Posted on 12/21/2012 9:27:58 AM PST by Red Steel
National Rifle Association CEO Wayne LaPierre on Friday dismissed calls for increased gun control in response to the Connecticut school shooting, calling instead for Congress to support a plan putting armed police officers in "every single school" in America.
In an impassioned speech, marking the NRA's first in-depth public comments since the Newtown tragedy, LaPierre pointed the finger not at gun proliferation but violent video games, the media and the absence of armed guards at schools.
He argued that if banks and members of Congress can have protection, schools across America should be afforded the same security.
"It's now time for us to assume responsibly for our schools," he said. "The only way to stop a monster from killing our kids is to be permanently involved and invested in a plan of absolute protection."
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
Well, I don’t know how to respond to anyone who so blithely throws around insults like “loudmouth” and “fool”.
Check my other posts and replies by and to “cripplecreek” on this same thread to get your other “questions” answered.
Especially the ones about double-dipping unions/police orgs, etc. This IS and should be also a local matter-—yes, the overarching danger is that, in the guise of “doing something”
about this , the Feds will try to take it over, and indeed make it something that can’t be touched or challenged even as it eats up more taxpayer money, and proves itself to be feckless and ineffective every step along the way as a “top-down” solution, all the while further solidifying the mystique of the necessity of public-sector unions.
In conjuring up the scenario of the unarmed principal risking his life to take down the perp you suggest that that is proof of your thesis—but that is what happened spontaneously in the context of NO security at the Ct. school-—it shouldn’t be necessary to put this burden on school staffs, whether they’re teachers, custodians, or administrators-—it’s not what they’re there for. As I think I pointed out, but you ignored, the list of problems with that is endless: do teachers walk around with holstered guns, or just keep them hidden somewhere in the classroom
(where they’ll undeniably get found by anyone with the will to created mayhem, or maybe what they think of a little “mischief”? ) Lethal weapons belong only in the hands of those trained to use them, but if teachers want to volunteer to be another line of defense against some further school massacre, more power to them—it’s not up to me to discourage that, or have anything to say about it. I just think it’ll be a big uphill battle
with their unions, school boards, or whoever makes policy for them/
I like the way you think!
It is insulting enough to have a demonstrably failed idea touted as a solution while being told that natural law-self defense as exemplified in the Second Amendment the WORST possible idea.
You still have not replied to said, "demonstrably failed" example in Columbine, where the very system you advocate failed completely.
As to your fear of the "Feds" you still miss the true danger: That the UN will mandate the implementation of police powers with which to hold the nation's children as collective property while denying access to their parents. Hence, a police officer on campus is, legally, a very bad idea, especially compared to any school representative or personnel deputized by a county sheriff. If you don't understand that distinction, I suggest some remedial education before posting.
In conjuring up the scenario of the unarmed principal risking his life to take down the perp you suggest that that is proof of your thesis
Apparently you are unfamiliar with the facts of the incident at Sandy Hook. That was a real world example, because is was exactly what the principal at Sandy Hook did. A woman too. Yet you didn't even recognize the example. See? That's how clueless you are.
—it shouldn’t be necessary to put this burden on school staffs, whether they’re teachers, custodians, or administrators-
It "shouldn't be necessary" to have to plan to defend the school at all. Unfortunately, that is reality. Try dealing in reality.
Teachers are every bit as deserving of the right to self-defense as anyone else. Are you suggesting that we deny them that Second Amendment unalienable right? On what grounds? Good grief, look at how many teachers are in schools full of gang bangers. The kids are the most likely threat they face!
—it’s not what they’re there for.
Good. Then they can quit and we'd all be better off after hiring their non-union replacements with combat experience. Frankly, given that veterans understand the stakes in life far better than most teachers, I'd bet they'd make better teachers to boot.
