back to article Symantec ends cheap Norton offer to NRA members

Symantec has ended a promotion that saw it offer discounts on Norton-branded products to members of the US National Rifle Association (NRA). The promotion's web page at https://us.norton.com/nra has disappeared, but remains in the archives of the Wayback Machine, which reveals members were offered discounts of more than half …

  1. PhilipN Silver badge

    That'll show 'em!

    Urrmmm .... No it won't

    1. sabroni Silver badge

      Re: That'll show 'em!

      Ummm.. actually this kind of boycott/pressure is one of the only ways small consumers can impact the behaviour of large corporations. Suggest you read up on the Nestle boycott. It only takes profits to drop a tiny amount for management to start panicing.

      1. PhilipN Silver badge

        Re: That'll show 'em!

        I await with trepidation your explanation as to how "consumers", "corporations", "profits" and "management" could possibly impact the NRA.

        1. TheVogon Silver badge

          Re: That'll show 'em!

          "I await with trepidation your explanation as to how "consumers", "corporations", "profits" and "management" could possibly impact the NRA."

          Because the NRA is directly funded by gun corporations. And consumers can vote with their feet.

          1. enormous c word

            Re: That'll show 'em!

            @TheVogon

            "Because the NRA is directly funded by gun corporations. And consumers can vote with their feet."

            Your comment makes no sense, NRA members _like_ guns, some NRA members may _use_ Symantec products but unfortunately Symantec withdrawing a discount to NRA members is irrelevant. NRA members however may vote with their feet and but antivirus sw elsewhere. How does this affect the firearms industry? Only solution to USA gun problem has to come from the govt and no US president has the power to push it through congress.

            1. TheVogon Silver badge

              Re: That'll show 'em!

              "but unfortunately Symantec withdrawing a discount to NRA members is irrelevant. "

              Alone maybe. But many companies are doing the same, which reduces the benefits of being an NRA member. That and the general distain in which the circa 5 million members are held by much of the rest of the US population will hit their membership and therefore their funding and influence.

      2. Stu Mac

        Re: That'll show 'em!

        Let's look at the Kellogg boycott.

        Half of Americans will react against Symantec et all and use companies still standing with the NRA. That motivated half with long long memories.

      3. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        As someone licenced to carry firearms ...

        ... in a European country, I am 100% with ElReg's position as Tweeted.

        Per capita, a number of European countries (included my nation of residence) have more firearms than the US, yet misuse or armed crime at all is almost non-existent.

        I do believe it is a matter of training but even more so a matter of culture: way too many Americans seem to see guns as some sort of penile extension or something. For us, it's either a working tool or an object of technical (or historical) curiosity or a sports implement or something else with a well-defined purpose.

        1. AndyD 8-)₹

          Re: As someone licenced to carry firearms ...

          https://www.reddit.com/r/europe/comments/6k4f1s/number_of_guns_per_capita_in_europe/

      4. bombastic bob Silver badge
        Stop

        Re: That'll show 'em!

        "actually this kind of boycott/pressure is one of the only ways small consumers can impact the behaviour of large corporations."

        actually, this kind of boycott/pressure is done by a HANDFUL OF PEOPLE who use bots to make 1 person look like 10,000, willing accomplice web sites like faecebook and twatter, and various bullying and intimidation techniques to (essentially) SILENCE! THE! OPPOSITION! even though THEIR opinion is in the minority.

        it's how "the left" does what they do. It's been going on for DECADES, in one form or another. It's a classic 'Saul Alinksy' tactic, from paid protesters getting "special media attention" so that the 100 protesters look like thousands, yotta yotta yotta. This shouldn't surprise anyone.

        And Symantec won't be getting MY business. (well, I don't really want their stuff anyway)

        Rush Limbaugh has done a VERY good job of exposing some of these idiots, when they went after HIS advertisers on twitter a while back... using BOTS to make themselves look like a 'legion' when in fact, it was 10 people. Yes, he named names. wanna see?

        https://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2014/09/23/the_hidden_story_behind_stop_rush/

        Imagine the libel suits (that did NOT happen) if he had been WRONG about this...

        And THAT is the point: boycotts are BULLY TACTICS used by DESPERATE LEFTIES that can't win in the arena of ideas by stating their case to an intelligent audience. Instead, they must manipulate emotions, engage in "this kind" of behavior, make themselves look bigger than they really are, intimidate, protest, make a lot of noise, and generally be a PAIN in the rest of the world's ASS.

        Does anybody REALLY wanna be CONTROLLED by THESE people? I sure don't!

        Boycotts are the TACTIC of MANIPULATIVE HOODLUMS. I suggest NOT participating in them. And threatening people WITH boycotts is even WORSE. (and I don't have much respect for companies who cave to these idiots, either)

        /me points out that if I found out Obaka likes (or hates) Starbucks coffee, it won't affect my opinion of them. I'd still go for a cappuccino on occasion, or purchase a bag of Espresso Roast beans...

        1. TheVogon Silver badge

          Re: That'll show 'em!

          "actually, this kind of boycott/pressure is done by a HANDFUL OF PEOPLE"

          Based on what evidence? I think you will find that there is a growing movement for gun control. Plenty of dead kids means that people have had enough.

          And random CAPS reads like a newspaper for morons, so I can't be bothered to read through the rest of your lowbrow rant.

    2. TheVogon Silver badge

      Re: That'll show 'em!

      Great news. The NRA is a front for gun companies and is largely responsible for the lack of gun control in the US. And therefore is also directly responsible for circa 1 million US civilian deaths by firearms.

  2. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Seems like an odd fit anyway. What do a gun manufacturer lobby and internet security have to do with each other?

    1. Palpy

      Nothing but customers and members.

      It's widely done. The AARP or the NRA or the Sierra Club and an airline, a hotel chain, or a provider of software (I feel that Norton anti-virus is practically malware, but never mind) negotiate a mutually beneficial deal: the organization gets to tout special benefits available to its members, and the provider of services gets a certain number of new and repeat customers because the organization members feel they're getting a deal. And they may be, but one which still allows the service provider plenty of profit.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      What do a gun manufacturer lobby and internet security have to do with each other?

      What does a gun lobby and an FCC commissioner have to do with each other?

      The NRA is no longer a gun lobby - it is an organization which does the job of a footsoldier in a larger picture to the bidding of Koch Brothers and Co. Paymaster says it should support deregulation of the Internet - it does so. It is also bringing the guns (or at the very least the threat of their existence) into the discussion as an extra variable. Every time their paymaster needs it. Very 2nd amendment compliant too - it is a form of organized militia as defined there.

    3. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      They both fail to protect the innocent.

