The NRA is gonna bring all its knowledge, all its dedication and all its resources to develop a model national schools shield emergency response program for every single school in America that wants it. From armed security to building design and access control, to information technology, to student and teacher training, this multifaceted program will be developed by the very best experts in the field...
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. And that security is only available with properly trained, armed good guys.
December 21, 2012
"The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun."
Says Wayne LaPierre, delivering the NRA's answer to the Newtown massacre:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
247 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 247 of 247O Ritmo wrote:
I remembered this from Columbine but had to go find it to verify. There was an armed officer on duty at Columbine. He wasn't able to stop anything.
And this school had implemented new security measures and it didn't stop anything. So is the answer, in keeping with Ritmo's logic, that schools shouldn't have any safety measures in place?
We could save a hell of a lot of money not implementing ny security in any school. It would free up cash in plenty of states budgets. . Fuck the kids. If someone walks through the door and starts shooting, well then at least the school can't be accused of looking like a supermax prison.
Well, if they make the schools into prisons then the next thing you know the murders will take place on buses. So we will have to have armed guards accompanying the buses. And on the playgrounds during practices after school. And so on and so on ad infinitum until the Republicans achieve their Road Warrior vision of U.S. society with no expectations of sanctuary or non-violence anywhere.
"So is the answer, in keeping with Ritmo's logic, that schools shouldn't have any safety measures in place?"
What is the statement, having security officers prevents mass killings?
Any, fortification doesn't always work, either. Jeffrey Dahmer was bludgeoned or beaten to death by a fellow prisoner. And on and on and on.
So is the answer, in keeping with Ritmo's logic, that schools shouldn't have any safety measures in place?
So is the answer, in keeping with the logic of whoever this dipstick is, that U.S. society shouldn't have any safety measures in place?
FTFY
Inga,
"Or are we older generation more protective, too protective? [emphasis added]"
The thought that you might be representative of your generation makes my blood run cold.
HT,
The problem with your argument about DC and Virginia is that those same easily-accessed guns don't cause carnage in Northern VA, only in DC.
"What you MEAN is that in 1934, US laws started regulating access to high velocity machine guns and other auto weapons like greaseguns and machine pistols."
No.
What I mean is that in 1934, the US outlawed the weapons with the functionality of modern military "assault rifles," with a few, limited exceptions that really do not bear on the discussion at hand.
"Military style" weapons is a fuzzy, imprecise term devoid of functional meaning as it relates to current law and the problem of episodic gun massacres.
Ritmo sez:
"I am done with you."
Promise????
And please, tell me how to get on your ignore list.
In fact, what don't you just ignore all of us, all the time?
Kirk, I mostly ignore you, but you really are no better than the typical insult bot. Do you want to be representative of the very worst of Althouse? You're giving it a good try.
"The problem with your argument about DC and Virginia is that those same easily-accessed guns don't cause carnage in Northern VA, only in DC."
Only in DC? Richmond has it worse than DC.
The problem with your argument is that access to guns does not prevent gun deaths in high crime areas. Your argument says it should. The world is yours now. You own it. But gun violence rates are extremely high.
And if you think all parts of Alexandria are just nice and easy, I feel sorry for you. Some parts are pretty damn bad.
jr565 - Too many people make the argument that implementing any sort of security measure leads to the end of all freedoms. Having armed guards protecting valuables or important people is common sense so much so, that any time a person has to protect themselves, that's what they do- hire security.
But functionally, what impact does this have on anyone's lives?
When I went to the emergency room a few years ago, standing in the lobby was a security guard - with a gun. When I went to Penn Station there were people dressed in army fatigues carrying assault rifles. Though, how did it impact my life? Not at all. They were people I passed on the way to my destination.
If there is no incident requiring a guard or teacher to use his gun, then odds are you wouldn't even know they had one.
---------------
But functionally, what impact does this have on anyone's lives?
Added costs - higher taxes.
Let me explain the obvious. The country has 132,563 K-12 schools as of 2010.