Lethal weapons belong only in the hands of those trained to use them,
Like police? Like military? How trained should they be oh wise advocate for a police state? Yes, I'll bet you'll be right there deciding who has trained sufficiently to be entrusted with the means to defend their own life. I'll bet you think you believe in liberty and unalienable rights too. Now at least you know why you deserved insults. Oh, and try learning how to format a readable post for once.
LaPierre knows how to tell the left to shove it. He knocks them down like clay pigeons at the range. One of these days, I’d like to see him whip out a gun and start making reporters dance.
‘The NRA sent me a letter asking me to join. I think I now will.’
____________________________________________________
I agree; I’m contacting their website now. More than ever, they need our support.
The point is, this is an extremely rare event and rare events are almost impossible to prepare for in any reliable way.I believe this whole debate is wrongheaded because it is driven by emotional demogoguery on both sides, and most especially by scurrilous politicians pursuing their own agendas, which have nothing to do with child safety
Expense. I'm sure you gasp and say "how can you spare any expense to protect out children?" Assets are finite and must be allocated among a number of things that call for infinite expense to assuage consciences and make people feel good.Loading it all to one end that can be much more cheaply provided by more sure and non statist methods. It is called concealed carry. It only requires that the potential murderer maniac know that he does not know hoe many or, most importantly, which adults on the premises are armed. Perhaps none are but so long as the possibility exists the maniac will not do his thing at that place.
If people are not willing to foot the expense of protecting their children with adequate measure, then I’m not going to bother feeling sorry for them when they lose them.
Concealed carry is fine, but it does not go far enough.
I’m not willing to assume that a mass murderer of children is going to rationalize that since he doesn’t know who may or may not have a gun that he best not go, I want to know that when that shooter shows up to do the deed, he will be ****ing dead.
I am not nervous about concealed and carry at all. I want that, but it is not enough.
I want system that would have some chance against a Beslan style assault, we need to prepare for that in the eventuality that it does occur here.
I want a minimum of four tactically armed men who mean business in every school. They do not have to be law enforcement, but they do need to be trained men, preferably LEO or former LEO, former soldiers or contractors. They can also be trained private citizens who wish to offer such services and feel that they are man enough to do so.
I want more than women with guns.
Supporting these minimum of four men, I want plain clothes security system operators backing them up with CC as well as electronic security systems.
I want the architecture and design of schools to change. Fences all the way around and guarded, one entrance only, metal detectors there, hall cameras, fortified classrooms and classroom doors.
I mean business, arthurus, I want these children defended. I want parents to take this seriously. I want them to put their money where their mouth is in terms of school security for their children, and I want schools to charge the money for these systems in their tuition.
If schools refuse to do this or government schools cannot provide such, then don’t send kids there or know that you are risking your kids by sending them to undefended schools.
Citizens don’t need to be police to be effective. Armed citizens defend themselves and third parties every day. A teacher or adminstrator who is competent enough to carry a concealed weapon can defend himself. Others may benefit.
One fights with the weapons he has. I would prefer a firearm. At the ranges within a school room (5 to 15 yards) a handgun is adequate against an AR. The longer sight radius of a rifle gives it an advantage both in aiming precision and energy at range, advantages which are negated in the confines of a classroom. Further, most states restrict handgun ownership to those at least 18 yoa. The pepper spray and knife are available to those so restricted by law from more effective weaponry. Some pepper sprays such as Cold Steel’s Inferno (a targetable foam) can be effective at 5 yards (15 feet). It may be enough to disable the shooter. Even misting pepper sprays can be used as an area denial agent. These tools give defenders options.
However, all of these are unavailable unless one is willing to break the law. Schools are a shining example of the toxic fruit of civilian disarmament, otherwise known as gun control. The state solution is a security officer in every school, when funding permits. A readily available solution which will not cost the state one penny nor need a heavy handed bureaucracy to adminstrate it, is the armed citizen. It’s available tomorrow, if the law would allow it.
