News Cut
< What are we afraid of? (5x8 - 12/21/12) | Main | All about us >

The reviews are in for the NRA news conference

Posted at 10:34 AM on December 21, 2012 by Bob Collins (13 Comments)
Filed under: Crime and Justice

Given the lack of much new emanating from today's long-awaited National Rifle Association news conference reacting to last Friday's Connecticut massacre, Twitter's 140 character limit seems like the perfect vehicle for reviewing it.

Here is the NRA transcript of today's event.

Comments (13)

To follow on to the caller who claimed that 2% of school attacks involved assault weapons. The argument is that we need to harden schools falls apart ... Cop with a gun is not going to stop a truck bomb.

100k schools X $150k cost per year (benefits, insurance, salary is only a small part of cost of a cop) makes for 15 billion per year.

If we are going to have teachers be cops .. Then I demand that cops take on teaching duties!

Posted by Guy | December 21, 2012 10:59 AM

It’s time for people to stop saying the AR-Semi auto rifle is an assault weapon…..here are some important points that make this fact very clear.

If the AR Semi-Auto Rifle is an assault rifle, then every Semi-Auto Pistol is an assault pistol. An assault rifle is one that has the ability to select fully automatic fire, via a selector switch, and shoot multiple rounds-(in bursts), with one pull of the trigger. The AR Semi-Auto Rifle is not this type of firearm as it can only shoot one shot at a time!! Machine guns are assault weapons and are highly regulated and very limited in number within the U.S. Strict Federal regulations have been in place since the 1980’s regarding these very distinctive assault weapons. Banning semi auto arms is a clear ifringement of a person’s God Given Rights.

It is obvious that banning all semi-auto firearms is what these anti-freedom individuals really want when they say “assault weapons” need to be banned. Only revolvers, lever, pump and bolt action firearms "might" be allowed to be owned....until some insane person kills people with an "assault revolver" who also had speed loaders in his possession to reload his revolver. Dozens could be killed with a revolver and speed loaders by someone who goes to a "gun free" zone and attacks his or her victims. (A revolver speed loader loads six bullets all at once into a revolver)

Also, it's time Americans awake to the fact that these senseless murders would not happen to the extent that they do, as in Newtown, if more people exercised their 2nd Amendment Rights. Why is there a fear of allowing school principles, staff and teachers to be armed?? If we, as people of courage, stand up against evil and/or crazy people, these events can be far less severe. Willing teachers who want to be armed and trained should be allowed in every school and their presence should be encouraged...... Why don’t we ever hear of this option as a way of stopping people who want to kill in a school??

Every American who loves freedom should stand against those who are trying to blame our right to possess firearms as the cause of the tragedy in Newtown. Let's not permit anyone to get away with using false statements about firearms to scare the public who may not know one type of firearm from another and thereby divide Americans in the process. This misinformation needs to be confronted with fact and logic, not emotion that is being used to manipulate the public into becoming utter weaklings.

Additionally, it is the rifle and the pistol that are defined as being essential in securing Liberty by George Washington and to which the 2nd amendment, in essence, applies. Tanks, rocket launchers, bazookas, and weapons like these are properly controlled items and are not necessary for the public to possess in order to secure their freedom.

Surely, semi-auto firearms should never be banned and are the sufficient tools for the public to own if Americans are to remain a free people.

Posted by alogolf | December 21, 2012 11:14 AM

Those of us who are rational couldn't care less about what gun does this or that. If we get it wrong because it's semi-automatic vs. automatic.. blah, blah, blah. The rational people would like ALL of these killing machines outlawed. Period. Enough is enough.

Posted by No-Gun-Nut | December 21, 2012 11:23 AM

Fast fact: 138,925 schools in the US (http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=84).

One (1) security guard per school, rough cost at $100,000 per year (salary, insurance, benefits --- and this amount is probably low).

Total cost for ONE security guard per school: $13,892,500,000 per year.

In Minnesota, looks like 2,659 public and chartered schools. That works out to $265,900,000. What gets axed from the school budgets to pay for that since there's already a budget shortfall for the State?

Finally, those with mental illness don't need to be put on a database. Do you really think you need to track someone with an OCD? Autism? Social anxiety? An eating disorder? The entire state of Minnesota should be put on this database because Seasonal Affective Disorder is a mental illness.

Posted by Andi Dolphin | December 21, 2012 11:47 AM

// Why is there a fear of allowing school principles, staff and teachers to be armed??

We don't all want to be gunslingers in the wild wild west you and the NRA have created.

Posted by Chris | December 21, 2012 11:51 AM

Additionally, it is the rifle and the pistol that are defined as being essential in securing Liberty by George Washington and to which the 2nd amendment, in essence, applies.
alogolf, the rifles and pistols available at the time the 2nd Amendment was written were black-powder-based. The best marksman might be able to shoot 1 shot every 15 seconds. Semi-automatic weapons are nearly full-auto in comparison. Additionally, magazines that hold 30+ rounds are hardly hunting equipment. Why do common citizens need military equipment? What are people afraid of?

