NRA calls for armed police officer in every school
»Play Video
WASHINGTON (AP) - The nation's largest gun-rights lobby called Friday for armed police officers to be posted in every American school to stop the next killer "waiting in the wings."
The National Rifle Association broke its silence on last week's shooting rampage at a Connecticut elementary school that left 26 children and staff dead.
"The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun," the group's top lobbyist, Wayne LaPierre, said at a Washington news conference.
LaPierre said "the next Adam Lanza," the man responsible for last week's mayhem, is planning an attack on another school.
"How many more copycats are waiting in the wings for their moment of fame from a national media machine that rewards them with wall-to-wall attention and a sense of identity that they crave, while provoking others to try to make their mark," LaPierre said. "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?"
He blamed video games, movies and music videos for exposing children to a violent culture day in and day out. "In a race to the bottom, many conglomerates compete with one another to shock, violate, and offend every standard of civilized society, by bringing an even more toxic mix of reckless behavior and criminal cruelty right into our homes," LaPierre said.
He refused to take any questions after speaking. Though security was tight, two protesters were able to interrupt LaPierre's speech, holding up signs that blamed the NRA for killing children. Both were escorted out, shouting that guns in schools are not the answer.
LaPierre announced that former Rep. Asa Hutchison, R-Ark., will lead an NRA program that will develop a model security plan for schools that relies on armed volunteers.
The 4.3 million-member NRA largely disappeared from public debate after the shootings in Newtown, Conn., choosing atypical silence as a strategy as the nation sought answers after the rampage. The NRA temporarily took down its Facebook page and kept quiet on Twitter.
Since the slayings, President Barack Obama has demanded "real action, right now" against U.S. gun violence and called on the NRA to join the effort. Moving quickly after several congressional gun-rights supporters said they would consider new legislation to control firearms, the president said this week he wants proposals to reduce gun violence that he can take to Congress by January.
Obama has already asked Congress to reinstate an assault weapons ban that expired in 2004 and pass legislation that would stop people from purchasing firearms from private sellers without a background check. Obama also has indicated he wants Congress to pursue the possibility of limiting high-capacity magazines.
The National Rifle Association broke its silence on last week's shooting rampage at a Connecticut elementary school that left 26 children and staff dead.
"The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun," the group's top lobbyist, Wayne LaPierre, said at a Washington news conference.
LaPierre said "the next Adam Lanza," the man responsible for last week's mayhem, is planning an attack on another school.
"How many more copycats are waiting in the wings for their moment of fame from a national media machine that rewards them with wall-to-wall attention and a sense of identity that they crave, while provoking others to try to make their mark," LaPierre said. "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?"
He blamed video games, movies and music videos for exposing children to a violent culture day in and day out. "In a race to the bottom, many conglomerates compete with one another to shock, violate, and offend every standard of civilized society, by bringing an even more toxic mix of reckless behavior and criminal cruelty right into our homes," LaPierre said.
He refused to take any questions after speaking. Though security was tight, two protesters were able to interrupt LaPierre's speech, holding up signs that blamed the NRA for killing children. Both were escorted out, shouting that guns in schools are not the answer.
LaPierre announced that former Rep. Asa Hutchison, R-Ark., will lead an NRA program that will develop a model security plan for schools that relies on armed volunteers.
The 4.3 million-member NRA largely disappeared from public debate after the shootings in Newtown, Conn., choosing atypical silence as a strategy as the nation sought answers after the rampage. The NRA temporarily took down its Facebook page and kept quiet on Twitter.
Since the slayings, President Barack Obama has demanded "real action, right now" against U.S. gun violence and called on the NRA to join the effort. Moving quickly after several congressional gun-rights supporters said they would consider new legislation to control firearms, the president said this week he wants proposals to reduce gun violence that he can take to Congress by January.
Obama has already asked Congress to reinstate an assault weapons ban that expired in 2004 and pass legislation that would stop people from purchasing firearms from private sellers without a background check. Obama also has indicated he wants Congress to pursue the possibility of limiting high-capacity magazines.
