The NRA Response

[No1der]

Businesses in the line of fire (pardon the pun) that have good management have proven adapt at getting ahead of the curve and working with regulatory agencies to minimize poor regulation, event subvert it to help their business interests against competition. That could have been done in this case. Instead they've effectively chosen the way of fighting. Frankly with the way public sympathies lie, that will lead to a much higher likelihood of much more severe, and frankly stupid regulation.

I completely agree with you.

What we were given instead was odd, uncomfortable and badly thought out.

Frankly, what LaPierre was describing sounded more like a Clint Eastwood Spaghetti Western than an actual policy change or solution.

[zincwarrior]

Here's how it should have good
*Blah blah tragedy blah blahNRA is made up of moms and dads
*Blah blah NRA has stood for safety and prudent fiream ownership (site safety prorams, police training etc etc.
*Reason are many for recent tragedies
*NRA intends to move forward and work with Congress and States to review and look for methods we can do to reduce the scourge of X.
*We look forward to working with them in the coming weeks (and whatever the Biden commission is called) as part of a multipronged approach to reduce X scourge and improve firearm safety
*As always we stand for blah blah repsonsible ownership and employmnent of our fundamental @econd Amendment rights
*restate empathy with victims, blah blah million members pray for them.

[No1der]

*Blah blah tragedy blah blahNRA is made up of moms and dads
*Blah blah NRA has stood for safety and prudent fiream ownership (site safety prorams, police training etc etc.
*Reason are many for recent tragedies
*NRA intends to move forward and work with Congress and States to review and look for methods we can do to reduce the scourge of X.
*We look forward to working with them in the coming weeks (and whatever the Biden commission is called) as part of a multipronged approach to reduce X scourge and improve firearm safety
*As always we stand for blah blah repsonsible ownership and employmnent of our fundamental @econd Amendment rights
*restate empathy with victims, blah blah million members pray for them.

Would have been better than what we got.

[dspieler]

Re: Zincwarrior - Exactly. This really isn't rocket science. Any halfway decent speech writer/public relations person could have written a better response.

As I see it, the NRA is going for broke here, and I think they have a good chance of getting rolled.

I know that some think that it is a slippery slope, and that if you give on this, then you will later have to give on something else. That's possible but slippery slope arguments are also a good way to avoid seeking a compromise. I think with the political realities here, some controls are going to get put into place. But also with the political realities, the NRA could ask for and reasonably get 95% of what they want. I think by not giving 5%, they and we will lose alot more than that.

[Cascade1911]

^^^^^
I have to agree. I do understand the slippery slope argument I think in this case it is a matter of falling back and regrouping rather than getting over run.

[shortwave]

I don't think there would have been any response from the NRA that would have pleased everyone. Some will say Mr. Lapierre should have been more forceful in his statement, some will say he was too forceful.

Some say an armed security in each school would cost to much money in an already stressed economy:

Moreover, there are 23,200 schools in the country already with armed guards, but that is only 1/3 of the total. If each one is paid the median police salary of $55k, then we're talking about $2.5 billion. Besides, Columbine had an armed guard.

I have to ask those who say this if we would rather have our Fed. tax dollars going to pay for free cell phones for people on gov't assistance or going to paying for school security... or...do I want 2-3 million, Fed. tax dollars being spent on some worthless study(insert any of the ridiculous past or planned future studies) that our gov't funds that doesn't amount to anything or funding school security. My point is, if we're really serious about stopping these tragedies, we can make cuts in other areas of senseless Fed., State and City spending in areas we all know is happening and come up with at least a portion of the money.

Bottom line is, IMO, what the NRA is saying, regardless of the way we feel things were said , regardless of how politically correct/incorrect we feel it was said, and really, regardless of if we are pro or anti gun, more strict gun laws will simply not stop these kind of tragedies anymore then stricter drug laws have stopped drug use in this country.

Pro or anti-gun, if we really want to stop or at least drastically reduce these tragedies, there will have to be some form of armed security present to stop them.

[Powderman]

Some are saying that there is not enough money to put an officer in every school.