Finally your insulting comments are uncalled for. Do you have any defensive firearm training? I have 20 years of private firearms training— defensive handgun, social shotgun, tactical carbine, precision rifle, street survival, tactics and techniques. I’ve trained with both military and police and know what the more conscientious members are capable of (those who endeavor to go above and beyond what the rank and file are satisfied with). I know that mere citizens are equally capable.
You have no skin in the game—you have no children. Your “efforting to defend and protect the treasure of others” is presumptuous and ill-informed.
Or may not.
One fights with the weapons he has. I would prefer a firearm. At the ranges within a school room (5 to 15 yards) a handgun is adequate against an AR. The longer sight radius of a rifle gives it an advantage both in aiming precision and energy at range, advantages which are negated in the confines of a classroom.
A man armed with an AR patrolling the halls could take out the shooter well before he reached the confines of the classroom, now couldn't he? If the doors and walls of the classrooms were fortified and locked, and the halls patrolled with men armed with rifles, well now...
Some pepper sprays such as Cold Steel’s Inferno (a targetable foam) can be effective at 5 yards (15 feet). It may be enough to disable the shooter. Even misting pepper sprays can be used as an area denial agent. These tools give defenders options.
Sounds to me like you are willing to risk your treasure and the treasure of others for can and may, but I'm not.
A readily available solution which will not cost the state one penny nor need a heavy handed bureaucracy to adminstrate it, is the armed citizen. It’s available tomorrow, if the law would allow it.
Great! I'm all for it, but it's not enough, and I'm not worried about states or their pennies. Security can be provided by the private sector, the schools and those who pay tuition. As far as government schools go...parents are going to need to determine what's imortant...free brainwashing or safe children.
We already know what's important to government, and that's dead children.
Finally your insulting comments are uncalled for. Do you have any defensive firearm training? I have 20 years of private firearms training— defensive handgun, social shotgun, tactical carbine, precision rifle, street survival, tactics and techniques. I’ve trained with both military and police and know what the more conscientious members are capable of (those who endeavor to go above and beyond what the rank and file are satisfied with). I know that mere citizens are equally capable.
You really don't seem that knowledgeable to me. I mean, no offense, Mr. Expert, but why allow the shooter to reach the confines of the classroom when you could have taken him out long before he ever got there? If your only defense are at the treasure itself, then the infiltrator must actually arrive at the treasure before he encounters any defense, and that would be a last line of defense by definition, now wouldn't it?
Furthermore, my insulting comments are absolutely called for, because your solutions are half assed.
You have no skin in the game—you have no children. Your “efforting to defend and protect the treasure of others” is presumptuous and ill-informed.
That's right, I don't, so what? It seems to me that I'm prepared to defend what I don't have better than you are prepared to defend what you do have. But hey, knock yourself out, big dog. You've got all the training and knowledge, so go guard them. Why are you wasting your time talking to me?
You cannot protect every school against Beslan. You can, however, detect and interdict Beslan which apparently works pretty well and is a lot less asset intensive. The FBI is pretty good at that so far
because it has to involve multiple people and planning. A number of planned attacks of one sort or another have been stopped. Do you want to protect against Alien invasions, too? Would you redirect the whole resources of the state to protecting the schools? The best answer is the one no one considers at all and the one that is best for many reasons. Get your kids the hell out of the public school propaganda orgs and day prisons. Anyone who cares for his children and their future who has them in public school is suffering from a gross disconnect in awareness. Public school is mental child abuse.
So to combat a police state we should create a better police state?
Can we now have McDonalds put kiosks in cafeterias to combat childhood obesity?
Do you have any experience? Or training? Or is it limited to video games?
You really don't seem that knowledgeable to me. I mean, no offense, Mr. Expert, but why allow the shooter to reach the confines of the classroom when you could have taken him out long before he ever got there? If your only defense are at the treasure itself, then the infiltrator must actually arrive at the treasure before he encounters any defense, and that would be a last line of defense by definition, now wouldn't it?