You really have to laugh at these "do gooders" who believe that new gun control laws are going to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and the mentally deranged. We have over 11 million undocumented illegal immigrants in this nation of ours. The feds don't know who those people are and cannot even begin to get a handle on how to stop them from crawling across our open borders. If they cannot control who comes into our country, then how would the feds ever be able to get a handle on the number of weapons we posses, who legally owns them, how they are transferred from one person to another, etc. The fancy that gun control is going to magically stop the bloodshed is an absolute and utter joke!!!
Â
Posting armed guards in every school in America isn't going to solve the problem either. Does anyone remember when Maurice Clemmons shot and killed four armed police officers in a Parkland coffee shop three years ago? Sadly, their guns didn't even stop their own demise.Â
Â
One of the underlying problems is that we have emptied our mental institutions and gutted mental health services over the past three decades. Another underlying problem is that we have created an entire social culture and economic system that abjectly discourages the disenfranchised and predisposes them to radical actions out of the belief that they really have nothing left to lose.
Nope. Â We don't see people standing on street corners, living under bridges, walking around town with AR-15's.
Â
We do see many, many mentally ill people though don't we. Â Take care of the mentally ill. Â Restore funding, push funding so families have someone to call and pick these people up; so the police and citizens do not have to confront them in public - or the schools.
Â
A gun is a tool and so is a hammer, an axe, and the knife that stabbed 22-people last week. Â But they don't work by themselves.
Â
Address the core of the problem.  Let's see fully funded institutions, psychiatric help and stop releasing them becasue they can take drugs.  When they stop the drugs, the behavior returns.Â
 @sentryone While I agree with your stand on mental health, when was the last time you heard of a mentally ill homeless person shoot up a school? Almost all school shootings have been committed by young men (or more than one), who use legally owned guns their family already owns. If we have any hope of getting control of this problem, we have to get the most dangerous weapons ,those  that are capable of shooting 26 people anywhere from 3 to 11 times, in a matter of moments, out of the hands of the general public.
The hysterical fear of guns is making it impossible to protect our school children from mass murderers. This no guns-no crime mindset is insane, mystical thinking. The "No Gun" zone signs erected at schools and in other places are nothing but helpful, informational invitations to criminals to "Come on in, the shooting is fine and there is no risk".
Defenseless people are nothing but "victims-in-waiting". The NRA is right. Our schools need armed guards. We must have armed police, teachers, parents, and other volunteers in our schools. They have had the proper training and pass scrupulous background checks fiirst, but the NRA, other organizations, and federal and state agencies are already set up and able to do this. Arm our schools. Protect our children. The strong have been killing the weak and the armed killing the unarmed from the time the first cave-man picked up a rock and whacked the other guy with it.
The NRA is right. Armed police,teachers,and parents in our schools would make defense of our children possible. No other way will work . Foolish, wishful-thinking "No Gun " zone signs have been tried and have been proven to be of great help in encouraging murderous attacks because they inform the criminals of where they can kill the most victims with the least risk to themselves. "No Gun" zones are open invitations to murderers to " come on in, there are lots of helpless, defenseless people in here waiting for you".   Come on in to your private, kid-shooting gallery". It's beyond ignorance, it's merely magical thinking, to believe "No Gun" zones will protect anyone. They only disarm the good guys who could stop the attacks if they were armed. .Â
LaPierre and the NRA believe that we should just hand everyone the most powerful guns they can afford, and then when the shooting stops, we declare all the survivors "sane".
How do you come to that conclusion? Or is that just your opinion? I would be more interested to know you opinion on what the solution would be to prevent these terrible acts?
 @AKjohn You won't get it. JLS has posted some wild hyperbole lacking rational basis. I've learned not to expect constructive commentary on this issue from JLS so I wouldn't hold your breath.
I would like to hear some non-emotional argumentsâ on from someone who feels we need to ban assault type weapons.
How far of a ban, and what type of weapons and magazinesâ would you ban?
How would you enforce such a ban? Would you grandfather people who already own them? If not how would you collect them and dispose of them?
What do you thing the effect would be on public safety, specifically safety of our children in public places?