    4. Adam 1 Silver badge

      > What do a gun manufacturer lobby and internet security have to do with each other?

      Ah, so you've never tried to uninstall a Symantec antivirus product.

    5. bombastic bob Silver badge
      Devil

      "What do a gun manufacturer lobby and internet security have to do with each other?"

      Nothing. But the NRA is more like a club or an organization, with membership (not a manufacturer lobby).

      Apparently Symantec just wanted NRA members to have an introductory offer as a benefit for membership [maybe it was part of an advertising deal or something with the NRA]. You might see similar *kinds* of discounts for AARP members. Right?

      In any case, Symantec probably angered too many potential customers by caving to the LEFTIST BULLIES like that. Yeah, empower and enable those FASCISTS who hate freedom by caving into their demands instead of telling the to GO TO HELL!

      The 2nd ammendment is MOSTLY about the right to self defense. "Infringe" on THAT, and you get a population of easily controlled "sheeple", when it becomes ILLEGAL to kill someone in the defense of life/injury/property, someone who's trying to kill/rob/rape YOU. Or your family. Or your neighbor. And so on.

      But as for ME, I'd rather use my BARE HANDS to defend myself. Heh. Heh. Heh.

  3. Keef

    Generally...

    I'm against all this 'Me Too' crap, but we might just have found a use for it.

    Peace y'all.

    1. sabroni Silver badge

      Re: 'Me Too' crap

      What's crappy about women sharing their experiences of sexual assault? Does it make you uncomfortable?

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: 'Me Too' crap

        "What's crappy about women sharing their experiences of sexual assault?"

        Nothing just so long they share their photos and vital stats too.

    2. Snipp

      Re: Generally...

      Please leave this place, you inhuman monster, and never return.

      1. sabroni Silver badge

        Re: Please leave this place, you inhuman monster, and never return.

        Me or Keef?

        And Keef, what is the problem with "MeToo"?

        1. VinceH Silver badge

          Re: Please leave this place, you inhuman monster, and never return.

          I'm assuming he's not referring to the current #MeToo movement but the more general virtue signalling type of "me too" which has long been a 'feature' of the internet (and probably goes back further).

          Of course, I could be wrong and he could be, as you said, an inhuman monster.

  4. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Oh damn...

    Without Symantec installed, they'll have a more reliable computer and much more free time to get on the 'net to post their gun-toting opinions.

    1. rh587

      Re: Oh damn...

      Without Symantec installed, they'll have a more reliable computer and much more free time to get on the 'net to post their gun-toting opinions.

      I thought that, but then I saw:

      "Dear Symantec, attached is a copy of my receipt to McAfee I think I have convinced 27 people so far to do the same as me. Goodbye."

      and thought no. Just swapping one bit of expensive nagware for another.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Oh damn...

        "...McAfee..."

        My Dad had some nasty malware installed on his PC. It caused all sorts of nonsense, unreliable behaviour, locking up his CPU, clogging up his I/O, generally making a bloody nuisance of itself.

        Then to top it all off, it started demanding money!!

        McAfee.

  5. Blake St. Claire

    awwww, poor precious snowflakes can't stand the heat

    NRA is happy when things go their way.

    But not when the shoe is on the other foot?

    Live by the sword, die by the sword. Or in this case by the AR-15.

    1. This post has been deleted by a moderator

      1. sabroni Silver badge

        Re: Snowflakes (i.e. AntiFa)

        Sorry, no. Snowflakes applies just as much to the whining right wingers as it does to "anti-fa". It means that you pout and stamp your feet when things don't go your way. The right don't like it when it's applied to them, but if the cap fits....

        1. Dave Rickmers

          Re: Snowflakes (i.e. AntiFa)

          EPA Administrator Pruitt claims he must fly First Class because people in Coach yell at him for "fucking up the environment".

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: Snowflakes (i.e. AntiFa)

            "EPA Administrator Pruitt claims he must fly First Class because people in Coach yell at him for "fucking up the environment"."

            Don't departmental heads tend to fly at least Business Class rather than Economy anyway? And would normally use a separate a limo / taxi not a coach to get to the airport?

      2. Snorlax Silver badge

        Re: awwww, poor precious snowflakes can't stand the heat

        @Michael Habel:"You keep using that Word ("Snowflakes"), I don't think it means what you think it means."

        'Snowflake', as a derogatory term, was introduced by right-wing types to describe college students with viewpoints opposing their own.

        It's ironic that the biggest snowflakes one comes across these days are the very same right-wing types who coined the phrase. Rather than engage in rational discussion, they throw their toys out of the pram and resort to name-calling, gaslighting and outright lies.

        I've noticed some similarities in the last few days on this site between pro-gun people and pro-Brexit people. They use the same kind of arguments, talking down to people, telling lies, deflecting/projecting, or making claims with no facts to back them up. When challenged with facts they disappear like a snowflake, or delete their posts...

        Funny how some Americans can turn innocuous terms into insults - liberal, anti-fascist, socialist, etc. In any other country a person would be proud to say they were anti-fascist, but idiots like you can hurl the term at somebody as an insult... When it comes to social order, you guys are 200 years behind the rest of the civilised world.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: awwww, poor precious snowflakes can't stand the heat

          When challenged with facts they disappear like a snowflake, or delete their posts...

          As opposed to Pro EU politicians who said just voting leave would bring fire and brimstone. With all the lying politicians how did anyone know if there was a majority for remain or leave? Referendum was the only sane choice. The US Constitution is not set in stone by men from another era. Wonder what the result of a gun control referendum would be?

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: awwww, poor precious snowflakes can't stand the heat

      Guns create a gangland culture. Bringing them into the classroom is crazy. When faced with an opponent always take out the greatest threat first, so the teacher gets it first meaning teachers will find their health insurance costs going up.

      What about boycotting the health insurance company used by NRA?

      1. codejunky Silver badge

        Re: awwww, poor precious snowflakes can't stand the heat

        @AC

        "Guns create a gangland culture."

        Guns get way too much credit for these things. Gangland culture is everywhere, regardless of guns. I am in the UK and we still have gangs regardless of the restrictions on guns, and sometimes those gangs pull guns on each other anyway. We hear about it when they hit a bystander or shoot someones door in daylight. But the gangs exist without the guns, carrying knives, acid, various intimidation with or without weapons.

        "Bringing them into the classroom is crazy"

        Unfortunately from an attackers point of view it is not. A school is a no gun zone, people wont be carrying and so there is little to fear until the armed police arrive. However in the recent shooting the police officer didnt intervene (I can understand if his reaction was self preservation) and nobody knows if they would be able to react or not in such a situation. I can see the argument for some teachers being armed if they are required to take basic firearm training and regularly have range hours.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: awwww, poor precious snowflakes can't stand the heat

          I can see the argument for some teachers being armed if they are required to take basic firearm training and regularly have range hours.

