Home Main Category Second Amendment/Politics

Does the NRA publish financial information?

shotgunshooter3shotgunshooter3 Senior MemberPosts: 5,742 Senior Member
I'm curious to see just how much of the NRA's money comes from corporations v other means. The only numbers I have found indicate that anywhere from 10-25% comes from corporate partnerships with Ruger, Smith and Wesson, and Remington. Unfortunately, solid numbers are hard to come by.

Does anyone know if this type of information is made public?
- I am a rifleman with a poorly chosen screen name. -
"Slow is smooth, smooth is fast, and speed is the economy of motion" - Scott Jedlinski
«1

Replies

  • shotgunshooter3shotgunshooter3 Senior Member Posts: 5,742 Senior Member
    The only information I've found so far indicates that about $100 Million comes from membership dues, out of a total income of around $227 Million.

    This doesn't account for income for the NRA Foundation, NRA-ILA, etc.

    Also, the source is Bloomberg News, which I hardly consider reliable.

    http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-01-11/nra-raises-200-million-as-gun-lobby-toasters-burn-logo-on-bread.html
    - I am a rifleman with a poorly chosen screen name. -
    "Slow is smooth, smooth is fast, and speed is the economy of motion" - Scott Jedlinski
  • DoctorWhoDoctorWho Senior Member Posts: 9,496 Senior Member
    Financial information if public is available upon request from the NRA....
    "There is some evil in all of us, Doctor, even you, the Valeyard is an amalgamation of the darker sides of your nature, somewhere between your twelfth and final incarnation, and I may say, you do not improve with age. Founding member of the G&A forum since 1996
  • JermanatorJermanator Senior Member Posts: 16,128 Senior Member
    SS3-- WE are the NRA. They really aren't shills for the firearm industry as some people would like you to think. It is a grassroots organization that does receive some funds from the industry, but a huge part of it is from members like us. If people want to point to the firearm industry lobby, they can look at the NSSF...
    http://www.nssf.org/
    There is no secret that the NSSF is supported by the firearm industry. Nobody is trying to hide anything. My wife, three children, and I are all NRA members. They speak for us, not firearm manufacturers. We and the firearm industry are basically on the same page as far as legislation goes, but it is a myth that the NRA is just another corporate lap dog.
    Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it.
    -Thomas Paine
  • shotgunshooter3shotgunshooter3 Senior Member Posts: 5,742 Senior Member
    Jermanator wrote: »
    SS3-- WE are the NRA. They really aren't shills for the firearm industry as some people would like you to think. It is a grassroots organization that does receive some funds from the industry, but a huge part of it is from members like us. If people want to point to the firearm industry lobby, they can look at the NSSF...
    http://www.nssf.org/
    There is no secret that the NSSF is supported by the firearm industry. Nobody is trying to hide anything. My wife, three children, and I are all NRA members. They speak for us, not firearm manufacturers. We and the firearm industry are basically on the same page as far as legislation goes, but it is a myth that the NRA is just another corporate lap dog.

    Now if only I could find the hard data to explain that to others.
    - I am a rifleman with a poorly chosen screen name. -
    "Slow is smooth, smooth is fast, and speed is the economy of motion" - Scott Jedlinski
  • coolgunguycoolgunguy Senior Member Posts: 6,611 Senior Member
    Now if only I could find the hard data to explain that to others.


    The NRA is a civil-rights orginization. Many orginizations are supported by coporate sponsors and benefactors. Ask the others why the NRA should be any different? As for the manufacturers 'angle', why wouldn't they support the NRA, the GOA, the 2AF, the JFO (don't recall if that last is the correct acronym) or any other firearms related orginization? Does anybody make waves over the ADA being supported by the makers of Crest toothpaste?? It only makes sense that the one supports the other...and vice-versa.
    "Bipartisan" usually means that a bigger than normal deception is happening.
    George Carlin
  • SideOfBaconSideOfBacon Member Posts: 111 Member
    Now if only I could find the hard data to explain that to others.

    you notice nobody's provided any actual evidence to contradict? I think you're right. Ever since the NRA ILA we've been bought out.

    They'll still cash your check, but they don't seem to represent us anymore....
  • SideOfBaconSideOfBacon Member Posts: 111 Member
    Wambli Ska wrote: »
    Care to back that up with some actual examples?