I do not own an assault type weapon but I do own guns(the AK in my screen name represents Alaska, not a type of gun) so here is a chance for you to convince me and maybe others to support such a ban and not lobby against it.
John
 @AKjohn Yes, lets see if anyone can come up with a logical argument for banning guns. An "assault" weapon of the kind civilians can have is not an automatically fired weapon as is used in war. Instead, it is a semi-automatic because the trigger must be pulled each time a bullet is fired. Probably very few really need a 20 or so round magazine, but everyone who wants to be have to defend self and others needs some kind of firearm. I'm a woman, a mother, and a grandmother. I am armed. I have a concealed carry weapon permit. I intend to protect myself and my family, something I could certainly could not do without a firearm.. Most people are a lot bigger and stronger than I am. How about you? Could you defend your grandchild is someone tried to kidnap him/her off the playground? And don't argue that I'd just end up killing some innocent bystander. I probably would only have to show my gun to the creep.Â
 @SeaUrchin79 There is no logical argument for banning all guns, and with the exception of a few extremists, no one wants to. We only want to ban weapons that have no business being in the hands of the general public. I'm pretty sure you're not carrying around a military style assault weapon that is capable of shooting hundreds of bullets in the matter of a few minutes.
 @AKjohn Most people calling for bans are not very much into the whole "practical effects or implementation details" thing. Then they have to actually consider costs, side effects, consequences, and effectiveness.
 @RN1  @AKjohn Yeah, it's annoying when one side completely ignores side effects and consequences, isn't it?
 @RN1  @AKjohn Well I still find it interesting how whenever this debate comes up there is a very vocal bunch that want to ban guns, overturn the 2nd amendment, etc, that they themselves have no actual solution to the real problem, bad or crazy people doing bad to other people. If all guns were immediately made illegal and banned today, you would probably get only a small percentage of them off the street, but a majority of them will continue to circulate. Also our government can't seem to stop the flow of drugs and illegal immigrants from coming into this country, how would anyone think that we could stop illegal guns?
 @AKjohn  @justmyopinion The gun "buyback" idea is really brilliant, isn't it? Especially during a time in our history when we cannot even afford to pay teachers and have to lay them off. What we all need is a golden goose that poops thousand dollar bills.
 @justmyopinion  @SeaUrchin79 "weapons out there that do not belong in the hands of the general public"
Your opinion, not fact. You may not like them but just because you don't it doesn't mean people have no business having them.
 @justmyopinion  @SeattleJoe Gun owners pay the same taxes as any car owner. You want a special tax for gun owners to pay for something that is not their fault. If you want to tax gun owners for something gun related like gun safety training, etc sure. I'd pay 10 cents per firearm per year.
 @SeaUrchin79 No one is going to offer to buy back your gun unless it's an assault weapon with high capacity clips. With the exception of a few extremists who want to ban all guns, no one is after all of your guns. But there are weapons out there that do not belong in the hands of the general public, and those guns need to be controlled.
 @justmyopinion  @AKJohn No one is going to buy back my gun.It's not such an expensive gun monetarily, but priceless when it comes to protecting my life. I don't want to have to sit trembling and terrified in the house as someone starts banging on windows and doors trying to get in. Sure I can call 911 but you know the saying about how help is needed in seconds and the police are minutes away.Â
 @AKjohn  @RN1 Perfect. Very logical. Anti-gunners aren't capable of logic or historical reasoning.
@SeattleJoe In my opinion, if you can afford the toy, you can afford to pitch in towards something that will benefit society. We tax alcohol, cigarettes, gasoline, cars, sale of homes... you name it. Why not tax guns? The owner of the hybrid car is paying taxes every year, not to mention paying taxes on fuel and now the legislature is discussing taxing them to help pay for the roads  because they don't buy enough fuel to pay their fair share. Why should gun owners be exempt?
 @justmyopinion  @AKJohn " in almost every case, someone who knew the crazy guy with the gun, knew he had made threats but didn't say anything because they are afraid they might ruin his life, etc. "
So we punish law abiding gun owners because people are too afraid to help the mentally ill? That defies all logic.