          Bloody hell, you obviously didn't have the teachers I had, none of them was suitable for this. Pretty soon it'll be ex forces only need apply as teachers.

          1. codejunky Silver badge

            Re: awwww, poor precious snowflakes can't stand the heat

            @AC

            "Bloody hell, you obviously didn't have the teachers I had, none of them was suitable for this. Pretty soon it'll be ex forces only need apply as teachers."

            Our teachers were pretty level headed and seemed to deal with the one knife incident pretty well from what I hear. One was a regular at a gun club (got me into shooting) but then I am in the UK so he had to hide that fact as people tent to overreact.

          2. TheVogon Silver badge

            Re: awwww, poor precious snowflakes can't stand the heat

            "I can see the argument for some teachers being armed if they are required to take basic firearm training and regularly have range hours."

            Great until they shoot a few innocent bystanders whilst taking pot shots at a suspect. Or have a bad day and shoot up the place. It would be far more sensible to fix the underlying problem - easy access to guns. Particularly assault weapons that have no legitimate civilian use.

        2. dmacleo

          Re: awwww, poor precious snowflakes can't stand the heat

          actually was 4 officers that waited outside and held back medical personnel

        3. King Jack
          Childcatcher

          Re: I can see the argument for some teachers being armed...

          @codejunky

          So in your world training with firearms will work on teachers but that same training fails on the police who are expected to face danger daily. Where will the teacher store the gun when in the classroom? Will the gun be worn at all times or be in a lock box? What if a student gets the gun? What will the teacher do then? Oh, I know they'll use the 'backup piece, just like in the cop shows.

          And there was me thinking that Trump was uniquely stupid.

          1. codejunky Silver badge

            Re: I can see the argument for some teachers being armed...

            @ King Jack

            "So in your world training with firearms will work on teachers but that same training fails on the police who are expected to face danger daily."

            Not even close. First of all the police cant be everywhere and most of the time we dont want them to be. So the time delay for the police can cost a number of lives already. Second the police officer in this situation was outside, staying away from the issue. The teachers are trapped in the building in the situation and already in harms way protecting the kids. If more people are capable of action in such an extreme situation you will have more chance of someone doing something about it. Having nobody able to act results in disarming those protecting themselves and others.

            "Where will the teacher store the gun when in the classroom? Will the gun be worn at all times or be in a lock box?"

            Good questions. A lock box would probably make sense but it is valid to debate. In a lock box while carrying the key a teacher could have access to the gun in the classroom. But that assumes being in the room or having they key on their person. Having it on their person could be problematic as kids push boundaries and may try to take it. And then you have human stupidity of a teacher leaving it on a desk (would be seriously dumb but there is always one).

            "And there was me thinking that Trump was uniquely stupid."

            Some people believe a sign saying 'no guns allowed' somehow physically stops someone carrying a gun beyond that point. Some people believe a law banning something removes it completely. I believe 2 things are infinite- the universe and human stupidity and I am not sure about the first one.

            1. sabroni Silver badge

              Re: I can see the argument for some teachers being armed...

              Few people believe banning something removes it completely. Do you not think making it more difficult for nutters to get guns would reduce the number of deaths?

              1. codejunky Silver badge

                Re: I can see the argument for some teachers being armed...

                @ sabroni

                "Few people believe banning something removes it completely. Do you not think making it more difficult for nutters to get guns would reduce the number of deaths?"

                I am very happy with the way you put that. You said deaths instead of gun deaths which is the usual mistake. The problem with a nutter is they are nuts. Making it difficult for them to get guns would be good, and pointy things, heavy things and generally other people. But that isnt the situation, they can get guns and that is the situation we must deal with.

                @ King Jack

                "What makes you think a Teacher will have the stones to face an armed attacker when it is not part of their daily routine?"

                This is to dismiss people protecting their homes, family, friends and themselves with firearms and that does happen. Some teachers are already sacrificing themselves to save the children. That in itself is an impressive example of 'stones'. As I said, the more people capable of action in an extreme situation will result in a greater chance of action.

                "As a Trumpman you go into protect mode. Magically get your gun out of the secure location, punching in a code or fumbling with keys."

                You paint an interesting situation. You hear gunfire or the alert of a shooter in the building. The standard procedure (assuming I get this right) is to enact the drills they are taught and teach in case of such an event. Are you saying the current procedure is magic? Are you seriously suggesting at this point people care about labelling childish names like Trumpman? Or do you think following the practised drill and staying alive (kids and teachers) will be more important?

                "You open the door, peak out, get your head blown off."

                From this point on your comment gets beyond fantasy. The drills as I understand them is to lock themselves in the room and cover the windows until the all clear is given. Your action man peaking out to shoot like a hero with the slapstick comedy of everyone grabbing a gun and shooting each other might make for amusing TV or to scare people before saying 'think of the children', but cannot be taken seriously.

            2. King Jack
              Pirate

              Re: I can see the argument for some teachers being armed...

              @codejunky

              What makes you think a Teacher will have the stones to face an armed attacker when it is not part of their daily routine? Imagine you are 'trained' educator and you hear screams and gunfire in the corridor. As a Trumpman you go into protect mode. Magically get your gun out of the secure location, punching in a code or fumbling with keys. (Or maybe you use a holster for quick action). You open the door, peak out, get your head blown off. A child then picks up your gun and starts firing at anything that moves, killing and wounding innocents in the process. The real 'gunman' has long moved on but the kill rate raises as more 'Trumpmen' leap into action this time mistakenly killing fleeing children and teachers as they aren't and never will be marksmen no matter what Trump University they go to to get trained.

              In the aftermath It turns out their was no gunman, just some fireworks let off as a prank. The shooter (your killer) was another trained Trumpman and most of the deaths / woundings were caused by kids shooting each other in blind panic. But hey, infinite universe and all that... Maybe in a galaxy far far away people won't think arming teachers and guns in school are a good thing.

              1. wayward4now
                Linux

                Re: I can see the argument for some teachers being armed...

                What does Trump have to do with this?? Didn't shootings happen under Obama? Yet, you seem to be trying to make political points while trafficking in human misery. Have you no shame, sir??

                1. Anonymous Coward
                  Anonymous Coward

                  Re: I can see the argument for some teachers being armed...

                  "What does Trump have to do with this?? "

                  The moron suggested that arming teachers (i.e. more guns) is a solution. Only an idiot wouldn't see that getting rid of the guns is the solution. Look at the rest of the planet.