    I'm not going to get started on Wayne LaPierre trying to require my mother in law, who is afraid of guns, wanting to put one in easy reach of her class of elementary schoolers, who have no training with firearms. You should have heard her this holiday....
    But how about campaign finance reform. Not really a 2A issue: http://www.nraila.org/news-issues/issues/campaign-finance-reform.aspx
    And their support for ALEC on unions, women's health and everything else that has nothing to do with the second amendment. In my opinion, the NRA has chosen to become a larger conservative organization than it was when I joined. Which is why they shouldn't be surprised when people like me roll their eyes and stop paying.
  • CHIRO1989CHIRO1989 Senior Member Posts: 12,635 Senior Member
    I'm not going to get started on Wayne LaPierre trying to require my mother in law, who is afraid of guns, wanting to put one in easy reach of her class of elementary schoolers, who have no training with firearms. You should have heard her this holiday....
    But how about campaign finance reform. Not really a 2A issue: http://www.nraila.org/news-issues/issues/campaign-finance-reform.aspxAnd their support for ALEC on unions, women's health and everything else that has nothing to do with the second amendment. In my opinion, the NRA has chosen to become a larger conservative organization than it was when I joined. Which is why they shouldn't be surprised when people like me roll their eyes and stop paying.

    Campaign finance reform affects the way the NRA lobbies for You and I in congress.

    What is your mother inlaws plan if the badguy comes into her classroom, just out of curiosity?
    I take no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but rather that they turn away from their ways and live. Eze 33:11
  • JayhawkerJayhawker Moderator Posts: 16,925 Senior Member
    I'm not going to get started on Wayne LaPierre trying to require my mother in law, who is afraid of guns, wanting to put one in easy reach of her class of elementary schoolers, who have no training with firearms. You should have heard her this holiday....

    No one...NO ONE...is saying that your MIL has to arm herself....and why would anyone deduce that the the firearms are going to be accessible to kids? "In the immediate control of a willing, trained, responsible adult" would be the appropriate response and not one anyone should have an issue with. With her line of thought, your MIL would be far more of a hazard than any potential bad guys
    Sharps Model 1874 - "The rifle that made the west safe for Winchester"
  • SideOfBaconSideOfBacon Member Posts: 111 Member
    CHIRO1989 wrote: »
    Campaign finance reform affects the way the NRA lobbies for You and I in congress.

    What is your mother inlaws plan if the badguy comes into her classroom, just out of curiosity?

    There is nothing a kindergarten teacher can have on her person a child can't get their hands on. You want to turn your kid's classmate into that bad guy. Even if they never intend to actually hurt anyone.

    It's one of the worst ideas I have ever EVER heard. And I won't support it.
  • JayhawkerJayhawker Moderator Posts: 16,925 Senior Member
    There is nothing a kindergarten teacher can have on her person a child can't get their hands on. You want to turn your kid's classmate into that bad guy. Even if they never intend to actually hurt anyone.

    It's one of the worst ideas I have ever EVER heard. And I won't support it.

    With the firearm properly secured in a deep concealment holster, how does little johnny get his hands on said handgun?...you're not thinking this through - properly done, the kids would never
    know whether their teacher is armed or not....
    Sharps Model 1874 - "The rifle that made the west safe for Winchester"
  • SideOfBaconSideOfBacon Member Posts: 111 Member
    Jayhawker wrote: »
    With the firearm properly secured in a deep concealment holster, how does little johnny get his hands on said handgun?...you're not thinking this through - properly done, the kids would never
    know whether their teacher is armed or not....

    First of all, yes. My mother in law has had her keys stolen out of her pocket and not noticed until she tried to go home. Second of all, she's an educator, not a bodyguard. If I take a course at the community college, should the professor have to conceal carry to protect me? What about an on the job training course?

    Is it the postman's responsibility to conceal carry and protect you from any crazed person in the post office? Is it a fireman's duty to carry concealed and protect you from some crazy arsonist that sets your home on fire as an ambush to you and them? Is it your responsibility to protect me if I get in an argument with a giant man at a bar?

