US National Rifle Association urging politicians to have armed guards in every school.(86 Posts)
Today in a news conference. Lots has been said in the time since Connecticut, but this surely raises the discussion to a new level, given how powerful the NRA are in US politics.
And if anyone needs reminding how ingrained gun ownership is in the USA, here is an ad from Walmart (Asda's company) for that last minute little stocking filler
To my Brit head this is lunacy of the highest order. Anyone differ?
Crikey is that all they can think about? I'd be thanking my lucky stars I still had my child when others had lost theirs not wondering how much money I could make out of it.
Btw did anyone see this? (Mail link). It didn't take them long did it? I really can't see how they think this will make children safer.
This seems so badly timed, so utterly devoid of awareness, that I strongly suspect the NRA have something to do with this. This bit >> the student was traumatised by the killings of her schoolfriends, and accused the state of failing to protect students from "foreseeable harm just smacks of the sort of thing the NRA are desparately trying to argue. I am very uneasy about this, even though I know whoever that girl is, she will have endured a horrific experience. God forbid that was my child, I'd be more focussed on looking after her welfare while she slowly recovers from her ordeal, than think about launching a $100M law suit on her behalf when she survived, all the while knowing that other parents lost their child. Jeez this just makes me angry and I can't even explain properly why.
Message deleted by Mumsnet for breaking our Talk Guidelines. Replies may also be deleted.
I double checked and that would be about right, I make it as 86.5 deaths/day and 78,000 other injuries each year (a quarter of those accidents).
Never thought about this before, but some close calls among my family, too. My brother had a gun pointed at him back in 1974. One cousin was asleep in back of a car, woke up to the sounds of his friends having a shoot out with an off duty cop.
It's chilling to see in the Huff that in the first seven days after Sandy Hook over 100 were killed in the US by guns.
I agree niceguy, I suspect there is an element of Morgan seeking some notoriety in this, not about 'taking a stand' and arguing his case intelligently. But like the earlier post stated, it's a dangerous game to play, especially with people who own a cache of high powered weapons. I was watching CNN earlier and one of their anchors made a really good case against NRA and for strict gun controls. Maybe Morgan should listen and learn a bit more before wading in.
Whilst I agree entirely with Piers sentiment, I fear his name calling will alienate some would be supporters. Once you start with name calling, you appear to others to have lost the argument on substance.
That thought did cross my mind. I think that is all part of why such a small group of people with guns have such a huge influence. Who wants to stick your head above the trenches when it just makes you a target?
It's a dangerous game, though, some nutter with a gun will contemplate simply shooting Morgan instead.
I can't link to the story but apparently piers morgan has offended the pro-gun nuts so much they are petitioning to have him deported. I cannot stand Morgan but the snippets of his interview with a gun-nut made me smile. See sky news for the story.
I think those people are still living in the Wild-West era. They still feel as if they are cowboys....
And you can just imagine when the first kid getts shot by the 'good guys with a gun' because they pulled out their mobile phones in a threatening manner.
Which of course would be called a tragic freak accident by the NRA who would blame the government for not allowing their volunteers to carry sniper rifles. Had they have had said rifles then they could have been covered the school from the hill top nearby and so their volunteer wouldn't have felt so threatened by the 10 year old........
The worst part of this 'volunteer army' suggested by the NRA is that it would most likely be those NRA evangelist-types who would want to step up and fill this void. I can't imagine anything worse than the sort of person who believes you need more, bigger guns to protect people from guns being allowed near schools. Trigger happy nut jobs believing they are the 'good guys' are the last thing schools need.
Staffing is only one cost, Lots of associated admin costs especially with such a large H&S risk. And who gets sued if a volunteer goes Postal?
98,000+ volunteers are a lot of people to manage.
President Obama isn't interested in banning weapons. He gave it lip service in his first presidential campaign but did nothing during his first term. There was no mention in his second campaign. He doesn't have the interest and the proposed ban on assault weapons will get nowhere. The one that expired in 2004 had so many exceptions that it was practically unenforceable. The NRA is hugely powerful and the gun owning population mostly ignorant on the true meaning of the 2nd Amendment.
How is the answer to children getting shot in school to put
nutters people with guns into schools This is the thought that went through my mind when I heard it on the news. Along with fucking idiots
And who vets the volunteers? How do you know that if heaven forbid this was indeed to happen again that the said volunteer would actually be more use than a chocolate teapot? Would they actually have the presence of mind and more importantly training to be able to fight back or could they accidentally kill kids themselves whilst shooting it out?
All this because they want to be able to own an assault rifle. It beggars belief. Noone is even talking about a ban on guns, only assault rifles.
lijkk the NRA are saying that it will be a service staffed by volunteers so no costs incurred. Ds's school is in Windsor Castle so we are used to seeing policemen with large guns. Still makes me feel uneasy though.
The NRA are sickening. How they can clamber over the dead bodies of six year olds in this way, I do not know.
" It's arms. So by logical extension they should also be free to purchase a stinger missile or two."
Ah well, there you make a very interesting point indeed.
I was thinking about that this morning. Where is the limit? Could a law abiding, certified sane, god fearing, US born citizen buy a fully armed tank or a fighter aircraft or a artillery gun or a warship?
I think not.
Once citizens or indeed anyone else acquires weapons enough to overthrow Govt officials then pretty soon the 'Constitution' suddenly is used to allow those politicians to take direct action and you forget the right to bear arms. Its all about political calculations in the end what politicians do best is in self interest and that is work out how best to stay in power.
Look how quickly this whole thing has become 'political'. Obama is using it to deflect discussons about the US deficit and fiscal cliff because he knows the gun issue is a stick he can use to beat Republicans and make them look 'unreasonable'. The logic is that if the NRA can be used to make Republicans made to look unreasonable about guns them he can say the Republicans are unreasonable in the negotiations over the deficit and the fiscal cliff. In 3 months time they will also be arguing about the Debt ceiling - just when Joe Biden is delivering the results of the inquiry into gun control.
I can quite easily see Republicans and Democrats sitting down and agreeing a US debt deal linked to a new law on gun control. The political logic is really that crazy.
It's just diversion tactics.
Same with the register for the mentally ill. I mean ok...let's for a moment say they had a register. Then what? The obvious thing is not to let them buy guns. But wait....the shooter didn't buy the guns, he nicked them from his mother who wasn't mentally ill. So it's useless.
Who will pay for it? NRA or Taxpayers? Leaving aside dozens of other valid objections. How would this cockamamie scheme be funded? Volunteer guards as staff would barely dent necessary costs.
Is NRA offering to fund it, the vetting, capital purchases, equipment maintenance, staff training, admin? Of course not. Sounds like another way to suck $trillions of taxpayer money into right wing boondoggle ideas.
Presumably, Lanza would have had no problem acquiring a gun if he wanted one, no criminal record and no record of mental illness as far as I'm aware?
The gun culture thing though is fascinating. I remember going on a training course once where the trainer was a outright god fearing redneck. Lovely guy but his logic was totally alien to us.
During conversation we asked him how many guns he had at home. Cue a brief pause whilst he counted. Between 90-100 was his answer! He taught his daughter how to shoot when she was 10. Took her hunting at weekends, in the same way as we'd take our child to Mcdonalds. It was just something you did.
I agree tamoo, arguing for a register of the 'mentally ill' as a way to avoid a repeat of this simply ignores the fact Lanza's mother was a pro-gun enthusiast who legally owned her guns, and who would not have appeared on such a list. It's a pointless distraction tactic, used to try and deflect the NRA's responsibility in this.
Join the discussion
Please login first.