-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
NRA's solution to Sandy Hook massacre: "armed guards" in every school
- Thread starter Josh7289
- Start date
- Status
Well...I guess whoever wins that gunfight is the one who writes the rules. The US's freedom was won on murder.
Oppo
Member
I have a sweet rifle that fits me like a glove, and lets me lay waste to dozens of soda cans as well. It's a pellet gun.
You could shoot someone in the eye with that thing and kill them!
So was this the best possible response gun-control advocates could have hoped for from the NRA? It was like a parody. Calling for an extreme and impossible solution, over simplified unsophisticated analogies, outdated swipes at films & gaming, getting the number of dead children wrong, the timing...
Yes, but what are 'non-hunting guns'?
phisheep
NeoGAF's Chief Barrister
Since you ask, I've done a rough cut.
I estimate about 25 billion dollars in raw manpower plus airport checks, roadblocks port blockades, warehouseing, significant back office stuff, buybacks and compensation. (I haven't included shareholder & business compensation for manufacturers, importers and retailers though - as I din't have a handle on it).
That's equivalent to only about 4 years of armed guards in every school.
Very little of that - say £5bn tops is "new money", as you'd have to deploy a significant amount of the US military to do it fast enough and they are already budgeted for. So held against the incremental cost of armed guards in every school it would pay back in less than a year.
I guess there'd be maybe 4,000 to 10,000 deaths resulting - but again that "pays back" against the current gun homicide statistics in less than a year. (That's not a very tasteful way of looking at it, but you'll get what I mean.)
That's not to say of course that you'd treat this as a straight cost/benefit decision. It would be enormously disruptive as well for somewhere between six months and two years.
Plus, it wouldn't be perfect. You couldn't guarantee to get rid of *all* guns, but you probably could sensibly aim to get down to, say, UK levels.
It's all very rough of course, but it's probably worth having some sort of idea of the likely cost.
gutter_trash
Banned
Elmer Fudd's gun is a hunting rifle, that is the max people should be allowed to own..no more
Quite a difference between a national revolution over non representative government, and a crazy bastard shooting people trying to enforce a law passed by a representative government.
Adam Scott Aukerman
Member
I can see your reasoning, but given that what is most important here is a cultural shift away from America's love affair with firearms, I'd argue that firing ranges have no place in that solution. Especially given that it's probably not a good idea to let civilians become really bloody good a pretend shooting people in the face, just in case they ever get their hands on an illegal firearm and are a nutcase.
That's perhaps a bit extreme, but fuck it, guns have no place in modern society as far as I'm concerned. (I'm British)
Then how can you hunt rabbits ?!
Useful answer :/
Goodacre0081
Member
I never understood the desire to own recreational assault weapons. I can see hunting rifles and that's it. it makes about as much sense as going to the shooting range with bombs and grenades for recreational purposes.
So you dont have a view on it yourself? C'mon man. You're dodging the question.
First of all, this pretty much only relevant to big game hunting, for birds and smaller animals, you really want a shotgun style weapon (for real, unless you're Annie fucking Oakley, you're not hitting a bird with an m16).Now we need to get into bullet design and whatnot.Disclaimer: I do not hunt so if I am wrong please correct me. .223/5.56 is a good hunting round because it kills animals quickly. At very high velocities and when unstabilied it can fragment, and when designed to fragment it obviously will do so. This is not necessarily a bad thing for hunting as long as the would channel leaves enough meat to harvest. As for over penetration, the fragmentation helps prevent that by reducing the mass of each piece and therefore its energy.
It also breaks in the body, which is never a good thing when hunting plus it has too much penetrating power.
That being said, I can see the need for high powered bullets in big game hunting (I'm not anti-hunting in any shape of form) and I think I'm okay with allowing bolt action rifles for that fire high powered bullets, but again, I think people with better knowledge of big game hunting and its requirements could probably better weigh in on the subject.
But I'm pretty sure they don't need an m16 for that.
That is becoming internet meme of sort and honestly I have no idea what it's based on.
There can be an argument about whether or not it's powerful enough for military scenarios, you know, when you fighting an army, but please, don't make light of its TERRIBLE destructive power, that cartridge does horrible horrible things to the human body, much more than your run of the mill pistol rounds.
I am no gun expert (I have only fired a gun once in my life) but anything that is not something like this?
It's not an internet meme, and yes, the .223 will kill you quickly. My point is that on the scale of ammunition available, it is not really very powerful.
I am no gun expert (I have only fired a gun once in my life) but anything that is not something like this?