    Personally, I think school security is pretty easy. Create a bullet-proof, escape proof booth at the main entrance. You want in, enter and get locked into the booth. If you have a reason to enter, an administrator sitting on the other side of the door will hear you out and buzz you in. If you're dangerous, he/she is the first person you contact/kill. So, they should take it seriously. If you can't be trusted, we'll leave you locked in there and call the police. Every other exit is alarmed and leaving without permission leads to immediate expulsion and a $500.00 fine for the parents. If your kid can't take safety seriously, they have no place in public schools.

    But guns in classrooms with little kids will likely end with more dead kids.

    Edit: Grammar
  • JayhawkerJayhawker Moderator Posts: 16,925 Senior Member
    You are comparing apples to oranges...the situations you pose are all about adults protecting adults...and whether an adult chooses to protect him/her self is up to them. We're talking about the defenseless - kids. Like it or not, when I put my kids in school I am placing them IN THE CARE of the teacher..."IN THE CARE OF"...which means she is not only responsible for educating my child, but protecting them as well. If there is a fire, she is responsible for getting them out, if my child is injured, she is responsible for administering first aid until the pro's arrive...if my child is threatened, it's the teachers job to remove or defend her charges from that threat. I do not want my kids teacher to die shielding my kids with her body, I'd rather she/he have the tools and mindset to fight for my kids life...just as I would.

    I have no issue with physical security features, controlled access, man-traps, etc, etc, etc... they are needed, but I also KNOW how that works...about the first time you try to implement those building modifications and suggest raising the school millage to pay for them...watch them howl....

    A firearm in the hands of a teacher is a weapon of last resort, to be used after all the security features fail....and again, no one is saying that a teacher MUST arm themselves, just that assuming they are trained and licensed to do so, they may...
    Sharps Model 1874 - "The rifle that made the west safe for Winchester"
  • SideOfBaconSideOfBacon Member Posts: 111 Member
    Wambli Ska wrote: »
    AND ON THE OTHER HAND, my Brother in law is an elementary school teacher (his wife is a school superintendent for the county). Until 2 years ago he was a Kindergarten teacher. He is 34 and in exceptional great shape (gym every day and looks like a brick outhouse) and as of a few weeks ago, partly because of my training and partly because of the training he has taken on his own paying out of his own pocket, a VERY accomplished defensive pistol shot. If I had a 5 year old in his school I would LOVE to have him WELL armed defending my children AND your apparently helpless and somewhat clueless mother in law.

    When it comes to most things one poor example of a situation does NOT a general rule make except for the close minded and every liberal I've ever met.

    Well, you know what, your Brother in Law probably would be a good thing to have between the kids and some crazy. I'm just trying to make the point that teachers should be able to protect our kids from things we expect to have in the school, (i.e. other kids and other teachers). Saying we should "Arm the teachers" is a bad idea, because teachers should not be expected to be well trained in firearms (except, of course, firearms instructors, etc). And people that are not well trained in firearms should not be carrying them around children.

    And when I got my concealed carry, I only needed a basic firearms training class, only showing I understood how a firearm worked. I still think we can solve security issues without expecting teachers to be armed. But, if they can prove they are well trained, I can see allowing them to carry.

    Just out of curiosity, have you asked him if he would want to carry in a classroom? Kindergarten classrooms are usually an exercise in "controlled chaos".
  • SideOfBaconSideOfBacon Member Posts: 111 Member
    Jayhawker wrote: »

    Alright I feel like we may be arguing different points, and I want to be clear (especially since my wife is giving me the stink eye on not getting more of the "honey-do" list finished). I think it is ridiculous to EXPECT teachers to be armed. I had a great physics teacher in high school that did a great job of getting the class engaged in the material. But his hands shook so bad, and being in his seventies, he would have had a heart attack or shot several kids by mistake before hitting anyone that showed up with a gun.

    I think that allowing someone who has proven they can be trusted with a gun around kids would be a deterrent from an armed gunman, but my concealed carry class didn't prove I could be trusted in that scenario. In fact, as I mentioned, it only proved I had a basic understanding of firearms. My mother in law could easily pass the same test and one of her kids could be holding that gun before she had any idea it was missing.

