About that NRA position

Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by Tony, Jul 28, 2016.

  1. Tony

    Tony Moderator Staff Member Gold Member Golden GPS Recipient AtlDiv ARES Member

    I think sufficient time has passed to bring up a point about the National Rifle Association and guns.

    The Washington Post reported at the time 20 people were armed with exposed rifles in the crowd at the ambush killings of the police officers in Dallas. The police were praised for not shooting any of them during their response to the sniper fire.

    The NRA has espoused that the best defense against a bad man with a gun is a good man with a gun. The police said the 20 riflemen in the crowd beat it when the shooting started.

    That was probably the correct thing to do, but it seems to belie the NRA's good gunman-bad gunman position.

    I read about the rifles in the 20 civilians hands in the Washington Post. They were reported to have "ammo gear and rifles over their shoulders" and they "began to run away when the shooting began." The story also said, "Once authorities began to catch and interview them, . . . they realized one shooter had fired from multiple angles."

    Wayne LaPierre, CEO of the NRA, said in December 2012, "The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun."

    What are we to make of the gun lobby position in this light.?
    W.T. Jones likes this.
  2. W.T. Jones

    W.T. Jones Moderator Staff Member Silver Member Golden GPS Recipient AtlDiv EPA Leader AtlDiv ARES Member

    You just knew that I would rise to this like a trout after a juicy fly.

    I had not heard of this before reading your post so it is something new to me but let me give you my instantaneous take on this. It may be a little disjointed but I'll give it my best "shot" so to speak.

    The first thing that comes to mind - what the heck were these people thinking bringing rifles to this. There is a time and place to display the hardware but I cannot think of a worse place to do this. The rifle carriers were lucky they were not shot just to reduce the number of potential sources of hurt.

    So bringing the rifles to the rally showed a lack of common sense on their part.

    Actually, running away is a pretty good tactic when you don't know where the incoming fire is coming from. Not all that smart because you might be running toward it but a moving target is a lot harder to hit than someone standing there looking up with their mouth hanging open. Odds are none of these rifle toters had any training about what to do in a situation like that. Usually the case because most of them are sport shooters who wanna be soldiers.

    In any case, even if one of them had thought to OODA in a rapid manner it would have not improved the situation. Even if they had the thought of suppressing the incoming fire they would have drawn it to them and, in the law, suppressing fire is in the domain of the military. The Police and civilians have to account for every bullet fired. So I guess you could say they obeyed the 4 rules of gun safety. And I am sure that the police would have not appreciated another source of noise distracting them from locating the real threat.

    BTW, the number of "20" citizens with rifles conflicts with other reports I have just found. The Police detained only 3. Why were they there and why they had rifles and ammunition is a very good question and I would have loved to hear their answers.

    But lets get to your question about the Gun Lobby here.

    "The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun."

    That was proven true - the good guys with the guns (Police) stopped the bad guy with the gun (the shooter) again in this instance. Well, it was a bomb but that is a trifle.

    Doesn't say anything about a civilian having to be the one doing it.

    This was, and I think you'll agree, an unusual situation and not the instance of a bad guy attacking a good person on the street or in the home. This went way beyond the intent of the "Good Guy with a Gun vs. Bad Guy with a Gun" scenario.

    I think the precept that if I have a situation where I am armed and can reasonably use my firearm to defend myself is still valid. I am the Good Guy with the gun. Given proper opportunity I will stop the bad guy. As far as I can tell none of the Good Guys at the rally had an opportunity to even attempt it.

    The main teaching of the NRA is to NOT GO WHERE YOU WILL BE PUTTING YOURSELF IN DANGER. Avoid it if at all possible. So if you look at what the Rifle Toters did then it was avoiding the danger and turning the situation over to the Police. The Police are equipped to handle such a situation. Hopefully. Get out of the way, don't be a target, and let the professionals handle the situation. Why stay in a burning house and try to fight a conflagration. Get out and let the Fire Department do what it is trained to do.

    By the way, if someone decides they are going to kill with a gun they will. It is a fact even in the places that have the strictest forms of gun control. If a person has a grudge bad enough to kill you about it then it will happen. No warning. This is what happened at this rally. The Bad Guy was intent on killing police officers. No warning. Just open fire. And from tactically superior positions which prevented even the police from engaging him successfully with rifle fire. They used a bomb to end his rampage. So now do we have the Good Guys with the Bomb vs. the Bad Guy with the Gun? That sounds like some thing from Dr. Strangelove.

    The Gun Lobby has a firm position to stand on here as far as I am concerned. The shooter wasn't one of the good citizens. The good citizens did what was right and got out of the way. None of the good citizens with guns hurt anyone. I will still say that bringing a rifle to this was nothing short of dumb but it is that Constitution thing again.

    A shooter breeds fear whether to a crowd of people at a rally or to a trained squad of infantry. To tie this situation to the actions of the rifle toters or the Gun Lobby is comparing two different levels of engagement. Self defense and sport shooting vs. responding to a Terroristic Threat.

