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: 86

Comment by Gallup's Mirror on December 26, 2012 at 10:41am


The discussion is about gun control at a national level. One city is not a large enough statistical sample to examine the effectiveness of gun control. Even if it was, how do you know the body count in Chicago wouldn't be higher without it?

Zoom out from Chicago to a national level. The US Centers for Disease Control have found consistently that firearm homicide rates are higher in the South and Midwest where firearms are less restricted:

"Notable patterns by geographic region were observed. All-ages firearm homicide rates generally were higher for metropolitan statistical areas (MSAs) in the Midwest (seven of 10 above the median MSA rate of 5.4) and South (13 of 21 above the median rate) than for MSAs in the Northeast (six of seven below the median rate) and West (eight of 12 below the median rate). All-ages firearm suicide rates were generally higher for MSAs in the South (15 of 21 at or above the median MSA rate of 6.3) than for MSAs in the Northeast (six of seven below the median rate), Midwest (six of 10 at or below the median rate), and West (seven of 12 below the median rate); the highest rates were concentrated in the South and West." - CDC, 2011

Note also that gun control at state or city levels is less effective because guns simply flow from less restricted states to more restricted ones. For example, zoom back down to a city level, this time New York: most of the guns used to commit crimes here come from southern states. States with less restricted access to firearms bear much responsibility for gun homicides that take place beyond their borders.

Comment by Karol Debowski on December 26, 2012 at 11:31am

law works only if people will obey it, "bad" people DONT obey laws, thats why they kill, still and rape, they have your laws deep in the butt hole, post another gun restriction law it will change nothing to "bad" people , but it will take away chance of self defense of rest of us, whos is gonna defend you ? police ? joke, annually police kills 20k thugs, citizens 80k, in new york i can break in to anybody's house and what ? nothing, NOTHING, remember sandy ? looters ? but when i go out of city i wont even step on somebody property, you know why ? cause maybe just maybe owner of the property has a bad day and hes waiting for someone to step in to shoot him, and that his right and i do respect it, and believe me, if i would be a bad guy i would still respect, and not him, but his gun and his right to shoot my ass.

Comment by Gallup's Mirror on December 26, 2012 at 1:14pm

thats my point, what gun control does ? nothing,

I was addressing your demonstrably false statement that gun control "does nothing". You didn't rebut the CDC data you simply ignored it and changed the subject. And that brings us to this: 

law works only if people will obey it, "bad" people DONT obey laws, thats why they kill, still and rape, they have your laws deep in the butt hole, post another gun restriction law it will change nothing to "bad" people

Bad people don't obey laws against murder, rape, and robbery. According to you, that is evidence that these laws change nothing, since they still occur. By the same skewed reasoning, the current widespread rate of gun ownership also does nothing, since these crimes still occur. (I suppose it all means nothing to the millions who face the consequences of breaking the law too.)

Let's skip to the end, where we lay bare that your concept of "nothing" leaves a lot to be desired. 

Comment by James Cox on December 26, 2012 at 6:45pm

" works only if people will obey it.."

Is a law always a extension of individual 'rational' sense? In a large group of reasonable/rational people, would they apply a 'law' or 'guide for action', because it made sense on the face of it?

Not following too close on a freeway, makes rational sense, due to stopping distance-reaction time-wear on breaks, etc.

Does individual rationality apply to judgements concerning weapons? Most of us, I would expect, would hope so, but there are outlyers(statistically) within human populations. Controling these 'outlyers' seems to be the core of this ongoing conversation.

If a weapon is, 'just another tool', should anyone with many tools be consider a greater threat, or a craftsman? A craftsman could build weapons, or just nice wood chairs. Someone with many weapons, should we consider them a craftsman, or a dangerous nut job? It seems likly that we can't know this before the fact. As I putter in my shop, I have more than once looked up and realized that, 'wow I could be dangerous, if I wanted to be, keep your damn hand out of the saw.'

On Christmas day, I visited with some of my more distance members of my family. It is clear as I have gotten older, that I am an 'outlyer' to them. As they were showing off their new guns, talking in their male bravado voices about killing Bambi, and letting their children abuse each other on the floor, I was trying to find some grounds for a conversation. I am not a gun owner, I have no romantic relationship with weapons, and have seen enough bravado for one life time. The next generation seems to be puffing themselves up, and socializing their children for violence and weapons. Seem seem to be connecting the environmental movement with extreamism. Sadly, my few hours with them seem to indicate a very conservative politics, but no real understanding of details.

Maybe this old philosopher, is just suffering under a individualized cloud of foreboding...        

Comment by James Cox on December 26, 2012 at 6:56pm

"These homicidal maniacs have not been NRA members"

I do hope the NRA does not distroy records of membership, after the fact.


Comment by Ed on December 27, 2012 at 9:11am

As a gun owner/hunter and regular user of such I need to make it clear that I am not a fan of general firearms banning. It is assault style military oriented weaponry & high capacity magazines that I would like to see have access restrictions. I would not live in an area that did not permit me to legally possess a firearm for home defense. It's a great concept in an urban area that NO ONE but the police would have firearms but the reality is that the criminal element can always procure what they need and it doesn't involve gun stores or registration procedures. To be at the mercy of a home invader 'jacked up' on who knows what is a position I would not rather not face without a firearm to level the playing field. They're not for everyone as some simply don't possess the resolve to pull a trigger if the situation warrants such action. 

Comment by Gallup's Mirror on December 27, 2012 at 11:54am

As a gun owner/hunter and regular user of such I need to make it clear that I am not a fan of general firearms banning.

It's worth adding that 'firearms banning' and 'gun control' and 'repeal the 2nd Amendment' have different meanings and should not be used interchangeably.

A ban on firearms means nobody (or just no civilian) gets to own a firearm. A firearms ban could be gun control but not all gun control is a firearms ban. Gun control, for instance, might consist of limiting civilian possession of a firearm to age 18, or requiring a permit to own a particular type of firearm. There are many other possible examples.

A repeal of the 2nd amendment does not equate to a firearms ban either. There is no constitutional right to drive a car, but most Americans do it, and the casualties from motoring vastly outnumber those from firearms. There are also thousands of laws on how to operate a car safely and properly.

I oppose firearms banning but favor gun control. I don't think firearm ownership ought to be a right any more than motoring or drug use should be a right. But I also think all of these things should be legal everywhere, and well-regulated everywhere, until or unless there's a strong case to the contrary. 

As such, I oppose a complete repeal of the 2nd amendment but wouldn't mind seeing the "well regulated" aspect elaborated upon, or at least interpreted judicially with more rigor. 


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

Join Think Atheist

© 2015   Created by umar.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service