Finally, contrary to popular opinion, it was only in 2008 that the Supreme Court interpreted the 2nd Amendment to say that it protects an individual right to have guns. Interesting that it took 217 years for that legal precedent to shift.

And I cannot believe that people are seriously proposing that TEACHERS start carrying weapons on a daily basis, and be ready to throwing themselves at heavily armed killers. These are supposed to be people that nurture, instruct, and shape our youth. Now they have to be law-enforcement as well?

Posted by Tyler | December 21, 2012 12:01 PM

I find it interesting that the NRA put so much of the blame on the media, and none of it with anyone else. As if the media is forcing violent video games into the hands of children, and making it impossible to avoid massacre movies. Have they forgotten about how TVs are required, by law, to have parental controls built into them? How parents, typically, are the ones who are able to buy these games (not children)? How our tablets, PCs, game consoles, cable boxes, and pretty much every other platform we consume and purchase media through have controls in place to restrict access to objectionable content?

How is it the media's fault when there are a plethora of controls in place to allow people to be selective about what can and cannot be seen by their children, but they aren't used?

Furthermore, isn't what the NRA suggesting, about putting an armed police officer in every public school, simply escalation? So now there's one armed officer in every school. What if they're killed that officer? At range? Then do we need two officers at every school? Do they need to be wearing bullet proof armor at all times? Carrying automatic weapons? When you rule out prevention (which the NRA seems to believe is impossible) the question then becomes: how far do you go?

Posted by Ivan Kowalenko | December 21, 2012 12:09 PM

// Why is there a fear of allowing school principles, staff and teachers to be armed??

Many of us parents, even the gun rights types like myself, do not want guns around our children in an educational setting and for many people they don't want guns around their children in any setting.

Science says that when you have guns around the chances of death and serious injury skyrockets.

A better question is why are you opposed to science?

Posted by David | December 21, 2012 12:41 PM

My high school had a problem with cars being broken into and things being stolen. So they got the parking lot monitor a video camera. The next day, kids stole the video camera off the parking lot monitor.

A cop in a school isn't going to stop someone who intends on killing lots of kids. My high school had three floors and something like 2000 students. All it would take was knowing where the police officer is and start shooting on a different floor/area. School shootings are suicide missions. Having a cop isn't going to stop the shootings from happening.

My high school also did have armed police there everyday. It didn't even stop the parking lot monitor from getting jumped and her video camera stolen.

Posted by Kassie | December 21, 2012 12:48 PM

alogolf: It is obvious that banning all semi-auto firearms is what these anti-freedom individuals really want when they say “assault weapons” need to be banned. Only revolvers, lever, pump and bolt action firearms "might" be allowed to be owned....until some insane person kills people with an "assault revolver" who also had speed loaders in his possession to reload his revolver. Dozens could be killed with a revolver and speed loaders by someone who goes to a "gun free" zone and attacks his or her victims. (A revolver speed loader loads six bullets all at once into a revolver)

I am surprised to see you say this, since it sounds like you should know better. Training to use an assault weapon like the M-16 emphasizes the need to take aimed shots or fire short bursts only. This kind of shooting increases accuracy, and makes it more deadly. Saying as assault weapon is less dangerous because it only fires one round at a time is either stupid or deceptive. What makes a weapon an assault weapon is caliber, magazine, form factor and range.

Posted by Allen | December 21, 2012 2:46 PM

Did you really expect any other response from the NRA?

Posted by tboom | December 21, 2012 2:58 PM

Follow the money, people! NRA is the chamber of commerce for the gun industry! Selling more guns and ammo is really what they are all about! Salivating over selling more guns and ammo to the gov't to arm the schools! They were hardly going to come out and say we need to sell fewer guns, we need to put our members out of business, we need to have less cash to give to political campaigns and lobbyists! Whipping up fear is what they do, it sells the products!

Posted by Bonnie | December 21, 2012 3:44 PM

I dunno Bonnie...sounds like the NRA sort of shot themselves in the foot this time.

It's Friday, I'm outta here.

Posted by Tyler | December 21, 2012 3:49 PM

Post a comment

The following HTML tags are allowed in your comments:
+ Bold: <b>Text</b>
+ Italic: <i>Text</i>
+ Link: <a href="http://url" target="_blank">Link</a>
Fields marked with * are required.


Comment Preview appears above this form upon pressing the "preview" button. Edit your comment and press "preview" again, until you are satisfied with your comment.

Your comment may not appear on the blog until several minutes after it was submitted.

December 2012
S M T W T F S
            1
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15
16 17 18 19 20 21 22
23 24 25 26 27 28 29
30 31          


Master Archive

Recent Entries

MPR News
Radio

Listen Now

On Air

The Daily Circuit

Schedule

Shortcuts
Hourly Newscast
Hosts
Station Map

Other Radio Streams from MPR

Classical MPR
Radio Heartland

Services

Become a sponsor