    Divergence here: All else aside - this shooter was not what we would call right in the head. There definitely needs to be some provision in the law to keep firearms out of the hands of the people who should not have them and there is. The Shooter was a troubled man in the Army and the Army knew it. All it would have taken to keep the firearms out of the Shooter's possession was a Dishonourable Discharge and because of the Shooter's lawyer that was prevented.

    A second Divergence here: The Shooter was sold an AK-47 rifle in the parking lot of a Target store. THAT NEEDS TO STOP! I have sold 2 firearms this year. One an EBR (Evil Black Rifle) and the other a Glock G-27. The Glock had to be transferred at an FFL. One person offered to buy the EBR by stopping by the house and giving me the money for it. I said not going to happen. I said we go to the FFL and do the transfer. He decided he didn't want the EBR enough to go through a background check. Selling any gun without a background check needs to be stopped. Period.
    wedgar and Tony like this.
  3. Tony

    Tony Moderator Staff Member Gold Member Golden GPS Recipient AtlDiv ARES Member

    Excellent response. I agree largely, but the good guy with a gun that LaPierre referred to was not armed police. His implication was people like you and me. (At least I'd like to think I'm a good guy.)

    And, oddly enough, if you were watching CBS this morning you would have seen a pretty well-rounded piece based on this same topic: . . . Good guy with a gun.

    As an aside, I would feel a lot better about the NRA efforts if I didn't secretly suspect it is a front for manufacturers to sell guns. I feel strongly about the Second amendment, and more so the First, but I don't want to see the Second abused in the name of money.

    As for the Army and that lawyer, the lawyer didn't do it, the army did. Everybody is entitled to vigorous representation, including the U.S. citizens. Where were the powerful U.S. lawyers representing us?
    wedgar likes this.
  4. Michael J Malone

    Michael J Malone Active Member

    This quote is inclusive of all good guys with guns - including police, etc. There is no position taken by the NRA that armed citizens who are not police, or such, are to supplant law enforcement or any other sworn persons. I would suggest that those present while openly armed at the march were essentially no different than sports fans wielding their favorite teams' jerseys. That they left when firing began is evidence that they understand that they are not to replace the police, etc. By leaving, arms and all, they showed much better behavior than sports fans that brutalize opposing teams supporters.

    When addressed about good guys that are not police, etc., the NRA position is meant to picture self defense; many states and municipalities require retreat by threatened citizens before deadly force is used; if they can of course. Leaving when the shooting began shows respect and adherence to such a rule. It also might be an indication of - 'not looking for Dodge City' - or they are not wanna-be's of any odd type but just citizens enjoying their rights.

    In all of these types of situations, I am chuckled by attempts to categorize persons without direct knowledge of the persons involved or their goals.
  5. Tony

    Tony Moderator Staff Member Gold Member Golden GPS Recipient AtlDiv ARES Member

    You are the only person I know of who said it is O.K. to take rifles to a protest.
  6. Michael J Malone

    Michael J Malone Active Member

    Actually, I never said that it O.K,. wise, bright or anything else about bringing a rifle to a protest or anywhere else. What I do believe, that is what is my own set of thoughts and my own opinion, not one ascribed to me, is that a rifle is a tool. Each tool has proper purpose and use. I can not see me bringing a rifle to a protest - I see no use for a rifle at a protest. Thank you though for polishing my previous statement about categorizing persons without direct knowledge of their intent or of actual telling actions.

    Once more, all we know is that while maybe looking foolish to some, maybe to many, not one one the 'toting' citizens performed or had to be prevented from performing any bad behavior.

    I also know that when young, I would march up and down public highways and byways while going to or coming from ranges, hunting gounds and the likes with a rifle shotgun and/or revolver in plain sight. It was rare if no one honked and waved, stopped to ask if I had had luck or to offer a ride. While this happened for awhile in rural Oklahoma and Kansas, I moved to Pennsylvania and it continued to happened in Harrisburg, Carlisle, Mansfield, Williamsport, Coudersport, Bensalem and even in Philadelphia. That, though, was before hysteria about firearms became fashionable and a sought after norm.
  7. W.T. Jones

    W.T. Jones Moderator Staff Member Silver Member Golden GPS Recipient AtlDiv EPA Leader AtlDiv ARES Member

    I had a good rejoinder to the above but decided to delete it. This topic has too many emotional viewpoints for a mutual agreement on it and that is in general and not just on this forum. Were the rifle carrying individuals the crowd a real threat? Or imaginary? That depends on how close you were standing to them, what your background is, were you responsible for the safety of the crowd, and were you even interested in the fact they were carrying a rifle? It is to me a non-argument since it is over.

    What we did as youth is only in our memories and does not work in the world today. Period! Save the nostalgia for other posts.

    There are too many who have to prove that their interpretation on the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, the Mores of Society, the actions of citizens, the actions of politicians, is the absolute correct one. And that is probably for the betterment of society for allowing that proof to be attempted and letting them attempt that expound that proof is fine with me. As long as those attempts don't infringe on what I see is the right way. And that is the rub isn't it?