If you put an average of 4 Armed Heroes in each school, that is 250,000 a year in pay plus benefits plus all attendent training and cert costs (and higher if you hire Hero Cops to sit on their asses all day doing nothing except guarding on the 1 in 10 million chance of a madman with easy access to multi-round weapons comes in.
That's 33 billion a year. Or 414 dollars extra we could tax just the gunowners for. Which would require registration of all Hero Gunowners guns, so local municipalities could tax the guns for Hero School Security.
But there is more!
Rebuilding each school to meet new Defendable Fortress specs would mean having to spend about 600,000 to 2 million per school - or another 106 billion to 265 billion plus another 50-90 billion in interest payments if spread out over a 10 year bond. Or an additional 15.5 to 35.5 billion a year the people who have guns could be taxed. Or an additional 193.75 to 443.75 in gun-owner assessed local taxes. For a total new tax burden of 414. + 193.75/443.75 per gun owner - because Freedom! does have a price.
You correctly note that all the Armed Heroes in airports, train stations, ferries, meeting in Homeland Security camps don't bother you at all. That is because from the idiot Dubya on, all those costs have been done on money borrowed from China so you haven't seen the real cost of the Armed Heroes Who Keep Us All Safe - Yet....
30 billion of their budget of 65 billion in Homeland security is kicked down to avoid travellers and cities and towns having to pay for all the security we already slapped in place after 9/11.
That shit is ending and the true cost will be becoming more and more part of new highe taxes we pay.
Boy....yet another ridiculous thread.
O Ritmo wrote:
Any, fortification doesn't always work, either. Jeffrey Dahmer was bludgeoned or beaten to death by a fellow prisoner. And on and on and on.
true, but nothing doesn't ALWAYS work. The point though is, if you are facing an armed assailant what is the best way to deal with him? what do security guards who safeguard the president use, and why?
Maybe they shouldn't carry guns but instead let the shooter pick off a bunch of them until he needs to reload then tackle the guy. Kind of the way you think we should deal with shooters in your world.
Ritmo wrote:
Well, if they make the schools into prisons then the next thing you know the murders will take place on buses. So we will have to have armed guards accompanying the buses. And on the playgrounds during practices after school. And so on and so on ad infinitum until the Republicans achieve their Road Warrior vision of U.S. society with no expectations of sanctuary or non-violence anywhere.
you seem to be acknowledging that as security gets put in place in one spot that killers will then move to targets where there isn't security so they can do their killing.
So...thanks for proving the point, dipshit.
The places that you say should be sanctuaries would,end up being the war zones with the majority of violence.
If people,start murdering people on buses with regularity, then yes, they will probably put security guards on buses. Because otherwise, people riding on buses will face getting murdered with regularity and so stop riding buses.
If people were being murdered with regularity at the beach there would be guards on the beach. People regularly drown at the beach and they hence have lifeguards on the beach to,protect people from drowning.
What is the cost of putting lifeguards on beaches? What is the cost of not putting lifeguards on the beach?
In the late great 1950s the Atlanta Police Dept had a uniformed motorcycle officer at the parent's let off kids spot by the side door at Garden Hills Elementary School.
As a Safety Patrol Boy, complete with my white John Browns belt and a shiny badge, I opened the car doors at that post while he stopped traffic for the little ones to cross. Some parents late to go to work would need stopping by his authority.
Once when my officer was late, so I did his job too and the parents got very angry about an unarmed 12 year old giving them orders.
My officer and I became great friends. He was about 22 years old. He even gave me a bullet from his belt once.
My point is that "armed uniform Police" are not scary or a threat to the children...just to the lawless adults.
Cedar ford wrote:
You correctly note that all the Armed Heroes in airports, train stations, ferries, meeting in Homeland Security camps don't bother you at all. That is because from the idiot Dubya on, all those costs have been done on money borrowed from China so you haven't seen the real cost of the Armed Heroes Who Keep Us All Safe - Yet....
