NRA response; more guns. Common sense sez otherwise.
.
“If we truly cherish our kids, more than money, more than our celebrities, we must must give them the greatest level of protection possible and the security that is only available with a properly trained – armed – good guy.”
.
The NRA’s, Wayne LaPierre, finally fronted up to a shocked global society by offering their nightmarish solution to gun-shootings in American schools; more guns. Specifically, armed guards in every school in the United States. (See: NRA chief breaks post-Newtown silence to call for armed guards at schools)
Aside from the bizarreness of this proposal, the sheer cost would be astronomical.
According to one source, in 2009-10 there are 138,925 educational institutions ranging from “Elementrary” (our primary schools) through to Universities. (Source: National Centre for Education Statistics: Educational Institutions)
If a minimum of one private, full time, guard was placed in every institution, at a median cost of US$28,834 per person, (see: Salary.com: security guards) the full would be an astronomical US$4,005, 763,450 per annum. Many institutions because of their size would need two, or more guards.
Considering Republican’s (who are allied to the NRA) lack of appetite for increasing taxes, it is hard to see where the money would come from.
No wonder that there was protest at Wayne LaPierre’s speech yesterday,
.
.
It is highly doubtful that arming teachers or hiring security guards would achieve anything. Being the United States, how long would it be before the first mentally disturbed security guard or teacher pulled out his/her legally-sanctioned gun and started blasting away at the people they were mandated to protect?
Or, the guard was simply in another part of the school grounds?
Or, more likely, was the first victim of any deranged shooter?
Only in the US would one countenance the totally lunatic proposal that more guns equates to more safety. This is the United States; a culture where guns are revered in their entertainment value as the solution to complex problems. Mass murder can even be made to look cool, with cool clothing, cool sunnies, and cool background music. Killing becomes a fashion-statement – in the US, anyway,
.
.
Is that how mass-murderers see themselves?
Meanwhile, Wayne LaPierre’s suggestion fall flat on it’s distorted face when it is pointed out that Columbine High School did indeed have an armed guard on duty; Sheriff’s deputy, Neil Gardner.
On 20 April 1999, despite Mr Gardner’s presence, twelve students and one teacher were gunned down by two deranged students.
The NRA are not the solution – they are intrinsically part of the problem.
And unfortunately we have our own gun nuts here in New Zealand. See: Firearms – Libertarianz
.
*
.
Additional
The Guardian: This sacred text explains why the US can’t kick the gun habit
The Guardian: Wayne LaPierre and the NRA: so defensive it was downright offensive
The Guardian: NRA chief breaks post-Newtown silence to call for armed guards at schools
Slate: Wayne LaPierre Wants Armed Guards at Schools. Columbine Had an Armed Guard
Wikipedia: Columbine High School massacre
.
.
= fs =
Leave a Reply
News Archives
Crony Watch
Keeping an eye on dodgy government appointees, crony-by-crony!
Stop the TPPA
Inside Child Poverty in New Zealand
Save Radio New Zealand
Kidscan – Supporting disadvantaged Kiwi Kids
Action Stations – Getting Out The Vote!
In that it supports arming the population leading to the inevitable deaths of innocents the NRA is a terrorist organisation and should get their name listed on here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorist_organisations
Agreed Should be right at the no 1 spot.
They seem to meet the definition, Matthew.
It’s paradioxical that whilst the September 11 attacks killed 2,996 people – Americans are killing each other, by their own hand and guns, at a rate of about 10,000 per year.
They’re doing it to each other, and this seems perfectly acceptable to a sector of their society. Bizarre.
Interesting stats on firearms in the U.S. (from gunpolicy.org):
Approx 300 million forearms in the U.S., greater than 1 per person. Includes 114 million handguns.
Percentage of households with a firearm: 1977 54%, 2011 34%.
Death rate from firearms per 100,000 population: 1999 10.4, 2011 10.3.
Overall homicide rate per 100,000 population: 1993 9.93, 2011 5.1.
Gun homicide rate per 100,000 population: 1993 7.1, 1998 3.4, 2011 3.6.
2011 total gun deaths: 32,163
2011 gun suicides: 19,766 (about 60% of gun deaths)
2011 gun homicides: 11,101
2011 unintentional deaths involving guns: 851 (1 every 352,000 firearms – that’s pretty safe)
There are only 102 countries with homicide rates greater than that in the U.S. More than half of these countries have murder rates more than 3 times that of the U.S. The variation in these rates cannot be explained by greater or lesser degrees of firearms restrictions.