              2. Anonymous Coward
                Anonymous Coward

                Re: I can see the argument for some teachers being armed...

                "In the aftermath It turns out their was no gunman, just some fireworks let off as a prank. The shooter (your killer) was another trained Trumpman and most of the deaths / woundings were caused by kids shooting each other in blind panic."

                Way to go. Anyone can come up with a straw man, but it takes (some) effort to build a straw mob.

                In a properly implemented policy

                1) Most of the time, the correct place for an emergency response firearm is on your person, in a level 2 or 3 retention holster.

                2) They have these wonderful safes, designed for holding firearms, that can be programmed with one or more fingerprints for essentially instant access. No keys, no codes, well worth the money.

                3) You don't go into the hall, you stay inside, protecting the class.

                4) It seems odd that you think that teachers have no ability to recognize their colleagues, most of whom have been working together for many years (most teachers seem to start as such and continue to retirement, working in only a few schools).

                5) I don't know about you, but after I had been shooting pistols for a year, I could put a full magazine through a circle 12 cm in diameter at 18 m, one handed. In a real emergency that would degrade... I would guess a magazine through a 22 cm circle at 9 m, two handed, and better if braced. That's more than good enough. That's firing at about one round per second or a bit slower.

                6) The teachers do not need to be 'heroes' who go out to search and destroy a deadly enemy. They just have to be competent in an emergency and willing to try to save their own lives if the shooter comes to them. If they can't deal with an emergency, maybe they are in the wrong job, because there will always be a few around a school full of children.

                Your wildly fantastical Dystopian flight of fancy is absurd.

                1. TheVogon Silver badge

                  Re: I can see the argument for some teachers being armed...

                  "You don't go into the hall, you stay inside, protecting the class."

                  So they just press the fire alarm like in this case and pick you off as you come out.

            3. TheVogon Silver badge

              Re: I can see the argument for some teachers being armed...

              "First of all the police cant be everywhere and most of the time we dont want them to be. So the time delay for the police can cost a number of lives already."

              Every other industrialised country on the planet seems to have competent police that generally manage to look after their civilians when necessary. And the US as the one country that apparently doesn't has a way way higher rate of gun deaths. So clearly that's utter bollocks.

              1. codejunky Silver badge

                Re: I can see the argument for some teachers being armed...

                @ TheVogon

                "Every other industrialised country on the planet seems to have competent police that generally manage to look after their civilians when necessary"

                Just no. We have police capable of the day to day (speeding cars, writing reports, maybe dishing out warnings). I used to live across from a pub known for its violence, drug use and so on (stabbings etc). The police would not come out to deal with calls there. I know, I placed a call as a woman was getting the hell beaten out of her by a brick privy of a guy. Total number of police? Zero.

                In the UK a soldier got public execution at the hands of 2 nutters with machete and a gun (yes a hand gun in a country that bans them. Shock). How long did it take for the police to arrive? That is the police who could deal with the situation? Instead the public chatted with the attackers to try and de-escalate the situation. We have an amnesty and look at the array of war level equipment. The cop shot through the head leaving him blind. Etc and so on.

                Concerts in France shot up, bombings in Europe including UK. Acid attacks.

                "And the US as the one country that apparently doesn't has a way way higher rate of gun deaths."

                Big mistake. Gun deaths. So what? Would you prefer they kill each other with knives? Ramming cars into people? Bombs? Death is death and the US does seem to have problems with it but removing a single tool wont do much for it (possibly make it worse). Suicide is also death and blowing your brains out seems nicer than the many slower ways to go. Look at the new exciting games for kids to play resulting in their deaths. Is that any better?

                Look at the states with the greatest gun problems. The more regulated ones usually. There is certainly discussion to be had over the US and their death situation, but it has to be a responsible discussion.

          2. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: I can see the argument for some teachers being armed...

            "Will the gun be worn at all times or be in a lock box?"

            Yes, though I prefer a compact safe - rather sturdier than a generic 'lock box'.

            You need to provide both, in case a circumstance arises where wearing the weapon is not appropriate for some reason (not that such a circumstance immediately comes to mind).

            "What if a student gets the gun?"

            Then you call the police, or other teachers, if the are qualified and equipped. Actually, you would call both.

            There is no reason to expect a student to get their hands on a teacher's gun, any more than we have to be paranoid about a random person taking the gun of a police officer or security guard. This happens very seldom, particularly if the 'taker' is not starting out with their own gun in the first place... in which case you already have a problem. If the risk is big enough to justify carrying a gun, then proper practices will reduce the risk of gun loss to a level significantly below the risk being defended against.

            Armed teachers would make sense in the US, with widely available firearms and a culture that accepts the use of guns to deal with obstacles or problems. It would not make sense in the UK where even some of the police do not carry guns all the time!

            1. John Brown (no body) Silver badge

              Re: I can see the argument for some teachers being armed...

              "It would not make sense in the UK where even some most of the police do not carry guns all the time!"

              FTFY.

            2. TheVogon Silver badge

              Re: I can see the argument for some teachers being armed...

              "It would not make sense in the UK where even some of the police do not carry guns all the time!"

              The vast majority of Police in the UK never carry guns. However those that do are properly trained and carry semi-precision weapons like Glocks, AMT Defenders, SIGs and Heckler and Kocks. Not some gung ho numpty with a colt pistol that shoots at tin cans in a firing range once a year like in the US.

              See for instance:

              https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/23/Police.gun.1.london.arp.jpg

        4. casinowilhelm

          Re: awwww, poor precious snowflakes can't stand the heat

          And how much would all that cost?

        5. John Brown (no body) Silver badge

          Re: awwww, poor precious snowflakes can't stand the heat

          "I can see the argument for some teachers being armed if they are required to take basic firearm training and regularly have range hours."

          Firearms training and range time means nothing when confronted with an actual situation. Even Police have been known to freeze up in those situations (and that may be what happened to the officer at the school, we don't know that yet). Hard and regular training for the situation in simulated environments is what happens for people who are properly trained at great expense. This is not going to fit in either with the regular education budget or any feel-good ring-fenced one-off payment, nor will the offered NRA training be up to what is required to turn a teacher in a useful deterrent. (some exceptions may occur if some few teachers are ex-military)

        6. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: awwww, poor precious snowflakes can't stand the heat

          > A school is a no gun zone, people wont be carrying and so there is little to fear until the armed police arrive.

          Just for the trivia, but where I live there are no legal restrictions against a duly-licensed person carrying weapons on school premises. In fact, students can get their first shooting licence as part of their regular school curriculum if they choose to do so. With that said, you would look pretty stupid carrying firearms in a school (outside of the aforementioned hunting lessons) so nobody does it.