30 billion of their budget of 65 billion in Homeland security is kicked down to avoid travellers and cities and towns having to pay for all the security we already slapped in place after 9/11.
and if you had no security at these places and those,wishing to attack the country decided to attack,one of those targets and was successful you'd then have people asking why no one did anything to deal,with the threat.
Saying that you should spend unlimited amounts to,deal with said threats is not realistic, but neither is completely ignoring them either.
From my link:
The teachers are there already. The school staff is there already. Their reaction time is measured in seconds, not minutes. They can serve as your immediate violent response. Best case scenario, they engage and stop the attacker, or it bursts his fantasy bubble and he commits suicide. Worst case scenario, the armed staff provides a distraction, and while he’s concentrating on killing them, he’s not killing more children.
But teachers aren’t as trained as police officers! True, yet totally irrelevant. The teacher doesn’t need to be a SWAT cop or Navy SEAL. They need to be speed bumps.
AND
Don’t make it mandatory. In my experience, the only people who are worth a darn with a gun are the ones who wish to take responsibility and carry a gun. Make it voluntary. It is rather simple. Just make it so that your state’s concealed weapons laws trump the Federal Gun Free School Zones act. All that means is that teachers who voluntarily decide to get a concealed weapons permit are capable of carrying their guns at work. Easy. Simple. Cheap. Available now.
Then they’ll say that this is impossible, and give me all sorts of terrible worst case scenarios about all of the horrors that will happen with a gun in the classroom… No problem, because this has happened before. In fact, my state laws allow for somebody with a concealed weapons permit to carry a gun in a school right now. Yes. Utah has armed teachers. We have for several years now.
It's already being done. Has it broken the bank? Are those students going to school at San Quentin? If it could be done in Utah, why not elsewhere. I bet most of the media talking about the extreme ness of putting guns in schools don't live in Utah, not are aware of the laws there. The world didn't end. And the kids there may in fact be a lot safer.
The first shot of counterfire stops the killings as the murderer must then deal with the threat to him.
Except for Charles Whitman who was a combat trained US Marine and behind cover, for the last 50 years, in every mass shooting the killings stopped at the FIRST counterfire.
Columbine is a unique exception because the officer who initially engaged the two murderers broke off the fight and retreated in accordance with then current SOP (to wait for SWAT to arrive).
How about we all take a deep breath, step back and put our money where our mouths are. Gun sells should be banned for six months,while at the same time compiling valuable empirical evidence. For all that support "gun control" place a "gun free zone" sign in front of your homes, you will be what we call "the control group". The President of the USA should appear on TV weekly to remind the nation of this experiment. Come on everyone show some commitment to the cause. We will find out if "gun free zones" are hunting preserves on the innocent.
Yeah, I've always pretty much ignored Kirk Parker also.
Remind me when he ever had anything substantive to say?
telling prospective teachers that their job will require providing armed security at a moment's notice
From the clipped portion: for every single school in America that wants it.
I don't even know who said that first thing because we're quoting each other, but I know you can read, but, Sis, is that you again? Remember what we said about redistributed middle? You're doing it again, Sis, if that' you, sounds like you, you mustn't slide the middle way over to the end and then argue with that thing position you slid over to because everybody who reads it already knows there isn't anybody who made that proposition you're arguing against. It's a ridiculous thing to say, a ridiculous thing to suggest someone is arguing for and so a ridiculous thing to argue against and super ridiculous thing to expect everyone of us here not to see right through that silly little girl tactic.
Ritmo,
I am truly honored to be on your bad list.
"What you MEAN is that in 1934, US laws started regulating access to high velocity machine guns and other auto weapons like greaseguns and machine pistols."
I think that you may have a lot of misconceptions here.
Historically, the National Firearms Act of 1934 was initially aimed primarily at Thompson machine gun and maybe to a lesser extent the Browning Automatic Rifle (preferred by Clyde). Both had been developed for the battlefields of WWI, but saw little if any action, but then, after the start of Prohibition, became the favorite of gangsters. The BAR shoots primarily the same heavy rifle bullet (.30-06) as does the M-1 Garand, but is fully automatic, rather than semi-automatic. It was the squad level light machine gun for U.S. forces up until the mid-60s.
