< Return to MilitaryGear.com

NRA Press Conference

Information  December 21 2012
 — By CJ Grisham
NRA Press Conference

“[W]hereas, to preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them; nor does it follow from this, that all promiscuously must go into actual service on every occasion. The mind that aims at a select militia, must be influenced by a truly anti-republican principle; and when we see many men disposed to practice upon it, whenever they can prevail, no wonder true republicans are for carefully guarding against it.” –Federal Farmer, Antifederalist Letter, No. 18, 1787

After 9/11, there was a lot of hang-wringing and consternation from the left about the decision to allow pilots to arm themselves in the cockpit. This, of course, was 30 years after the original discussions about doing the same thing in the 70s after a rash of airline hijackings failed. It seemed as if a bill to allow pilots to defend themselves and their passengers was also doomed to fail this time.

“We’re trying to improve the security of our airlines and make sure we’re keeping the weapons off,” said spokesman Andrew Davis of then-chairman of the Commerce Committee, South Carolina Democrat Ernest Hollings. “It’s counterproductive to allow weapons to be brought on the planes. We should lock the cockpit door, create a cabin that’s absolutely secure, and that ends the threat.”

There was a lot of frustration that arming pilots would result in passengers being shot, airplanes exploding in mid-air, and other assinine claims. In 2004, the bill was signed into law. Can anyone point to a single story that supports the anti-gun lobby’s claims that this was just a tragedy waiting to happen?

I support arming teachers and administrators provided they are trained to use those weapons in the safest possible manner in a crowded classroom. They should be trained in crisis management and and ensure also that students know what to do in the event of a shooting (mainly to get as flat on the floor as possible and remain motionless).

I wanted to share the words of NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre today at a news conference discussing this very issue. I know that there will always be people who think fewer guns are the solution over more guns. We see how so-called “gun-free zones” are doing to keep these tragedies from happened. They have failed. It’s time to do away with them.

There is precedence for arming teachers. One need look no further than Israel. Yesterday, I shared a video of how arming our educators saves lives. This image is of an Israeli teacher with her class.

israeli-schoolchildren-and-teacher-001x

The National Rifle Association’s 4 million mothers, fathers, sons and daughters join the nation in horror, outrage, grief and earnest prayer for the families of Newtown, Connecticut … who suffered such incomprehensible loss as a result of this unspeakable crime.

Out of respect for those grieving families, and until the facts are known, the NRA has refrained from comment. While some have tried to exploit tragedy for political gain, we have remained respectfully silent.

Now, we must speak … for the safety of our nation’s children. Because for all the noise and anger directed at us over the past week, no one — nobody — has addressed the most important, pressing and immediate question we face: How do we protect our children right now, starting today, in a way that we know works?

The only way to answer that question is to face up to the truth. Politicians pass laws for Gun-Free School Zones. They issue press releases bragging about them. They post signs advertising them.

And in so doing, they tell every insane killer in America that schools are their safest place to inflict maximum mayhem with minimum risk.

How have our nation’s priorities gotten so far out of order? Think about it. We care about our money, so we protect our banks with armed guards. American airports, office buildings, power plants, courthouses — even sports stadiums — are all protected by armed security.

We care about the President, so we protect him with armed Secret Service agents. Members of Congress work in offices surrounded by armed Capitol Police officers.

Yet when it comes to the most beloved, innocent and vulnerable members of the American family — our children — we as a society leave them utterly defenseless, and the monsters and predators of this world know it and exploit it. That must change now!

The truth is that our society is populated by an unknown number of genuine monsters — people so deranged, so evil, so possessed by voices and driven by demons that no sane person can possibly ever comprehend them. They walk among us every day. And does anybody really believe that the next Adam Lanza isn’t planning his attack on a school he’s already identified at this very moment?

How many more copycats are waiting in the wings for their moment of fame — from a national media machine that rewards them with the wall-to-wall attention and sense of identity that they crave — while provoking others to try to make their mark?

A dozen more killers? A hundred? More? How can we possibly even guess how many, given our nation’s refusal to create an active national database of the mentally ill?

And the fact is, that wouldn’t even begin to address the much larger and more lethal criminal class: Killers, robbers, rapists and drug gang members who have spread like cancer in every community in this country. Meanwhile, federal gun prosecutions have decreased by 40% — to the lowest levels in a decade.