    And, if we want to train her and all other teachers to be as proficient as Wambli's brother, who's going to pay for the training? Who's going to pay for her duty weapon? Should the bus driver get the same training? My argument is that we shouldn't expect teachers to be trained bodyguards. But, if you want them to prove (and more than my basic concealed carry class) on their own they are trained, I can see the case for that.
  • JayhawkerJayhawker Moderator Posts: 16,925 Senior Member
    In one aspect, I agree with you, "firearms basic training" isn't enough, those carrying firearms with the intent of protecting others need to be taught how to fight. And I'm sure there are more than enough qualified instructors out there that could provide this training without the intent of lining their pockets....
    Sharps Model 1874 - "The rifle that made the west safe for Winchester"
  • JermanatorJermanator Senior Member Posts: 16,128 Senior Member
    Bacon-- The way I understand it is that nobody is expecting any teachers to be armed. This is completely optional. Training can be provided by the NRA free of charge. I don't think there would be "duty weapons" just for the fact that this would be completely voluntary. If a teacher doesn't want to carry-- so be it! If they do, I would assume that they would use their own personal carry weapon.

    If a kid is able to pull a weapon from a teacher with her "Flash-bang" holster, or his Thunderwear, there are some huge issues that need to be addressed in that classroom!
    Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it.
    -Thomas Paine
  • CHIRO1989CHIRO1989 Senior Member Posts: 12,635 Senior Member
    There is nothing a kindergarten teacher can have on her person a child can't get their hands on. You want to turn your kid's classmate into that bad guy. Even if they never intend to actually hurt anyone.

    It's one of the worst ideas I have ever EVER heard. And I won't support it.

    I have 4 boys and any number of their friends in my house at any given time, no one has accessed my firearms thus far, they are properly carried and stored. Properly holstered, your gun is tough to get off of your person, the LEO community, and us, have several options with various manufacturers that they are comfortable with. Not all teachers would be expected to carry because not all are competent to do so, you only need one for that matter.

    Your doorways are fine until it is the 500th time someone has been let through and the 500th time is the time they decided to shoot the place up, back to square one.

    You cannot envision enough scenarios to prevent the threat and take enough precautions or pass enough laws to prevent the threat, you must stop the threat as it is occurring.
    I take no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but rather that they turn away from their ways and live. Eze 33:11
  • NomadacNomadac Senior Member Posts: 902 Senior Member
    I think it is ridiculous to EXPECT teachers to be armed. The proposal is for those that have a CCW and willing to take additional training to be PERMITTED to carry.
    I had a great physics teacher in high school that did a great job of getting the class engaged in the material. But his hands shook so bad, and being in his seventies, he would have had a heart attack or shot several kids by mistake before hitting anyone that showed up with a gun.

    I am 73 and have had a CCW for decades and you would not know if I am carrying when out in public. But if it came to me being qualified and proficient to defend myself or others I can assure you, that you would not like to test me.

    I think that allowing someone who has proven they can be trusted with a gun around kids would be a deterrent from an armed gunman, but my concealed carry class didn't prove I could be trusted in that scenario. In fact, as I mentioned, it only proved I had a basic understanding of firearms. My mother in law could easily pass the same test and one of her kids could be holding that gun before she had any idea it was missing.

    It appears to me from your comments you are questionable to be trusted carrying a firearm. Seems like you need more training before you go out in public, which I believe anyone that chooses to carry should have sufficient training and mindset to carry and willing to use a deadly weapon. Knowing all local laws pertaining to when and where you can use deadly force, under what conditions it is safe to fire, what is behind what you are going to shoot at, etc. Do you have Liability Insurance, in the event you fire a bullet and it continues in flight and hits something or someone that was unintended, etc.

    And, if we want to train her and all other teachers to be as proficient as Wambli's brother, who's going to pay for the training? Who's going to pay for her duty weapon? Should the bus driver get the same training? My argument is that we shouldn't expect teachers to be trained bodyguards. But, if you want them to prove (and more than my basic concealed carry class) on their own they are trained, I can see the case for that.

    Anyone that chooses to CCW should have more than basic firearms training, IMO or should not carry. That is the Individual's Personal Responsibility as a safe gun owner, IMO.