    I think Tony's question is about the gun lobby and the statement by LaPierre about a Good Man with a Gun vs A Bad Man with a Gun is a good one. The fellows with the EBRs were there and fled. That is a fact. Why? Who cares? If they were protesting, fine. If they were coming from a shooting range and happened on the demonstration, fine again. Makes no difference. They were there and when the shooting started they fled. Witnesssed and verifiable from most news reports and the reason for Tony's question.

    Again, Tony's question is about the Gun Lobby and does the fact that the individuals with the EBRs fled change the validity of the stance about Good Man with Gun vs. Bad Man with Gun tag line.

    As someone pointed out when this statement was made, a good man with a gun doesn't essentially mean the man with the gun is a good man. He is just good with the gun. I have always thought that was a good point and makes me realize that the statement is marketing hype.

    So after some thought about the tag line I have to find some fault with it. I have to look at it as what it is. It is a marketing tag line. Today it needs work but it boils down to expressing what Sam Colt's invention did in the West. In an interaction between two people, one of whom is bent on doing harm to the other with a firearm, it is better to have a firearm than not. Some who are more fervent about the position take it at its face value but then again those at that level are probably prone take guns to demonstrations and probably believe that women should not be in the work place. The statement is catchy, works well with the membership (who pay the bills), and fits nicely on billboard. I don't think Wayne LaPierre really gave it much thought when it was coined as to who the name "The Good Man" represented because he knew that there would be people like us who would assign any number of characters to that role. Throw the bait in the water and let see how it works. I am sure that he knew that there would be ideologues who carry the torch that would take it and run with it. Just as we have in the past posts.

    It might have been better expressed but "It takes an Honest, Moral, Upstanding, Good Community Member, Cleared with a background check, Member in Good Standing of his Church, an excellent family man, armed with a legally owned firearm to stop a lowlife, ill bred, miscreant with a rap sheet as long as your arm, who is using an illegally obtained weapon while committing a criminal act" doesn't do well in the marketing arena.

    And whoa, wait a minute. Drop off the Good and Bad and just take "Man with A Gun" for a moment! I am surprised that the Babes and Bullets web site hasn't done an stinging editorial on that! Sexist! So only men can wield a firearm in righteous defense? What about the women who pack heat? Guess the NRA tag line doesn't apply to them.

    So its a marketing line. If you are a single issue person you can cling to it as your mantra. If you tend to think more about things even in the firearm area as I do I tend to see the line "It takes a well trained and armed person to deal with a person intent on harming them and their loved ones" as a bit more in line with my philosophy. Its personal so it won't sell to the masses. I keep it at the personal level. Then again, I don't have to rouse the membership of the NRA to donate money.

    As far as the Gun Lobby goes - I'll support them and let them continue. You can go back to the second paragraph of this post for the reason. They may wander wide right of my path but then again the opposing arguments from the other side go wide left of my path too. Some times you need the opposing views to keep things in balance.

    Michael, excuse me, but I had to chuckle myself when I read that. That was not adherence to a rule. That was, in all respect, self-preservation at work. I could not prove that but that is much better of a reason for them to flee than adherence to a rule. Of course, if we were able to find them and question them I am sure that if you posed that hypothesis to them they would claim it as their own.
  8. Michael J Malone

    Michael J Malone Active Member

    Always glad to provide a chuckle. Would not mind reading your withheld rejoinder. Speaking of motive amid Gun Lobby and they fled statements, are we sure that the gun totters were actually NRA'afiles and not an posing group of 'anti-gunners' intent on some absurdity or news creating stunt who got caught in a vicious and vulgar situation?
  9. wedgar

    wedgar Administrator Staff Member Gold Member

    Love this comment. Haven't heard it before, but it certainly is descriptive.

    Yes, common sense. Yes, I know common sense has become uncommon.

    I had several occasions in Pittsburgh in the early 80's where having a firearms saved me and/or my family from what I believed would have been serious harm.

    W.T. Jones likes this.
  10. wedgar

    wedgar Administrator Staff Member Gold Member

    From my involvement with the NRA, I see it more focused on education on safely using your firearms and situational awareness (NRA's Refuse To Be A Victim course)
    W.T. Jones likes this.
  11. W.T. Jones

    W.T. Jones Moderator Staff Member Silver Member Golden GPS Recipient AtlDiv EPA Leader AtlDiv ARES Member

    I tend to agree with this because that is what I see more than any other NRA function except for the "we need money" mailings.

    I would like to see a little less of the "we need money" campaigns but it is a fact that we need the NRA to offset the other side of the story and they need money to do that. So I contribute what I can and hope that they get the message across successfully. I am not going to say correctly because there is marketing involved and sometimes the wording gets a tad skewed which is why we have this thread in the first place.
    wedgar likes this.
  12. wedgar

    wedgar Administrator Staff Member Gold Member

    Yep I'd also like to see less of the "We need money" mailings. Now to be honest, NRA isn't the only group sending those notices. But they still irk me...
  13. W.T. Jones

    W.T. Jones Moderator Staff Member Silver Member Golden GPS Recipient AtlDiv EPA Leader AtlDiv ARES Member

Share This Page