The Thompson sub-machine gun on the other hand fires pistol ammunition, notably .45 ACP, the same ammunition used in the 1911 service automatic. Apparently, the use of pistol ammunition is a result of the design of the gun, which uses the different expansion rates of different metals to delay the rearward motion of the bolt when fired. More powerful rounds quickly jammed the gun.
The Thompson machine gun was a superb weapon of its time, and rated one of the top sub-machine guns of WWII. One of its problems though was its high cost of manufacture. By simplifying it, its cost was brought down a bit, but it was always pricey, which is why it really didn't see widespread use. Instead, the grease gun was developed as a low cost replacement, cheap enough to issue to line troops.
What the 1934 NFA did was to heavily regulate certain weapons that were primarily military, and, most notably, machine guns and machine pistols. The primary characteristic was that the heavily regulated weapons were automatic - capable of shooting more than one round per trigger squeeze, which means that it covered the Thompson machine gun, BARs, and later, grease guns, and even later all versions of the M-16 (including versions that shoot 3 round bursts) and the M-4 carbine.
Caliber has little to do with the NFA, except that guns that are above .50 are regulated unless black powder. What is important is that they are automatic fire. So, the law applies to a gun firing more than one .22 pistol round (117 ft-lbs force) per trigger pull, but not to those huge .50 BMP (12,036 ft-lbs force) sniper rifles (like those shipped to the Mexican cartels in Fast and Furious).
"Military style" weapons is a fuzzy, imprecise term devoid of functional meaning as it relates to current law and the problem of episodic gun massacres.
It is intentionally fuzzy, as is the term "assault weapon". Both are designed to obscure the fact that the actual military weapons, notably the M-16 assault rifle and M-4 carbine are, and have always been, covered by the 1934 NFA, and, thus have been heavily regulated since their creation, and banned outright in some states.
Think of it as guilt by association. AR type semiautomatic rifles look like M-16 assault rifles and M-4 carbines, and can sometimes share some parts and accessories. And, they typically (but not always) shoot the same .223 caliber bullet.
The .223 caliber M-16 effectively replaced the .30-06 caliber M-1 Garand as the standard infantry weapon for American soldiers and Marines in the 1960s. The M-1 was the first semiautomatic rifle in wide military use, and was the standard infantry weapon throughout WWII and Korea. The M-16 was initially selectively fully automatic, but of a lighter caliber, to minimize muzzle climb in fully automatic fire, and allow soldiers to carry more rounds (necessitated by the selective fully automatic fire).
What is critical here to note though is that the M-1 Garand is a semiautomatic rifle, just as is the AR-15. The two main functional differences are that the M-1 shoots a heavier, more lethal, .30-06 round than the .223 shot by the AR-15, while the AR-15 typically utilizes magazines instead of the up-to eight round clips used in the M-1.
The interesting thing though is that a military surplus M-1 Garand is not considered a military-style weapons, whereas an AR type rifle or carbine is, despite never having ever done military service. They are both semiautomatic, with the M-1 being more lethal at longer distances that the typical .223 AR type rifle, but maybe a little less lethal indoors for sustained shooting due to he smaller reload size.
(Note - I use "AR type" because "AR-15" is a registered trademark, and, thus, most AR types on the market today are not AR-15s, including the Bushmaster used in the recent school shooting).
The other thing is that the M-1 Garand was introduced into the U.S. military in 1936, and officially replaced by the selective fire .30-06 M-14 in 1957. It was so ubiquitous because of the huge stores of military surplus from WWII. While the AR type rifles were initially developed in the 1950s, and the selective fire M-16 version adopted in the 1960s, they have continued to evolve, and are today far more sophisticated than the M-1 ever was. They are completely modular, can be easily customized, and are constructed of modern materials, which is why they constitute almost half the rifles privately purchased these days by Americans.