          > However in the recent shooting the police officer didnt intervene (I can understand if his reaction was self preservation)

          When I was in the emergency services that would have cost me my job and possibly my freedom, as we had a legal duty to undertake risks that would not be normally admissible in another line of work.

        7. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: awwww, poor precious snowflakes can't stand the heat

          " and sometimes those gangs pull guns on each other anyway. "

          Very very rarely though - because guns are hard to get in the UK without a license. And it's 5 years in prison instantly if you get caught with one without a license.

          "A school is a no gun zone, people wont be carrying and so there is little to fear until the armed police arrive"

          There is zero evidence that having guns in school discourages attacks. Indeed the attacker in the recent case would have known that there was an armed officer on campus. And several studies have shown that owning / carrying a gun increases your risk of being a firearm related fatality.

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: awwww, poor precious snowflakes can't stand the heat

        "Guns create a gangland culture"

        No, a gangland culture is created by Prohibition, drug laws and morality laws.

        When you make something illegal and therefore profitable especially when it is a product that needs to be manufactured, smuggled, and distributed, you produce a hothouse for breeding organized crime.

        This works best for a product or service that people really want, for which they will ignore laws and tacitly or explicitly co-operate with the criminals. The more people disagree with the laws personally, the more the criminal element will be invincible, overall.

        In this context, guns become a tool of the trade for the organized criminals, and an expedient method of raising cash (by crime) for their customers. In both cases, laws against guns are largely futile, given the existing exposure to punishment for other crimes, and the fairly significant (customers) or huge (organized crime) amount of money involved.

        At that point, one of the best options for the non-criminal victims of this process for personal protection is their own gun. While this will not stop the prohibited activities, it does motivate the criminals to shift from personal crimes to non-personal crimes (crimes against unattended property where the chance of being shot by a victim is much much lower).

        1. TheVogon Silver badge

          Re: awwww, poor precious snowflakes can't stand the heat

          "At that point, one of the best options for the non-criminal victims of this process for personal protection is their own gun."

          But statistics across several US based studies show it's not the best option. In fact it increases your risk of firearm related death.

          "it does motivate the criminals to shift from personal crimes to non-personal crimes (crimes against unattended property where the chance of being shot by a victim is much much lower)."

          Again the evidence shows otherwise. Criminals just tend to shoot first instead.

  6. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Many big name US companies are also withdrawing their NRA member special offers.

    A cynic would say that they've looked at the balance sheet and decided it is the right financial decision. Even The Donald seems to be coming to the same decision with mid-term elections coming up.

    1. tom dial Silver badge

      "Cynic" is not the correct description. It is simply commercial realism and pragmatism. No company wants much to do public things that a significant sized and very vocal group can portray with some plausibility as evil. In the 1980s Proctor and Gamble took heat over their allegedly satanic logo, and ultimately changed it. These gestures are transparent public relations gimmicks.

      My feeling long has been that the NRA's power and influence is seriously overrated given its (probably overestimated) membership. I suspect this is because, at bottom, those demanding "sensible gun laws" don't agree on the detailed meaning of "sensible" in the context and don't believe anything they are prepared to propose seriously actually will work, even if it passed both constitutional and legislative constraints. At bottom they fear that the polls reported to show ~80% of the population in favor are fatally flawed and that the support will evaporate as soon as there is a specific proposal on the table that goes much beyond tweaking age requirements and firming up and tightening restrictions already in place. And they probably are pretty sure that second amendment repeal, probably necessary for any actually effective legislation, is not in the cards. Blaming the lack of "sensible gun laws" on the all-powerful NRA gets them neatly and fairly painlessly off the hook for their ineffectiveness.

  7. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    ROTFLMAO!

    "Dear Symantec, attached is a copy of my receipt to McAfee I think I have convinced 27 people so far to do the same as me. Goodbye."

    I dislike Symantec as anyone else but to choose McAfee over any other solution? Says something about those NRA folks.

    Since the 2nd Amendment only mentions right to bear arms, why doesn't NRA advocate anything beyond hand guns, rifles etc? Bazookas, mines, AA guns, even phased plasma rifles in the 40 watt range - it is after all necessary to "up the ante" for the citizens because the government is keeping their armament updated as well. Muskets just ain't enough to oppose the tyrannical state these days.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: ROTFLMAO!

      Do weaponised computer viruses count as arms?

      1. SuperG

        Re: ROTFLMAO!

        LOL.

        Believe it or not, they are probably covered under the US Munitions list and subject to export restriction licensing.... heh heh!

    2. Mayday Silver badge
      Alert

      Re: ROTFLMAO!

      "Since the 2nd Amendment only mentions right to bear arms"

      No it does not. It also mentions that "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state"

      Interpret this as you will, but this does not "only" mean that people can bear arms.

      1. apveening

        Well regulated militia

        That is the part of the second amendment the NRA consistently neglects.

        Having said that, I will uphold the right to arm bears ;)

        1. big_D Silver badge

          Re: Well regulated militia

          Yep, level the playing field.

        2. NateGee
          Coat

          Re: Well regulated militia

          Or short sleeve shirts!

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: ROTFLMAO!

        These NRA types are illiterate, it should read bare arms.

        1. Aristotles slow and dimwitted horse Silver badge

          Re: ROTFLMAO!

          Ummm... no, it actually means you have the right to have arms like a bear. Claws, fur and all if you should so choose.

      3. NogginTheNog

        Re: ROTFLMAO!

        Doesn't it mean they can bear arms as long as they're part of, or prepared to be, part of a "well regulated militia"?

        So restrict gun ownership to those who demonstrate this.

        1. wayward4now
          Joke

          Re: ROTFLMAO!

          "Doesn't it mean they can bear arms as long as they're part of, or prepared to be, part of a "well regulated militia"?

          So restrict gun ownership to those who demonstrate this."

          Yeah, like M-13. Good idea.

    3. Jack of Shadows Silver badge

      Re: ROTFLMAO!

      If you have a federal firearms license, you can get serious weaponry legally.

    4. Francis Boyle Silver badge

      Replacing Norton with McAfee

      is like replacing an AR-15 with a Super Soaker full of kerosene. ]

      1. Michael Habel Silver badge

        Re: Replacing Norton with McAfee

        Like that Tesla Flame Thrower thingy?

    5. Dave Rickmers

      Re: ROTFLMAO!

      Windows now comes with antivirus integrated. 3rd party antivirus slows down a modern computer, needlessly.

      Speaking of anachronism, the gunslinger died ca. 1880.

    6. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: ROTFLMAO!

      " why doesn't NRA advocate anything beyond hand guns, rifles etc?"

