Minimum Three And One Half Billion Dollars to fund NRA Proposal

Wayne LaPierre (NRA President) stated that the problem with "bad guys" shooting our school kids can only be properly addressed by having "good guys" with guns at our schools. His organization believes America should fund security personnel for ALL our schools.  Our country has just under 100,000 public schools throughout the US. If you can talk someone into accepting the role of school "good guy with gun" they will require a minimum of $35K a year. That is for ONE security person per school. So were talking 3.5 billion to put one "good guy" in each school. Then there is training and equipment costs. The price tag skyrockets when everything is considered to support this effort. I don't believe an atmosphere of armed security personnel sends the right message to our children. Our schools need to become fortresses? As a gun owner I don't agree with Mr LaPierre.  Changing legislation to limit/ban military style assault weaponry and ammunition is a move in the right direction.  As a hunter I don't need a 50 clip semi-automatic .223 to pursue game. And it is not necessary for home defense. My 12 gauge pump can fill that bill.

Views: 76

Comment by James Cox on December 23, 2012 at 1:36pm

I wonder how much the liability insurance will cost to cover a screw up, if a security guard goes postal, or they accidently pass a shooter?

Comment by Ed on December 25, 2012 at 10:11am
Guard towers and solenoid activated access gates with a perimeter of constantine wire are Mr LaPierre's answer. When you have to "pack heat" in your society to feel secure that should be a signal that something has gone askew.
Comment by James Cox on December 25, 2012 at 10:34am

When I say 'Good Morning' to my neighbor, I would rather not have to point a gun to their head to extort a civilized responce!

If we must rely upon personalized WMD, it seems clear to me that we have lost the ability to converse with each other, without a 'might makes right' fall back position.

When I offer flowers, garden seed, help, or a kind word, I would like to think that the other fellow has the common sanity or civility to think well of me, and not to be concerned about their welfare.

So how much will all this really 'COST'? Do the members of the NRA want to live on a war front, maybe the only place where they felt a heightened sense of adventure and living on the edge?  

Comment by James Cox on December 25, 2012 at 10:42am

I wonder if the NRA gets its way, if there will be any 'Good guys' left. I think if I needed to rely on an NRA true believer, I would consider a different line of work.

Teachers paying for supplies out of their own money, putting up with abusive kids, being treated by the culture like ner-dowells, suspects in crime sweeps for child abusers, and now walking the halls watched by people with weapons at the ready? Will the kids be able to learn? Will a teacher be able to teach? 

Comment by Karol Debowski on December 25, 2012 at 12:39pm

gun control works look at 2 cities with gun control NYC and Chicago, most crimes here, compare to other cities with no gun control please, look at England they have strict gun control and yes they have crime rate 1/4 lower than US BUT they have 1/6 less population, so crime per xppl is still higher ! in addition many people own a gun in this country and they have it legally, 90% of crime is done with illegally possessed guns check the statistics, at last guns dont kill ppl, ppl kill ppl, especially ppl on drugs ( i mean prescription drugs like last mass shootings, check all facts please)

Comment by Karol Debowski on December 25, 2012 at 1:07pm

and i fogot to mention that US have 800 ? bases in 120 countries that cost us about 900 billions and does nothing to protect us, only anger other nations, so whats 3.5 bil ? is it so much to make sure that another crazy person wont shoot kids in schools ? after Israel launched 8 days attack on palestine, US covered for ammo which was about 675 mils, so tell me you think spending money to kill people is fine, but to protect isnt ? that makes no sense to me

Comment by Ed on December 25, 2012 at 2:11pm

@ Karol

In Chicago over 300 inner city youths die each year from gun homicides. If that is an example of a successful gun control campaign I think we need to raise our expectations just a tad. Our free society is also a very violent one. And by no means is ridding the country of assault weapons going to completely prevent senseless murders. It is a start but I believe our society has to come to grips with some core social issues. The mindset of too many Americans is one of apathy and indifference. So what if our kids are developing childhood diabetes at an epidemic rate or they're exposed to violence in too many segments of our society. We have grown numb and insensitive. 

Comment by Karol Debowski on December 25, 2012 at 3:55pm

and Chicago has strict gun control, thats my point, what gun control does ? nothing, strips good citizens of defense only, does not stop bad people from killing, so leave guns alone and look deeper, for example stop doctors from feeding kids drugs for beginning and what always works - education ! thats one thing that NRA is doing, educate, how many killing you have done by NRA member ? how many ?

Comment by Ed on December 26, 2012 at 9:54am

@ Karol

You made some good points. These homicidal maniacs have not been NRA members. And educational programs, especially mandatory hunter ed, is very beneficial. My issue is that weapons designed expressly for quickly killing humans 'en mass' in a military environment serve no useful practical purpose in a civilian environment. They are a 'man toy' for the most part and a very deadly one. Assault style weapons only comprise 1.7% of total US gun sales. Removing the availability of military style weaponry from the general population is not an erosion of my 2nd amendment  rights. During the previous assault weapons ban I had to surrender ZERO firearms from my gun cabinet. There was no escalation in the call to remove guns from the homes of law-abiding citizens. One point seven percent seems like an easy compromise on the road to minimizing the 'quick kill' capabilities of these homicidal maniacs. 

Comment by Karol Debowski on December 26, 2012 at 10:09am

its true, but still it will minimize their capability with a semi auto guns, but not with guns, what about guy with a gun and bucket ammonia and bucket of bleach ? i mean, we need to stop maniacs not ban stuff so its harder for them to kill, look why maniacs pick gun free zone places to kill ? cause its easy, here in new york few weeks ago guy went to a 4 stores shooting clerks, ever heard of such a attacks anywhere else ? no only in new york, why because clerk may have baseball bat at the best to defend. And yet again ..... “Adam’s uncle….said he was taking an anti-psychotic drug called Fanapt,” New York Magazine said in a follow-up report, quoting the initial New York Daily News story.

Comment

You need to be a member of Think Atheist to add comments!

Join Think Atheist

Blog Posts

The tale of the twelve officers

Posted by Davis Goodman on August 27, 2014 at 3:04am 4 Comments

Birthday Present

Posted by Caila Rowe on August 26, 2014 at 1:29am 11 Comments

Services we love!

We are in love with our Amazon

Book Store!

Gadget Nerd? Check out Giz Gad!

Advertise with ThinkAtheist.com

In need a of a professional web site? Check out the good folks at Clear Space Media

© 2014   Created by umar.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service