So, what anyone talking about banning "military style" weapons is really talking about is limiting American civilians to 1930s era gun technology.
Rereading what I just posted, I thought a couple of clarifications were in order.
First, and foremost, the AR type semiautomatic rifles are typically, but not necessarily, .223 caliber. Some early (pre-M-16) versions were of a heavier caliber, and heavier calibers are becoming more prevalent, and with the high modularization of the weapon, caliber can be easily changed, as can pretty much everything else, including barrel length, stock, etc.
The M-14 that officially replaced the M-1 Garand in 1957 was a select fire (i.e. selectively either semiautomatic or fully automatic) version of the M-1. Several problems kept it from being fully accepted by the military, including apparently that muzzle climb with the .30-06 military round in fully automatic fire was excessive, making it hard to hit what was being shot at. That problem was one of the things addressed by the move from .30-06 to .223 ammunition for the standard American infantry weapon - the M-16 could be shot much more accurately in fully automatic mode than could the M-14 by most troops (much more highly trained SEALs, Special Forces, etc., continued to use M-14s long after the weapon was officially replaced by M-16s and M-4s).
And to continue to beat the dead horse I've whacked for a few days now
So Crimso refers to his penis as "the dead horse." Good to know.
Jay certainly is a shrill, self-loating, tantrum-prone child.
A sample of Megan McArdle's idiocy:
I’d also like us to encourage people to gang rush shooters, rather than following their instincts to hide; if we drilled it into young people that the correct thing to do is for everyone to instantly run at the guy with the gun, these sorts of mass shootings would be less deadly, because even a guy with a very powerful weapon can be brought down by 8-12 unarmed bodies piling on him at once.
Link
I see Pericles is back. Learn any science lately? It's really weird that you think that it's "good to know" what I call my dick.
Now, go get your shinebox (as I forced Ritmo to do earlier, after which you suspiciously make an appearance) or explain to me in your Periclean rhetoric why repealing the 21st Amendment (the one that repealed the Amendment banning my dick, if it helps your "thought" processes) is not a more immediate solution to preventable deaths in this country than any changes in existing firearms laws.
Jake diamond wrote:
I’d also like us to encourage people to gang rush shooters, rather than following their instincts to hide; if we drilled it into young people that the correct thing to do is for everyone to instantly run at the guy with the gun, these sorts of mass shootings would be less deadly, because even a guy with a very powerful weapon can be brought down by 8-12 unarmed bodies piling on him at once.
it may be idiocy, but really, isn't that really the only option for people in schools now? That's what the principal tried to do. It's what O Ritmo said happened with Jared Loughtner, after he paused to reload.
granted, the first course of actuon should be to run. but a lot of the teachers couldn't flee so instead locked themselves in a room.
Now Lanza only concentrated on two rooms, but what if he got to that third locked room. Wouldn't the only option be to charge him and hope he didn't get shots off? or throw things at his face , or use something from the room as a weapon? they'd have to fight back or be sitting ducks.
So, if you are saying no armed security to do that job, then why not? they are going to potentially die otherwise.
Somebody has to defend them. It's pitiful, but that is the option you are leaving for them. Since there is no one with a gun acting as the speed bump till the cops arrive, the teachers and kids would have to.
Why not prepare them then?
HT said...
But gun violence rates are extremely high.
You're a fucking idiot.
Bruce Hayden...excellent summary post on military weapons types.
A couple minor details to fix...IIRC the M-14, as issued to line troops, was never .30-06 Springfield caliber....as adopted it was 7.62x51 NATO caliber...aka .308 Winchester with FMJ bullet.
Also, the M14 as generally issued to line troops were converted from select fire back to semi-auto only version, or built that way originally. The M-14 was unmanageable in full automatic mode, even with a bi-pod....and never fulfilled the original idea of replacing the BAR as a squad automatic weapon.
The M-14 was the first rifle I was issued in the Army and was still in service when I deployed. I'd enlisted in 1968 so it turned out that I qualified with the M-14 in Basic and the M-16 in AIT. I first deployed with the M-14 and subsequently was issued the slect fire (full auto)M-16 OCONUS.