I say that if there is enough money to spend billions on banks and auto makers who are "too big to fail", then there is definitely enough to spend the money for children who are to young to die.

And, what of continuing the program? An additional tax levy in the associated school districts will take care of that. In a school district with a population of 50,000 or more, $1.50 a year will take care of paying one officer to be the school resource officer (SRO). And for those school districts that have fewer residents, Government grants will take care of it.

Or, yes--why not establish positions in the scho0ol districts for ARO (Armed Response Personnel)?

Make the job position look like this: Over 21, pass a background check, polygraph and psychological test, with valid CPL. Preference to honorably discharged veterans and those with LE experience.

Mr. LaPierre is (I believe) giving a viable solution. One only hopes that it will be considered and adopted.

[btmj]

I thought the NRA statement was good... not great, but good. Offering a proposal (other than a gun ban) to get the discussion going instead of playing defense. I showed this to two moderate non-gun-owning women in my office and they both thought it was reasonable.

Caveat: I did not see the video, I only read the transcript.

I agree with some of the others here that we the gun-owners community need to be prepared to give some ground politically. The SCOTUS has affirmed that the 2nd is an individual right, and recently Judge Posner has found that the 2nd implies a right to self defense. But there is no way the courts are going to declare that a 30 round magazine for an AR or AK is a protected right under the 2nd. So there is no point in all of us trying to argue that banning large magazines is an infringement. I may believe it is so, but it is irrelavent.

We need to be thinking creatively about gun restrictions which would appeal to people who "want to do something", but still preserve our rights.

Two ideas would be:

(1) closing the gun show loop hole. Would it really bother me if I had to make all gun sale transactions through an FFL holder? for me, No. It is a burden, yes, but it does not prevent anyone from acquiring a firearm.

(2) Requireing a background check to buy large magazines. We could propose 16 rounds as the definition of a large magazine. This could be done in the same way as a gun purchase check, or perhaps some agency could issue us permits with a 180 day experiration... I am sure we could come up with something. This would still allow us to buy, own, and use 30 round magazines, but we would have to make the special effort of applying for the permit.

Neither of these would actually make a dent in crime, but that is kind of the point isn't it? Gun restrictions never do, so let's propose something that preserves our rights and our access to the kinds of guns we want, but allows the general public to feel that "something has been done".

[SSA]

Most of the people in this country get most of their news from television.
The NRA set up a television event, and gave the television industry days to prepare to cover it.

The NRA then said that the problem wasn't guns, the problem was television. "How many more copycats are waiting in the wings for their moment of fame from a national media machine that rewards them..."

Doesn't sound like the way to get the response they were after.

[Coltman 77]

Doesn't sound like the way to get the response they were after.
SSA

Read the transcript of the press conference or watch it on the NRA website.

NRA is playing chess, not checkers.

BTW, are YOU a member of the NRA? My guess is you're not.

[zxcvbob]

Most of the people in this country get most of their news from television.
The NRA set up a television event, and gave the television industry days to prepare to cover it.

The NRA then said that the problem wasn't guns, the problem was television. "How many more copycats are waiting in the wings for their moment of fame from a national media machine that rewards them..."

Doesn't sound like the way to get the response they were after.

THE ONLY thing the NRA could have said that would make people happy is that they (we) accept full responsibility for last week's massacre and will be disbanding. And maybe encourage the members to shoot themselves.

The same people who have been screaming "what do YOU have to say, NRA?" all week are now saying this was too soon.

I think Wayne did just fine. And I think the biggest enabler here is the media circus every time there's a shooting where the victims are white.

[BarryLee]

Like a lot of you I have watched way too much media coverage over the last week or two. While the central theme has been the need for more gun control almost everyone has also mentioned, increased security, mental health and the role of violent games/moves. However, when the NRA not only mentions those same topics, but starts an actual real life program to address one of them they are seen as out of touch.

Am I the only one that thinks this is unfair?

