NRA airs new TV ad criticizing Obama

Originally Posted by Xcelratr

Congress passed the law, which reinstated protection to what it used to be. Now, it may be excessive, or self serving, or hypocritical. Since it came from DC, it almost certainly is at least one of those. But to act like its solely Obama's doing is disingenuous.

Congress probably made a deal that he'd get this for himself if he signed off on the salary raise they voted for themselves.

...and who signed that law and had the power to veto it? (while simultaneously telling America that guns don't make you safer)

I think the NRA's messaging is very insular and myopic, basically preaching to their choir but risking turning off a broader swath of American that they ought to be appealing to. I think most Americans understand the unique and distinct security needs, especially post JFK and Reagan, of protecting the President and his family. In the end, I think their crude and ham-handed ad will be less rather than more effective in forwarding their political goals.

Originally Posted by Rhumb

I think the NRA's messaging is very insular and myopic, basically preaching to their choir but risking turning off a broader swath of American that they ought to be appealing to. I think most Americans understand the unique and distinct security needs, especially post JFK and Reagan, of protecting the President and his family. In the end, I think their crude and ham-handed ad will be less rather than more effective in forwarding their political goals.

I think you're incorrect, I believe the majority of Americans see the hypocrisy in one calling for strict gun laws but than utilizing those very guns for protection.

JFK/Reagan, notice after those incidents security detail has been ramped up and no president has been assassinated since? Yet children and schools get shot up, yet security has not yet been ramped up for them...Curious to the outcome of removing security from the Whitehouse and posting "gun free zone" signs.

Absolutely nothing with stop the next mass killing, only a good guy with a gun. Washington already knows this and applies it everyday.

Originally Posted by 'busa

TIL the NRA does not know that the president of the US has different protection requirements than most other people.

The ad is referring to his kids having armed guards at their school,
NOT the pres himself.

Wouldn't you want armed guards at your kids school to protect them?
Why are our elected servants exempt from the laws they pass on us?

Originally Posted by Green_Shine

Also, lead me to the analysis which will determine what children's lives are more important than other children's.

Obamacare will decide that in their future.

Originally Posted by Act of God

...and who signed that law and had the power to veto it? (while simultaneously telling America that guns don't make you safer)

Dont mistake me for a fan of Obama. I'm saying there's plenty of hypocrisy to go around and singling out one politician is counterproductive.

Originally Posted by Green_Shine

JFK/Reagan, notice after those incidents security detail has been ramped up and no president has been assassinated since? Yet children and schools get shot up, yet security has not yet been ramped up for them...Curious to the outcome of removing security from the Whitehouse and posting "gun free zone" signs.

For all their talk about how guns are the only thing that keeps us safe, when the Republicans assembled here in Tampa for their convention, they had a "gun free zone", too.

Originally Posted by 'busa

For all their talk about how guns are the only thing that keeps us safe, when the Republicans assembled here in Tampa for their convention, they had a "gun free zone", too.

Are you saying that "gun free zones" ensure our safety?

GOP thought so.

Originally Posted by Green_Shine

Are you saying that "gun free zones" ensure our safety?

They don't ensure our safety but it promotes an environment that is less prone to negative consequences resulting from impulsive (i.e. in the heat of the moment) occurrences.

We've already established if a person is committed in doing so... they will regardless. So taking into consideration whether they'll obey said "gun free zone" is inconsequential. And while an armed teacher might be able to stop a situation before it escalates, anyone with half a brain will take the teacher out first. That in an of itself negates any true benefit from removing the gun free zone criteria.



I support gun ownership. But I am tired of hearing the flawed logic behind why we should abolish said zones.

Originally Posted by casino is no lie

They don't ensure our safety but it promotes an environment that is less prone to negative consequences resulting from impulsive (i.e. in the heat of the moment) occurrences.

First of all, how do you know that gun-free-zones are "less prone to negative consequences resulting from impulsive occurrences"? Have you considered that an armed authority figure nearby may result in even fewer impulsive occurrences of all types?