    Bases on many of your comments it sounds like you are not very familiar with firearms, etc. Probably like many recently that have purchased firearms in the last few weeks, with no clue as how to use them, where or when, etc.
  • SideOfBaconSideOfBacon Member Posts: 111 Member
    Well to bring it back to my original point, I strongly disagree with the way Wayne LaPierre handled this. You can go either way, requiring all teachers to carry in the classroom, or making it optional. Making it required is a bad idea for the reasons I already mentioned. If it's optional, I would assume most teachers are not going to go start carrying and the overall effect wouldn't be much.

    Likewise, if they only have to take the remedial class I did, it may be more dangerous now that we have under-trained people carrying guns around kids. At a minimum, they need to understand what they're carrying (not just how to operate it) and the consequences of where they are carrying it.

    I think it would have been much more effective to say: "From Sandy Hook we learned that even with stricter gun laws, a crazy person can still use a legal knife to stab a legal gun owner and illegally attain guns. That's why we should focus on implementing better physical security in schools to stop even crazy people with guns from getting in.
    Also, the NRA is going to offer free, comprehensive Concealed Carry focusing on responsible gun handling around children, to interested teachers to provide a last line of defense in the worst case scenario. Lastly, we will be pushing for reforms of laws like the gun free school zone act, prohibiting teachers from providing that defense to students."

    But to say simply that if everyone was armed this couldn't happen again... I just don't believe that.
  • NomadacNomadac Senior Member Posts: 902 Senior Member
    Well to bring it back to my original point, I strongly disagree with the way Wayne LaPierre handled this. You can go either way, requiring all teachers to carry in the classroom, or making it optional. Making it required is a bad idea for the reasons I already mentioned. If it's optional, I would assume most teachers are not going to go start carrying and the overall effect wouldn't be much.

    Likewise, if they only have to take the remedial class I did, it may be more dangerous now that we have under-trained people carrying guns around kids. At a minimum, they need to understand what they're carrying (not just how to operate it) and the consequences of where they are carrying it.

    I think it would have been much more effective to say: "From Sandy Hook we learned that even with stricter gun laws, a crazy person can still use a legal knife to stab a legal gun owner and illegally attain guns. That's why we should focus on implementing better physical security in schools to stop even crazy people with guns from getting in.
    Also, the NRA is going to offer free, comprehensive Concealed Carry focusing on responsible gun handling around children, to interested teachers to provide a last line of defense in the worst case scenario. Lastly, we will be pushing for reforms of laws like the gun free school zone act, prohibiting teachers from providing that defense to students."

    But to say simply that if everyone was armed this couldn't happen again... I just don't believe that.

    I guess you are unaware of this: After the school shooting at Columbine High School (which notably occurred five years before the federal assault weapons ban expired in 2004), then-President Bill Clinton proposed an additional $60 million in federal grants for the Department of Justice’s already existing “COPS in Schools” program. No one on the left denounced Clinton as “evil” at the time.

    The COPS in Schools program continued to fund over $753 million in grants to place new police officers in schools through 2005. Although that program was discontinued during the Bush administration, a similar DOJ program called “Secure Our Schools” continued to provide school security grants until that program was discontinued by the Obama administration in 2012. Technically, President Obama was putting cops in schools long before the NRA proposed the idea.

    Now to address your comments: Personally, I think school security is pretty easy. Create a bullet-proof, escape proof booth at the main entrance.

    The Sandy Hook shooter broke or shot out a window, as the doors were locked to enter the building, so you suggest we put bullet proof glass in all windows at ground level? Did it ever cross your mind you cannot make a building safe from a determined individual? They could use a motor vehicle to ram the doors if they are really determined to enter.

    The sad facts are you can never stop a determined individual from committing a tragic crime. The could set the building on fire and wait for everyone to leave the building and shoot them, and how would you stop that?
  • JermanatorJermanator Senior Member Posts: 16,128 Senior Member
    Well to bring it back to my original point, I strongly disagree with the way Wayne LaPierre handled this. You can go either way, requiring all teachers to carry in the classroom, or making it optional. Making it required is a bad idea for the reasons I already mentioned. If it's optional, I would assume most teachers are not going to go start carrying and the overall effect wouldn't be much.

    Likewise, if they only have to take the remedial class I did, it may be more dangerous now that we have under-trained people carrying guns around kids. At a minimum, they need to understand what they're carrying (not just how to operate it) and the consequences of where they are carrying it.