      Because the US government has brainwashed the people into allowing subversion of the original intent of the framers of the second amendment. While such a position is supported by a number of Constitutional scholars, it would be politically risky.

      I suspect that the minimum compatible with the original intent would be 'you can have any weapon you can carry'. Actually reaching that point would be interesting and possibly a bit too exciting for my taste - best watch from a safe distance and see how it unfolds.

  8. Mark 85 Silver badge

    Gee... Norton is still around? But then again, I guess that was one way to get business. As a former member of the NRA (years ago), I figured why bother with all BS they were shoveling at the time and they're just getting worse. Well, this is a low point for them. I do understand some people's views on the age thing... we went through that with voting and in some places alcohol sales since for those fights, veterans were used as signpost... "can die for their country at 18 but can't.... (fill in blank: vote or drink). I'm a bit surprised that the NRA didn't or hasn't trotted this one out yet.

    Ok... seriously... what is wrong with raising the age limit to 21? Part of me says someone will say that some 18 year old with a grudge will wait 3 years and then go get his/her revenge. But still... 21 is not the end of the world.

    1. DryBones

      It is a sad and slightly disconcerting thing to hear Marco Rubio making more sense about this topic than anyone else.

      * No, you do not get to outlaw firearms in common use. This has been litigated on before.

      * How are bump stocks not already illegal? If it's illegal to modify an AR-15 for full semi auto fire by modifying or replacing a part of the action, why not part of the frame? They really should have realized some ingenuity might occur and specified a maximum possible cyclic rate or something.

      * The AR-15 is a semi-automatic rifle. Calling it an "assault weapon" is both an emotional dog whistle and causes one to lose sight of the bigger picture. It functions the same as a bunch of other rifles that are not being targeted (and people are not freaking out about), uses a bullet which is used in a variety of other models of rifle, semi-auto and not. If all the AR-15s disappeared, there would be another that would be used instead, and another, and another. Sausage-slicing is a well recognized tactic, and why actual rifle owners give so little ground about it.

      * Raising the legal limit to buy all firearms to 21 doesn't eliminate the ability of a father to go shooting with their son and teach them good firearm safety skills. If we're going to say mental health is a problem, we need to take into account the average amount of time required to achieve mental and emotional stability.

      * The system that was supposed to keep people safe broke at just about every stage. Blaming the rifle is remarkably myopic, as if there were not a panoply of ways to cause injury and/or death if one has a mind to and is left unchecked to carry such intention out.

      1. TonyJ Silver badge

        Not an assault weapon?

        Really?

        You may want to check various dictionaries:

        "assault rifle"

        noun

        a lightweight rifle developed from the sub-machine gun, which may be set to fire automatically or semi-automatically.

        An assault weapon / assault rifle is defined by far more than its rate of fire.

        e.g. it should be short enough barelled to minimise the arc of travel whilst remaining long enough to ensure a relatively high round velocity. It should have a removable magazine etc etc. Twisting language to selectively pick apart facts is just another failure to comprehend.

        1. DryBones

          You failed to be be sufficiently exacting, and fell into the similarity trap.

          An assault rifle is selective fire. An assault weapon is a term constructed to ride the coat tails of it, for good and ill.

          See https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_weapon

          "Sugarmann had written:

          Assault weapons—just like armor-piercing bullets, machine guns, and plastic firearms—are a new topic. The weapons' menacing looks, coupled with the public's confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons—anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun—can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons. In addition, few people can envision a practical use for these weapons.[22]"

        2. tom dial Silver badge

          The AR-15 fails that definition because it cannot be set to fire automatically. It plainly has the other noted characteristics, as do many other commercially available rifles, some of which look nothing like an AR-15.

        3. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          ======================== begin quote ===========================

          Not an assault weapon?

          Really?

          You may want to check various dictionaries:

          "assault rifle"

          noun

          a lightweight rifle developed from the sub-machine gun, which may be set to fire automatically or semi-automatically.

          An assault weapon / assault rifle is defined by far more than its rate of fire.

          e.g. it should be short enough barelled to minimise the arc of travel whilst remaining long enough to ensure a relatively high round velocity. It should have a removable magazine etc etc. Twisting language to selectively pick apart facts is just another failure to comprehend.

          ============================== end quote =================================

          Unfortunately, Tony, you seem to be unable to understand a dictionary definition.

          Plus, you chose a particularly bad definition, which adds in irrelevant criteria, while leaving out vital ones... the failure to comprehend is one you share with whoever wrote that definition... and it is telling that you actually thought that it was right... even if you did not understand it yourself.

          When it says "set to fire automatically or SEMI-AUTOMATICALLY" (your emphasis) it does not mean that some assault rifles fire automatically and some assault rifles fire semi-automatically, it actually means that ALL assault rifles are SELECTIVE FIRE weapons, which means they give the operator a choice of switching back and forth between full automatic and other modes such as semi-automatic and/or burst fire. This is one of the fundamental mandatory part of the definition. If it is not selective fire it is not an assault rifle.

          There are no explicit barrel or weapon length requirements and these vary greatly on extant assault rifles. Similarly, there is no explicit velocity requirements, and velocities vary by at least a factor of two among common models.

          There is another crucial specification, which I will leave to those interested enough to do the research.

          So, yes. An assault weapon is not an 'assault rifle'.

          An assault rifle is a class of military weapon with clearly defined characteristics. These are hard to get and rare in civilian hands. I don't know of one being used in a mass shooting.

          'Assault weapon' is a political propaganda term used to create fear and manipulate people by making them think you are talking about military grade weapons while they are really not much different than similar hunting weapons in terms of capability.

          Almost every time you see or hear the words 'assault rifle' with respect to a shooting in the US, they are being used incorrectly by ignorant or politically motivated commentators.

      2. Timmy B Silver badge

        @DryBones

        Well said. Totally sensible. And therefore will be met with a torrent of down-votes. I'd say 18 over 21 but you do have some weird age restrictions in the USA....

      3. Jemma Silver badge

        Umm, hate to burst your bubble but an AR-15 is a perfect "assault rifle" when you are walking into a *school* with entirely unsuspecting students who are also unarmed, have no training or experience of being shot at, or how fatal certain wounds actually are (it was proven in the Vietnam War that a person who saw someone else with a lower torso gsw survive, tended to survive better and much longer themselves) not to mention dealing with the shock of getting hit (even a nlt wound can kill a person if that's their expectation).

        Boycotts like this are a good idea but I doubt they'll have much effect - especially when there's videos (see YouTube) of idiotic teenage girls no less making pretty rainbows using burst fire from rifles.

