Here is a calm and clear articulation of pro-gun perspectives on a number of gun legislation proposals from the NSSF.
Below is an index to take you to the point in the video you are most interested in.
National Shooting Sports Foundation President Steve Sanetti discusses pending legislation, the issues at stake and the information members of industry need to know.
Table of Contents-
Fix NICS- 02:02
Preventing Unauthorized Access- 03:57
Strengthen Penalties- 05:23
So-Called “Assault Weapons” Ban- 06:14
Magazine Capacity- 09:57
Owner Recognition Technology- 11:40
I a fan of “How It’s Made” too. I always get a kick out of the music in the background.
In a New York Times editorial David Kopel Makes some excellent points about the many failed iterations of the law and creates some context for our president’s recent hissy fit.
That is a really good article to get you thinking about to do and NOT do after a bomb goes off.
Really! It is an honest to goodness conversation about teachers being armed. The following is an exchange I had with an old friend of mine. It started elsewhere on social media and I moved my response here. I thought it would be more easily read and understood here.
To lay the ground work, no one that I am aware of is suggesting the compulsory carrying of firearms. The idea is that teachers can volunteer. There are already teachers who carry during the rest of their lives and would like to carry or at least have access to their firearm at work. That is the population we are talking about.
The only unfortunate question we have to ask. Would a gun be used more by a teacher protecting their students or would there actually be more cases of a student getting a hold of the gun, or a crazy teacher losing it and using it on their students, etc. etc.
That’s a great question without a single unfortunate thing about it. I’m glad we’re going to talk about this. Let’s start backwards. You have me on “etc.” as well as “etc.” Next is a crazy teacher losing it and using the gun on the students. Every mass killing I can think of happened after some type of planning. I have not heard of any spontaneous or impromptu spree killings. Forbidding teachers to be armed would not prevent wacko teachers from wacking the students. Too, consider the increasing number of people carrying concealed.
In every case where a Shall Issue concealed carry permitting system was introduced opponents claimed there would be “blood in the streets” with people shooting each other over traffic accidents and parking spaces. They claimed it would be a return to the “wild west” (by which they meant a return to Hollywood’s version of the old west which never really existed). What happened? People responsibly armed themselves. Statistically, concealed handgun permit holders are extraordinarily law abiding and I know of zero accounts of permit holders abruptly blowing a gasket and gunning down all in sight.
From this I see that forbidding teachers to be armed will not keep children any safer and allowing them to be armed will not expose them to additional danger.
Students getting the gun. Retention is always a dynamic one considers when carrying. You are considering where to put the gun that will be easy to live with, quick to access, not be seen, and kept there in a way so the gun stays put. While there are many ways of addressing retention for a teacher carrying on-body, the simple solution is off-body “carry” with the firearm in a safe.
[Shall issue means that if you meet a predetermined set of criteria (e.g. not a felon) the issuing agency SHALL/is required to issue a concealed handgun license. As an example you can see Oregon's requirements here: ORS 166.291]
My wife is a teacher, a very good one. She’s grown up around guns as her dad and brother are both hunters, but she, and many teachers we know could never be convinced to carry a gun to school.
I’ll bet she’s great! Like I said, I’m not advocating conscription, just volunteers.
The only logical place to have the gun would be concealed on them so they could access it quickly when needed…and, teachers I know don’t feel that it’s realistic with their jobs of squatting to work with students, sitting with students, playing with students, etc.
I think it is interesting how people without training or experience think they know what is involved in carrying and using a firearm for protection. I wouldn’t dream of telling your wife of what a developmentally appropriate curriculum is for any group of kids.
Actually, as far as defensive situations go, a teacher in a room has a fair amount of time to respond. Take the teacher who lied to the murderer in Connecticut about where the kids were. She knew he was coming and had time to hide all her kids. That would be plenty of time to get a gun out of a safe, especially one like this: Gun Vault
Most folks carrying concealed need to prepare for an ambush of some type. A mass murderer shooting up kids in a school is a frontal assault. I would not spend a lot of time teaching a teacher how to draw fast and efficiently if he or she was just preparing for this scenario.
Additionally, I don’t see the impossibility of on-body carry in the circumstances you describe. There are lots of guns as well as carry options. I’ve had my gun work loose once. That was after crawling around under a house for a couple hours. Without turning this into a primer on concealed carry options I’ll just say those activities are not insuperable barriers to intelligent and responsible on-body carry.
Would you like some examples of guns and holsters that might work?
This is a video from Brannon LeBouef. I have been consistently impressed with the quality of his information and this is no exception. A friend of mine pointed this video out to me and I wanted to share it. Thanks PM!
If it wasn’t for the fact that this is being proposed as a federal law the so-called Universal Backgroung check law would be silly and pointless, the very opposite of “common sense”
The bill that is being discussed S. 649 (find the whole text here) is draconian in its scope and will have ZERO impact on violent crime. Check this out.
Here is the text in a nutshell:
SEC. 121. PURPOSE.
The purpose of this subtitle is to extend the Brady Law background check procedures to all sales and transfers of firearms.
How could anyone with a straight face propose THAT as common sense?
Note the word “transfers.” If you and I go shooting and I hand you a gun to shoot and then you hand it back to me, that is a transfer.
That is silly.
We already have instant background checks to purchase firearms. This would require that there be a background check every time a person other than the owner was in constructive possession of the gun. That sounds like a law written by an incompetent or someone with no interest in actually reducing crime.
Please, someone tell me how this is common sense.