Menino: NRA would make America more dangerous

Tom Menino on today's NRA call for armed guards in every school:

There is an outpouring of voices demanding real change to make our communities safer. Clearly the NRA's leadership is not one of them. What they announced today is not a plan, but a ploy to bring more guns into our neighborhoods. I don't believe the answer to gun violence is more guns. The American people are tired of the same buzzwords and rhetoric that have moved this debate nowhere and put lives at risk. It's time for a common sense national gun policy. It's time to take action on background checks, assault weapons, high capacity magazines, missing mental health records and closing private sales loopholes. There is so much work to do; we don't have time for rehashed and tired ideas. The American people and the families of the 34 people killed every day by gun violence demand nothing less.



Free tagging: 


What difference would armed

By on

What difference would armed guards really make? In most of these cases the shooter has a death wish, and a lot of times end up killing themselves before authorities can reach them anyway. I don't really see how having one armed guard at each school would be a deterrent; the shooter could open fire at one end of the school and rack up casualties before the armed guard can even get to the area. Then we have a shoot out between the two with bullets flying all over the place. Maybe the armed guard gets hit, maybe the armed guard hits some students in an attempt to shoot the attacker, and if the attacker gets hit and dies, well that was probably the goal anyway.


By on

The other strange thing about the NRA plan is that an armed policeman would have been outgunned at Newtown since cops generally don't carry AR-15s. The shooter was carrying a ridiculous amount of firepower, and if our plan is to put guns in schools then we probably need to match that, which is crazy.

I'm not saying armed guards is the answer but....

The NRA would argue that the cops should have been in the school, not out writing tickets. It sounds like they were actually pretty close from stopping Columbine anyway doesn't it? I mean one of them fired and almost hit one of them?

This Lanza kid was looking for victims that wouldn't fight back or wound him. Lanza knew he was going to die but he didn't want to feel any pain. If there was an armed guard at the school, he could have found a hundred of other places to kill people (day care, zoo, museum, aquarium, summer camp, sporting event, etc). You can't have armed guards everywhere. In the end, the amount of guns stolem from all these armed guards are going to kill more people than the damn armed guards would save!

So armed guards might help specific targets in the short term, but these gunmen will simply keep finding other targets. Guns are the problem, and they simply need to be regulated better.

sooooooo...about those SWAT/"armed response" teams?

By on

What they announced today is not a plan, but a ploy to bring more guns into our neighborhoods.

You mean like the SWAT teams, armed with assault weapons, who have a nasty habit of shooting children, grandmothers, pets, roommates, etc?

Really? They JUST shoot

By on

Really? They JUST shoot beanbags?

What a tragedy that all these people were severely allergic to the "beanbags" being used by SWAT. Beanbags are used OCCASIONALLY, like for crowd control during protests or riots. Don't think that's all they have at their disposal.

Snark Tags

Somebody didn't see the invisible snark tags.

Earth to Menino, BPS are

By on

Earth to Menino, BPS are already full of guns on a regular basis. Taking them away from good people just makes it easier for bad people to literally get away with murder.

This gun scare trend is a

By on

This gun scare trend is a bunch of B.S. They were waiting for a reason to get Americans to give up theirs guns for the longest, now they finally have an excuse. Criminals do not buy guns legally Menino, and if you're that concerned disarm YOUR security gaurds as well instead of being a hypocrite. 9/11 gave the TSA the right to grope children, the Sandy shootings are giving the govt the right to disarm honest guy buyers.

If having guns protects our civil liberties ...

Where are all these armed citizens when we have paramilitary cops making sure that our first amendment rights to freedom of assembly are not exercised?

Like in Michigan? Like at the political conventions?

Face it - assault weapons that fire multiple rounds are not for hunting, they are for pants-pissing pseudopatriots afraid of the world because they can't figure out what reality is. Or people planning mass murders because they have lost their grip on reality in a different direction.

And I say that as a gun-owner who is highly annoyed that I would need to do a lot of meaningless bureaucratic nonsense to bring my heirloom .22 rifle that my granddaddy built himself to my Massachusetts home. Let's see regulation like Australia does it - single shot weapon? Fine. Automatic weapon? Demonstrate "need".

Daddy and Mommy were right: if you can't hunt with a basic single shot rifle or shotgun, you don't need an automatic weapon ... you need to learn to hunt!


