NRA Publicity Fiasco

[Francoitalianarmy]

Originally Posted by Wouldhe

As I sit and try to imagine what the U.S. would be like if we did ban all guns a few thoughts come to mind. I have read all of these posts and all have valid opinions. I don't disagree with Plad's take on it. It's interesting to hear an opinion from someone in another country and how they view the U.S. Assualt rifles are probably unecessary as well as extended magazines. As far as Franco's take on conservation, conservation has worked very successfully not just in the U.S. but various places aroud the world. It's documented that a lot more animals would die from starvation and overpopulation if not controlled. There might be a little machoism involved but a neglible amount.

It would be an interesting study to pin point the reasons why the U.S. has the gun violence as compared to other country's where guns aren't allowed. Perhaps true freedom isn't a good thing.

Two things come to come to my imagination. 1. I am afraid if the populace was disarmed it would open the floodgates to the government going wild. The gun ownership keeps the government in a check and balance scenario. 2. Unable to explain why he we have so many people in the U.S. hell-bent on invading our homes, car-jacking us, robbing us, etc., I have no doubt that these crimes will increase dramatically. Those committing the crimes will have guns and the rest of us will be unable to defend ourselves. 3. No other nation on the planet has more people trying to kill us at home or abroad than the U.S. To rely on the military completely is foolish. An armed populace keeps the foreign invaders away. Imagine a General of an invading army making plans to drop soldiers on all of our beaches. What do you think his biggest concern is? He can make plans to confront the military but he can't make plans to confront an armed populace.

I agree gun violence is out of hand but what is more out of hand is the nut cases willing to use a gun. I suppose one could grab a chain saw and go running into a crowded area and start slicing people up but once agin, it's not the chainsaw it's the person using the chain saw. I would much rather see some protective measures established at all schools and an all out effort to identify those people prone to committing theses acts. In 99% of the cases of people who have done this, warning signs were evident. We need to pay attention to the warning signs.

My solution: Put fences up around all the schools with controlled entrances and either an armed guard and/or all students have a pass card like most of use at work to gain entrance. With this in place, each classroom have a gun locked in a safe with a trigger guard installed and the teacher is the only one with the combination. The teachers would go through intensive gun training designed to place the teacher under actual high stress scenarios designed to open a locked safe while under this pressure and know when and how to shoot.

Since banning all guns will not work and won't happen we have to find other solutions. I don't disagree with a ban but it just isn't going to happen and banning extended magazines and assault rifles will have no impact on the problem. Nut cases will still rear their ugly heads and still kill people with guns - just not as many at one time. He could have pockets filled with 7 round mags and accomplish the same thing.

The world according to Wouldhe.

I share some of the same concerns, although I would find it hard to believe the military would ever be deployed against the people here, but with all the ex-military and sheer number of guns in circulation, that is one heck of a deterrent! Other countries would NEVER try it as the US military is the only military to logistically fight and support a war anywhere on the planet.

Conservation is a fact... there are no predators or not enough natural predation to control our animal population... humans MUST intervine.

Fences are a bit much, but secure access points with metal detectors OUTSIDE could go a long way and will be deployed in many schools... IMO. They are not costly and with the person on the outside, access of unauthorized individuals can easily be regulated.

You will find MANY social clubs and organizations will certainly help volunteer both inside and outside. They do not need guns, but 2 person patrols on 2 hours shifts is very reasonable... just to report any suspisious activity. That is one proposal we are woking on and we have so many wanting to volunteer, it is very easy to maintain. We have 2 local HS and 4-5 elementary schools.

The volunteers not only are another set of eyes, but would foster a sense of security for the kids. Of course anyone volunteering, would be vetted properly.

The Wolves, Eagles, SOI, Polish, German and Hungarian clubs are also volunteering. It is a great response from the community.

This plan does not extend to shopping centers, old folks homes, theaters or even hospitals as they are privately run and should secure their own funds to provide security.

[bpjimmy]

Originally Posted by Wouldhe

As I sit and try to imagine what the U.S. would be like if we did ban all guns a few thoughts come to mind. I have read all of these posts and all have valid opinions. I don't disagree with Plad's take on it. It's interesting to hear an opinion from someone in another country and how they view the U.S. Assualt rifles are probably unecessary as well as extended magazines. As far as Franco's take on conservation, conservation has worked very successfully not just in the U.S. but various places aroud the world. It's documented that a lot more animals would die from starvation and overpopulation if not controlled. There might be a little machoism involved but a neglible amount.

It would be an interesting study to pin point the reasons why the U.S. has the gun violence as compared to other country's where guns aren't allowed. Perhaps true freedom isn't a good thing.

