In an amazing Friday morning press conference, the National Rifle Association broke its weeklong silence following the horrific shooting of 26 people at a school in Newtown, CT and called for a surge of gun-carrying "good guys" around American schools.
NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre called for a new kind of American domestic security revolving around armed civilians, arguing that "the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun."
"We care about our president, so we protect him with armed Secret Service agents," LaPierre said. "Members of Congress work in offices surrounded by Capitol Police officers. Yet, when it comes to our most beloved, innocent, and vulnerable members of the American family, our children, we as a society leave them every day utterly defenseless, and the monsters and the predators of the world know it, and exploit it."
LaPierre's speech was a call to supporters to mobilize around a new vision of American domestic security, at a time when voices for gun control are steadily rising. On Friday morning before the press conference, President Obama released a video (above) citing a petition by hundreds of Americans calling for swift action.
At the grassroots level, groups like Newtown United, a group of Newtown neighbors, are working to address major issues related to the tragedy, including gun control, violent media, mental health and legislation.
In stark contrast, LaPierre called for a great mobilization of gun-carrying "good guys," a term he used repeatedly but did not define, who could be more present and respond more quickly than police.
"If we truly cherish our kids, more than our money, more than our celebrities, more than our sports stadiums, we must give them the greatest level of protection possible," LaPierre said. "And that security is only available with properly trained, armed 'good guys'."
LaPierre, who was interrupted twice by protesters who held signs in front of TV cameras, made a direct call for local action.
"I call on every parent. I call on every teacher. I call on every school administrator, every law enforcement officer in this country, to join with us and help create a national schools shield safety program to protect our children with the only positive line of defense that’s tested and proven to work," he said.
In his speech, LaPierre also accused the media of selling "violence against its own people" through violent video games, music videos and "blood-soaked" films. He did not take questions from reporters, and did not acknowledge the protesters.
What do you think of NRA's stance? Do you think schools should have armed security? Share your thoughts in our comments section below.
I think the scenario you mention is reasonable. I don't think the author disagrees either. Expanding the role of the police I think would be moving in the direction of a police state. Of course the fact that public schools are government schools need not enter into the discussion of having some teachers being armed.
So, If you think this 'task force' will do anything but waste taxpayer dollars, as dems are prone to do, then I have an AK semi automatic to sell you.
You have a point, but there are few things to keep in mind. 1. Your numbers are actually very misleading. you cannot compare the numbers directly, they must be percentages. Number of Murders by firearms, Britain, 2011*: 58 (equivalent to 290 US murders) 2. Still the proportion is higher in the US. But the rates have always been higher even before government intervention in gun control. 3. It is almost impossible to compare one country with another as you will have data all over the map and for reasons that are likely just unknown at least for now. It would make more sense to compare a country with itself. The main argument I have against gun control is that a person has a fundamental right to protect himself and the State does not have the right to abridge that right. Overwhelmingly people who want gun control are believers in state control and naively believe they can engineer society by the laws. They are under the spell of Plato, Marx and Keynes without knowing anything about them.
We do need to work together; but I become annoyed when "compromise" means surrending a civil right - I cannot imagine anyone endorsing banning violent video games - also a common factor and similar in nature to the simulations used to train troops - people would be screaming about losing their freedom if someone made that suggestion. Nor can I imagine people be willing to ban violent TV shows or newspaper editorials that support rioters and even convicted murderers - yet these are cultural factors that contribute to the alienation that leads to spree killings. (The other night I discovered that between 10 different popular broadcast and cable channels, I had the "opportunity" to be exposed to at least 47 different murders, fictional and real world (in the form of documentaries.)
The world is full of unintended consequences, and we need to think solutions through. The reality is that every one of the recent spree killers was considered dangerous; but for reasons of social class, were not dealt with by the authorities. My brother, and ER nurse has noticed this. Mr. Businessman and Mr. Fraternity Brother may have made credible threats or even described a well thought out plan and is not committed while someone who is harmless but poor or minority will be held and committed. Kip Kinkel in Springfield had a long history of threatening and deadly behavior; he had even been picked up for attempting to kill motorists on the freeway by dropping heavy objects on windshields (yes, people have died or been horribly injured that way - one reason there are screens on some pedestrian walkways over freeways.) Despite repeated incidents, including possession of stolen weapons, he was given a pass because of his family's prominence.
They blew off bombs in the backyard, which were reported by neighbors. No action was taken. Then everyone was shocked and horrified when they attacked Columbine High School. I guess those stern lectures really taught them the error of their ways.
The statistic that you misquote as "much of the violence is against family members who own guns" is actually the FBI statistic that notes that most murderers and victims know each other. This means the clerk at the 7-11 who has previously served the armed robber; or rival gang members. The claim that the statistic means friends and loved ones is a result of either a deliberate lie, or a failure to read the description given in the statistical report. I guess "gun control advocates" are either liars or illiterate while they insist the NRA is composed of whackos?