    I think it would have been much more effective to say: "From Sandy Hook we learned that even with stricter gun laws, a crazy person can still use a legal knife to stab a legal gun owner and illegally attain guns. That's why we should focus on implementing better physical security in schools to stop even crazy people with guns from getting in.
    Also, the NRA is going to offer free, comprehensive Concealed Carry focusing on responsible gun handling around children, to interested teachers to provide a last line of defense in the worst case scenario. Lastly, we will be pushing for reforms of laws like the gun free school zone act, prohibiting teachers from providing that defense to students."

    But to say simply that if everyone was armed this couldn't happen again... I just don't believe that.
    Dude! Where are you getting your information? You are saying stuff that wasn't said. This is what Wayne LaPierre said word for word...
    http://home.nra.org/pdf/Transcript_PDF.pdf
    Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it.
    -Thomas Paine
  • KSU FirefighterKSU Firefighter Senior Member Posts: 3,249 Senior Member
    But to say simply that if everyone was armed this couldn't happen again... I just don't believe that.

    Despite the fact that in every case that a person who had a firearm or retrieved their firearm, the "active" shooter either threw down their weapons or committed suicide.
    What the NRA proposed is not a "magic" fix, there isn't one. What they did propose would put armed protection into the schools for our kids, either by putting more cops in schools or offering training to CCW holders better prepare them for the worst.
    The fire service needs a "culture of extinguishment not safety" Ray McCormack FDNY
  • KSU FirefighterKSU Firefighter Senior Member Posts: 3,249 Senior Member
    Jermanator wrote: »
    Dude! Where are you getting your information? You are saying stuff that wasn't said. This is what Wayne LaPierre said word for word...
    http://home.nra.org/pdf/Transcript_PDF.pdf

    That confused me as well,
    The fire service needs a "culture of extinguishment not safety" Ray McCormack FDNY
  • CHIRO1989CHIRO1989 Senior Member Posts: 12,635 Senior Member
    Well to bring it back to my original point, I strongly disagree with the way Wayne LaPierre handled this. You can go either way, requiring all teachers to carry in the classroom, or making it optional. Making it required is a bad idea for the reasons I already mentioned. If it's optional, I would assume most teachers are not going to go start carrying and the overall effect wouldn't be much.

    Likewise, if they only have to take the remedial class I did, it may be more dangerous now that we have under-trained people carrying guns around kids. At a minimum, they need to understand what they're carrying (not just how to operate it) and the consequences of where they are carrying it.

    I think it would have been much more effective to say: "From Sandy Hook we learned that even with stricter gun laws, a crazy person can still use a legal knife to stab a legal gun owner and illegally attain guns. That's why we should focus on implementing better physical security in schools to stop even crazy people with guns from getting in.
    Also, the NRA is going to offer free, comprehensive Concealed Carry focusing on responsible gun handling around children, to interested teachers to provide a last line of defense in the worst case scenario. Lastly, we will be pushing for reforms of laws like the gun free school zone act, prohibiting teachers from providing that defense to students."

    But to say simply that if everyone was armed this couldn't happen again... I just don't believe that.

    Look at the U.S., we have had a huge increase in CCW holders, firearms purchases, and participation in firearms related sports, there has been an overall decrease in violent crime, especially against children in the last 10+ years. The numbers of accidental/negligent shootings has also been steadily decreasing, you can believe what you want, the numbers don't lie. I would recommend John Lotts books on guns and crime for you to review, buy one for your mom too.
    I take no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but rather that they turn away from their ways and live. Eze 33:11
  • SideOfBaconSideOfBacon Member Posts: 111 Member
    Jermanator wrote: »
    Dude! Where are you getting your information? You are saying stuff that wasn't said. This is what Wayne LaPierre said word for word...
    http://home.nra.org/pdf/Transcript_PDF.pdf

    That isn't a quote. It's what I thought he should have said. I think he should have started with solutions we can agree on. Instead he blamed video games and movies from fifteen years ago. The whole thing was out of touch. Here's a direct quote:
    "A child growing up in America witnesses 16,000 murders and 200,000 acts of violence by the time he or she reaches the ripe old age of 18."