So now, due to a declining willingness to prosecute dangerous criminals, violent crime is increasing again for the first time in 19 years! Add another hurricane, terrorist attack or some other natural or man-made disaster, and you’ve got a recipe for a national nightmare of violence and victimization.

And here’s another dirty little truth that the media try their best to conceal: There exists in this country a callous, corrupt and corrupting shadow industry that sells, and sows, violence against its own people.

Through vicious, violent video games with names like Bulletstorm, Grand Theft Auto, Mortal Kombat and Splatterhouse. And here’s one: it’s called Kindergarten Killers. It’s been online for 10 years. How come my research department could find it and all of yours either couldn’t or didn’t want anyone to know you had found it?

Then there’s the blood-soaked slasher films like “American Psycho” and “Natural Born Killers” that are aired like propaganda loops on “Splatterdays” and every day, and a thousand music videos that portray life as a joke and murder as a way of life. And then they have the nerve to call it “entertainment.”

But is that what it really is? Isn’t fantasizing about killing people as a way to get your kicks really the filthiest form of pornography?

In a race to the bottom, media conglomerates compete with one another to shock, violate and offend every standard of civilized society by bringing an ever-more-toxic mix of reckless behavior and criminal cruelty into our homes — every minute of every day of every month of every year.

A child growing up in America witnesses 16,000 murders and 200,000 acts of violence by the time he or she reaches the ripe old age of 18.

And throughout it all, too many in our national media … their corporate owners … and their stockholders … act as silent enablers, if not complicit co-conspirators. Rather than face their own moral failings, the media demonize lawful gun owners, amplify their cries for more laws and fill the national debate with misinformation and dishonest thinking that only delay meaningful action and all but guarantee that the next atrocity is only a news cycle away.

The media call semi-automatic firearms “machine guns” — they claim these civilian semi-automatic firearms are used by the military, and they tell us that the .223 round is one of the most powerful rifle calibers … when all of these claims are factually untrue. They don’t know what they’re talking about!

Worse, they perpetuate the dangerous notion that one more gun ban — or one more law imposed on peaceful, lawful people — will protect us where 20,000 others have failed!

As brave, heroic and self-sacrificing as those teachers were in those classrooms, and as prompt, professional and well-trained as those police were when they responded, they were unable — through no fault of their own — to stop it.

As parents, we do everything we can to keep our children safe. It is now time for us to assume responsibility for their safety at school. The only way to stop a monster from killing our kids is to be personally involved and invested in a plan of absolute protection. The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun. Would you rather have your 911 call bring a good guy with a gun from a mile away … or a minute away?

Now, I can imagine the shocking headlines you’ll print tomorrow morning: “More guns,” you’ll claim, “are the NRA’s answer to everything!” Your implication will be that guns are evil and have no place in society, much less in our schools. But since when did the word “gun” automatically become a bad word?

A gun in the hands of a Secret Service agent protecting the President isn’t a bad word. A gun in the hands of a soldier protecting the United States isn’t a bad word. And when you hear the glass breaking in your living room at 3 a.m. and call 911, you won’t be able to pray hard enough for a gun in the hands of a good guy to get there fast enough to protect you.

So why is the idea of a gun good when it’s used to protect our President or our country or our police, but bad when it’s used to protect our children in their schools?

They’re our kids. They’re our responsibility. And it’s not just our duty to protect them — it’s our right to protect them.

You know, five years ago, after the Virginia Tech tragedy, when I said we should put armed security in every school, the media called me crazy. But what if, when Adam Lanza started shooting his way into Sandy Hook Elementary School last Friday, he had been confronted by qualified, armed security?

Will you at least admit it’s possible that 26 innocent lives might have been spared? Is that so abhorrent to you that you would rather continue to risk the alternative?

Is the press and political class here in Washington so consumed by fear and hatred of the NRA and America’s gun owners that you’re willing to accept a world where real resistance to evil monsters is a lone, unarmed school principal left to surrender her life to shield the children in her care? No one — regardless of personal political prejudice — has the right to impose that sacrifice.

