NRA Conference: LaPierre Calls for Armed Cops every school

Some of the language I've seen in polls on television is talking about banning "semi-automatic" weapons. That's a new game.

I carried assault weapons with large capacity magazines throughout my military career. They only have one purpose. The purpose I was trained for. They were designed to kill or wound combatants. I don't consider them hunting weapons.

But when you start outlawing semi-automatic weapons, now you are talking about hunting rifles and shotguns. Hunting laws limit the size of magazines which I think is legit. If you can take your game in a shot or two you need to find a new hobby. I have an issue with outlawing semi-automatics though. That's a whole new deal and it's unacceptable to me

Gee, if they were actually considering "outlawing" them, I could see your problem...But they aren't. (Personally, I wish they WOULD...But they aren't.)

You conveniently leave off the part about "banning [THE SALE OF] 'semi-automatic' weapons." BIG difference.

lionshead2010 wrote: We have to asked what changed in society in the past decade or two that has suddenly triggered these mass killings. Once we get to some of the root causes then we can begin to solve the problem. Otherwise we are addressing symptoms and not the cause.

It isn't a "past decade or two" anomaly. This has been going on for a very long time (mass killings). Here's a partial, non-updated list of just the school murders that have occurred in our history:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_school_shootings_in_the_United_States

I believe the issue involves more than "gun control" being the focal point of discussion (it by no means should be excluded from that discussion either).

LadyJazzer wrote: Gee, if they were actually considering "outlawing" them, I could see your problem...But they aren't. (Personally, I wish they WOULD...But they aren't.)

You conveniently leave off the part about "banning [THE SALE OF] 'semi-automatic' weapons." BIG difference.

Sorry but I don't see much difference between banning the sale of semi-automatics and outlawing them. I see one as a step towards the other....a slow but deliberate effort to ban the ownership of all guns by private citizens. You either know this in your heart and won't admit it or simply deny that is the objective. You wish they would ban the sale, I don't. My only hope is that your desires on this don't come to pass.

We really do need organizations like the NRA to help protect the right to own weapons. The nation has a fair number of people like you who say they are "liberal" but are quick to impose their beliefs on others through legistlation and laws or the courts. What I see is a "my way or the highway approach to life". Good luck with that strategy.

Banning the sale of semi-automatic weapons won't solve anything but it will result in losing more of our constitutional rights. I think the left realizes that this gun ownership thing is a very, very slippery slope. They know that messing with the status quo is going wake up a sleeping giant. Nevertheless, they can't help themselves and hope to use what is happening in these mass killings as the Trojan Horse for their holy grail.

But if you REALLY want to wake up the sleeping giant, go ahead and start talking about banning the sale of semi-automatic weapons. It will be as fruitless an effort as the "war on drugs". All you will really do is generate more black market business and entrechment on the part of legal gun owners.

Banning semi-automatics won't solve the problem. Now if you want to talk about ways to help mentally ill people, I think that is a really good start.

ZHawke wrote:

lionshead2010 wrote: We have to asked what changed in society in the past decade or two that has suddenly triggered these mass killings. Once we get to some of the root causes then we can begin to solve the problem. Otherwise we are addressing symptoms and not the cause.

It isn't a "past decade or two" anomaly. This has been going on for a very long time (mass killings). Here's a partial, non-updated list of just the school murders that have occurred in our history:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_school_shootings_in_the_United_States

I believe the issue involves more than "gun control" being the focal point of discussion (it by no means should be excluded from that discussion either).

People have been shooting other people with guns for a long time and I'm not okay with that. I guess I was focused on mass killings. They seem more frequent in the past decade or two. Maybe it's just that the press seems to get very focused on it. It's an obsession it seems.

"Don’t mess with Marlboro Township.

The leafy, well-heeled New Jersey suburb will station a permanent armed cop in each of its nine schools starting Jan. 2.

It’s apparently the first district nationwide bent on packing heat in every schoolhouse since madman Adam Lanza gunned down 20 children and six adults at Sandy Hook Elementary in Newtown, Conn., on Dec. 14.

“We’ve made a collective decision as a town that we need armed security in each of our schools,” Mayor Jonathan Hornik told The Post.".............


http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/jers ... uWbD62d51K

lionshead2010 wrote:

ZHawke wrote:

lionshead2010 wrote: We have to asked what changed in society in the past decade or two that has suddenly triggered these mass killings. Once we get to some of the root causes then we can begin to solve the problem. Otherwise we are addressing symptoms and not the cause.