[Crankgrinder]

The NRA is for armed security in schools which, i for one... cannot believe did not happen right after columbine. They knew if it happened once it would happen again, and did nothing. As I recall there was a ban in effect at that time,which as i recall did nothing to "limit the carnage" and i believe clinton was president with controll of both house and senate. I wasnt too strong on politics back then i was in high school myself please correct me if im wrong on those points. Bad as folks say they said it the NRA is for taking these measures before compromising on gun control, and we all know very well it is a slippery slope. Feinstein herself already said she would confiscate every gun in the country if she had enough votes, Bloomberg has already said "this is just a start". They all keep saying "just a start" "just a start". Just a start towards what,a police state? a nation of california? A state where litteraly hundreds of thousands of gang members posess and use fully automatic weapons in broad daylight while legal citizens working for a living are limited to 10 round mags and revolvers hows that working for them btw? How about the 58 million people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th alone in multiple countries not just Nazi Germany or Russia?Good or bad as the NRAs response might have been theyre making the right and correct points about security, and the mental health issue.

[Cascade1911]

I think we need to drop the emotionalism a little here. There are always dead and some of them are always children. Knee jerk reactions and sensationalism will save no lives. The NRA did not shoot up a school nor kill twenty children either.

[No1der]

I was really hoping that today the NRA would come out and basically show some leadership. Be conciliatory and understanding protective of the 2A while at the same time understanding that perhaps there are many discussions that need to be had. Many of those discussions would have nothing to do with guns or the NRA such as Mental Health and 1A rights vs responsibility in media. To pretend that guns are not to be a part of this conversation is insane.

I've owned guns my whole life. I learned to shoot at the age of 7 and it is hard to accuse me of being Anti-2A. Yet even I can see how there is a conversation to be had about guns and how the leadership (Read NRA) would look into regulating itself in she same style as the MPAA regulates itself and how the Video Game industry regulates itself with a rating system.

I don't know that a rating system is exactly right for guns and I don't think that would make sense but the NRA has a role to play here in figuring out a way for the gun owning community can take care of it's problems by regulating itself somehow to help prevent certain individuals for having access to firearms. Yes I know that that would not have prevented this latest shooting but it may have stopped the Aurora Colorado shooting.

We can't pretend that the MPAA can regulate itself without crying foul. That the Video game industry can regulate itself without crying foul. Yet somehow, those same rules can't apply to the NRA and the community.

We are not responsible for any of these killings, guns are not responsible in any of these killings. A lunatic with a rifle is responsible in these killings and whether we like it or not we have to help figure out how to keep 1. Lunatic and 2. Firearm, as far apart from one another as possible.

[shortwave]

Lets get our priorities straight before we start talking about who we're trying to stop. Cause I'm trying to prevent more killings...

I think that's what we're all trying to do.

And if this important thread is to stay open, we may need to keep our tempers while discussing things or this thread will be rightfully shut down in a New York minute.

This whole heart breaking issue isn't about Liberal, Democrat or Republican and should not be about politics period. The obvious issue is about how to prevent future tragedies from happening again with anti gun people saying more restrictions and pro gun people knowing that won't stop anything...but...

... this thread is about what we felt about Mr. LaPierre's statement and if we don't politely stay on topic, again, say bye, bye.

[JWT]

I agree with No1der. LaPierre did more damage than good with his press conference. He was confrontational and basically threw down the gauntlet at a time when something 'softer' was in order. At least say the NRA is willing to listen to what Congress comes up with. Maybe throw a bone like the so called loop hole or some such thing.

[No1der]

Like a lot of you I have watched way too much media coverage over the last week or two. While the central theme has been the need for more gun control almost everyone has also mentioned, increased security, mental health and the role of violent games/moves. However, when the NRA not only mentions those same topics, but starts an actual real life program to address one of them they are seen as out of touch.

Am I the only one that thinks this is unfair?

I agree with you that there is a conversation to be had about violent movies and video games. The Video game industry agrees with you and the MPAA agrees with you. They have been self regulating for a very long time and they are open to doing even more.

Perhaps it is unfair that they are able to self regulate and the NRA isn't. I dunno.

