Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

And who will pay for that?

damn_registrars (1103043) writes | about a year and a half ago

First Person Shooters (Games) 14

So the NRA wants every school in the country to have an armed guard, because in their fantasy world one guy with a pistol can prevent any number of nutjobs from coming in with a semi-automatic rifle.

OK, that is strange logic. Even worse, though, the NRA wants congress to pay for their fantasy. Some estimates have said that one full-time armed security agent could cost $80k per year.So the NRA wants every school in the country to have an armed guard, because in their fantasy world one guy with a pistol can prevent any number of nutjobs from coming in with a semi-automatic rifle.

OK, that is strange logic. Even worse, though, the NRA wants congress to pay for their fantasy. Some estimates have said that one full-time armed security agent could cost $80k per year.

Strange, I thought the NRA usually courted the people who want Washington to spend less money. Now they want how many billions for this little adventure?

cancel ×

14 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Sorry (1)

Vanderhoth (1582661) | about a year and a half ago | (#42366815)

I feel for the majority of you south of the border who do have some sanity.

NRA only has 3,000,000 members as opposed to the 300,000,000+ other Americans, if the sane people can get their acts together and organize themselves you could beet them to a bloodied pulp on this issue.

Who pays for anything? (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about a year ago | (#42368415)

We don't do actual budgeting anymore, our government is fundamentally unserious, and "Zimbabwe" Ben Bernanke just prints more money.
What is kind of funny is the sequence of:
  1. Tragedy occurs in town X.
  2. Constitutional rights or unrelated citizens are "targeted".
  3. Group of freely associating citizens (NRA) is singled out for abuse. "the sane people can get their acts together and organize themselves you could beet them to a bloodied pulp [slashdot.org] ". "And who will pay for that" pile of vegetables, indeed, oh "peace-loving" Lefties?
  4. Group of freely associating citizens (NRA) proposes a common-sense solution. Did you read LaPierre's remarks? I'll do a separate JE, as he makes a point so lucid as to mock pretty much the entire Left.
  5. Wastrel Progressives suddenly get all sober about funding things and stuff.

I guess if you're figuring that bolstering physical security for children is going to divert money from more high-yield vote-buying schemes, I can understand your point. However, if we load-shed the Department of Education and all of the Affirmative Action/Diversity boobs who are sucking up too much cash in our society, and perpetuating racism and sexism, we can get to a healthy downpayment on physical security.

Re:Who pays for anything? (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about a year ago | (#42368761)

Group of freely associating citizens (NRA) proposes a common-sense solution. Did you read LaPierre's remarks? I'll do a separate JE, as he makes a point so lucid as to mock pretty much the entire Left.

The NRA has tremendous power over anyone with an (R) after their name, and many who do not as well. Considering how few members they have relative to the country's population as a whole, their power is enormous.

funding things and stuff.

What you're conveniently ignoring though is that very few groups propose anything that costs a significant amount of money, and this proposal could cost billions per year. Yet because they have a significant part of congress at their beck-and-call, they don't have to worry about the economic cost.

a healthy downpayment on physical security

So you are admitting that there is no money in the federal budget for what the NRA just convinced peple we need, yet you are convinced we need it anyways? What happened to fiscal responsibility?

The NRA is, without a doubt, a conservative organization (which is a shame because plenty of liberals enjoy shooting but are wholly turned off from the politics of the NRA) who just used their political power to convince congress that we need to spend billions of dollars per year. And for some reason the conservatives who were preaching fiscal conservatism yesterday morning are suddenly racing to see who can sign the bounced check first.

Re:Who pays for anything? (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about a year ago | (#42368947)

The NRA has tremendous power over anyone with an (R) after their name

No, they don't.

Yet because they have a significant part of congress at their beck-and-call, they don't have to worry about the economic cost.

Like a labor union or something? The fundamental problem afoot is that Congress is worrying about individual education. Our political system is like a poorly factored software system. If you objection is that everything is done in main(), why not delegate some logic. There must be at least 50 other possible locations for people to express their political will, and pay for the security they deem necessary.
What you're conveniently ignoring is that this is just an unintended consequence of overly concentrated power.