Two things come to come to my imagination. 1. I am afraid if the populace was disarmed it would open the floodgates to the government going wild. The gun ownership keeps the government in a check and balance scenario. 2. Unable to explain why he we have so many people in the U.S. hell-bent on invading our homes, car-jacking us, robbing us, etc., I have no doubt that these crimes will increase dramatically. Those committing the crimes will have guns and the rest of us will be unable to defend ourselves. 3. No other nation on the planet has more people trying to kill us at home or abroad than the U.S. To rely on the military completely is foolish. An armed populace keeps the foreign invaders away. Imagine a General of an invading army making plans to drop soldiers on all of our beaches. What do you think his biggest concern is? He can make plans to confront the military but he can't make plans to confront an armed populace.

I agree gun violence is out of hand but what is more out of hand is the nut cases willing to use a gun. I suppose one could grab a chain saw and go running into a crowded area and start slicing people up but once agin, it's not the chainsaw it's the person using the chain saw. I would much rather see some protective measures established at all schools and an all out effort to identify those people prone to committing theses acts. In 99% of the cases of people who have done this, warning signs were evident. We need to pay attention to the warning signs.

My solution: Put fences up around all the schools with controlled entrances and either an armed guard and/or all students have a pass card like most of use at work to gain entrance. With this in place, each classroom have a gun locked in a safe with a trigger guard installed and the teacher is the only one with the combination. The teachers would go through intensive gun training designed to place the teacher under actual high stress scenarios designed to open a locked safe while under this pressure and know when and how to shoot.

Since banning all guns will not work and won't happen we have to find other solutions. I don't disagree with a ban but it just isn't going to happen and banning extended magazines and assault rifles will have no impact on the problem. Nut cases will still rear their ugly heads and still kill people with guns - just not as many at one time. He could have pockets filled with 7 round mags and accomplish the same thing.

The world according to Wouldhe.

Good post neighbor. One of the problems with these discussions is the tangents some people take. First they talk about Sandy Hook style shootings then overall crime rates. They are different problems.

The reality is FIRST one needs to define what problem is being addressed. Is it just school shootings? Is it nutjob only shootings? Is it overall rate of murder? All have different possible solutions. And a solution recommended for one may have an adverse reaction on the other.

It is frustrating to read the emotional response from some people who think the issue is a certain type of gun and banning that will make a big difference. And when it doesn't (such as 1994 AW ban which accomplished nothing) they want to ban more weapons. Never mind the failure.

The reality is the ONLY solution that will have meat on it to stop the mass shootings from the nutjobs is a total ban on firearms. If we passed such a law and let some Gestapo like group collect them all (well, the ones from law abiding citizens anyway) then the nuts won't have access to them and the spree shootings will disappear. It WOULD work.

Of course, one must be sprinkled with fairy dust to think that congress would OK revoking the 2nd A and that kind of ban and Gestapo collection tactic is going to happen in the USA in our lifetimes. Of course for some people reality doesn't enter into it.

[Wouldhe]

Originally Posted by bpjimmy

Good post neighbor. One of the problems with these discussions is the tangents some people take. First they talk about Sandy Hook style shootings then overall crime rates. They are different problems.

The reality is FIRST one needs to define what problem is being addressed. Is it just school shootings? Is it nutjob only shootings? Is it overall rate of murder? All have different possible solutions. And a solution recommended for one may have an adverse reaction on the other.

It is frustrating to read the emotional response from some people who think the issue is a certain type of gun and banning that will make a big difference. And when it doesn't (such as 1994 AW ban which accomplished nothing) they want to ban more weapons. Never mind the failure.

The reality is the ONLY solution that will have meat on it to stop the mass shootings from the nutjobs is a total ban on firearms. If we passed such a law and let some Gestapo like group collect them all (well, the ones from law abiding citizens anyway) then the nuts won't have access to them and the spree shootings will disappear. It WOULD work.

Of course, one must be sprinkled with fairy dust to think that congress would OK revoking the 2nd A and that kind of ban and Gestapo collection tactic is going to happen in the USA in our lifetimes. Of course for some people reality doesn't enter into it.

Of course banning would work but it's not going to happen so we need to take this discussion off the table - next.

[Wouldhe]

Originally Posted by Francoitalianarmy

I share some of the same concerns, although I would find it hard to believe the military would ever be deployed against the people here, but with all the ex-military and sheer number of guns in circulation, that is one heck of a deterrent! Other countries would NEVER try it as the US military is the only military to logistically fight and support a war anywhere on the planet.