[wayneinFL]

THE ONLY thing the NRA could have said that would make people happy is that they (we) accept full responsibility for last week's massacre and will be disbanding. And maybe encourage the members to shoot themselves.

Yeah, this is pretty much a no-win situation for us. The best we can hope for is to remain unscathed, or mitigate the damage.

Funny that it's too soon for the NRA to make a point when anti-gun politicians with an agenda jumped in before the bodies were cold.

[SSA]

Read the transcript of the press conference or watch it on the NRA website.

NRA is playing chess, not checkers.

BTW, are YOU a member of the NRA? My guess is you're not.

I read the transcript. I left the NRA, years ago.
This isn't going to get me back.

[BarryLee]

Perhaps it is unfair that they are able to self regulate and the NRA isn't. I dunno.

You know very respectfully I dunno either. But, as of now it does not even appear the NRA is being given the opportunity to offer input into regulation of the industry.

I would just like to see a fair and rational discussion that does not start with a lot of preconceived ideas that are not supported by the facts. When Mr. Obama formed his commission he charged them to look at all issues.

However, he has wasted no time stating what he wants to see happen even before the committee met for the first time. To the best of my knowledge the commission is made up of Obama Cabinet members and other political appointees. It is difficult to imagine that this commission will do little more than rubber stamp the Presidents proposals.

It would seem like to even have an appearance of being fair this commission should include Gun Rights groups like the NRA, but it does not.

[Webleymkv]

Like a few others, I've only read the transcript and not seen the actual video so bear that in mind when reading my comments. Overall, I thought the NRA's response was a good one. Of course the anti's are trying to eviscerate it as they always do, but that's to be expected. LaPierre was really walking a fine line here between trying to be sensitive to the situation without rolling over to the anti's. While I think it was good that the NRA took the high road in choosing not to immediately go on the attack, I think that waiting much longer would have probably allowed the anti's, who wasted no time in beginning to dance in the victims' blood, too much time to dominate the conversation. For those who think that the NRA responded too soon, consider that the anti's and their allies in the media would probably like to drag their coverage of the tragedy out so long as to say that anytime short of President Obama signing a new AWB is too soon and insensitive. While its effectiveness is yet to be seen, I think that attempting to channel the emotion in a direction other than a gun ban is a good idea. So, let's look at the proposals:

LaPierre seemed to spend the most time on school security and rightly so as I think that focusing on that aspect of the problem will probably have the most positive effect. I would have liked to have heard about the prospect of allowing teachers to carry. Now, let me make it clear that I'm not advocating that we mandate all teachers be armed nor start passing out guns to all of them. Instead, I simply think that, if a teacher meets the legal requirement to carry a gun in their state of residence that they should be allowed to do so while on school grounds if they wish.

The notion of armed security in schools isn't necessarily a bad one, but it needs to be done very carefully. I do not think that a uniformed police officer is the best way to go but rather someone in plain clothes with a concealed weapon. This has two advantages in that it doesn't upset the delicate sensibilities of parents and students and it does not give a potential attacker a heads up on who to shoot first.

As has also been brought up, funding may be problematic but I don't think that's an insurmountable issue. Given the enormous amounts of money that the federal government spends on other things, some of which are downright frivolous, I have a difficult time believing that the money necessary to fund school security could not be found by simply trimming some of the fat from other areas of the federal budget. The best solution, as I see it, would be allocation of federal money to small communities that cannot afford school security personnel and equipment much in the same way as is done with other vital services.

As to the mental health issue, I agree that we need specific proposals and that LaPierre was rather brief and vague on this issue. At this point, I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt and assume that the NRA will be addressing this issue in more detail soon. As to specifics, consider the following: A psychiatrist who diagnoses a patient with a mental disorder known to be associated with violent behavior, such as paranoid schizophrenia or antisocial personality disorder, be required to report this diagnosis to the federal government and the person diagnosed as such be put on the list of prohibited persons for NICS checks. If said person can go a specified amount of time without psychotic episodes or violent behavior, then their doctor is required to report such to the feds and the patient will be removed from the prohibited persons list so long as they continue to be responsive to treatment. This is not dissimilar to how other health conditions are handled, the process for someone with epilepsy obtaining a driver's license comes immediately to mind.

