No Guns Allowed During NRA Convention Speech By Trump, Pence - Sensationalist Headlines

Victims of the Parkland, Fla., high school shooting and their parents are criticizing the National Rifle Association after it announced that gun advocates won't be allowed to bring weapons to watch Vice President Pence deliver the NRA-Institute for Legislative Action's leadership forum keynote address in Dallas on Friday. The NRA says the ban was ordered by the U.S. Secret Service. "Wait wait wait wait wait wait you're telling me to make the VP safe there aren't any weapons around but when it comes to children they want guns everywhere?" Matt Deitsch, a student at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School who helped organize the "March for Our Lives" protest, wrote on Twitter. No Guns Allowed During NRA Convention Speech By Trump, Pence

"they're just tools guys"

So guns are allowed only when they're killing the lower class. Gotcha

Can the secret service be in charge of the nations public education system as well?

If someone starts shooting just kill them what's the problem guys? I mean this is the ideal scenario, right? A lot of adults with guns? Wouldn't that be safer?

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/nra-convention-gun-ban/

The difference between a School and an NRA Convention is that the NRA is willing to pay for armed guards. The only reason anyone suggested allowing teachers to bring guns is because schools can't or won't or don't want to pay for armed guards.

The NRA says the ban was ordered by the U.S. Secret Service. Maybe read this important part guys before the epic zinger train continues

No-gun zones aren't hypocritical if they're willing to back it up with guns. The issue with no-gun zones is that they're not actively enforced.

It's just because it's a Trump thing. Pretty much always going to be a thing with presidents/people in power anywhere to have no guns around.

This is like comparing apples to oranges. The vice president is a government figure that is a big target. Letting unqualified people walk around with any type of weapon is just asking for an assassination attempt. Letting armed guards or trained teachers carry a firearm in a school is not the same. Unless you're a government official, CEO or kingpin there should be no worry of someone trying to assassinate you.

BTW no gun zones aren't there to stop shooters, they're there to make people not feel anxious all the time (which increases stress which reduces your quality of life), and to prevent accidental or coincidental discharge of weapons. They also make it so there are no weapons to steal. Yeah you can say "they don't stop someone from walking in with a gun!" but let's be real here, people with guns aren't going to feel welcome in a no-gun zone and they're not going to fucking shoot someone if they ask them to leave.

If you're incapable of not taking everything at face value then sure I can see how you might think it's hypocritical. No-gun zones are -- to reasonable people -- clearly really "no guns we haven't allowed" zones. It's not as if police officers and armed security aren't allowed in no-gun zones.

I think the whole conceal-carry thing is oft-misunderstood and this post is kind of emblematic of it. The whole point of conceal-carry is that nobody knows you have a gun. Nobody is going to be made to feel anxious by the presence of a firearm they can't see, unless they're anxious about the possibility that a firearm is near them regardless, in which case the sign probably won't do them any good either. The signs are well intentioned but they don't really do anything positive. Licensed conceal-carriers should be able to carry anywhere. If you have a bunch of professionally undefended areas where CHL holders can carry and a few places where they can't, which places do you think are going to be targeted by attackers? The NRA convention is disarmed because the VP is speaking there and there will be more than enough armed security on the premises to pick up the slack in the event of, well, an event. Shootings are so extremely unlikely in general, though, that having armed security covering every conceivable place that might be attacked just in case is not practical. Conceal-carriers are just normal people going about everyday things - so having them around improves the odds of having a trained, armed person on-scene in the unlikely event of an attack, robbery, etc. The point of conceal carry is to cover what police and security can't. If you have an area where there are lots of police officers or better armed/organized security, you don't really need CHL holders to pick up the slack there - in those places civilians with firearms can add to the confusion and cause extra casualties. But in the 7/11 when a robber gets trigger happy? That's where you need a CHL holder. A school when a student snaps? Giving teachers the option to carry improves the odds of the shooter being stopped with low casualties. It's too easy to get and keep a CHL, I'll agree with that. The classes don't teach you enough about the important details that go along with intervening in a shooting and you don't have to be proficient or really show mental stability beyond being able to function in basic social interactions. But the idea of conceal-carry is solid and when conceal carry laws are on the books it demonstrably results in mostly positive outcomes for situations in which CHL holders are present. I just can't see the practical problem with qualified teachers having the option to carry if they feel up to it.