Current levels of negative consequences - fewer mass shootings by people looking for soft targets - fewer non-gun fights, bullying and other negative consequences of impulsive occurrences + more gun fights as a result of more guns being present = a net gain or net loss in violence?

Second of all, a gun-free-zone is only effective at lessening gun violence if it's kept that way. Some jackass shows up and in an instant turns it into a gun-free-except-for-the-psychopath-zone and THAT'S when the problem occurs. So unless you have a way to make gun-free-zones absolutely impervious, serious consideration has to be given to the idea that creating a gun-free-zone = creating a tantalizing target for gun wielding psychos.

Originally Posted by casino is no lie

We've already established if a person is committed in doing so... they will regardless. So taking into consideration whether they'll obey said "gun free zone" is inconsequential. And while an armed teacher might be able to stop a situation before it escalates, anyone with half a brain will take the teacher out first. That in an of itself negates any true benefit from removing the gun free zone criteria.

No, it doesn't negate it. A car alarm gives true benefit by dissuading at least some would-be thieves, even if it won't stop the most dedicated, skilled or completely crazy car thief.

Yes, some nut jobs are tactically rational enough (and dedicated enough to that specific target) to shoot the teacher or on-campus cop first. But for every 1 of those shooters, there may be 10 that think "gee, I wanna shoot some mofos today, wonder where I should go maybe my old school, oh, no wait, Mr Smithers has a gun in his desk, I don't want to get shot back at, so I'll go to the movie theater where no one will be armed because it's a gun-free-zone".

In addition, you may be correct that the gun in Mrs Brown's desk won't save her or the kids in her class because NutJob is going to pop her first. But if every other teacher has a gun in their desk, after they hear the first shots, the shooter will have a MUCH harder time going room to room. Instead of slaughtering unarmed people whose only available course of action is hide and hope, he might be stopped much earlier.

You must recognize how much worse the shooters tactical situation becomes in the case where he'll face armed people instead of unarmed people, right?

Originally Posted by casino is no lie

I support gun ownership. But I am tired of hearing the flawed logic behind why we should abolish said zones.

You accuse others of using flawed logic, but you're reaching conclusions without any actual information, you're just deciding what you think would be the outcome. Your position isn't any stronger than those that would have .50 cals at every doorway. Just because it makes sense to you doesn't mean it's right.

Originally Posted by Xcelratr

First of all, how do you know that gun-free-zones are "less prone to negative consequences resulting from impulsive occurrences"? Have you considered that an armed authority figure nearby may result in even fewer impulsive occurrences of all types?

To be impulsive is to act without forethought. If you are not regularly armed then you do not have access to immediate use. When you couple that with research that shows violent acts committed with your hands are viewed by the assailant as more intimate and thus require greater commitment vs. guns that provide greater distance both in proximity and emotion from the actual act, you are less likely to have an incident.

You might argue, "well what if they have a gun in their car.... they could just as easily grab that and come back?". That's a great question. However, the time that it takes for an individual to remove themselves from the situation, walk to their car and return is time allowed to evaluate their actions removes the impulsiveness from their decision.

That's how I know.

Originally Posted by Xcelratr

Current levels of negative consequences - fewer mass shootings by people looking for soft targets - fewer non-gun fights, bullying and other negative consequences of impulsive occurrences + more gun fights as a result of more guns being present = a net gain or net loss in violence?

How articulate.

Originally Posted by Xcelratr

Second of all, a gun-free-zone is only effective at lessening gun violence if it's kept that way. Some jackass shows up and in an instant turns it into a gun-free-except-for-the-psychopath-zone and THAT'S when the problem occurs. So unless you have a way to make gun-free-zones absolutely impervious, serious consideration has to be given to the idea that creating a gun-free-zone = creating a tantalizing target for gun wielding psychos.

I already spoke to that. Feel free to re-read what I wrote.