Of course, in order for this proposal to work as intended, we would have to ensure that people suffering from mental illness have adequate treatment available. The quality and availability of mental health care for many is, in my opinion, severely inadequate as there are far too few mental health care facilities and far too little qualified staff to run them. Given the enormous amount of taxpayer money we spend and are about to spend on health care, I think we need to ensure that a good portion of it be spent on maintenace and expansion of existing mental health facilities and establishment of new facilites in areas that don't have one. Likewise, we can give incentives such as tax credits and federal student loan forgiveness to people who choose careers in mental health, particularly in under-served areas.

Finally, the part about the media didn't really sit all that well with me. While the 2nd Amendment is the most concerning civil rights issue to me, I'm not willing to throw away my 1st Amendment rights for the sake of the 2nd. As Glenn so astutely pointed out, there is very little compelling evidence that violent media, in and of itself, creates violent behavior in otherwise healthy individuals though it may be a tipping point for people who are already mentally disturbed.

That being said, please remember that the NRA is a single-issue special interest group and their responsibility to their members right now is to ensure that gun rights are not unjustly and unnecessarily abridged. The NRA is certainly not the only special interest group that should be involved in this discussion. I think that 1st Amendment special interest groups, such as the ACLU, should also be at the table here to ensure that whatever reforms come out of this don't unjustly and unnecessarily abridge freedom of speech and press.

Also, I do think that the media carries a bit of responsibility here due to the manner in which mass murders are covered. While such events should certainly be reported on, I think that the manner in which the victims are paraded across our TV screens continuously for days, if not weeks, on end is in poor taste and that it may serve as encouragement for future homicidal, attention-seeking lunatics. Many of these individuals seem to want to end their lives in whatever manner will garner them the most attention and, thanks to our news media, killing a bunch of innocent children is one of the most effective ways to do it. Similarly, the reporting of whatever tidbit of information, accurate or not, as soon as someone hears it is nothing more than a tactic to keep the audience glued to the TV screen in my estimation and, quite frankly, I find such practices disgusting. If the talking heads on TV really want to do something about tragedies such as this, I think they should start by taking a long, hard look in the mirror.

[12GaugeShuggoth]

The obvious issue is about how to prevent future tragedies from happening again with anti gun people saying more restrictions and pro gun people knowing that won't stop anything...but...

And that's the heart of the issue. NOTHING, absolutely NOTHING that any politician or corporate big-wig can do will stop things like this from happening again. But they can't admit that to themselves or the public, because doing so would recognize that this isn't a policy issue that can be resolved with this bill or that law. You can't just sign on that dotted line and make these things go away.

When a tragedy like this happens, the public always wants "something" to be done, so those in charge have to do "something"; or at least make it appear as if they are. But the truth is that nothing the president (or anyone) does will accomplish the big goal here. Humans are a violent species by nature, to deny it is foolish and dangerous.

[MLeake]

I find it interesting that people want to argue against arming teachers, basing the argument on the bizarre dual assumptions that this would 1) apply to ALL teachers and 2) that it would be required of teachers.

People making these arguments ignore the fact that proponents advocate allowing trained, licensed teachers to voluntarily arm themselves.

By ignoring that, they can make such asinine arguments as: Teachers have no calling to arms! (Tell that to my retired teacher Uncle, who earned two Bronze Stars and three ArComms with V during his time in Vietnam...); or Teachers did not sign up to carry a gun! (Similar vein, tell my Federal Flight Deck Officer friends how they only signed on to fly...)

Actually, what has been proposed has been very similar to the FFDO program.

It is really aggravating to listen to some of our own forum members act not only as apologists, but worse to hear them help the antis create straw men to use against us.

[Warrior1256]

Liked the message, how Wayne kept it low keyed for now.

Not at all suprised about the reception from the public. Our friends were supportive, our enemies demonized it.