    I witnessed exactly 0 murders by the time I was 18. The NRA had a choice here: Become part of the solution, in a way that upholds our second amendment rights; or, as he chose, to go way off the deep end. In my opinion, this was the kind of response the left wants so they can turn it against us. Sometimes it's best to stay silent so everyone just thinks you're a fool, than open your mouth and confirm it.

    As for the comment that he broke in through a window to get to the classroom, that's a good point. And putting bars on the windows or making them bullet proof could lead to more kids being in danger in the case of a fire. But, I think the average age of teachers is ~46. My mother in law is 61, and terrified of guns. I think it's better to support a solution doesn't impede on our 2nd amendment rights, nor rely on her to out draw a crazed 20 something year old.

    Too Long; didn't read
    version: I think the NRA would have gotten more support proposing solutions that don't even involve guns and change the conversation, rather than LaPierre's speech.

    P.S. You're totally allowed to disagree or think I'm stupid. But I disagree with the direction they took this in.
  • JayhawkerJayhawker Moderator Posts: 16,925 Senior Member
    "A child growing up in America witnesses 16,000 murders and 200,000 acts of violence by the time he or she reaches the ripe old age of 18."

    I witnessed exactly 0 murders by the time I was 18.

    Taken in context, it's probably true...so you never watched movies or TV shows? Hell...even Bambi has a murder...
    Sharps Model 1874 - "The rifle that made the west safe for Winchester"
  • JermanatorJermanator Senior Member Posts: 16,128 Senior Member
    I wasn't all that hip that he blamed movies and video games either, but my point is that you were talking nonsense like requiring teachers to be armed when the truth is he did not say that at all. As far as the murders he was talking about-- he didn't mean actual murders, he was talking about in movies, on television, and in video games.

    If you wish to be critical of LaPierre-- please go ahead and do. It just sounds like you are referencing second or third hand information that is not accurate.
    Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it.
    -Thomas Paine
  • SideOfBaconSideOfBacon Member Posts: 111 Member
    Jermanator wrote: »
    I wasn't all that hip that he blamed movies and video games either, but my point is that you were talking nonsense like requiring teachers to be armed when the truth is he did not say that at all. As far as the murders he was talking about-- he didn't mean actual murders, he was talking about in movies, on television, and in video games.

    If you wish to be critical of LaPierre-- please go ahead and do. It just sounds like you are referencing second or third hand information that is not accurate.

    When I first heard his speech, he did, in my opinion, exactly the wrong thing. He blamed video games in which a character punches another character's head off for for the incident. Yeah... I don't consider that the same as "witnessing a murder". Then, he offered CCW classes to teachers. My CCW class did not cover carrying concealed at ALL. It was a basic firearms class that only covered firearm operation. I researched the rest on my own. I personally felt giving that training to teachers and arming them in a classroom full of kids was a terrible idea.

    I just feel this was a perfect opportunity to take a leadership role in providing a solution. Instead, he did exactly what I thought would hurt most: come across as out of touch.
  • breamfisherbreamfisher Senior Member Posts: 13,495 Senior Member
    3 things...

    1. Saying we can't blame an inanimate object like a firearm for violence, but at the same time saying that video games or movies might lead to violence is not a smart play.
    2. Judging the CCW courses teachers might take by one's own CCW courses is not the best logic, as they vary from state to state and teacher to teacher.
    3. Talking with my wife who teaches elementary school, she'd rather not carry a gun for a few reasons. Not the least of which is that if she's trying to take care of Mr. Bad Guy, there'll be no one to provide guidance to her students, since many Florida schools no longer have teacher's aides. So if you've got a teacher engaging someone, the kids'll probably all scatter to who knows where. That can make a situation much more complicated, at best. I know that's not the case in all schools and with all teachers, and with the voluntary aspect it's not something necessarily applicable, but it does add something to consider.
    Overkill is underrated.
Sign In or Register to comment.
Magazine Cover

GET THE MAGAZINE Subscribe & Save

Temporary Price Reduction

SUBSCRIBE NOW

Give a Gift   |   Subscriber Services

PREVIEW THIS MONTH'S ISSUE

GET THE NEWSLETTER Join the List and Never Miss a Thing.

Get the top Guns & Ammo stories delivered right to your inbox every week.

Advertisement