Conservation is a fact... there are no predators or not enough natural predation to control our animal population... humans MUST intervine.

Fences are a bit much, but secure access points with metal detectors OUTSIDE could go a long way and will be deployed in many schools... IMO. They are not costly and with the person on the outside, access of unauthorized individuals can easily be regulated.

You will find MANY social clubs and organizations will certainly help volunteer both inside and outside. They do not need guns, but 2 person patrols on 2 hours shifts is very reasonable... just to report any suspisious activity. That is one proposal we are woking on and we have so many wanting to volunteer, it is very easy to maintain. We have 2 local HS and 4-5 elementary schools.

The volunteers not only are another set of eyes, but would foster a sense of security for the kids. Of course anyone volunteering, would be vetted properly.

The Wolves, Eagles, SOI, Polish, German and Hungarian clubs are also volunteering. It is a great response from the community.

This plan does not extend to shopping centers, old folks homes, theaters or even hospitals as they are privately run and should secure their own funds to provide security.

Franco, if you look at the last two or three shooting incidents, in particular the shooting in Tucson where Gifford was shot and the school, in retrospect, had the area where Gifford was to speak had a fence up and a controlled entry point this would not have happened. If the school had a fence and a controlled entry point the shooting may not have happened. We have to keep the nut cases from having access. How do you do this? By controlling access. What about a nut case who can't get a gun but manages to sneal some kind of txic bomb in his pocket or underneath their clothing. Ametal detector may not pick that up. Again, a controlled entry point with a guard or some means of keeping unauthorized people from having access is the answer.

[dumbass]

Originally Posted by Wouldhe

Franco, if you look at the last two or three shooting incidents, in particular the shooting in Tucson where Gifford was shot and the school, in retrospect, had the area where Gifford was to speak had a fence up and a controlled entry point this would not have happened. If the school had a fence and a controlled entry point the shooting may not have happened. We have to keep the nut cases from having access. How do you do this? By controlling access. What about a nut case who can't get a gun but manages to sneal some kind of txic bomb in his pocket or underneath their clothing. Ametal detector may not pick that up. Again, a controlled entry point with a guard or some means of keeping unauthorized people from having access is the answer.

What about the nut case woman that pushed a man in front of a train in the sub-way in NY. No gun, no bomb, no knife, not even a baseball bat. Just an unarmed nut case. The man is still dead

Wouldn't restrictive access have defeated the very purpose for Gabby Gifford day where she wanted to meet face to face with her people. How far can we take this without becoming completely paranoid?

We can never be completely safe.

[pladecalvo]

Originally Posted by Wouldhe

It's interesting to hear an opinion from someone in another country and how they view the U.S.

I'm afraid to have to say old pal that Americans are not seen in a good light in the majority of European countries.....and please, let's not go harping back to the 1940's.

It would be an interesting study to pin point the reasons why the U.S. has the gun violence as compared to other country's where guns aren't allowed.

Sheesh bro! I've told you enough times mate. Take your pick....

1. Too many guns are available.
2. America is full of fecking psychopaths!

Perhaps true freedom isn't a good thing.

You don't REALLY think you are 'free' do you Woodster???

Two things come to come to my imagination. 1. I am afraid if the populace was disarmed it would open the floodgates to the government going wild.

It hasn't happened in any other 'civilised' country where guns are banned. That you have this 'fear' of your government is very telling.

The gun ownership keeps the government in a check and balance scenario.

Hardly mate. Do you really think, even in your wildest dreams, that the citizenry of any country, no matter how many of them had guns, could stop a government that had control of the army from suppressing them?? C'mon man...get real.

2. Unable to explain why he we have so many people in the U.S. hell-bent on invading our homes, car-jacking us, robbing us, etc.,

See #2 above.

Those committing the crimes will have guns and the rest of us will be unable to defend ourselves.

That has not been the evidence from other countries. Look bro! Take it from someone that has spent the whole of his working life travelling around the world and seen the scenarios in different countries. Here in Spain for example, there are no guns allowed, yet people are not cowering inside their homes behind locked doors afraid to go out due to gangs of marauding villains wandering the streets brandishing guns. It doesn't happen mate, not here, not in Britain, nor France, Italy, Belgium, Holland....not anywhere! Go to any European city, town, or village and you will see people sat out in the bars and cafes, families with their children...enjoying life....not cowering in a corner afraid for their life.

Now if you are convinced that the banning of guns in the USA is going to result in murder and mayhem in the streets. If you are convinced that law abiding Americans are going to prisoners behind bars in their own homes, terrified to venture outdoors for fear of being shot down by criminals but we don't have that here or anywhere else where guns are banned, then we can come to only one logical and reasonable conclusion pal and that is that the problem is with the American people themselves. Too many guns and too many wannabe macho cowboys/soldiers.