By on

means that one bullet is shot for every pull of the trigger. The magazine holds 20 to 30 rounds that can easily be emptied in less than a minute. So you have a amazingly lethal weapon that was designed to kill people.

Did you not know this?

Welcome to America

They'll pretty much make guns inaccessible to American citizens, and the illegal arms trade will flourish. Criminals will still get guns, and everybody will be sitting around wondering how this could have happened. People don't understand, civilian assault rifles use weaker rounds, and are no fully automatic, whereas illegal assault rifles use regular 7.62 rounds, and are usually fully auto. You're right ihateboston (love the name lol), it's a scare trend just like how flying was after 9/11...

amazing how differently we see the world

By on

What I see is the NRA using fear to manipulate people into giving up their right to live in a peaceful society and forcing them to adopt a cynical, paranoid view of America where we are surrounded by lawlessness and "might makes right."

That's exactly right, DaveA.

By on

The fact that the various lawmakers, representatives and Presidents here in the United States have failed to stand up to the NRA/Gun Lobby's use of fear to manipulate the American public at large into an attitude of cynicism and willingness to arm themselves to the teeth whenever a horrific mass-shooting/murder like the recent Newton, CT occurs, instead of cracking down, implementing and enacting stronger, more affective gun laws is rather sad...and disgusting, to boot.

Sure, there are some serious societal problems here in the United States, but the all-too-easy accessibility to firearms here in the United States, not to mention the number of firearms here in the USA, has served to aggrevate these societal problems immensely. Moreover, the United States, as a society and culture, has always revolved around and been totally dependent upon the gun, and it has finally come home to roost, in more ways than one. Not only are many of our poorest, most rundown urban areas under siege as a result of the presence and easy accessibilities to guns, but there've been assassinations, and mass-murders-by firearms as a result of this easy accessibility.

Gun control advocates have realistically become aware that an all-out ban on handguns and guns like that is not realistically possible, but the NRA/Gun Lobby doesn't even allow for more adequate, extensive screening practices for prospective gun buyers, background checks or even waiting periods, plus Congress has persistently refused to close the loophole that enables anybody to simply walk into a gun show and buy a gun, with no background check or anything.

When a mass-shooting/murder occurred in Norway (correct me if I'm wrong about the country of occurrence of this particular event, anybody!), not that long ago, the Norwegians called for stronger, more affective gun laws, rather than arming themselves to the teeth like so many people here in the United States do.

(Pardon my rambling, folks.)

Futuremarine, can you tell me

By on

what the reason would be for anyone to have an assault rifle? Aside from killing multiple people? One does not use assault rifles when hunting. I don't believe banning assault weapons will make guns inaccessible to American citizens but we have to stop access to killing machines. And gun shows must be outlawed.

I'm sure that brings comfort

By on

I'm sure that brings comfort to the parents of the 20 children that they were killed by a legal semi-automatic weapon that used weaker rounds.
If that type of weapon was banned, the mother would not have had it and the son would not have had access to it.

Future Marine? really?

By on

You may want to get some facts straight before you go to a recruiter.

The ammunition used by the AR-15 "Bushmaster" is the standard military round that that we have used for about 50 years. It is 5.56mm and designed to be more accurate and lighter than the 7.62mm round (so more rounds could be carried). Yes, it has been criticized for having less "stopping power" than the larger 7.62mm round but that's really a long discussion of muzzle velocity and bullet weight vs. accuracy and lethality. TL:DR would really apply.

As for not being fully automatic? Do you realize that military training encourages the weapon to be use in the "semi-auto" mode? It's MUCH more accurate and only slightly slower.

Guy-buying is definitely

By on

Guy-buying is definitely illegal in Massachusetts at least, if not in all of New England.


Vying for the slot on the next episode of "Doomsday Preppers" are we?
Try and get a grip there, Cletus.

John Salvi

By on

When the crazed gunman John Salvi went into an abortion clinic to kill doctors and nurses a lone guard with a firearm engaged him in a firefight and chased him away.
Tommy has bodyguards as does Deval the school police should be armed to protect kids from mayhem

Such a complex issue

By on

This is such a complex issue that "guns for all! vs. nobody needs!" are not rational arguments.

A few points I think we should be able to agree on:

- AR15's and similar rifles are popular and numerous. 30rd magazines are popular and numerous. Unfortunately, if you are bent on committing mass murder with a firearm, they are the right tool for the job.

- Un-armed people are virtually defenseless against someone with a firearm. A person with a gun and training has a better CHANCE of stopping a shooter than someone without.