It isn't a "past decade or two" anomaly. This has been going on for a very long time (mass killings). Here's a partial, non-updated list of just the school murders that have occurred in our history:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_school_shootings_in_the_United_States

I believe the issue involves more than "gun control" being the focal point of discussion (it by no means should be excluded from that discussion either).

People have been shooting other people with guns for a long time and I'm not okay with that. I guess I was focused on mass killings. They seem more frequent in the past decade or two. Maybe it's just that the press seems to get very focused on it. It's an obsession it seems.

They are, in fact, more frequent, in the last decade or two. I believe Columbine was a kind of watershed in that regard. This event was pretty much the first of these types of events that "came into our living rooms" so to speak. Since that time, it seems every single one of these events is compared to Columbine. Every time I see or hear the word Columbine in any kind of reference, be it in the media or on social networks, or on message boards like this one, I cringe. Not because I don't want to see dialogue take place on the positive changes we've seen in response protocols since that event, but because emotionally the scars are really still scabs for me, as I'm certain they are for everyone else who either lost a child or whose child/children were injured in this tragedy. That's why we developed our website in an effort to try to help address this very real issue. Is it a "panacea"? Not by any stretch of the imagination. Can it work? I believe it can if enough people are willing and able to put forth the time and effort necessary to make it work.

Blazer Bob wrote: "Don’t mess with Marlboro Township.

The leafy, well-heeled New Jersey suburb will station a permanent armed cop in each of its nine schools starting Jan. 2.

It’s apparently the first district nationwide bent on packing heat in every schoolhouse since madman Adam Lanza gunned down 20 children and six adults at Sandy Hook Elementary in Newtown, Conn., on Dec. 14.

“We’ve made a collective decision as a town that we need armed security in each of our schools,” Mayor Jonathan Hornik told The Post.".............


http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/jers ... uWbD62d51K

Liken this concept to the School Resource Officer Program: http://www.nasro.org/sites/default/files/pdf_files/NASRO_Protect_and_Educate.pdf This isn't a "new" idea. It just needs to be re-implemented.

lionshead2010 wrote:

LadyJazzer wrote: Gee, if they were actually considering "outlawing" them, I could see your problem...But they aren't. (Personally, I wish they WOULD...But they aren't.)

You conveniently leave off the part about "banning [THE SALE OF] 'semi-automatic' weapons." BIG difference.

Sorry but I don't see much difference between banning the sale of semi-automatics and outlawing them. I see one as a step towards the other....a slow but deliberate effort to ban the ownership of all guns by private citizens.

Sorry, but I can't help the fact that you can't see the difference. I guess that's not my problem.

It's a slow and hopefully DELIBERATE step to ultimately get assault-weapons and high-capacity magazines out of the hands of the population. Nobody is taking away your "right to own guns"...Now or later. If you can't kill something with 10 shots, you shouldn't own a gun.

LadyJazzer wrote:

If you can't kill something with 10 shots, you shouldn't own a gun.

I can agree with this. Even if they outlaw high capacity magazines I don't see much difference in
carrying 3 10 round magazines. Even if I was to carry a revolver there are still methods available to load six rounds in a few seconds or like they used to do in the early days of the gun they ended up carrying several firearms and reloaded them when it was safe to do so.

As a parent of school age children the same ages as those that were killed I don't see any reason why we need any new gun legislation until the existing laws are enforced. Passing new laws to feel like you have done something is useless.

Even if a person does seek mental health care there are still laws on the books that prohibit sharing that information. I'll use Dr. / patient confidentiality and HIPPA laws for the example. Do we give up more freedoms to address the issues with a very small percentage of the population?

In the USA we have a violent culture. Look at our most popular sport. Football. is very violent yet we start our kids playing as soon as they can wear a helmet and pads. Look at prime time entertainment on TV or look at the local evening news where the first story is usually about someone being killed.

You can turn on the TV any evening and watch several fictional murders as if they were happening in front of you live yet people get offended that a women breast feeds her baby in public. If we want to end the violence we are going to have to change our culture.

The least we can do is have a civil discussion about this rather than shout at each other and demand that each other change or else.