 @justmyopinion  @AKjohn " tax them and use the funds to support mental health "
Why is it the responsibility of gun owners to fund mental health? This is in effect punishing the law abiding people because a few nuts use guns to do bad. If we taxed hybrid cars to fund drunk driving would that be ok too? Of course not. I really appreciate that you are trying to come up with a solution which is certainly better than many on here but we have to make sure that what we come up with is effect and fair.
@AKJohn There is no magic way to make this problem go away instantly. Of course I don't believe all owners of banned guns will line up and turn them in immediately. I'm not stupid. But, we have to start somewhere and we can't just sit back and say "it too hard, so let's not do it". Yes, I do think the tax payers are going to have to come up with the funds for the gun buy back. If we can send billions of dollars overseas to fight wars we can't win, we can come up with the money to fund a gun buy back. And no, I don't expect any gun owner to lose money on the gun they purchased in good faith.
Â
I've also said I think we need to register and license guns just as we do cars and motorcycles, tax their owners and use the money for mental health education. I've said before, and posters are ignoring it, the CIA has investigated 37 school shootings and in almost every case, someone who knew the crazy guy with the gun, knew he had made threats but didn't say anything because they are afraid they might ruin his life, etc. We have to change that way of thinking if we have any hope of ending these senseless attacks.
@justmyopinion@AKjohn
OK the gun buyback will get some of the guns off the street. And I agree some will be from law abiding tax paying citizens, and some will be from criminals looking to support their habits.Â
Â
However does anyone truly believe that it will clear the country all the assault type weapons? I remember the old 3 Musketeers movie with Charlie Sheen, towards the end all the "disarmed" Musketeers still had their weapons and uniforms hidden for the day the needed to retrieve them and itâs quite possible that a lot of that will happen in this country. It may take several generations to finally locate and "confiscate all these weapons.
Â
Some of these guns are worth thousands of dollars and were purchased in good faith. Is the taxpayer going to have to pick up the tab for this? Or are we just gonna stay "tuff, here's 5 cents on the dollar" to those who already legally possess them?
Â
Yes whatever the solution is it will be difficult but what if a large part of the population does not want to try?
Â
What I am looking for is there is so much public outcry for the government to do something, and the outcry seems focused on banning guns in this country. But I am trying to understand how even those who are anti gun really believe that this is a solution that will make things safer in our lifetime? I would like to hear answers to help protect our kids now, and make everyone feel safe, however long term solutions are good too.
Â
Crickets?
 @AKjohn I have a few ideas, and I'm not a gun ban nut. But I think there are limits to what type of guns people can own. The first thing we should do is a gun buy back. Offer people a good price, and we would have the bad guys stealing guns to sell back. It worked in Australia.
Â
 I also think all guns should be licensed, just as cars and motorcycles are. Then we need to tax them and use the funds to support mental health treatment and education. We might not be able to stop the flow of illegal guns, but at least when we found a gun that's not licensed, we could confiscate it.
Â
Just because it's going to be difficult, doesn't mean we shouldn't try. We banned that bar that raises the sides of cribs, lead based paint, asbestos, the Ford Pinto and cigarette smoking in public places, what makes military assault weapons so special?
 @AKjohn Any bans would absolutely have to be grandfathered in. I have no doubt that any attempt to confiscate weapons already owned by private citizens would result in a second civil war.
 @Eduardo Capistrano I personally agree with you, my point is, if an anti-gun person wanted to ban the manufacture and sale of new assault weapons , then what good is it to leave the millions of already sold weapons out there? And how will that increase the safety of my kids in 2013? What would be an anti-gun persons opinion on how to deal with that?
 @SeaUrchin79  @AKjohn  @Eduardo Capistrano Now now. Don't go using reason here, its not fair to the anti-gunners.
 @AKjohn  @Eduardo Capistrano How would an anti-gun person deal with anything? Any kind of danger posed by someone bigger or stronger or meaner or if there were several of them? One person I know said she'd use martial arts, but she is 80 years old, weighs less than 100 pounds, and has never had any self-defense training in her life. A 10-year-old could probably best her in a fight and steal penny-candy money from her.