Ladies and gentlemen, there is no national, one-size-fits-all solution to protecting our children. But do know this President zeroed out school emergency planning grants in last year’s budget, and scrapped “Secure Our Schools” policing grants in next year’s budget.

With all the foreign aid, with all the money in the federal budget, we can’t afford to put a police officer in every school? Even if they did that, politicians have no business — and no authority — denying us the right, the ability, or the moral imperative to protect ourselves and our loved ones from harm.

Now, the National Rifle Association knows that there are millions of qualified active and retired police; active, reserve and retired military; security professionals; certified firefighters and rescue personnel; and an extraordinary corps of patriotic, trained qualified citizens to join with local school officials and police in devising a protection plan for every school. We can deploy them to protect our kids now. We can immediately make America’s schools safer — relying on the brave men and women of America’s police force.

The budget of our local police departments are strained and resources are limited, but their dedication and courage are second to none and they can be deployed right now.

I call on Congress today to act immediately, to appropriate whatever is necessary to put armed police officers in every school — and to do it now, to make sure that blanket of safety is in place when our children return to school in January.

Before Congress reconvenes, before we engage in any lengthy debate over legislation, regulation or anything else, as soon as our kids return to school after the holiday break, we need to have every single school in America immediately deploy a protection program proven to work — and by that I mean armed security.

Right now, today, every school in the United States should plan meetings with parents, school administrators, teachers and local authorities — and draw upon every resource available — to erect a cordon of protection around our kids right now. Every school will have a different solution based on its own unique situation.

Every school in America needs to immediately identify, dedicate and deploy the resources necessary to put these security forces in place right now. And the National Rifle Association, as America’s preeminent trainer of law enforcement and security personnel for the past 50 years, is ready, willing and uniquely qualified to help.

Our training programs are the most advanced in the world. That expertise must be brought to bear to protect our schools and our children now. We did it for the nation’s defense industries and military installations during World War II, and we’ll do it for our schools today.

The NRA is going to bring all of its knowledge, dedication and resources to develop a model National School Shield Emergency Response Program for every school that wants it. From armed security to building design and access control to information technology to student and teacher training, this multi-faceted program will be developed by the very best experts in their fields.

Former Congressman Asa Hutchinson will lead this effort as National Director of the National School Shield Program, with a budget provided by the NRA of whatever scope the task requires. His experience as a U.S. Attorney, Director of the Drug Enforcement Agency and Undersecretary of the Department of Homeland Security will give him the knowledge and expertise to hire the most knowledgeable and credentialed experts available anywhere, to get this program up and running from the first day forward.

If we truly cherish our kids more than our money or our celebrities, we must give them the greatest level of protection possible and the security that is only available with a properly trained — armed — good guy.

Under Asa’s leadership, our team of security experts will make this the best program in the world for protecting our children at school, and we will make that program available to every school in America free of charge.

That’s a plan of action that can, and will, make a real, positive and indisputable difference in the safety of our children — starting right now.

There’ll be time for talk and debate later. This is the time, this is the day for decisive action.

We can’t wait for the next unspeakable crime to happen before we act. We can’t lose precious time debating legislation that won’t work. We mustn’t allow politics or personal prejudice to divide us. We must act now.

For the sake of the safety of every child in America, I call on every parent, every teacher, every school administrator and every law enforcement officer in this country to join us in the National School Shield Program and protect our children with the only line of positive defense that’s tested and proven to work.

(19) Readers Comments

  1. Israel has national service. So every able bodied adult has completed two years of military service. Your picture shows a teacher in the West Bank. Not a regular teacher.

    Unless you want conscription in the US this is not going to happen. You want big government. You’ve got it!

    Do you really want America to be as volatile as the Middle East.

    Please get your fact straight.

  2. Your premise is flawed for any number of reasons. Your entire argument is based around the idea that there’s no reason to oppose the idea of defending every school in America with armed guards other than blind opposition to guns, which either shows a huge lack of understanding or (more likely) is showing off what I’m assuming is your strong pro-gun bias.