        As for the NRA here's an idea. Every time some little psycho goes Platoon on his or her (it'll happen eventually) school, collect a analogous set of NRA members kids, and have the parents watch while they're given a dose of what the innocent kids in school got and stick the footage on as an advert (like those "splat-a-kid" road safety adverts they used to do here - little Jenny 0 Wolseley 18-85 1).

        Zero to total ban in 24 hours, or civil war II.

        I almost got shot by accident visiting a friend in the US, someone left a handgun on the drivers seat of the car they lent me..

        1. Daniel 18

          "I almost got shot by accident visiting a friend in the US, someone left a handgun on the drivers seat of the car they lent me.."

          While leaving guns lying around unattended is very poor practice, it sounds like almost shooting yourself is down to your failure.

          A gun just sitting on a seat isn't going to hurt someone spontaneously - it requires some form of human intervention - and every adult should know how to pick one up and render it safe.

          1. John Brown (no body) Silver badge

            "While leaving guns lying around unattended is very poor practice, it sounds like almost shooting yourself is down to your failure.

            A gun just sitting on a seat isn't going to hurt someone spontaneously - it requires some form of human intervention - and every adult should know how to pick one up and render it safe."

            Why? Surely it's the responsibility of a responsible gun owner to NEVER leave it laying around in the first place. I fired a few shots from a .22 rifle and a target pistol 30 or so years ago (under supervision on a range.) Why should I have to spend time learning how to handle and make safe any firearm I may happen across?

            1. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              "Why should I have to spend time learning how to handle and make safe any firearm I may happen across?"

              For the same reason you should learn how to swim, even if you are not intending to fall into the water.

              And maybe how to give artificial respiration, because it might save someone else who doesn't know to swim.

              And possibly, how to safely separate someone from a live electrical circuit, for both your sakes, regardless of whether this is likely to arise.

              And what to do if you round a corner in the woods and see a bear.

              People should be ready for the moments when the universe is not coddling them.

          2. Jemma Silver badge

            Don't you dare turn it back on me

            Few points.

            I don't expect people to leave guns in full view on a car seat.

            I certainly don't think it's good practice to do same in a house with a 3 year old girl and leave the car unlocked.

            Where I come from guns are *not* common & when they are to be found they are either in use or locked up and are almost always sporting guns.

            And for the record idiot it is entirely possible for a handgun to go off from shock (like the schoolgirl who got a nice gutshot when her friend dropped his rucksack on the bench and the gun his dad had forgotten went off) or from being sat on or dropped. Some smg were famous for it, the Sten, firing from an open bolt, was more likely to fire by accident than when you wanted it to.

            Then there's the "hotshot", stupid even by American standards where you take a handgun or revolver and remove the trigger guard by either just disconnecting it or cutting or grinding it off.. Those had a habit of firing when you looked at them wrong.

            I'm no fan of guns being in general circulation but ffs if you are going to have them at least store them properly, out of sight and *especially* away from toddlers.

    2. Joe Montana

      Age limit?

      If someone is underage, or cannot legally buy a gun for whatever other reason, but wants to use one for some kind of illegal activity then they're going to acquire one illegally on the black market or steal one.

      If acquiring a gun is too difficult then they will use whatever else they can get their hands on which might be a knife, a bomb or even a car. The fact is crazy people will do crazy things, using whatever tools are available to them, and focusing on guns just distracts from the actual problem.

      1. Tom 7 Silver badge

        Re: Age limit?

        The think is in the US you are twice as likely to be killed by a toddler with a gun than by a terrorist.

        If you are stupid enough to have a gun in your house to defend yourself then it needs to be available in case of the imaginary emergency which means everyone in your house (including the intruder) can find and use it.

        The facts are there are crazy people and they all have access to guns.

        Sorry that's a lie - it turns out the CEO of the NRA, like Trump, is a draft dodger so it seems its really cowards that are in favour of guns.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Toddlers with guns

          I must admit to having suffered a serious bout of Schadenfreude a few years ago when that loudmouthed gun-loving Southern belle was shot in the rump by her sprog.

        2. John Brown (no body) Silver badge

          Re: Age limit?

          "Sorry that's a lie - it turns out the CEO of the NRA, like Trump, is a draft dodger so it seems its really cowards that are in favour of guns."

          Oddly, Trump has now said if he'd been at that school he'd have gone, even unarmed. But he managed to avoid the draft multiple times. He must cleverer and braver than he looks!

      2. GruntyMcPugh Silver badge

        Re: Age limit?

        Utter nonsence, and a quick fact check totally disproves such claims.

        Look up the number of gun homicides in the USA, then look up the number of fatal stabbings. Notice one number is much higher? Then go look at figures for a country with strict gun control, and you'll see that fatal stabbings are not supplanting gun homicides. Guns let you kill someone without thinking, from a distance, without getting your hands dirty. Turns out people aren't so keen to get actual real blood on their hands and so do not kill so readily with knives.

        As to criminals illegally sourcing guns, well yes they do, and the problem there is lax gun laws, not requiring firearms to be kept securely.

        Guns are a very real problem, does someone have to murder _your_ kids before you get it?

        1. GruntyMcPugh Silver badge

          Re: stats for the downvoting snowflakes,...

          "In the USA in 2016, 7,105 people were murdered with handguns. Just 1,604 were killed with knives. Now, you cannot make the argument that in removing guns, knives will take over, figures for the UK show 186 knife homicides in 2015, so we have nowhere near the number of homicides that firearms facilitate."

          Guns make it easier to kill people, so more people are killed with guns. Making access to guns difficult radically lowers the homicide rate, and other methods do not supplant gun deaths. It's easy maths, you can compare a few numbers, yes?

        2. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Age limit?

          "As to criminals illegally sourcing guns, well yes they do, and the problem there is lax gun laws, not requiring firearms to be kept securely."

          And yet some of the countries in the world with the strictest, most heavily enforced Draconian firearms laws have the highest rates of firearms murders.

          And you might want to think the rest of your claims through. It is not about criminals shooting people inadvertently due to bad storage, we are talking about criminals deliberately shooting people with guns that are in active use... and therefore storage is irrelevant.

      3. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Age limit?

        In training I was taught that any idiot can pull a trigger, it takes intelligence and guts not to pull it. Therein lies the problem, if it's difficult to access guns idiots are less likely to use them. If it is true that it is the person behind the trigger it is just as true that we are at fault for allowing this to happen by allowing easy and universal access to guns.

      4. NogginTheNog

        Re: Age limit?

        "If acquiring a gun is too difficult then they will use whatever else they can get their hands on which might be a knife, a bomb or even a car. The fact is crazy people will do crazy things, using whatever tools are available to them, and focusing on guns just distracts from the actual problem."

        By that argument we should lobby for Walmart to stock DIY suicide bomb belt kits.