John Lott’s book ‘More Guns, Less Crime’ strongly suggests that liberalising gun laws in any given jurisdiction within the United States (in particular, allowing concealed carriage of handguns) will lead to lower rates of violent crime. Making household gun ownership compulsory, as occurred some years ago in Keenesaw (Georgia), almost eliminates violent crime (not that I am advocating such a move).
The issue of firearms ownership vs rates of death and violent crime is a complex and multifactorial one with no easy answers.
it’s the gun industry loby, a huge business in the US.
The pity of it is that, that sounds so right …. and the NRA r ONLY as powerful as the PEOPLE allow them to be, and so far the pro-gun proponents SHOUT far more loudly …. may the course of the events in the last week or so give rise to OTHER voices and NOT allow these 28 deaths to all be in vain …. this is the US tipping point now, what will they do from here on????
The problem is that in every country which has disarmed it’s citizens, the government went on to massacre them. There is no variation to this theme. Hitler created compelling arguments to disarm Germany, and the people fell for it, but were then unable to stop him. In simple terms, if the solution relies on “trusting the authorities” then there is at least a 50% chance you would be digging your own grave. The human tendency for giving credit where it is NOT due (just look at the number of idiots who genuinely believe John Key is honest) has been a consistent recipe for disaster for countless people. History proves it.
Offence justifies defence. Im not saying I agree but there’s the rationale they cite to bear arms. Madness.
Would you rather see people defenceless against criminals and oppressive governments? Surely people have a right to defend themselves against aggressors with appropriate force.
Lets not forget the 30,000 people injured or killed ACCIDENTALLY by guns each year in the US.
the above video shows the folly of more guns making the people safe from the bad guys.
851 people died from accidents involving guns in the U.S. in 2011. That’s one for every 250,000 firearms – very low.
Video shared thanks Mick
In 82% of home invasions in the USA there was a gun in the house for protection, in 2% of home invasions in NZ there was a gun in the house. In 100% of cases the house was invaded.
Costa Rica disbanded its military and put the money into education and health. They have not been invaded or destroyed by their volatile neighbours. The western media doesn’t talk much about them though…..
Bob Jones wanted to do the same in 1984 with the New Zealand Party.
There will be rare exceptions, but examples that spring to mind were Stalin, Mao, Hitler, Pol Pot, history is littered with examples. Examples involving the deaths of hundreds of millions of people, many of them in relatively recent history. Regardless of what your views are about the wars waged by America over the last ten years in the Middle East, one thing they have proved is that we actually lost World War 2, because many of the rights gained by the allied ‘victory’ in 1945 have been lost since 9/11. The world is a dangerous and volatile place at the moment. The disarmament issue is an extremely complex one because of it.
Paul, I think history is a lot more complex than what you’re making out it to be.
For one thing, Mao’s revolution was a popular one supported by peasants and workers. His chief enemy was the Nationalist Chinese government and their highly trained and well armed army.
Hitler never waged war on his own people to seize power. he was actually elected into office and took over from the German Chancellor. When he later waged war it was against other neighbouring countries and their armies and peoples.
I’m surprised you seem not to know all these basic historical facts?
Once Hitler took power his Gestapo were able to persecute Germans of all ethnic backgrounds, especially Jews, knowing they were unlikely to be met with armed resistance.
I’m surprised you seem not to know this basic historical fact.
And Pol Pot seized power in a civil war between his Chinese-supported Khmer Rouge forces and Prince Norodom Sihanouk and his US-sponsored army. Surely you must know all this?
Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge then went on to murder about a quarter of Cambodians, knowing they were unlikely to fight back with firearms. But you surely knew this.
Weapons training for teachers, it is preposterous to suggest that bad guys can’t get guns if you take them off the good people.
Not sure what you’r meaning Chris. Are you suggesting teachers get firearms training and carry loaded guns in schools?
Yes responsible weapons trained gun toting teachers Priss, a strange concept for us here in NZ perhaps but perhaps not for the American. I am inclined to reason that their forefathers knew what kind of people they were up against and that an armed citizenry would be the only deterrent against the kind of tyranny that would result if the citizens did not have a physical means of protecting their sovereignty,
I’m pretty sure that it would have been the ignorant racist Nazi in Germany who would have kept an arsenal in the bedroom cupboard if allowed, not the rational German who you assume could have stopped Hitlers madness. I suppose you could sustain an argument that ‘guns don’t kill people, people kill people’. But I’ve been watching on in stunned amazement as clown after clown ignores the obvious, that ‘guns are extremely effective at killing people, and murder occurs vastly more often in the USA because people have easy access to them’.