So you are admitting that there is no money in the federal budget for what the NRA

What. Federal. Budget? [politifact.com]

The NRA is, without a doubt, a conservative organization (which is a shame because plenty of liberals enjoy shooting but are wholly turned off from the politics of the NRA)

Which probably explains why the NRA supported Harry Reid's [examiner.com] reign of error, and why real conservatives are giving look to Gun Owners of America [gunowners.org] .

And for some reason the conservatives who were preaching fiscal conservatism yesterday morning are suddenly racing to see who can sign the bounced check first.

Jobs, man: jobs! Why do you H8 employment?

Re:Who pays for anything? (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about a year ago | (#42369593)

The NRA has tremendous power over anyone with an (R) after their name

No, they don't.

You would be hard pressed to find a republican in congress currently who doesn't put their NRA score on their campaign mailers. The score really boils down to how much that congress critter bends over the to NRA's beck and call.

That is power.

Yet because they have a significant part of congress at their beck-and-call, they don't have to worry about the economic cost.

Like a labor union or something?

Like a labor union 40 years ago, perhaps. The unions have steadily lost power for at least that long, while the NRA has been gaining power. NRA membership stands at around 3million, labor union membership around 14.8 million [bls.gov] , yet the smaller group has had far more sway on legislation passed in the past 20 years.

What you're conveniently ignoring is that this is just an unintended consequence of overly concentrated power.

Please elaborate on that statement. You had a long statement before this one, I'd like to know what is that you are saying comes from "overly concentrated power". The shootings themselves? The power of special interests (such as the NRA) in congress? The fact that the budget only matters when some people say it matters, and matters not at all in other situations?

What. Federal. Budget?

Just because one hasn't yet been passed doesn't mean that the books won't have to be addressed at some point.

And for some reason the conservatives who were preaching fiscal conservatism yesterday morning are suddenly racing to see who can sign the bounced check first.

Jobs, man: jobs! Why do you H8 employment?

Well, if congress mandates it without funding it, then the schools would be forced to pay for it themselves. Security guards would be paid at least 1.5x what the teachers generally are paid, which means for every 2 guards we fire 3 teachers, leading to a net loss of jobs.

Of course, the teachers are evil, evil, union employees and the guards are freedom loving free market workers so on your moral relativism this is a win, right?

Re:Who pays for anything? (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about a year ago | (#42370201)

I'd like to know what is that you are saying comes from "overly concentrated power".

Pre-Woodrow Wilson, we had federal, state, and local government. The capitalist horse dragged the cart of State.
Progress has meant a swapping of cart and horse. Specifically, the Federal Reserve Act, the 16th & 17th Amendments, and the freezing of the House of Representatives size as of 1910 have had the cart of federal 'experts' trying to drag the economic horse. Sure, we had a lot of slope to work with, especially after the rest of the world got the crap blown out of it in the 1940s.
But it's all leveled out now, and we've a cartful of debt, and it's all pretty much falling apart.
It's time to heed non-idiots like Sowell [townhall.com] , and pursue reform, e.g. those suggested by Barnett [forbes.com] .
Of course, reform means re-distributing power instead of wealth.

Re:Who pays for anything? (1)

Vanderhoth (1582661) | about a year ago | (#42368773)

If it's decided an armed guards in every school is necessary than it'll also be necessary to have to them in every Daycare, church, theatre, and hospital across the country.

Police walking around with "assault style" weapons "guarding" the population. Where have I seen that image before, oh yeah, the middle east. America's going to look really good dressed up as Afghanistan.

It's going to be a police state. Who's going to pay for it all? tax payers, hundreds of billions of dollars. How do you raise that kind of money? by raising taxes.

You guys are going to be paying more taxes than we do here in Canada just so you can have an illusion of being safer because a cop is walking around with a gun.

Glad I don't live there any more, things are about to get really crazy.

Re:Who pays for anything? (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about a year ago | (#42368957)

Holy missing the point, batman! The point is not guns, the point is that "gun free zones" can turn locations into abattoirs.