I don't make the faulty assumption that a security officer will be anywhere near the shooter or even be able to engage him when he first enters the school/facility. A number of recent after-action assessments reveal this. There are some notable exceptions where private individuals who are in proximity respond and reduce the killing.
The irony of this last case is that Ft. Hood policy is to disarm the enlisted, making this army base a gun free zone, perfect for a terrorist like Hasan. Armed security was able to stop him, but only after many were killed. Had Ft. Had Hood personnel NOT been disarmed, Hasan would have met return fire much earlier. It might (yes MIGHT) have discouraged him from even undertaking this mayhem. I am pushing for NOT disarming the ENLISTED, that includes teachers, administraters, anyone who will be the FIRST RESPONDERS. They have a strategic advantage due to their numbers and their proximity to the intended targets.
Of course I use language such as may and might because there are no certainties in these scenarios, only likelihoods. But we can learn from trends. Here's one analysis of trends which has a significant bearing on this discussion. The only public policy which has impacted mass public shootings favorably is liberalized concealed carry: Multiple Victim Public Shootings, Bombings, and Right-to-Carry Concealed Handgun Laws.
In the classroom I have yet to encounter the disrespect and proud ignorance I find on the forums. The apparent anonymity seems to afford some the luxury of insult. (The term "half ass" is extremely insulting. I cut you some slack, because your word choice suggests you may not be a native English speaker). I have given you several opportunities to flash your credentials and aire your knowledgeable background and experience. You have opinions. But you clearly have not adequately analyzed the various scenarios. Nor do you have any training (you haven't volunteered this knowledge) in hostage rescue, street survival, multiple target engagement, close quarter combat or any scenario that might begin to forge some understanding of the complex process known as combat.
I encourage you to read the Lott/Landis paper. If you do not own a firearm, I would encourage to get one and take defensive handgun training. (As one of my training partners would say "You don't know what you don't know.").
No.
I want to protect against active shooters inside schools.
It’s pretty simple.
But it looks like people would rather have their money instead, so, see you the next time this happens, because nothing is going to be done.
I’m just a noob from the streets of New Orleans.
I know you’ve never heard of the Half Fast Marching Club, but hey we say things a little different down here and that makes us stupid.
I’ve had no experience at all of trying to stay alive.
I don’t own any guns, or knives, or bows, or crossbows or batons, or spray or tasers or anything of the sort. I’ve never studied martial arts. I don’t even have hands.
You are the master of security. That’s obvious, I mean the way you want your only line of defense to be at the targets themselves is sheer genius.
Incidentally, I never said I don’t want school personnel to be armed. What I’ve said is that it’s not enough. Let’s hope Beslan never occurs here, I mean assuming that it won’t is better than preparing for it, right?
Anyway, you may want to implement some of your inadequate defenses at your local soft target, because the fact of the matter is nothing is going to be done, and this will happen again.
It’s plainly obvious to me that people do not want to protect their children, so they will remain unprotected. That reality renders this conversation moot and about as useless as your half assed measures.
So here’s to hoping that the wolves never arrive at the sheep, because as well all know hope is for the weak, and that describes what this country has become perfectly.
Have a nice day.
CCW would protect against active shooters in schools better than armed guards. You know that. You also know that most jurisdictions cannot afford multiple armed guards. You are like the liberals who think they can wish a perfect world into existence and that unlimited money can make it so. That is confusing money with assets, with value. Learn some economics.
Did I say that the state or the government should pay for it?
No, it should be paid for by the parents in the form of tuition.
In terms of public schools, parents can either decide that their children’s safety trumps a free school and send them private, or they can chance it. If state and federal officials decide that protecting children in schools is more important than wasting money on God knows what else then they can decide that, but they won’t, because they need dead children.
I know economics. I also know that Americans are too lazy, too dumb, too self centered, too arrogant, too entitled to protect what they say is important to them, so they are not going to.
It boils down to what is important to people, and apparently the safety of their children does not rank very high, so see you at the next massacre I suppose.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.