But John, there are 102 countries with homicide rates greater than the United States, yet it has by far the highest rate of gun ownership. Access to firearms is not the issue, it’s legal carriage of concealed weapons by law abiding citizens, and other factors, that make the difference.
Pol Pots brutal Khmer Rouge won a bloody war that resulted in the downfall of Phnom Penh. Many Cambodians fought against them with guns, but they lost. The Khmer Rouge killed them all, then marched those without guns into the country side, where they died from starvation, torture and bullets to the skull. The Cambodian government forces were disarmed by gun-totting Khmer Rouge murderers…fool.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Widerstand
My take on the issue is that guns for so called ‘self defence’ are a very bad idea. However in US culture there are enough people who seem to believe that their enemy is their own government. Remember Waco? Perhaps they have a right to feel that way and prepare accordingly?
Ralph, are you saying the United States is not rapidly descending into a police state? Or that the U.S. government is not the enemy of millions of its own citizens, e.g. those incarcerated for the peaceful use of intoxicating substances?
As for the NRA, they seem extremely disturbed people. The term psycopaths seems applicable.
Iinteresting link MQC. Especially this bit:
“Did gun control, then, pave the way for the Nazi rise to power? If guns had been readily available, would the people have risen against their oppressors? That seems dubious. The Nazis had a great deal of popular support. Much of their campaign of intimidation involved old-fashioned strongarm tactics, not guns. Had opponents of the regime been armed, and had there been a tradition of armed resistance in Germany, the Nazis might have had a tougher time of it. But that gets us into a pretty speculative realm.
When the Nazis enacted their own law in 1938, they added restrictions aimed at Jews, such as not allowing Jews to work in any business involving guns. They also prohibited those under eighteen from buying guns, added yet another permit for handguns, and banned silencers and small hollow-point ammunition. Of course, Nazi officials were exempted from all gun permits. Later that year, after “Kristallnacht,” Hitler forbade Jews to possess pretty much any weapons.
To summarize, Hitler did “effect total gun control,” but only for the Jews, and only after his regime had been in power for several years. For the rest of the population he relied on laws already in place.”
Nothing about disarmament of the populace in the above link nor in this one:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_Revolution_(1949)
Merry Christmas Frank! Thanks for a year of great, informative blog posts! 🙂
Gun nuts like religious nuts will re-write history to suit themselves. Their’s no reasoning with them. Just take their “toys” off them and where necessary throw the psychos into jail.
That idea is so crazy as to out-crazy the crazies! Chris, taking loaded firearms onto school grounds is you’re idea of “responsibility”? I’d hate to see what you consider madness.
Tell me, what happens when a school kid gets hold of a teacher’s gun?
What happens when a teacher goes crazy and starts shooting kids?
What happens when a shooter on school grounds takes out the teachers first?
What happens when a student starts shooting other students (eg, Columbine) and the teachers have no idea who to aim at?
More guns in the US is like pouring more gasoline onto a bonfire. Guess what the result is?
An armed citizenry is no way the best deterrent against tyranny. Not when governments have access to military ordnance that no citizen has access to. Rifles are no match for tanks or rockets. You need to watch less Hollywood action movies with Sylvester Stallone defeatingf the entire Red Army single handedly. It’s making you think like a Yank.
starting your retort off with an insult is not responsible or constructive when trying to find solutions Theodore, but I think you already know that eh. Americans live in a gun world not me. Arming the US citizenry is the best way to deter tyranny, as you also know what happens next when their weapons are taken away, upon your own suggestion that the US government is not only able but also willing to attack its’ citizenry.
Are you for real?
Guns in a school?
I once watched a person filling his car at a petrol station, pump in one hand, lit ciggy in the other, smoking. You’re not that person are you?
as real as you are Clive, it isn’t ideal to have guns in school however do you have a better alternative that is achievable in the US reality?
Yeah. Ban all military style autiomatics and semi-automatics for a start. This will take a long time but they have to start somewhere.
Having a mini-arms race is not going to help one bit. And all we’ll see is one massacre after another.
Tell me Mr Chris Watson, what happens when teachers are armed and the first teacher, maybe suffering depression or psychosis cuts loose and starts shooting his students?
What will you suggest then? Arming students? Do you realise how insane your suggestion else and where you’re leading it to?
The US needs to work hard to solve this problem and not escalate because it’s kin the Too Hard basket.
What do you mean by “Arming the US citizenry is the best way to deter tyranny”?!
Tyranny by whom?
Who is this mythical enemy, this “tyrany” you keep referring to?