On last questions, kind of off topic. How do I get points? I want points.
 @Magicalwoman By getting "Likes", Magicalwoman!! I just gave you one!! Merry Christmas! ;-)
 @Eduardo Capistrano  @Magicalwoman Have you noticed that the "Likes given" count is always exactly 5 less than the "Likes received" count? I think there must be some dry-labbing going on inside this app.
 @JLS1950  Yes, I have noticed that and found it to be very peculiar.
 @Eduardo Capistrano @Ben Ezzell @ytboarder @Blevnangels @calapete It is quite evident that ya'll can't read other comments left on this board. Or you are so out of sorts and mind that you just want to spout of without engaging your brain in thought. If you read my comments then you will see it won't make any sense to address one side of the coin. This isn't about just gun control, banning, or any other type of control. Look at all the things that are "against the law", driving without a license, drinking or buying alcohol under the age of 21, owning or buying a firearm under the age of 21, yet people who have no regard for the law still manage to find a way to do all the above. Banning firearms/assault rifles is not going to make a difference. ADDRESS MENTAL HEALTH ISSUES. The other thing is has anyone noticed how the story keeps evolving. In the days after the shooting, "the gunman was found dead inside a classroom with two PISTOLS by his side". "Police arrested a second person", "The 223 Assault Rifle WAS FOUND IN THE CAR AND WAS NOT USED IN THE ASSAULT".
Â
Now the 223 Assault rifle was used in the assault, there is no mention of that second person, and Adam shot his way into the school.
Â
Why evolve the story? There is video of two students talking about seeing the man on the ground as they walked to the fire station that the police had handcuffed..
Â
Let's see the video of Adam shooting his way into the school.
Â
Why evolve the story? You can find several articles, interviews and press conferences from police that say the assault rifle was in the car and not used in the attack.
Â
The kid was mentally ill, his mother knew it, she was totally irresponsible and sorry to say, I feel no grief over her death. She knew who and what she was creating and training.
Â
Anyway, read better next time boys and don't take up my time by spouting off useless words, ya'll sound like 2nd graders.
 @Magicalwoman Fog of war? Well, unless you want to join the tinfoil hat brigade. Early reports in these kind of cases are almost always WRONG on critical details, because somebody saw this and thought it was that, etc.
Pay attention to the autopsy reports: these will tell you what type of ammunition actually did the killing. And all such reports so far are that the victims all died of .223 rounds, and the killer died of a self-inflicted gunshot, round compatible with the handgun found with the body. Probably one of those "nice clean finishing shots" through his own head.
 @Magicalwoman Why is the story evolving? Because it's best for the agenda. The government doesn't fear handguns because they are 'close quarter' firearms. Rifles are 'long range' firearms and vastly more accurate. Makes it much harder to get to your door if they want to. Does that make sense?
 @Magicalwoman  @Eduardo Capistrano  @Ben Ezzell  @ytboarder  @Blevnangels  @calapeteÂ
Â
That's the problem with being a Mom, they are to close to the issue to act in a responsible manner.
Example a neighbor kids stole the mom's car and never returned it. They don't even live with her, but are under 18 in age. I told her she needed to seek police help. Her response but I love my kids, they didn't mean to do any thing bad, I could do that.
Â
oh, boo hoo hoo, get a grip and protect your self. Last I heard, the car was totaled and not insured.
The kids are no when in sight.
Â
Â
 @DoctorPC  I remember many times as a kid being told that if I got into trouble with the police, my parents would not be going to bail me out. That's how you learn personal responsibility.
Â
At a macroscopic level, your neighbor kids' mom really sounds an awful lot like our woman-centric State government.
 @Eduardo Capistrano  @DoctorPC Same here. My parents said that if I ever did something that they would be the last ones to bail me out, and they meant it.Â
 @Magicalwoman Apparently nobody in Newtown liked Adam or his mother after the fact either. Their numbers weren't counted in the 26 trees, 26 this, 26 that, etc. that are being put up everywhere in Connecticut. Nor were their two bodies even claimed by anyone until just yesterday.