You have just fallen prey to a common trap for young players. That rifle is functionally equivalent to an AR15. It is semi automatic, fires a full power round, it it even looks to have a flash hider on it.
Are there no firing ranges in the United Kingdom? I see your point too, I just thought some form of compromise for gun enthusiasts would be a good idea.
EatinOlives
Member
Someone actually proposed this with a straight face. This is actually their idea of a better society, to employ armed guards at all times among children of every public school because you don't want the fucking alternative of slightly inconveniencing the millions of gun owners. Actually, scratch that. The alternative isn't even inconveniencing them, it's the alternative of even talking about the possibility of inconveniencing them.
It's pathetic that this pack of neanderthals is a major political player in the country. If you want to fix gun violence in the nation, start with the NRA. With idiotic statements like this they're making it more than clear they're part of the problem.
It's pathetic that this pack of neanderthals is a major political player in the country. If you want to fix gun violence in the nation, start with the NRA. With idiotic statements like this they're making it more than clear they're part of the problem.
Adam Scott Aukerman
Member
There are, just not many. Plus we don't generally lust after guns in the first place, so that helps.
It's not a bad one.
I heard many people say that it doesn't have the "stopping power" of a 9mm or a 45 acp, but I only heard it on the internet.
Compared to what specifically?
Just saw this on our (UK) moderately right TV station and they had to put a disclaimer before the news item stating that it wasn't actually satire - he genuinely believes that the best way to counter gun crime is to have more guns.
It boggles the mind that any advanced nation would think it's a good idea have armed guards at schools, or even worse, armed civilians to protect the students as he also implied.
America - the world is watching, and we don't quite believe what we're seeing!
It boggles the mind that any advanced nation would think it's a good idea have armed guards at schools, or even worse, armed civilians to protect the students as he also implied.
America - the world is watching, and we don't quite believe what we're seeing!
Usually I agree with you. However, you're using the outdated notion that in the event that the government decides to go all wonky and we need to form a militia against it to protect our freedoms, that we'll have the firepower to protect ourselves.
That's no longer the case.
As another poster said in this thread, the government got ballistic missiles, UAVs, and a trained military. They have satellite surveillance, heat-tracking probes, and other types of technology that I'm unaware of. My handgun and a few gasoline filled vodka bottles have absolutely zero chance of changing the collective mind of the government, if they suddenly declare where I live a military police state.
Even if everyone on my block comes out with shotties and semi-autos, they have automatic shotguns and fully autos. And snipers. And tank killers. And bombs. This isn't the 1700s were the worst I had to worry about was slow loading cannons, man. The US government's ability to pacify its citizens by force is pretty scary. Do you really think that the law to bear arms is going to change that?
'Stopping power' is a horribly vague term. It has more energy than a 9mm or a .45 round. As for compared to what, pretty much every rifle hunting round in common use that is not a rimfire. Most of the major hunting cartiges are around a .30 cal or 7mm bullet.
Yep, any armed conflict between civilians and the military would be a short one. The only question on my mind would be if a soldier would fire at his own countrymen, especially if he was sympathetic for their cause (as I assume many soldiers would be). I read somewhere that the military generally leans to the right? Is that actually the case?
Yet they had a hell of a time in Iraq and now Afghanistan. I don't think the US military is quite as sophisticated and as powerful as you think.
I'm not saying a militia of any size could take down the US military but I'd imagine they could do a fair amount of damage, especially on their own turf.
I don't think a bunch of Americans advocating gun ownership would have the same resolve and will power as an organized group of religious fanatics that do not fear death. This is not to mention the fact that it is easier to kill people in your own country than in a country thousands of miles away that has natural scenery built for guerrilla warfare. It is a totally different scenario.
Adam Scott Aukerman
Member
If put in a room, one on one, with a civilian, yeah a fair amount of them probably wouldn't. When part of an army? You can bet your arse they would.
After Columbine, all the schools in my area had at least one armed officer. The high schools and middle schools usually had one at all times and 3 during lunch periods. Elementary schools got rid of the officer pretty quickly. As far as I know, even the tiny country high schools (I'm talking sub-500 students) have at least one armed officer at all times through out the whole state of Indiana.
yn-neko hates a cat
Banned
I'm not totally against this idea but do not like it in its current form. I'm of the belief that the government (state and federal) needs to do a better job of protecting ALL of its public institutions... not just buricratic buildings. Create more jobs for some of our off-duty service men this way and pair that with not signing strange unreasionable contracts with private corporations that leave servicemen out in the cold with no position to return to after a tour of duty.
