Originally Posted By: Daye
Originally Posted By: sini
So I am curious to hear what local gun nuts think about NRA response?

Key points:
a) Video game and media violence to blame, not guns
b) Armed guards, TSA-style, in all schools

I assume you all agree with this, because after asking couple times I yet to see any objections.


Pre-point:

Simply owning a firearm or two does not make one a " gun-nut " any more than the ownership of a Bible makes one a religious zealot.

Point A:

If you live within the US, you know we are saturated with ultra-violence in every aspect of our culture. All forms of media can catch the blame here. TV, News, Games, Movies, Books, everything. You have to look pretty hard to get away from it. For the strong minded, this isn't an issue. It's just another aspect of life. We can process and filter out the imagery just as easily as we can any other. For others, this isn't so easy. It's these others whose behavior is shaped by what they are inundated with that become potential issues for society later on.

Point B:

The statement about armed guards just about everywhere except schools makes sense because it's pretty much the truth. In all high profile targets, we have armed guards on site to deal with potential problems that may arise. Once upon a time, schools were not considered a " high profile target ". However, this is the 21st century and apparently that has changed since we have so many massacres on school property in recent years. Problem will be how to fund it. Schools aren't known for their amazing budgets. Will likely see a " Think of the Children " Tax on every firearm sold from here on out :|

Anyone arguing the point against armed guards at any location needs to ask themselves why they would call police ( who will bring guns ) for any issue they believe was necessary.

There exists a critical period of time between your calling the police and their ability to arrive on site and neutralize an event in progress. Putting them on site ( or an equivalent ) greatly reduces this time. As the response time drops, so does the potential for additional casualties or would you argue that an armed guard is more important in a bank or a sporting event instead ?

Since everyone who isn't a VIP, elected official, or any other type who has armed security following them around all day long, your safety falls upon you.

You can either spend the time pleading with the lunatic to spare your ( or anothers ) life during a rampage or, since diplomacy and negotiation seems to be a waste of time during these things, you can have folks on site with a bit stronger power of persuasion than words alone.


Great explanation Daye. I didn't think anyone would have to have this explained to them, apparently I was wrong. The whole banning guns isn't an issue, because that's not going to happen. Even Sini himself has said guns are to prevalent to do such a thing.

NOBODY should ever have to explain WHY they need a weapon to defend themselves, family or a stranger in the case of a "lunatic" going wild with a gun. For some reason people like Sini think someone...anyone with a gun equals BAD! Would it have been bad if an armed security officer was at Columbine when those two boys started shooting, Or would have it been bad If someone in the theater in Colorado had a gun and shot the shooter before he could kill those people? Is one life not Important as 10?

I could go on, but I shouldn't have to. It should be common sense that if you have a bad guy with a gun, you also need a good guy with a gun as well. The video I posted should really set off some common sense. Had that woman kept her pistol in her purse, there could have been a lot more people alive Including her parents.