- Introducing guns into a school setting is not an easy solution to implement, doesn't assure safety, and comes with a whole host of consequences that could be worse than the current situation over the long run. Next shooter will just find another soft target anyway. At the same time, had the principal in CT been armed, trained and had a plan to work with, there is the potential for her to have ambushed the shooter and dispatched him. Had there not been a window next to the door to be shot out, Lanza may not have gained entry to the school. So many hypothetical issues to consider.

- The assault weapons ban that existed until 2004 was poorly designed and focused more on the cosmetic attributes than function. An AR15 without the bayonet lug and a fixed instead of adjustable stock is still an AR15.

- Gun confiscation is a non-starter. Regardless of new laws, existing firearms and magazines will be grandfathered in. These guns are not going to disappear. Banning the sale of new ones will make the current ones more valuable. Banning them completely will simply turn them into another black market commodity like illegal drugs. Then only criminals will own them. These are unintended consequences to consider.

- The only gun owner that bears any responsibility for the shooting in CT was Adam Lanzas mother. We don't blame responsible drinkers for the deaths caused by drunk drivers. So trying to lay blame on responsible gun owners is not only poor reasoning, but reduces any persuasion your argument may have. I think most people can agree it's a bad idea to keep guns in a household with a mentally unstable person.

- Use of a rifle in a crime is very rare. Handguns are the weapon of choice in crime and murder. Banning AR15's is not going to affect the gun crime problem in Boston in any way. As a matter of fact, Boston already has it's own "assault weapon" ban that covers AR15's.

- Statements such as: "pants-pissing pseudopatriots afraid of the world because they can't figure out what reality is. Or people planning mass murders because they have lost their grip on reality in a different direction." are shallow and unproductive. The person who wrote that statement would jump all over someone making that kind of sweeping, negative generalization regarding any other group of people.

Such a cloud of obfuscation

It is complex compared to, say, what beer do I want to drink next. But it isn't nearly as complicated as you are trying to pretend it is.

Here's an example of simple clarity from another gun-happy country:

I suggest you read it before you start telling all of us that these common sense measures and political will "won't work" apriori.

Right on cue!

By on

There she is right on cue!

As usual, you don't address anything, you just make your usual sweeping and snarky pronouncements that everyone doesn't get it except you.

You should really drink a lower ABV beer because if you think what the Aussie's did is even remotely politically feasible in this country, you're drunk.

In addition, I never said anything about "won't work". I pointed out issues that have to be considered in the context of our current firearms debate. That's only obfuscation if you can't be concerned with reality.


So ... show some statistically-grounded policy research in support for your pronouncements of "it's just sooo complicated" and maybe I can engage in a meaningful argument with you.

As it stands, you have done nothing beyond aggregrate talking points to foster confusion, without any citation or support.

My state of inebriation or lack thereof does not change the basic facts of the article I cited, nor do your arguments claiming that things are too complex for anything to be even tried let alone work mean anything just because you say so.


By on

You've typed two responses, yet can't be bothered to point out which of my statements you disagree with, nor why.

I read your article. It's not news to me.

Since you demand I do your homework, here are some numbers:

There were more guns manufactured in the US over the last ten years than the entire human population of Australia. In addition, a similar number were imported to the US over the same period.

People in this country like and own a lot of guns. It's the highest per-capita gun ownership in the world by far.

Here's some more info:

"The gun buy-back scheme started on 1 October 1996 and concluded on 30 September 1997.[23] The buyback purchased and destroyed more than 631,000 firearms, mostly semi-auto .22 rimfires, semi-automatic shotguns and pump-action shotguns. Only Victoria provided a breakdown of types destroyed, and in that state less than 3% were military style semi-automatic rifles."

The total number of guns turned into the Australian government is dwarfed by the number we manufacture in a single year.

If this were a simple issue, the prior AWB would have been an effective law instead of the feel good BS that it was. If it were simple we would have confiscated all full auto weapons in 1986 instead of grandfathering them. If this were simple, there wouldn't be record numbers of guns manufactured and sold currently. If it were simple, concealed carry laws wouldn't have been relaxing all over the country.

But by all means, deny reality and claim it's simple. The rest of us will ignore you and deal with it as it is, not how we wish it to be.

Strawman Army

I think that would make a great band name.

Wikipedia references on gun control and objectivity: what could go wrong with that.