The Technomancer
card-carrying scientician
Don't underestimate the power of the Authority Effect, especially when it comes to people who are already trained to follow orders unquestionably. Although fortunately we haven't ever tested it quite that far.
CharlieDigital
Banned
PTSD, bro.
Don't soldiers also have a disproportionally high rate of suicides?
Of course they would. There would be no such thing as a civil war if they wouldn't.
Agreed, hence the scare quotes.
My point is that you are much better off getting shot by 9mm than a 5.56 NATO, and it's not even close.
I'm not expert on hunting rifles, but I'm pretty sure this is only relevant to big game (you don't need that power to even go after small deer), which is a tiny portion of gun usage in this country and I think can be easily regulated if that's the only reason to allow such cartridges.
I mean, we already heavily regulate big game hunting in this country, right?
Also (and I admit this only tangentially relevant to the issue and hand), I can tell you for a fact that 5.56 has plenty of power to kill pretty much anything which is not a wild boar, but damn, I've seen those animals go over landmines and not die (at least not immediately).
I guess it is a good thing that I am not the one choosing which guns to sanction then heh!
WWII says we have tested it that far, and we were found wanting.
Since we are both not hunters, I will defer any more on this until I have had a chance to read up. But yes, anyone saying a 5.56 is less powerful than a 9mm is a lunatic.
No offense, but a lot of these guys come back with some serious mental issues through no fault of their own and as a society we just toss them aside...which brings us back to that issue. We should AT THE VERY LEAST be giving just as much a fuck about mental health care as gun control.
Fox News...NRA talking points...some guy in the crowd just brought up the " we protect banks, money, why not our babies?" Because people want to rob banks, they tend not to go there to just shoot everyone in sight. That argument means we should have armed guards EVERYWHERE that there are people.
Hari Seldon
Member
Not to mention, the National Guard and Reserves are "civilians" most of the time, and I would assume a large portion of the active duty army would not obey orders to fire on their own civilians.
Actually, I think if a populist coup were to happen it would happen too fast for the military to intervene. All the civilians would have to do is overpower the police in DC. And if the coup was truly a populist coup, the military would likely not even try to intervene. Unlike the Arab countries, the US doesn't have to wait for arms to be smuggled in from friendly nations.
Adam Scott Aukerman
Member
Perhaps I'm confused by your wording, but for clarity, I was arguing that (likely) the majority of armed forces would go along with any orders to strike against a number of their own nation.
TacticalFox88
Banned
....Are you FUCKING serious?!
-______-
If we adopted WWII total War mentality, Iraq and Afghanistan would be turned into glass and a parking lot with no survivors. None. Whatsoever.
There isn't a country on this planet that could hope to stand up to the US military. If we were a bunch of assholes who didn't care about civilian causalities (which we do, we tried to avoid them when necessary) we'd win every war we go in, in about six months TOPS.
Something something shadow government, something something contingency plan, something something Mt. Weather, something something martial law.
Yeah people don't remember when we used to burn down entire cities, with the people still in them, at night, on purpose. News blackout.
Yeah people don't remember when we used to burn down entire cities, with the people still in them, at night, on purpose. News blackout.
Why didn't we then?
yn-neko hates a cat
Banned
The same effort in screening that gets many ex-military guys into law enforcement can get them through to such positions. You are right that some come back messed up but don't speak as though its a majority and that they're a threat to society (as though outcasts or secondary citizens of some sort). Dealing with the mental health of our soldiers and what I was talking about are both equally important but unrelated ideas.
Posting guards at every school is a failure of civilization. For the NRA it might be good business but for civilized society it's simple, abject failure to rise above our most vulgar instincts. Why even bother sending kids to schools at that point...Hey, why didn't the NRA think of that? Home school your kids and then we can post a guard at every home!
WTF? Provide cover with his car? He's supposed to be shooting the bastards! A number of teachers at Sandy Hook managed to provide cover and protect kids, WITHOUT GUNS. And they have cars too, so... From the sound of it, he saved no more lives by merit of being the "good guy with the gun" but by simply being another warm adult body present in the situation. So the same could have been accomplished by having a spare sub teacher on hand.
Mental health care is an issue, but it doesn't deserve equal attention in this case. In reality, mass shootings like this make up a very small percentage of people killed by guns each year here in the States. There's more to be concerned about than just stopping mass killings. Gun control can reduce gun crime in general, which is a huge, huge problem.
- Status