21 December 2012 @ 02:51 pm
So the NRA held a press conference...  
I slept til noon today and missed it, but the NRA held a press conference. I've managed to see most of it - the one "complete" video of it I found on youtube was missing a few minutes but I found those elsewhere so I think I've seen it all now... or most of it.

Their answer to gun violence seems to be two steps --

1 - Have armed guards everywhere or at least at schools. If money is a concern, NRA members will volunteer so we won't need MUCH government money to fund it as we'll just need a little to train citizens to stand around your kids' schools with guns.

2 - If you're gonna ban / blame something, how about those video games, or movies, or maybe news... They are the real killers.

Okay let us start with #1... WTF? Basically we, the NRA, will have our members stand at your schools if cops cannot with guns and shoot people before they can get into a classroom. Um. What? First off, most of these people surprise people shooting once they get into the classrooms. So you, who knows who you are as plenty of so called sane NRA members snap, standing outside will be useless. Second off, what if parents and teachers don't WANT their kids around loonies with GUNS! You may have the right to guns, we have the right NOT to be in your lines of fire and not to have our kids next to your guns. Third off, just no. Kids are going to SCHOOL, not a war zone. Stop trying to make it one. I don't care how well trained your people would be. Those cops at the Empire State Building were well trained and everyone shot was by them. And how about everywhere else we go and get shot? Gonna have armed guards EVERYWHERE we do, standing next to everyone?

Point two... This one is getting old. There's been violence in entertainment since -- I dunno caveman drawings. My husband works in entertainment and then comes home and plays a "violent" shoot em up video game. According to the NRA my hubby should be the prime candidate to be a psycho killer. He's in entertainment overload. It's his world. He's the least violent person I know. When it rains, tons of snails show up on our walks and we have little light = you can't help but step on them. He will talk about how bad he feels for having killed one for days. He still talks about how I slaughtered a spider that invaded my space years later and makes me call for him to take them outside now (I usually let them be, but dude TOO CLOSE). He's spending Christmas day as he spent Thanksgiving day - at a food charity making sure the hungry get fed. He's working with another charity this week after work. Yeah, all of those hours at violent games turned him violent. He feels about owning a gun as I do - no thanks, even though his dad owns them and he's okay with that - he just doesn't want to ever have one himself. He'd throw himself in front of not just me, but anyone in one of these shootings, not be the shooter. So yeah - sorry I don't buy that playing a game or watching a movie -- or a lot of them = you get desensitized. In fact, we both cringe at not just violent movies, but sometimes very fake cartoon ones. Nice try.

The problem is that very unstable people can pick up a weapon that can shoot 100 people in less time that I can type this sentence. A weapon that even plenty of military people have said you never get totally comfortable with, that is only designed for mass destruction of people and property. That you'd never need for hunting... or protection.

EDIT - also seeing a lot of stupid arguments about how cars kill and we don't ban them... true, we don't. We just make it a bigger pain to get them than guns. You gotta wait about a billion hours in the DMV for your license, prove you know how to drive, in some cases have a doctor's note to show you're safe to drive. If you misuse your car / license, you lose your ability to own one.

Then the whole should we remove butter knives from kitchens, etc. Yeah, because you can kill 100 people with a butter knife real fast. I'm not saying ban guns, I'm just saying really dangerous things should be at least as tough to buy as friggin cold medicine.
Tags: ,
 
 
( 2 Meows — Meow )
Davehowlin_wolf_66 on December 22nd, 2012 10:28 am (UTC)
*The problem is that very unstable people can pick up a weapon that can shoot 100 people in less time that I can type this sentence. A weapon that even plenty of military people have said you never get totally comfortable with, that is only designed for mass destruction of people and property. That you'd never need for hunting... or protection.*

This is the nub of it, for me. My argument against is that the average citizen will never need to go to that kind of extreme - whether they have the 'right' to, or not.

It would be like taking away my 'right' to go to the moon, or to date every supermodel in existence... Sure, it may be infringing my freedom and imposing restrictions upon me, but how much effect will it have on my daily life anyway? Next to none, because I'm unlikely ever to be in a set of circumstances where those 'rights' would turn out to be necessary.
Delusional Angeldelusionalangel on December 23rd, 2012 11:15 pm (UTC)
Indeed. And hey that supermodel, which just a person -- good luck getting into any place that she is at. Come to my country though and you can buy a gun that is meant for war no problem with as many bullets as you want just like that. Heck some people think THOSE guns aren't enough they'd be okay with RPGs or worse.
( 2 Meows — Meow )