Re:Who pays for anything? (1)

Vanderhoth (1582661) | about a year ago | (#42369045)

Speaking of missing the point, When there are no gun free zones crazy people are still going to go on shooting sprees. One armed cop isn't going to stop that, they'll just be the first target.

Re:Who pays for anything? (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about a year ago | (#42369653)

You guys are going to be paying more taxes than we do here in Canada just so you can have an illusion of being safer because a cop is walking around with a gun.

Most Americans are already paying more in taxes than the average Canadian, we just disguise it to make ourselves feel better about the consequences of regressive taxation.

Glad I don't live there any more, things are about to get really crazy.

Nah, they've been really crazy for some time. This is just crazy version 12.0 (or so). We're getting ready to add more guns to the situation to encourage people to use guns less. And of course, because its about guns the price doesn't matter - we'll just cut it out of the education budget and it will all balance out.

Re:Who pays for anything? (1)

Vanderhoth (1582661) | about a year ago | (#42369925)

Some of the suggestions I've read in other forums suggest taxing the hell out of gun purchases, licences, bullets, etc... So the people who want to own them will essentially pay for the armed guards required to keep the population safe from them. I doubt that would work though because you know taxing firearms is going to infringe on their "right" to own a gun.

Re:Who pays for anything? (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about a year ago | (#42370113)

Some of the suggestions I've read in other forums suggest taxing the hell out of gun purchases, licences, bullets, etc

Chris Rock made a similar suggestion: [goodreads.com]

I think all bullets should cost five thousand dollars ... five thousand dollars per bullet ... You know why? Cause if a bullet cost five thousand dollars there would be no more innocent bystanders. Yeah! Every time somebody get shut we'd say, 'Damn, he must have done something ... Shit, he's got fifty thousand dollars worth of bullets in his ass.'

And people would think before they killed somebody if a bullet cost five thousand dollars. 'Man I would blow your fucking head off ... if I could afford it.' 'I'm gonna get me another job, I'm going to start saving some money, and you're a dead man. You'd better hope I can't get no bullets on layaway.'

Of course, that isn't a particularly popular idea right now.

I doubt that would work though because you know taxing firearms is going to infringe on their "right" to own a gun.

There is a bigger problem than that, though. Even if we quadrupled (or more) the price of every gun and round of ammunition this afternoon, we would still have millions of accessible guns and who knows how many rounds of ammo in private hands. Of course, the private market would then explode as people would be selling their guns for profit.

The notion of "licenses" is of course a separate matter. I'm not sure if there are actually any two states in this country with identical laws. Some states (Arizona comes to mind) basically allow anyone over 21 to carry whatever they please, however they want. Other states require people to license almost everything more powerful than an air rifle.

Re:Who pays for anything? (1)

gmhowell (26755) | about a year ago | (#42372229)

So only the wealthy and powerful can have access to firearms? There's some quality limousine liberalism for ya.

Re:Who pays for anything? (1)

Vanderhoth (1582661) | about a year and a half ago | (#42374289)

I agree with that, On the other hand it's not typically the wealthy that are a problem.

A friend of mine from China told me this once and I sort of agree with him. "It's not the people with money you need to be afraid of. They're happy and will do what their told to keep that. The poor are the people you need to be afraid of. When you have nothing to lose, you'll do anything just to feed yourself."

The other issue I have are that people seem to be completely opposed to doing something as simple as just not giving a gun to EVERYONE. I'm finding if frustrating that "pro-gun" people don't want to make any suggestions for solving an issue, other than, "Let's give everyone a gun, that'll fix the problem with everyone having a guns". It's easy to dismiss an idea and call it "liberalism" and not actually make a suggestion. Name calling doesn't solve anything, demonstrates a lack of critical thought.

I'm not for banning all guns. I like deer stake, which I couldn't get if my uncles, who are hunters couldn't have guns. I just think some guns are unnecessary and some people shouldn’t have them. After all it's pretty ridiculous to say everyone should have a nuclear bomb and clearly fully automatic weapons are illegal in most places. So someone agreed there should be a line it's just a matter of where that line should be.
Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>