The NRA spent at least $24.28 million^[3] this past election cycle - $16.83 million through its Political Action Committee, plus $7.45 million through its affiliated Institute for Legislative Action.

A minuscule 0.81 percent of the NRA's Political Victory Fund money went towards elections where the NRA's preferred candidate won.^[4] The NRA Institute for Legislative Action fared better, with a 10.25 percent return on their investment.

The Sunlight Foundation reports that the NRA spends 66 times what the leading pro-gun control advocacy organization, the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, spends on lobbying, and 4,143 times what the Brady Campaign spends on elections. They note this with the caveat that the NRA does a poor job accurately reporting its spending.^[5]

 

^{National Rifle Association - SourceWatch}

Parents need to start being parents again. Disciplining their children and seeking help where needed.

 

All the laws were in place to stop this. You can't outlaw crazy and unfortunately we can't make laws to make people take responsibility for anything anymore. These shooting are not about guns, they are about people out of touch with reality.

 

What laws are in place to deter irresponsible gun ownership that results in the accidental shooting of a three year old by a four year old that finds a loaded weapon in a drawer?

Agreed! But it's just a sad reality where we must have armed security now.

 

Ya it's sad that there's people sick enough to want to kill others but that's true in a lot of different places throughout America. To me it makes sense to put armed guards in places where guns are banned regardless of whether or not you're licensed to carry one just like most courthouses across America.

Ya it's sad that there's people sick enough to want to kill others but that's true in a lot of different places throughout America. To me it makes sense to put armed guards in places where guns are banned regardless of whether or not you're licensed to carry one just like most courthouses across America.

I can't imagine a 1st or 2nd grader coming home from school and the parent asking what they did that day in school, and the kid responding "we practiced lock-down drills.

Should the government tell you that you have to allow anyone with a concealed weapon access to your business and home? Even if you are a private business owner? What about your rights in your own home? Shouldn't you have some say? Or you own a daycare, shouldn't you have that right? In Tennessee recently there was a politician who I believe had an A rating by the NRA, but she was against a bill (that the NRA basically wrote) that said the law will be you cannot tell someone with a weapon to not enter even your home or private business. The NRA then spent at least $150,000 in just a few weeks to help defeat her. This is where the NRA is wrong!

 

The place in Cincy where I help out when I am in town asked me last week to start carrying, as there was an incident there two weeks ago, some of the people who patronize the place say they feel safer, but the owner should have the final say, and if you don't like it then you are free to patronize other business.

The NRA spent at least $24.28 million^[3] this past election cycle - $16.83 million through its Political Action Committee, plus $7.45 million through its affiliated Institute for Legislative Action.

A minuscule 0.81 percent of the NRA's Political Victory Fund money went towards elections where the NRA's preferred candidate won.^[4] The NRA Institute for Legislative Action fared better, with a 10.25 percent return on their investment.

The Sunlight Foundation reports that the NRA spends 66 times what the leading pro-gun control advocacy organization, the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, spends on lobbying, and 4,143 times what the Brady Campaign spends on elections. They note this with the caveat that the NRA does a poor job accurately reporting its spending.^[5]

 

^{National Rifle Association - SourceWatch}

My point was the amount spent lobbying would not be enough to pay for the armed guards in every school as suggested by another poster. $24M would not be enough to pay for it.

What about the TV, movies and video games? They should also be held accountable for the violence that happens , yet no one is pointing fingers at them.

 

The NRA is about gun safety. Movies, TV and video games do nothing but glorify gun violence, yet no one is pointing fingers at them.

Also, with the Fast and Furious dibacle, Obama must really be in a sticky wicket with the gun issue.:idunno:

What about the TV, movies and video games? They should also be held accountable for the violence that happens , yet no one is pointing fingers at them.

 

 

The problem is that violent games and movies are not limited to the US yet most other countries do not have the level of gun violence that we do. IMO it's not games and TV.

I cannot state how vehemently I am opposed to an armed presence in every school, whether it be police or teachers or administrators. There are some situations where I know that is already happening, along with metal detectors and physical searches, etc. That is not the reality we should be accepting. It's harder to do, but ultimately more culturally beneficial to find was to address the underlying community, social, and mental health issues. I don't have any "plan", bit I do know it starts with the community.

Follow the money. What the NRA wants is to protect gun manufactures. Simple as that. They are lobbyist group paid to be the voice of their biggest contributors. Any anti-gun discussion equals less dollars to these companies, period. Don't be fooled that they are standing up for your rights as a gun owner they are standing up for almighty $$$.

Edited December 22, 201213 yr by Zuzu

 

The problem is that violent games and movies are not limited to the US yet most other countries do not have the level of gun violence that we do. IMO it's not games and TV.

 

:thumb: :thumb:

The problem is that violent games and movies are not limited to the US yet most other countries do not have the level of gun violence that we do. IMO it's not games and TV.

 

In a column that I read this morning:

 

Are mass shootings a mental health issue?

Are mass shootings a school security issue?

Are mass shootings a gun issue?

 

Only narrow-minded ideologues would ever consider any answer other than "Yes" to ALL of the above.

 

GUEST COMMENTARY: 'It's complicated' not enough in response to mass shootings

I agree, If you get the wackos off of the streets then it wouldn't matter what firearms were available.

 

NRA is offering to train anyone that needs it, NRA membership is around 4 million out of a US population of over 311 million. Don't think they could or should be expected to pay this entire bill. How about cutting foreign aid to 3 or 4 of the countries that hate the USA anyway and just use that money.

Don't think that would be enough to pay for this program nation wide.

 

 

Since you are a teacher why don't you get the NEA to quit lobbying and help pay for security of their dues paying members... How Much Does NEA Spend on Politics? « The Greenroom and that does not include the last two years.

 

 

That might be one of the most ludicrous ideas I've ever heard of....

 

You can't be serious. You think the problem is security of their dues paying members? Talk about out touch of reality. It's the students that need it, not the teachers.

So, now on top of everything teachers are responsible for, you want to throw this on them as well? It's a bad idea. Am I going to carry a gun on my hip all day? Lock it up on a drawer, or closet? Worry about a kid getting ahold of it? Worry about a teacher leaving it out in my kids classrooms? Fire a teacher for doing something like that, when we didn't sign up for it in the first place? Teachers aren't trained to carry weapons, and training them would be another enormous cost. Two hand guns and a pump action shotgun are a whole lot harder to carry around while you're having target practice than a single assault rifle with a 30 round clip.

 

Yeah.

 

Re-read my post. I didn't say teachers nor the school would have to pay for it. I never said make it mandatory for teachers to carry. I said abolish gun-free zones so teachers can be empowered to defend those children. And the care and safety of your students should be your biggest priority. Its not something that was thrown on to you. If you don't think you can properly store a gun from your students, then yes you're right, teachers that fall in line should not be carrying. So if you don't want to be the one to carry a weapon, don't. That way you won't have to worry about being fired because you didn't ''sign up'' for it.