....but wait!!! There ain't anywhere where 'macho rules' more than in the Mediterranean male....and they aren't shooting each other over the garden fence. Hmmmm...that proves it then. America IS full of friggin' psychos!!!!

No other nation on the planet has more people trying to kill us at home or abroad than the U.S.

There you go then. WHAT DOES THAT TELL YOU?

An armed populace keeps the foreign invaders away.

Don't be ridiculous bro! Do you really think that any invading power these days is going to go for a street by street invasion of the USA??

Imagine a General of an invading army making plans to drop soldiers on all of our beaches. What do you think his biggest concern is? He can make plans to confront the military but he can't make plans to confront an armed populace.

....and just how many of your armed citizens do you think will actually stand and fight once the bullets start flying as opposed to saying 'Fuck this' and running for the hills?

I agree gun violence is out of hand but what is more out of hand is the nut cases willing to use a gun.

The problem old bean is that, except in rare circumstances, it is very difficult to identify the nut case that is willing to use a gun. The image of the nut-case with wild staring eyes and dishevelled hair screaming in the streets, can usually only be found in films. Given the problem that you can't remove the nut-case with the gun (because you can't identify the nut-case) the only logical next step is to remove the gun that the nut-case is willing to use....right?

My solution: Put fences up around all the schools with controlled entrances and either an armed guard and/or all students have a pass card like most of use at work to gain entrance.

...and what is your solution for preventing the shooting of people in the streets, in the subway, in the malls or at work? Are you going to turn your country into a fortress where people can't move around freely? There is a simple solution...remove the guns and the problem will be significantly reduced. It ain't gonna solve the problem completely but it would be a start and once you've made a start you can tweak it later. Your major and in my opinion, your insurmountable problem is that, although your population want an answer to the problem, they are not prepared to contribute by giving up their guns. They want someone else to solve the problem with no input from themselves. As another poster said...'a gun ban would result in creating millions of criminals...because people just will not give up their guns' Well there you have it bro. That says more about the American people than anything.

Originally Posted by Francoitalianarmy

Conservation is a fact... there are no predators or not enough natural predation to control our animal population...

...of course there aren't! You 'conservationists' have killed 'em all!

[evileye]

Originally Posted by pladecalvo

Hardly mate. Do you really think, even in your wildest dreams, that the citizenry of any country, no matter how many of them had guns, could stop a government that had control of the army from suppressing them?? C'mon man...get real.

So do you not read history books? Many revolutions are when armed citizens overthrow their govenments and set up a new system of government(aka armed citizens vs armed troops).

[Francoitalianarmy]

Psychopaths are everywhere.... seems the US is the SAFEST place in the world when it comes to terrorsit attacks.... take away the guns and they will use bombs...

The first Global Terrorism Index showed that in the decade after the September 11 attacks, North America was the safest region in the world, suffering 127 incidents and 23 fatalities - statistics that will be treated by some as vindication of its draconian anti-terror regime.

Most terror in the US was perpetrated by environmental, animal welfare and anti-abortion activists, according to research by the Sydney-base Institute for Economics and Peace, and the vast majority of terrorist attacks were aimed at buildings and businesses, with minimal attacks on private citizens. Less than three per cent were attributed to al-Qaeda.

The survey underlined how al-Qaeda's original leadership in Afghanistan and Pakistan has been nearly obliterated.

In the year that Osama bin Laden was killed, the core organisation, despite its enduring notoriety, was responsible for only one terror incident out of 4,656 – a kidnapping. However, 11 of the most 20 active groups globally were al-Qaeda linked, and they carried out four of the most lethal attacks.

Western Europe suffered 910 incidents, and 439 fatalities, in the ten-year period, with Britain alone accounting for 236.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...Americans.html

[Francoitalianarmy]

Originally Posted by pladecalvo

I'm afraid to have to say old pal that Americans are not seen in a good light in the majority of European countries.....and please, let's not go harping back to the 1940's.

Sorry, I don't buy it.... there are folks that don't believe in American policy and question what our government does at times, but while I lived in Europe for over 5 years, I rarely seen any problems.

The only time we had issues were the times that little punk ass Brits, living in Spain needed smacked for running their mouths...

[pladecalvo]

Originally Posted by evileye

So do you not read history books? Many revolutions are when armed citizens overthrow their govenments and set up a new system of government(aka armed citizens vs armed troops).

I'm talking about Americans defeating their government and their army. Not many revolutions succeed when the military is on the side of the government.