Originally Posted by Xcelratr

No, it doesn't negate it. A car alarm gives true benefit by dissuading at least some would-be thieves, even if it won't stop the most dedicated, skilled or completely crazy car thief.

Yes, some nut jobs are tactically rational enough (and dedicated enough to that specific target) to shoot the teacher or on-campus cop first. But for every 1 of those shooters, there may be 10 that think "gee, I wanna shoot some mofos today, wonder where I should go maybe my old school, oh, no wait, Mr Smithers has a gun in his desk, I don't want to get shot back at, so I'll go to the movie theater where no one will be armed because it's a gun-free-zone".

Okay.

Originally Posted by Xcelratr

In addition, you may be correct that the gun in Mrs Brown's desk won't save her or the kids in her class because NutJob is going to pop her first. But if every other teacher has a gun in their desk, after they hear the first shots, the shooter will have a MUCH harder time going room to room. Instead of slaughtering unarmed people whose only available course of action is hide and hope, he might be stopped much earlier.

You must recognize how much worse the shooters tactical situation becomes in the case where he'll face armed people instead of unarmed people, right?

It's an erroneous assumption to think that:

1. All teachers will be armed
2. All teachers are adequately trained
3. All teachers will want to pull the trigger in that situation

Furthermore, in your scenario the person is a "nutjob". I seriously doubt they'll care if others are armed. Additionally, a single class room where you would only need to remove one obstacle is going to leave a shooter plenty of victims to make their point. The safeguards you cited prevent nothing. You're not going to find an overwhelming majority of parents who are willing going to have their children sit across from a teacher with a .45 in their desk.

Originally Posted by Xcelratr

You accuse others of using flawed logic, but you're reaching conclusions without any actual information, you're just deciding what you think would be the outcome. Your position isn't any stronger than those that would have .50 cals at every doorway. Just because it makes sense to you doesn't mean it's right.

My position is rooted in reality and pragmatism.

Originally Posted by Lair

The NRA has a lot of balls publishing that - considering that most of their members are the very people that his kids need to be protected from.

I don't think gang bangers, drug traffickers and armed robbers meet the average profile of a NRA member.

NRA members usually don't drive around town with raised cars, 21 inch wheels , gold teeth and rap music blaring from their radios.


BTW Lair, do you own any guns ? How many and what kind ?

9MM Desert Eagle here with 2 x 15 round magazines.

Originally Posted by Raymond42262

I don't think gang bangers, drug traffickers and armed robbers meet the average profile of a NRA member.

NRA members usually don't drive around town with raised cars, 21 inch wheels , gold teeth and rap music blaring from their radios.


BTW Lair, do you own any guns ? How many and what kind ?

9MM Desert Eagle here with 2 x 15 round magazines.

Mass school shootings aren't being done by thugs from the hood... Is that what you're suggesting?

Originally Posted by casino is no lie

To be impulsive is to act without forethought. If you are not regularly armed then you do not have access to immediate use. When you couple that with research that shows violent acts committed with your hands are viewed by the assailant as more intimate and thus require greater commitment vs. guns that provide greater distance both in proximity and emotion from the actual act, you are less likely to have an incident.

The point
Your head

Students and school employees already act impulsively without guns. It results in negative consequences, including people getting beat up.

Would there be more or less of the existing impulsive behavior with armed authority figures in the classroom or patrolling the halls/campus?

Originally Posted by casino is no lie

You might argue, "well what if they have a gun in their car.... they could just as easily grab that and come back?". That's a great question. However, the time that it takes for an individual to remove themselves from the situation, walk to their car and return is time allowed to evaluate their actions removes the impulsiveness from their decision.

I wouldn't ask that question, because it doesn't make sense in the context I'm proposing.

Originally Posted by casino is no lie

How articulate.

Need me to draw you a pretty picture so you can understand it?

Originally Posted by casino is no lie

It's an erroneous assumption to think that:

1. All teachers will be armed
2. All teachers are adequately trained
3. All teachers will want to pull the trigger in that situation

I agree these are serious concerns.