Very different weapons for very different jobs in my opinion. It is noteworthy that the M-14 is still produced and issued today as the M-14EBR and again in select fire (full auto) versions of various formats. Somebody noticed, I presume, that there were no jungles in Afghanistan. :-))
I've watched the subplot with some measure of curiosity. Chip Ahoy still hasn't recovered coherence since the election.
It's really weird that you think that it's "good to know" what I call my dick.
Ah, I see you don't pick up on obvious sarcasm. I'll add it to the long list of examples that demonstrate your dumbfuckery.
Ritmo's adventure's into the absurd are amusing, but he touches on one point that should be considered. A visible armed guard is not always going to be successful. Better than nothing, of course, but aside from the cost, how effective is the typical school guard going to be after years of waiting for something that will probably never happen. There's a reason why those bank guards are often retired cops.
Those of you who have been in the Service might remember that standing guard is usually the most boring, least desirable duty one can be given. Anyone who volunteers for it, day after day, year after year, probably isn't the one you'd like to see doing it.
I much prefer the idea of a volunteer administrator or teach (preferably two or three), with sufficient training (and maybe a small bonus), to keep guns secured near their workplaces. Such as in a locked gun box. As a pilot, I carried a concealed weapon for years - or kept it in the gun box - and it didn't distract from my primary job at all. Far more cost effective, just as secure, and avoids Ritmo's armed camp nightmare.
Bruce, I carried the M-1 for three years and I think you forgot to mention that in close quarters, it makes a dandy club - much better than the M-4 with all those gadgets attached. It's also more handy with a bayonet. On the downside, reloading quickly puts the user in danger of getting "M-1 thumb" and after eight shots, the clip ejects with a "ping" that tells anyone within fifty yards that you are out.
I see the short bus stopped by again.
Bruce,
"The interesting thing though is that a military surplus M-1 Garand is not considered a military-style weapon..."
Should we tell them that you can actually order a working M-1 from the CMP and they will mail it to your door, no FFL involved? OH NOES!!!! ANOTHER LOOPHOLE!!!!!11!
Nah, let's not; why upset anybody?
Aridog said...
Aren't some Marine or maybe it's Army units being issued the AR10?
I noticed that once again Ritmo spent the entire 300+ conversation tearing apart what other people said without ever once proposing an alternative.
Inga lets you know what she thinks ought to happen. Cedarford does as well. All the other "don't turn our schools into prisons" people at least expressed their own opinions so that it was possible to know what their opinions were. But no one knows what Ritmo's opinions are about this or anything related to it because Ritmo never once said what Ritmo would like to see done.
I think this is what is called not arguing in good faith.
And I wonder if Jake bothered to read that article at all. Portraying this as McCardle making this suggestion is a statement that either a person didn't read the article at all, or is lying on purpose.
By all means... everyone go read the article. Everyone should. Because then you'll see how much the left lies.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/12/17/there-s-little-we-can-do-to-prevent-another-massacre.html
Rusty ...
You're right, the Original Stoner AR-10 was reconfigured to the SR-25 and then through many changes via the Mark-11 versions to the current M-110 by Knight's Armaments. IIRC the USMC and USN acquired the M-110 for issue to appropriate units, and the US Army for semi-automatic NATO sniper rifles.
That was all back in late 2007 and early 2008, and changes these days happen too fast to keep up with if you are not directly involved. I'm not sure how the M-110 fits in with the M-14 EBR applications.
I certainly have a long list of "dumbfuckery" to my credit, but you can't possibly have access to it. Wait, is that you Mom?!?!
Now answer the fucking question I asked or go get your shinebox.
Kirk Parker said...
Should we tell them that you can actually order a working M-1 from the CMP and they will mail it to your door, no FFL involved? OH NOES!!!! ANOTHER LOOPHOLE!!!!!11!
Hands down....teh Thread Winner!
Post a Comment