    Assuming you aren’t extremely young, you should remember the most notorious school shooting in the US at [Columbine High School](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columbine_High_School_massacre). There was an [armed guard on that campus who actually exchanged shots with the shooters](http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2012/12/21/columbine_armed_guard_colorado_shooting_shows_that_nra_s_shield_program.html) early in the attack, which didn’t prevent the attacks and doesn’t seem to have saved lives. Or how about the shooting at [Virginia Tech](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_Tech_massacre), where armed police were present during the second part of the attack and didn’t prevent it. Or, perhaps most damning of all, how about the [Fort Hood shooting](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fort_Hood_shooting) which was a goddam Army base and still suffered a large number of casualties.

    Basically, the reason that people are reacting so strongly to the NRA’s press conference isn’t because they secretly hate guns. It’s because the idea is on the very face of it idiotic. And that’s before we even get into all the second order issues that make the suggestion even worse.

    * At a very conservative ballpark this idea would cost somewhere north of [$18 billion](http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2012/12/21/if-the-nra-wants-an-armed-guard-at-every-school-they-should-pay-for-it).
    * Besides already having been proven to be catastrophically ineffective at stopping attacks, the presence of guns seems correlated with an increase in violence ([4.5 times likelier to be shot while carrying a gun](http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17922-carrying-a-gun-increases-risk-of-getting-shot-and-killed.html) and [increased likelihood of gun related death with guns in the home](http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/160/10/929.abstract)). Even in the absolutely best case where this wasn’t obviosuly a stupid idea you’ve traded a theoretical decrease in a small probability chance of a very bad thing (a large scale school shooting) for a huge number of small percentage increases in a less bad thing (one of the hundreds of thousands of guns now in schools is used to kill one or a few people there).
    * The logic behind this idea is practically a perfect example of a slippery slope to a police state. Assume that this is an appropriate response to a school shooting, why isn’t the inevitable answer to have armed guards everywhere at all times? If Sandy Hook is a tragedy and the only response is an armed guard in every school, why isn’t the Aurora theater shooting also a tragedy where the only response is armed guards in every theater in the US? There have been reports of gang related violence in ERs in the US, should station armed guards be put in every hospital just in case? If you run this logic out, there’s [basically nowhere in the US that *shouldn't* have armed guards](http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/12/22/we-need-a-federal-agent.html).

    The entire idea was so glaringly idiotic that it to a certain extent stole the spotlight from the rest of that bizarre press conference. It’s all the movie’s fault! No, I meant video games! Or was it the mainstream media?! No wait, it’s that kids can’t bring their own guns to school! Will you buy that there are bad people and we should shoot them? Guns are the only solution to any problem! For all the words you devoted to how gun control advocates are blindly letting principles drive them to take unreasonable positions, you seem to have done an odd job of missing one of the definitive examples of blindly saying any and every asinine thing imaginable to try and change the conversation away from someone’s personal hobby horse.

    Which by the way is one of the clearest signals the NRA thinks they’re on the losing side of the argument. Historically they hunker down when a tragedy like this happens and then kill or gut any legislation through lobbying in the background. The fact they so explicitly made the conversation about them, with such a hodge-podge of provocative and clearly unworkable ideas, is the best sign you’re likely to get that the NRA doesn’t think that’ll work this time.

    • There is a number of things wrong with your gun grabbers leeching onto this incident as somehow the panacea for putting armed guards in schools.

      1) Why wasn’t the officer in the building? He was out in the parking lot and was 60 YARDS AWAY at least from the building.

      2) There were approximately 2,000 students attending Columbine at the time of the shootings. One armed guard cannot protect that many students. Notice that LaPierre doesn’t say “put ONE guard in every school and that will solve the problem.” There need to be static and roving guards. If not these, allow teachers to be trained and armed INSIDE THE CLASSROOMS.

      3) Not sure if you’re a new reader or not, but if you post anything from Wikipedia, it’s automatically ignored. There is a reason that no self-respective university allows its students to reference the user-edited site in papers or research.

      As for Fort Hood, where I’m currently stationed and know what happened here quite a bit more than you do, there were no armed security guards inside the processing center. No one was armed in there besides Nidal Hasan. Yes, it was an Army base but thanks to the other gun control Nazi, President Bill Clinton, no one is allowed to carry firearms on a military installation except military police – the equivalent (both in response times and capabilities to a regular police force). Even Soldiers going to a range are not given their ammunition until they actually get on the firing range which is located far from the main post area where the redeployment center was located. And then, they only get the ammo when they are walking on the firing line!