Â
I found it interesting that public records showed Adam's mother was collecting $240,000 per year in alimony and that that amount was set to increase to $300,000 in 2015. As such, she wouldn't have had to work another day in her life. Seems that amount would have been adequate to buy some trigger locks and a secure safe to keep the weapons inside and maybe even have had a little bit left over to buy some mental health care for her son.
 @Eduardo Capistrano  @Magicalwoman I think it would be disrespectful to treat either the killer or his mother with such memorial touches right alongside those of the true victims. Frankly, there is just too much question about the mother's role in all this - whether sins of commission or sins of omission.
I agree that the mother should have invested in much better gun security. Divorced mom with two boys and she buys powerful guns with large-capacity magazines and goes to shooting ranges with her mentally or neurologically troubled son? We cannot know what measures she may have tried to use to secure the weapons - at least not yet - but mom does sound a bit fruity to me somehow. Maybe she (or he, for that matter) was just all hysterical about the impending Mayan apocalypse, and the doting son decided to put her, himself and a bunch of young school children all "out of their misery" in advance thereof... [TOTAL speculation here please!] But clearly "not quite right" somehow.
There are really WAY too many serious nutcases, granola mixes and tinfoil hats running around with these "assault weapons" and high-capacity magazines, IMHO.
BTW, the actual federal definition of an "assault weapon" bears repeating for reference, since there seems to be some confusion and denial that the Bushmaster .223 is one: "the federal assault weapons ban also defined as a prohibited assault weapon any semiautomatic rifle with a detachable magazine and at least two of the following five items: a folding or telescopic stock; a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon; a bayonet mount; a flash suppressor or threaded barrel (a barrel that can accommodate a flash suppressor); or a grenade launcher." The Bushmaster is a semi-auto and has the detachable magazine, the telescopic stock, the pistol grip and the flash suppressor. Not sure about bayonet mount or grenade launcher, but 3 out of 5 is clearly over the limit of ONE: it is a defined "assault weapon".
 @JLS1950 ""required" for some form of assault."
You are projecting the purpose of the firearm from its capability. It is capable of firing fast but that does not make its purpose an assault weapon. These weapons are the fastest growing segment of firearms and wouldn't you know it every year they are used millions of times for non "assault" and on a bad year a few rare occasions, for assault.Â
 @SeattleJoe The definition does not say "military assault weapon". In fact, if it did, it might be harder to defend under the Second IMHO. The definition might say "criminal assault weapon", but that would just put the NRA in an outrage. So there is no further adjective. Nonetheless, these weapons are designed to "look" military or perhaps Ramboesque, and they are designed to be functional weapons where withering semi-automatic firepower is "required" for some form of assault. For example on classrooms, shopping malls and motion picture theaters.
 @JLS1950  @Eduardo Capistrano  @Magicalwoman "BTW, the actual federal definition of an "assault weapon" bears repeating for reference, since there seems to be some confusion and denial that the Bushmaster .223 is one: ""
Keeping in mind of course that this definition is a political one not one based on reality. Take every single one of these and put them into a weapon, tell our military to use this weapon and they would laugh you out of the place.Â
In my next life, I'd like to be an armed SRO / policeman in a high school. That would be the best job! Any studious boy who has diligently studied algebra, trigonometry, calculus, chemistry, physics, foreign language, etc. in high school knows that all the prettiest girls go for the jocks and the men in uniform. Being armed and uniformed in a high school would give you instant access to the prettiest senior girls the moment they all turn 18. Bring it on!!
The gun manufacturers must be protected ... at all costs in blood and lives lest their earnings slump. Reason enough to put them out of business entirely? Let the workers get honest jobs and the bosses starve (or hunt for a living).
There were reasons why federal marshals entered western communities and began enforcing laws that prevented people from carrying guns in bars and eventually on the streets back during the 'wild west' days. Currently, statistics show that more guns equal more homicides - with the good old USA at the very top of the list... and what does the NRA offer? Why, more guns, of course. There simply aren't enough adjectives to describe this level of ignorance.
 @ytboarder Homicides have been on the decline for a while now so I'm not sure where you assumption comes from.