NRA Conference: LaPierre Calls for Armed Cops every school

Suburban, middle-class parents 
must start asking tough questions

http://www.gjsentinel.com/opinion/artic ... art-asking

I don’t know what is going on anymore. I don’t like what we have become.

This one was bad, worse than all the others. And the others were breathtaking, unspeakable, incomprehensible, awful.

A theatre. A mall during Christmas. A high school. A man shoved in front of a subway. A 10-year-old girl kidnapped, raped and dismembered by some strung-out-on-violent-video-game, white, teenage punk.

Dear God, what is becoming of us?

It could never be worse than Century 16 in Aurora, we thought. James Holmes — that freak, that monster — he was as low as we could ever go. Surely it could never get worse than Jessica Ridgeway — barbarism beyond understanding.

But then, this.

The call for more gun laws is a canard, but it’s a free country, so the gun-control types can propose away. When they do, they should do us a favor: Don’t lie to us. Don’t tell us any lives will be saved by an assault weapons ban. Denver has an assault weapons ban and has for 23 years. Google “Denver homicide” for a quick tutorial on how well that’s working out.

These proposals may or may not be helpful, but parents — especially we suburban, white, middle-class types who profilers would suggest are the most likely to be raising a mass murderer — would do well not to bank on big social change from Washington or Denver turning this barbarous tide.

Maybe we should just control what we can. Throw the violent video game in the trash, or at least grab our sons by the arm and tell them the next time they turn them on that life is precious. Don’t turn away from me, son, I am talking to you.

LadyJazzer wrote:

NRA Chief Wayne LaPierre A 'Desperate, Cornered Rat,' 'Lobbyist For Mass Murderers' (VIDEO)

Lawrence O'Donnell condemned NRA president Wayne LaPierre for Friday his press conference about the Newtown massacre in a special edition of his MSNBC show.

O'Donnell does not usually work on Fridays, but he made an exception for LaPierre. The gun lobbyist called for armed police officers in every school. His comments were widely criticized.

O'Donnell did not mince his words, calling LaPierre a "lobbyist for mass murderers," and denouncing him for attempting to take issue with the media's coverage of the slaughter in Connecticut. He noted one of LaPierre's points: that the media had gotten a fact about the power of the gun shooter Adam Lanza used. O'Donnell pointed out that each bullet Lanza fired traveled at the speed of 3,200 feet per second:

“Is there really something to quibble about in how powerful a bullet is when it is heading toward a six-year-old at the speed of 3200 feet per second? What kind of desperate, cornered rat would dare to mention that the Sandy Hook shooter could have used a more powerful bullet? Could have what? Done more damage? Made the bodies of six-year-olds even more difficult to identify?"

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/2 ... _ref=media

Gotta love it when a raving lunatic gun-nut hangs himself on trying to chastise the press for not getting an irrelevant fact about the muzzle-velocity of a round "heading toward a six-year-old"....

Good to see this Neanderthal ripped to shreds....

Evidence of the lunatic left needing a target. Complete with middle school name calling. Thank God the NRA spokesman stepped out in the line of fire eh.

Who was it who always mentions the "rant of the day". Well seems you have a rant you can go with for a month or more but in the end you will not have solved a thing. Physics taught me that generally friction is only helpful and fun in one human endeavor that I won't mention. This isn't that endeavor.

gmule wrote: Sorry that you live in a state of denial but this should have been done 13 years ago.

To be honest, I'd like to thank you for bringing up the issue of "a state of denial". We're all guilty. We talk the talk, but are virtually unwilling to walk the walk, in my opinion.

Please reference the following article:
http://www.policeone.com/active-shooter/articles/2058168-Lt-Col-Dave-Grossman-to-cops-The-enemy-is-denial/

Please understand I'm not singling you out on this. It's a societal malady. You just triggered (no pun intended) something in me when you used the word "denial", as so many of us are wont to do.

For all of us, please understand that School Resource Officers have been around for a very long time. Their jobs are multi-faceted. We just need to accept our societal responsibilities and, in my opinion, fund this worthwhile program adequately.
http://www.nasro.org/sites/default/files/pdf_files/NASRO_Protect_and_Educate.pdf

And so it goes.......

Thank you Frank for everything!

http://kdvr.com/2012/12/17/columbine-principal-says-upping-security-not-answer-to-prevent-shootings/

And so it goes........Part 2

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2012/12/22/1373121/connecticut-school-officials-blast-nras-reaction-to-newtown/

More denial on the part of the school admins.

Wait until we have more people go off like Marvin Heemeyer

gmule wrote: More denial on the part of the school admins.

Wait until we have more people go off like Marvin Heemeyer

More denial on your part, as well. If, and until, both sides on this issue accept the "denial" that goes along with resolving the issue of gun violence/school safety, there can be no resolution.

I am not in denial. These things will continue to happen no matter what the tools are.

Go ahead and keep thinking the police will be there to protect you.

“Law enforcement agencies and personnel have no duty to protect individuals from the criminal acts of others.” -Lynch vs North Carolina Department of Justice 1989
Bowers v. DeVito, 686 F.2d 616 (7th Cir. 1982) (no federal constitutional requirement that police provide protection)
Calogrides v. Mobile, 475 So. 2d 560 (Ala. 1985); Cal Govt. Code 845 (no liability for failure to provide police protection)
Calogrides v. Mobile, 846 (no liability for failure to arrest or to retain arrested person in custody)
Davidson v. Westminster, 32 Cal.3d 197, 185, Cal. Rep. 252; 649 P.2d 894 (1982) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)
Stone v. State 106 Cal.App.3d 924, 165 Cal Rep. 339 (1980) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)
Morgan v. District of Columbia, 468 A.2d 1306 (D.C.App. 1983) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)
Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C.App 1981) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)
Sapp v. Tallahassee, 348 So.2d 363 (Fla. App. 1st Dist.), cert. denied 354 So.2d 985 (Fla. 1977); Ill. Rec. Stat. 4-102 (no liability for failure to provide police protection)
Keane v. Chicago, 98 Ill. App.2d 460, 240 N.E.2d 321 (1st Dist. 1968) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)
Jamison v. Chicago, 48 Ill. App. 3d 567 (1st Dist. 1977) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)
Simpson's Food Fair v. Evansville, 272 N.E.2d 871 (Ind. App.) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)
Silver v. Minneapolis, 170 N.W.2d 206 (Minn. 1969) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)
Wuetrich V. Delia, 155 N.J. Super. 324, 326, 382, A.2d 929, 930 cert. denied 77 N.J. 486, 391 A.2d 500 (1978) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)
Chapman v. Philadelphia, 290 Pa. Super. 281, 434 A.2d 753 (Penn. 1981) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)
Morris v. Musser, 84 Pa. Cmwth. 170, 478 A.2d 937 (1984) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)

gmule wrote: I am not in denial. These things will continue to happen no matter what the tools are.

That perspective, in and of itself, is probably the worst form of denial, in my opinion. It promotes the idea of a "head in the sand" mentality. They're gonna happen anyway, so why try to do anything to prevent them?