      Next…

    • Jay, Yes maybe an armed guard in a school won’t stop another school shooting, but maybe it will. The other side of it, banning random firearms, and other legislation won’t stop it either. But as with the notion of armed citizens in areas that permit concealed carry or open carry, the statistics show that crime rates are substantially lower. So if that stand to prove that it may prevent another school shooting, then why is their so much opposition? In reference to VA Tech shooting, yes there were Police on the scene during the second portion, but their tactics during that time, which have thus been changed since, were to secure the scene and await negotiator temas and SWAT, all the while others died unimpeded. In reference to Ft. Hood or any other military base, we are all soft targets as well, as it is forbidden for us to carry on base (even though we can do it freely in a combat zone with near zero issues??) So yes, Ft Hood may be a military base, but we have a police force that is essentially second responders just like John Q Public has. Yes we have weapons, but they are locked in armories, seperate from the ammo needed for them, and in most cases seperate from the facility which issues the magazines needed to retain the ammo for the firearms. In reference to your 4.5 times more likely to be shot while carrying a gun link, I debunked that myth with all major news agencies, because of course, just as it appears you did in referencing it, so does the rest of the public. They read the headline and took it for gospel rather than look at the American Journal of Public Health analysis. I have done so, and the model and information they used consolidated to the inner city of Philadelphia, and the data was pulled from homicides, and nearly all were gang related in which the person who was killed had a firearm but happened to not come out on top in that evolution. Further data shows that a large majority had drugs and or alcohol in their system, further showing that they were not law abiding citizens. You can delve deeper into it and extrapolate more information that shows just what it was, a study of gang related murders, publicized by the Left to “prove” that guns are bad and you stand a far greater chance of dying with them, than without, and the general uneducated and lazy public who choose not look deeper and trust whole heartedly the media, bit. yahdee, yahdee, yah. We don’t need armed guards, as much as we need to remove Gun Free Zones, safe havens in the mids of the mentally ill to wreak havoc unimpeded for a good amount of time before the law shows up with body bags. tie that into being able to wring back in our society as a whole, hold children accountable, get rid of stupid ideas as such that everybody is a winner if they participate, bring back Christianity in our schools, anthems, and day to day life and not heed to the few who are offended by it. Society and its steady decline are why we have retards who act afool. Yes I said retards, if it isn’t politically correct, then so be it. I am not politically correct because that is another society plaque we are dealing with, we don’t want to speak out minds as it might hurt somebody’s feelings. Too bad, if 16 years in the Marines has taught me one thing, it is you have to be thick skinned, and what doesn’t kill you makes you stronger. So either Lead, Follow, or get the Hell out of the way.

  3. Not sure if we should laugh or cry at the fact he posted something from Salon.com

    “Responding to the question, “How far do you go with the tabloid sensibility to get readers?”, former Salon.com editor-in-chief David Talbot said:

    Is Salon more tabloid-like? Yeah, we’ve made no secret of that. I’ve said all along that our formula here is that we’re a smart tabloid. If by tabloid what you mean is you’re trying to reach a popular audience, trying to write topics that are viscerally important to a readership, whether it’s the story about the mother in Houston who drowned her five children or the story on the missing intern in Washington, Chandra Levy.”

    From their own header “The online arts and culture magazine, with regular features on or by various literary luminaries.”

    That is called circular reasoning… it is like asking Karl Marx to confirm Communism works.

  4. Interesting that you want to put armed people in every class room. How pays for their weapons an training?

    Btw I am a combat veteran of Afghanistan who served for ten years.

    The solution to the gun problem isn’t more guns. Go back to the Middle East an see how it works out for them.

    Just stick to the science. Look at other countries policies and see what has worked.

    I can’t find any reference to where where in the world where more guns in the hands of civilians reduced crime.

    Show me otherwise

    • I didn’t say I want to put armed people in every classroom, did I? No, I said “allow teachers to be trained and armed.” Not everyone likes to carry a gun. Not everyone is comfortable with a gun or even stressful situations in which one would need to be used. So, who pays for their weapons and training? The teacher that wants to protect himself and his students, that’s who.

      There is no “gun problem” so I can’t respond to the premise of that false statement. There is a problem with people using guns illegally.