I'd be more in favor of armed LEO roaming the campus than armed teachers. I think it would be cheaper, safer and produce more ancillary positive effects than arming teachers. I mentioned armed teachers in my example because you'd brought it up. But given the choice, I'd go with a campus cop vs a Glock wielding geometry teacher.

Originally Posted by casino is no lie

Furthermore, in your scenario the person is a "nutjob". I seriously doubt they'll care if others are armed. Additionally, a single class room where you would only need to remove one obstacle is going to leave a shooter plenty of victims to make their point. The safeguards you cited prevent nothing. You're not going to find an overwhelming majority of parents who are willing going to have their children sit across from a teacher with a .45 in their desk.

My position is rooted in reality and pragmatism.

Here's reality: even though the nutjobs are irrational, they seem to be making somewhat rational target choices. No mass shootings at police barracks. No mass shootings at NG armories. If there's been a mass shooting at a firing range or gun store, I haven't heard of it. Even Hasan went to a processing center instead of somewhere the MPs might be. No mass shootings at NRA meetings. No mass shootings at hunting club BBQs.

Obviously the personal connection or what the location represents to the nutjob matters. But it's shortsighted to ignore the fact that movie theaters, schools, churches, college campuses and other gun-free-zones are the chosen targets time and time again.

So it's ridiculous to simply dismiss the question of what would happen if these targets were no longer gun-free.

I totally agree about 100% casualties in a single classroom being amply tragic. But isn't it more tragic if the shooter can stalk through dozens of classrooms, up and down the halls, through the library, unchecked?

Putting armed cops in schools would dissuade some nutjobs. The ones that weren't dissuaded might be stopped sooner in their rampage, which would result in fewer victims. Some would just rise to the challenge and drive a OKC-style bomb up to the front door and detonate it. Or they'd put arsenic in the water fountain. Or trigger a gas leak and light a match. it goes on and on.

The fundamental question is, when we add up all the negatives and positives, do we have a net gain in safety or a net loss. Anyone that wants to create or block laws based on their answer to that question better have more to back up their reasoning than "well, I think" or "I read somewhere" or "damn libtards" or "friggin gun nuts".

Originally Posted by Swish

Mass school shootings aren't being done by thugs from the hood... Is that what you're suggesting?

Nor are presidential assassinations.

I'm sure all those secret service agents are armed with .38 service revolvers, as that is what is logically needed to defeat any criminal, armed or otherwise.

I spit at the NRA.. Bunch of thugs who are no different from drug peddlers.

Originally Posted by sammk

I spit at the NRA.. Bunch of thugs who are no different from drug peddlers.

do you support arming all the police and secret service with .38 revolvers?

Originally Posted by Swish

Mass school shootings aren't being done by thugs from the hood... Is that what you're suggesting?

Statistically speaking........school shootings and theater shootings are a small percentage of murders. Most are done by people you know.

Generally speaking, a murder victim knows the man that shot him about 90 percent of the time.

As unfortunate as this circumstance was, it does not justify the attention or the measures that Obama , Biden and others want to make. I don't have a problem with police checks or even limiting magazines to 10 rounds. But that is about it. Banning 'assault style' rifles just because someone does not like the way they look is not going to change anything.

The murders at Sandy Hook, Columbine and the theater in Colorado were done by mentally unstable people. That is where the focus should be.

Originally Posted by Raymond42262

Statistically speaking........school shootings and theater shootings are a small percentage of murders. Most are done by people you know.

Generally speaking, a murder victim knows the man that shot him about 90 percent of the time.

As unfortunate as this circumstance was, it does not justify the attention or the measures that Obama , Biden and others want to make. I don't have a problem with police checks or even limiting magazines to 10 rounds. But that is about it. Banning 'assault style' rifles just because someone does not like the way they look is not going to change anything.

The murders at Sandy Hook, Columbine and the theater in Colorado were done by mentally unstable people. That is where the focus should be.

ban knowing other people.