Because the secret service is going to allow unknown people carrying firearms into a convention while the Vice President addresses them. Nothing could go wrong. NRA suck but Secret Service ordered it and you don't get to make compromises with them.

Guns have been banned at the Republican National Convention as well as Trump's properties and Republican Town Halls. Secret service or not, the pro-"good guy with a gun" crowd are hypocrites when it comes to their own events.

Are people who think the speed limit should be raised hypocrites for following the current speed limit?

I'm not seeing the connection you're trying to make. You're talking about someone obeying a law they don't support but can't control versus a party who absolutely does set the rules for its conventions instituting rules that fly in the face of its general policies.

guns make everything safer unless you're actually in the job of making things safe

They didn't set the rules. They have to follow the rules set by the authorities of a given property. If a city ordnance written in 1893 says you can't carry firearms into buildings owned by the city, you can't carry weapons to your town hall meeting. If the Secret Service says you can't have weapons within xyz distance or in the same building as the president/vice president/president's dog/whatever then you can't do anything about that either. The only one I'll grant you is Trump and Mar-a-lago - but then Trump is no more pro-gun than he has to be to keep the red vote. If Trump could push a button to disarm the entire middle and poor classes of the US he would do it in a heartbeat, but then he'd have no support.

because anyone who thinks about it for two seconds can immediately discern that no rational person would ever assume a sign would stop a shooter?

Has there been any discussion about how much the gun manufacturers themselves spend on lobbying? All the hate goes towards the NRA, but isn't the NRA funded by the gun manufacturers?

The bulk of the NRA's income is apparently from individual donors, but manufacturers do donate heavily from time to time - probably to get featured in NRA magazines more than anything. The NRA is a very large name in the firearms community. The manufacturers don't need the NRA to stick up for them; they have more than enough money to do that themselves.

Even if the Secret Service ordered it, dont you think their decision makes a lot of sense?.... Or should we be criticizing the Secret Service for making the convention less safe?

You know, I was going to commit an armed robbery at a gas station, but gosh, it had a no gun sign and that really stopped me in my tracks. I sure hope that doesn't become commonplace, I just want to shoot places up like a normal person!!!

Yeah like actually you can't LITERALLY think that bullshit on 4chan where liberals think an impregnable mist wall stops stamped steel from crossing its path They exist because guns are dangerous and the average person is retarded and retarded people with or around a dangerous thing is, rightfully so, kind of scary. The average person cannot be expected to have proper training, vetting, and should not be expected to behave responsibly. I've seen people flip out to the point of having a fistfight with someone else because they didn't like the way they were looked at, adding lethality and collateral damage to that is kinda frightening. And the super BS excuse/response of "stopping a bad guy with a gun" is really dumb because expecting a random ass citizen to keep their nerve when faced with a combat situation is totally unreasonable. And it's a situation that can be avoided in the first place by keeping a compact, immediately lethal, long range tool out of the hands of the average moron.

I agree with guns to stop violence because its happened before, and it's worked. That texas church shooter certainly isn't alive any more, although I'd prefer police had him in bars. But guns in a crowd... There's also the issue of, well, if there was an actual active shooter and people tried actually shooting him down, there would be no way for the police to know who the 'real' mass-shooter is, which honestly would be more deadly than someone missing a few shots. We've had people getting (Safely thankfully) arrested because they open carried and were I.D.ed falsely. There have been people bringing guns into no gun zones and having it accidentally discharge, an absolute moron did this by keeping it in their purse. And that's in an area where they weren't even allowed to bring it to begin with.

I bet if you stacked up every time a random joe with a gun saved a life vs every time a random joe with a gun killed someone you'd be horrified.

I would still agree with certain people having permission to conceal carry in some areas, and by that I mean non-school zones, and only people who very specially trained to use a gun properly.