What makes the British statistics even more interesting is that if robbers raid several apartments in one building, the British count it as "one" robbery. The reality is that British gangs will home invade several apartments in a building at one time. You also assume that home invaders are just after property - property that can have great emotional and financial significance - but many home invaders also enjoy brutalizing, raping, and disfiguring their victims. Perhaps you need to spend some time speaking with a criminologist.
I guess a Rolex is more valuable than a poor person's life.
Mortality All homicides •Number of deaths: 16,799 •Deaths per 100,000 population: 5.5 •Cause of death rank: 15 Firearm homicides •Number of deaths: 11,493 •Deaths per 100,000 population: 3.7 Source: Deaths: Final Data for 2009, tables 9, 10, 11 [PDF - 2.1 MB]
"multiple-victim shootings were extremely rare before the 1980s - should reveal there is more to these outbursts than the availability of guns. After all, guns have been around in the US for a very long time, but it is only over the past 30 years that mass shootings in schools have become relatively common (‘relative’ being a crucial word here). The fetishisation of the means through which school-killers carry out their acts is really a way of avoiding confronting the cultural factors that might shape such acts. The obsessive focus on the technical execution, the guns used, looks like a massive displacement activity, brought about by an unwillingness to examine the potential cultural underpinnings of the school-massacre trend. The ‘gun culture’ is the wrong culture to be talking about." http://www.spiked-online.com/site/article/13179/
If so, why is it so difficult to accept that arms are a means for any citizen to protect themselves and/or others as well? Would anti-gun advocates argue to disarm the Police too? No, so their position carries the TROJAN notion of a Police State Society. I suspect many are oblivious to this or simply refuse to believe the implications.
"[Ron Paul] said the federal government should not try to “pursue unobtainable safety” with state-sanctioned security and claimed Democratic and Republican lawmakers have “zero moral authority to legislate against violence.” “This is the world of government provided ‘security,’ a world far too many Americans now seem to accept or even endorse,” Paul said in a statement on his website. “School shootings, no matter how horrific, do not justify creating an Orwellian surveillance state in America.” He continued: “Only a totalitarian society would even claim absolute safety as a worthy ideal, because it would require total state control over its citizens’ lives. We shouldn’t settle for substituting one type of violence for another.” In his criticism of progressives calling for more gun restrictions, Paul said new laws won’t dissuade or prevent a madman with a gun from killing innocents. “Predictably, the political left responded to the tragedy with emotional calls for increased gun control,” he said. “This is understandable, but misguided. The impulse to have government ‘do something’ to protect us in the wake of national tragedies is reflexive and often well intentioned. … But this impulse ignores the self evident truth that criminals don’t obey laws.” Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2012/12/ron-paul-nra-guns-inschools-plan-85464.html#ixzz2G3KWgkx4
http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/chinese-man-drives-car-students-injuring-13-18059760
It's too late to get assault weapons off the streets. That said, it's worth noting that tens of thousands of children are murdered by people using guns. In countries that have strict gun laws like the UK, there is only a handful if that that are killed by gunfire.
1. You should think more about your first instinct. 2. Even TSA work is outsourcable. For example SFO his outsourced to private security to use TSA 'wacky rules'. 3. When the government fails they will outsource Fire departments, police and security to private companies. Why wait and waste all that money. It does not stand to reason that there should be a state monopoly in these areas much less others. 4. The for 'profit model' is what built the modern world. 'Government effort' is what characterized the old and will return us to it. 5. You say it is too late to get assault weapons off the streets. There was never a time when this was possible. 6. previous post already addressed the comparison of US and UK. 7. There are examples of countries without strict gun control where gun homicides are very low. So this does not support gun control policy and claims.
What you say may sound plausible except that SFO performance however bad is under the auspices and authority of TSA. If it is bad, it must be attributable to them. Think about what you are saying. Quality and integrity are best under government control? If you insist on this then it is a denial of economics. Please tell me if this comes from a belief in Socialism. Please explain. Would the government make a better ipad or computer, a better car, provide better mail delivery or schools? If it is admitted that the market performs and provides better the for the satisfaction of consumers, then there is really no place to claim the state can do better. You may say that you prefer the state to take on some actions, but you cannot claim that they will do it better. This becomes a full on economic question. Henry Hazlitt. Economics in One Lesson Download Free Book at http://mises.org/document/6785/Economics-in-One-Lesson Written for the non-academic, it has served as the major antidote to fallacies in the popular press ... It's still the quickest way to learn how to think like an economist. And this is why it has been used in the best classrooms more than sixty years.