NRA: Society has left children 'utterly defenseless'

[ChiefsandO'sfan]

NRA: Society has left children 'utterly defenseless'
mug.cnn
Posted by
CNN Wire Staff

(CNN) – Wayne LaPierre, executive vice president of the National Rifle Association, said "for all the noise and anger directed at us ... nobody has addressed the most important, pressing and immediate question we face: How do we protect our children right now ... in a way that we know works."

At a press event in Washington, LaPierre said U.S. society has left children "utterly defenseless."

A protester interrupted the NRA appearance before reporters with a banner accusing the NRA of killing children. The protester was led out of the room as he shouted anti-NRA slogans.

LaPierre added that violent crime is increasing in the U.S. due to a lack of willing to prosecute such acts.

[Dayze]

I have a relative that thinks we should abolisht he 2nd all together and round up all the guns over a 5 year period.
I shit you not.

[bogey]

Originally Posted by alnorth

Were you expecting them to propose a new gun control law?

At the very least, I was expecting them say we want to look at possible ways to amend the gun laws we have.

[CoMoChief]

Originally Posted by BucEyedPea

Defenseless my arse:

• A 1997 high school shooting in Pearl, Miss., was halted by the school's vice principal after he retrieved the Colt .45 he kept in his truck.
• A 1998 middle school shooting ended when a man living next door heard gunfire and apprehended the shooter with his shotgun.
• A 2002 terrorist attack at an Israeli school was quickly stopped by an armed teacher and a school guard.
• A 2002 law school shooting in Grundy, Va., came to an abrupt conclusion when students carrying firearms confronted the shooter.
• A 2007 mall shooting in Ogden, Utah, ended when an armed off-duty police officer intervened.
• A 2009 workplace shooting in Houston, Texas, was halted by two coworkers who carried concealed handguns.
• A 2012 church shooting in Aurora, Colo., was stopped by a member of the congregation carrying a gun.
• At the recent mall shooting in Portland, Ore., the gunman took his own life minutes after being confronted by a shopper carrying a concealed weapon.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewr...es/129203.html

So the question is how come none of us ever heard about these stories?

Oh that's right....the media wants to cover the mass shootings so the public lives in fear.

The fact is....you're more likely to get killed by a deer jumping out in front of you while you're driving at night than you are to get killed from a gunshot. But the media, hollywood etc, want you to think guns are scary and only bad guys use them to cause harm because that's what they're used for.

[Dayze]

amend the cruel and usual punishment; commit a crim with an illegal firearm....executed.

that outta do it.
lol

[Brock]

Originally Posted by bogey

At the very least, I was expecting them say we want to look at possible ways to amend the gun laws we have.

Why would they say they want to do that? They don't want to do that.

[Dayze]

Originally Posted by CoMoChief

So the question is how come none of us ever heard about these stories?

Oh that's right....the media wants to cover the mass shootings the public lives in fear.

The fact is....you're more likely to get killed by a deer jumping out in front of you while you're driving at night than you are to get killed from a gunshot. But the media, hollywood etc, want you to think guns are scary and only bad guys use them to cause harm because that's what they're used for.

I think, if I read/interpreted the stat correctly, that you're more likely to get struck by lightning than be a victim in a mass shooting.

[KCChiefsFan88]

Originally Posted by Dayze

I think, if I read/interpreted the stat correctly, that you're more likely to get struck by lightning than be a victim in a mass shooting.

The same logic also applies to a terrorist attack. You are more likely to get struck by lightning than be a victim of a terrorist attack.

Does that mean we should have no proactive measures to protect against and stop terrorist attacks?

[CoMoChief]

Originally Posted by Dayze

I think, if I read/interpreted the stat correctly, that you're more likely to get struck by lightning than be a victim in a mass shooting.

probably that too. There have been 200+ deaths involving deer hits w/ autmobiles...compared to what....50 or so in mass shootings?

Yet are people scared to get in their cars and drive? no


Same thing w/ Jaws when the movies came out in the 70's and 80's.....after those movies you saw a huge reduction in people at swimming beaches because they thought Jaws was out there ready to feast on the public.

People are just ****ing stupid.

[bogey]

Originally Posted by Amnorix

Whatever you think of gun rights or the NRA in general, this really is a pretty pathetic effort. It's the media's fault. Seriously?

This was a GOLDEN opportunity for the NRA to improve the publics opinion about them, which would have (IMO) softened the anger that non-gun owners have. Instead, they took the exact opposite approach. Charleton Heston would be proud. stupid, stupid, stupid

[Dayze]

Originally Posted by Hugh Janus

The same logic also applies to a terrorist attack. You are more likely to get struck by lightning than be a victim of a terrorist attack.

Does that mean we should have no proactive measures to protect against and stop terrorist attacks?

but, IMO, the difference there isn't a huge part of the population calling for new terroist control measures. the already gave up a lot of their freedoms with the patriot act.

Just my opinon though.

[Munson]

Originally Posted by Dayze

I have a relative that thinks we should abolisht he 2nd all together and round up all the guns over a 5 year period.
I shit you not.

Does your relative realize that would start the 2nd American Revolution?

[Dayze]

Originally Posted by Munson

Does your relative realize that would start the 2nd American Revolution?

shit no. he's in a myopic world.

in addition to a revolt, it would trigger a precesdent to further erode other ammendments and rights.
I asked him how he'd feel if they did away with the 2nd; then they trimmed down the 4th to allow for unreasonable searches of your person and property in the name of 'safety'. no real logical rebuttal by him.

[bogey]

Originally Posted by Brock

Why would they say they want to do that? They don't want to do that.

How about improve their image? If non-gun owners see the NRA taking steps toward gun control, I believe they'll soften toward gun owners.

[CoMoChief]

Originally Posted by Dayze

but, IMO, the difference there isn't a huge part of the population calling for new terroist control measures. the already gave up a lot of their freedoms with the patriot act.

Just my opinon though.

Most Americans were and still are against the Patriot Act.

[Dayze]

yep; I know I am.
but that's ok; as long as we 'feel' safe.