my hard earned money.
Purely anecdotal, but I live in a rural area of Oregon. My town in particular has under 2000 people. And I’ve heard MANY people that the NRA has the right idea. That in these situations, the solution is more guns. Hell, I lost count of how many people on my FB have been in support of arming the teachers.
I would like background checks for people getting drivers licenses, my friend was killed by a violent ex con with a truck. http://www.laurenjo.com/chris/chris.shtml
Polly Klass, a 12 yr old girl was raped and killed by a convict whose main tool was a car.
Why do we allow violent felons to own cars and buy gas? Imagine the carnage a crazy person with 100 gallons of gas can do to a school.
We let murderers have cars/trucks/explosive chemicals, time to stop the ***“car show loophole” ***no rapist or murderer needs to own/drive a car
Why was he a member before this? Wayne LaPierre has been saying things like this in the wake of shootings for years and years. Did this reiteration of the NRA’s policies just reach more people?
heck! that’s a big city! I live 5 miles away from my nearest neighbor, the closest gas station is a 40 mile round trip:cool:
less then 300 in our neck of the desert.
We would ignore big brothers stupid laws anyway, but I prefer not to make more and more stupid regulations that only insure criminals have the tools they need and law abiding people go without.
I’d place the chances of getting a sufficient number of armed guards in every school in the country at about equal with our chances of getting a sufficient number of guns out of the hands of the populace.
Not that either are needed, necessarily, but I see the chances as about the same: Unlikely in the extreme.
I like that idea, anyone 21 or over, in possession of a license to carry should be able to do so.
Even uber stupid CA allows concealed carry on college campuses if you have the proper credentials.
She wasn’t allowed to carry on campus, a rapist raped her, used a gun in other on campus rapes then killed a really nice young lady named Brianna Dennison.
Amanda could have stopped him, she is a martial artist but it wasn’t enough-the rapist was stronger.*** Big Brother*** would rather girls fight hand to hand with serial killers then shoot them. Laws do not prevent criminals from bringing their guns with them to kill college girls.
The Supreme Court says that it is your responsibility to protect your own life. You can not legally expect the police to protect you. It is up to you to save your life when confronted by a criminal intent on killing you. ***Big Brother wants you to have to bring a fist to a gun fight. ***
It’s the word “most” that makes your post untrue. I’ve worked in many high schools over the years and only the one in a horrible inner-city, super-high-crime area had a cop.
I’ve seen some with security(usually 1 or 2 guys), but most don’t even have that. And those security guys are definitely not armed.