      About the Middle East, it works quite well for them. Those that own AK47s don’t generally have to worry about someone breaking into their home and raping their daughter. The Taliban in Afghanistan rarely mess with families that are armed – and they watch. Same with Iraq.

      Another premise that is false is “looking at other countries.” The difference between us and them is the United States Constitution. I can tell you that looking at other countries that banned “assault weapons” like Australia witnessed a SURGE in violent crimes there. Can’t find any reference anywhere in the world where more guns = less crime? Look no further than your own country.

      It’s no secret that since the 2004 ban expired the number of guns in the hands has increased exponentially. And yet, the violent crime rate has dropped year and year since then. Interesting. Now look at Switzerland. Nearly every single citizen there own and maintains a firearm. Go look at their crime rate. Oh, and when was the last time they were invaded or threatened?

      I showed you otherwise, but I bet you’re still sucking down the Kool-Aide and ready to move the goal post.

  5. Surge in gun violence in Australia? Didn’t happen. Check your statistics. It’s plateaued for a long time.

    Even gun manufacturers disagree with the NRA.

    Public relations experts who have experience working with the gun
    industry expressed horror on Friday afternoon at the National Rifle
    Association’s response to the Newtown, Conn., shootings.

    The group’s executive vice president, Wayne LaPierre, struck a
    scolding tone on Friday, blaming the video game industry and media for
    exposing youth to a culture of violence, and calling for armed police
    or security guards in schools: “The only thing that stops a bad guy
    with a gun is a good guy with a gun,” LaPierre said.

    Public relations professionals reached by The Huffington Post said the
    timing of his message, which broke a week of silence in the wake of
    the tragic murder of 26 children and adults at Sandy Hook Elementary
    School, could be an irredeemable mistake for the group.

    “It was worse than if the NRA had not spoken at all,” said Gene
    Grabowski, executive vice president of Levick Strategic
    Communications, a Washington, D.C.-based issues management firm that
    has worked with firearms manufacturers. “The same message about the
    culture in another time and place might have made sense, but in
    context of tragedy, it seemed mean-spirited, cold and misguided.”

    Grabowski also said the NRA made a mistake by remaining silent on its
    social media channels last week. After the Sandy Hook tragedy, the
    organization stopped activity on all of its Twitter, Facebook and
    YouTube accounts.

    The NRA is under close scrutiny this week as the Sandy Hook shooting
    renews the political and social debate over gun-control laws. The
    organization is one of the nation’s most powerful lobby groups, but
    its extreme policy positions don’t jibe with all gun owners, many of
    whom support tighter gun-control laws, according to a survey from a
    prominent Republican pollster in July.

    “They have come out too aggressively,” said Jonathan Bernstein,
    president of Los Angeles-based Bernstein Crisis Management. “[I'm] not
    even sure they have listened to their own members.”

  6. Supporting Statisticts for Australian gun reform:
    http://mobile.wnd.com/2000/03/1951/
    So here we have an Australian official directly challenging the NRA’s own reports of the effectiveness of the gun law reform.

    Basically he says they are bullshit.

    So I ask again please provide evidence to support your claims.

    Try to understand both sides of the argument.

    • An Australian official responsible for implementing Australian gun control policy says that his policies worked? Say it ain’t so. I offer you another article from the same reporter and the same site: http://www.wnd.com/2000/03/1933/

      Though lawmakers responsible for passing the ban promised a safer country, the nation’s crime statistics tell a different story:

      Countrywide, homicides are up 3.2 percent;
      Assaults are up 8.6 percent;
      Amazingly, armed robberies have climbed nearly 45 percent;
      In the Australian state of Victoria, gun homicides have climbed 300 percent;
      In the 25 years before the gun bans, crime in Australia had been dropping steadily;
      There has been a reported “dramatic increase” in home burglaries and assaults on the elderly.

      But, let’s just pretend that you are right and I am wrong. Let’s pretend that since the ban, Australia has enjoyed an absolute epidemic of joviality, peace, and freedom from even minor crimes like jaywalking. Let’s pretend Australia is a Utopian, liberal wet dream of a country.

      Australia is its own continent. It has no bordering nations with corrupt governments and loose borders. It doesn’t have to worry about drug and gang violence spilling over its borders. It doesn’t have to worry about malcontents coming to their nation for free health care and other entitlements which creates more poverty that breeds crime.

      Simply put, we are not Australia. We aren’t a monarchy. So, if we want to know what the effects of gun bans are in America, we need to look at examples in America where gun bans have been in place. Places like DC and Chicago. California. Now, tell me about their crime rates. DC recently was forced by the Supreme Court to scrap its oppressive gun laws and allow the people to arm themselves (DC vs. Heller). Tell me what happened to crime after that please.

      • Yep homicides went up but not by guns. That’s the point of what the official was saying.

        So gun homicides did not go up. Reread that again before you post that bit about how after gun reform homicides went up.

        Trying to twist the facts to support your argument only hurts your position.

        • It doesn’t matter. The point is crime went IP. Why? Because the victims couldn’t defend themselves. You still ignore my other points and questions.

  7. Wow.
    I’m impressed at your ability to read everything as one sided an supporting your cause. I hope that when you served you realise the enemy is 3 dimensional and we need to be open and honest about our and their limitations.

    For other readers, the Australian official expressly denied the it was gun reform that caused the rise in non gun relate assaults and then went on to explain exactly why. So you ignore the experts in another country, twist their reports and say it supports your version.

    And we have the same with Israel.

    Below is an article released yesterday of an Israeli official saying the NRA is lying about its gun policies and that it misinterprets.

    http://m.nydailynews.com/1.1226401

    Next week you’ll be arguing the right for everyone to own an 84mm Carl Gustaf,
    I mean is still a arm right?

    Merry Christmas and remember there are plenty of combat veterans and disagree with the pro gun politics and want to keep guns in the hands of experienced, trained people. Not, Joe next door who wants to own an M4.

    • “Next week you’ll be arguing the right for everyone to own an 84mm Carl Gustaf.”

      Ooh, do you know where I can get one?

    • Jay,

      http://www.cdnshootingsports.org/tenmyths.html

      From Canada with love. Granted you’ll argue that they are maybe the neighbors to the north version of our NRA, but seeing as how I lived there for 3 years, I can attest that this is true for the most part, numbers might be slightly off a little, but still legit. The confiscation led to a black market still allowing the criminals to have firearms, but not the law abiding citizens.

  8. Just a quiet statement……I view this site for another personal reason and fell upon this conversation. I need to tell my simple perspective. I lived in Newtown, CT and my Son presently lives in Newtown. I have no military background. The question in my mind is why would a woman (mother of the shooter) need to have the type of weapons she had in her home? Hence, another event in history December 14, 2012. I am not against the right of gun ownership. Maybe I have my facts wrong. Maybe I have my head under a rock in denial? But, again, why would a civilian in a small New England town need the type of weapon(s) that were used in this tragedy?

    • Hello Jane, it isn’t a matter of a type of weapon, technology occurs daily in changes made off of past items. typewriters to desktop computers to Ipads, Model A cars to Carbuerators to Fuel Injection to Ferraris, Bows to Muskets, to Springfield Rifles to Ar-15′s, LP to 8 track to Cassette to CD to IPods and so on. Technology advances and with that so do consumer products. One can argue whether if she had only a modern day bolt action rifle with 5 round magazines if he would still have done the same thing. Maybe not, maybe so, but it still boils down to his mental stability. It isn’t a matter of male or female either, and shouldn’t be made as such, she was legally allowed to have those weapons irregardless. If Adam Lanza wanted to commit thr atrocity, he most likely would have found somebody else to kill and take their firearms or found another way to perform the same act for the same results. Why does one need a Ferrari? Why does one need a Mansion? Why does one need Air Jordan shoes? Because it is their right and in this case, shall not be infringed. Should she have had them locked up in a safe? Probably, I would recommend that anybody with a lot of firearms have one, but that is their choice. People have a lot of vehicles in the same household, but do they HAVE to have a garage for each one? No. Some will read this and say my thoughts are stupid in referencing cars and guns, but even though cars are registered and operators of cars from Ford Aspires to Ferraris are licensed, it still doesn’t stop them from being stolen or killing innocent people. It boils down to the user of the end product and the choices they make. People make food products that are handled unsanitarily and they get sick or die, do we blame the food ingredients or the person who handled the food improperly? Guns are just the talking point

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>