        Many many other devices can kill and injure, but that's not their primary purpose. Explain to me what a gun is for please?

        1. codejunky Silver badge

          Re: Age limit?

          @ NogginTheNog

          "Many many other devices can kill and injure, but that's not their primary purpose. Explain to me what a gun is for please?"

          Actually you are wrong about other devices. Poisons, various animal traps, various cleaning products (kills 99% of germs, and please dont drink it), various designs of knife.

          This is a disconnect I find with rural vs city (I live in a city in the UK) that life is seen in different ways. The city is sheltered from the land which allows the city to function efficiently and productively. But rural areas actually do have to have the capacity to kill, particularly animals which are a direct threat to life or livelihood. In the UK it is often the latter. Remove the guns and you are condoning torture and suffering as traps and poisons do.

          "By that argument we should lobby for Walmart to stock DIY suicide bomb belt kits."

          They do. Takes some chem knowledge (or access to the internet).

  9. Mitoo Bobsworth

    Wankers

    The NRA said, in a statement, that companies who end corporate relationships with it have indulged in "a shameful display of political and civic cowardice."

    Wankers - that's all.

  10. Boohoo4u

    You have a right to bare arms, but a handgun, hunting rifle, or shotgun fulfills that right just fine.

    Civilians do not need automatic, or semi-automatic weapons, any more than they need grenade or rocket launchers, etc. Those are weapons of war...

    If you served in the military, reserve, police, etc. those are exceptions. Presumably any/all of those have extensive training, but that doesn’t mean they need 15 AR-15s. If dishonorably discharged that’s obviously a NO.

    Background checks are common sense. Not checking if someone has committed a violent crime, or has serious mental health issues is crazy.

    If you’re an adult (18) you can buy a gun. Pushing it to 21 makes no sense...

    Instituting a “cool off” period between buying the gun, and receiving the gun makes sense.

    The NRA has its place in training and certification. But, the NRA’s stance is undeniable because they’re trying to support their most hardcore members, rather than making America safer.

    Having teachers armed is a bad idea, they don’t have suitable training. If they’ve served in the military or reserve - great. Have them get a concealed carry license.

    1. Mitoo Bobsworth
      Headmaster

      Bare arms, fine - bare legs, though, are just too provocative.

    2. tom dial Silver badge

      Automatic weapons are hard (and quite expensive) to obtain legally. Semiautomatic weapons are used somewhat extensively for hunting. I believe that includes AR-15 type rifles for smaller game. There are quite a few larger caliber semiautomatic rifles available for hunting animals of the order of deer and elk. Where they have detachable magazines the usual capacity seems to be three to five, sometimes going to ten. The overwhelming majority of handguns, of course, are semiautomatic.

      Training requirements for gun ownership makes sense generally, but does not address the problem of someone intent on a rampage killing. There is no reason to think such people are incapable of training, or any clear benefit to improving their skills.

      Unless military service is compulsory and universal it probably can't be used as a gun ownership prerequisite. There are quite a few ways one can get a dishonorable military discharge. Not all of them constitute reasons to restrict civil rights after discharge. If I remember the Navy BuPers manual correctly, there was a time when committing a homosexual act could lead to dishonorable discharge.

      Background checks have been federal law for some time, without apparent effect on rampage shootings, and the often mentioned "gun show loophole" seems not to be a significant problem, as nearly all guns used in these shootings have been acquired legally, after background checks, from licensed firearm dealers. The problem here seems to be lapses and sloppiness with implementation of existing law.

      "Mental health issues" covers a lot of people, nearly all of whom are dangerous only to themselves, if they are dangerous to anyone at all. Something like a majority are not under treatment and therefore likely to be missed anyhow, along with those like the Colorado theater shooter who went fairly quietly crazy shortly before beginning to accumulate his arsenal. Again, restricting civil rights is a serious business, demanding particularized and individual legal process, not simply a relative's (or psychiatrist's) impression that something might be brewing.

      There is a case to be made that someone mature enough to vote is mature enough to be a full citizen - including gun ownership and alcohol purchase. There is no proof that the age of 18 or 21 (or 13) is magical, or that the appropriate age is the same for men as for women. I have seen lay articles suggesting that the appropriate age for men might be as high as 26.

      Waiting periods might be a good idea, but probably would be most effective in preventing suicide. Spree shooters generally seem to take quite a while and do a fair amount of preparation; they would not be impacted by any plausible waiting period requirement.

      Putting armed teachers in schools is not something to be done on a whim. Both civilian and military police officers receive extensive training and are required to requalify periodically. Armed teachers would need to meet the same standards and more: in their environment, they would be called to use their weapon only under chaotic conditions in which it is far too likely that a shot will hit an innocent person or two. The spree shooter does not care, but it would be devastating for a teacher to take out a student or another teacher instead of an attacker. School systems would be far better off to pay close and detailed attention to building physical security.

      I doubt that even the most hard core NRA members think spree shooting is a good idea. As a non-member, my impression is that they do not think anything short of universal and fully effective confiscation of all private guns will prevent them, and that they think those who want to restrict gun ownership beyond current limits know it too and are working an agenda that, if completed, will lead to it. They consider that end completely unacceptable, and any step toward it nearly as unacceptable.

      1. Jemma Silver badge

        So you are suggesting a special offer on Glaser Safety Rounds for "spree shooters"? A round specially designed to break up in the body and cause maximum damage while not hitting anyone else?!

        Fantastic, way to raise the lethality. I'm sure therefore you'll love my new product - the .223 mamba venom hollow point "the gift that keeps on giving" guaranteed to kill everyone it even grazes or your money back. Best of all Mamba venom contains a morphine like painkiller so it won't even hurt her while you're slaughtering your ex among the 20 others. I'm sure her mother will be much happier about that... Might even send you a thank you card..

        Try and understand this concept, it's not hard. IF PEOPLE DON'T HAVE GUNS, PEOPLE WON'T GET SHOT. Ban guns completely, no shootings, accidental, psychopathic or in the case of one idiot - wanting to see if heaven exists (it was Mexico...).

        The rest of the world is getting sick of this like we got sick of Irish Americans funding the IRA, the CIA funding Bin Laden and Co and every other bit of sh*t stirring the US has been up to.

        In fact technically, the USA qualifies as a "failed state" under international law. If I was living there, and I forever thank pitchforks and pointy ears that I'm not, I'd be playing nice in case someone noticed. We know after all what happens to "failed states". Don't we.

        "The Coalition of the just f*cking tired of it all".

        Has a nice ring don't you think?

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        "Both civilian and military police officers receive extensive training and are required to requalify periodically. "

        According to news reports there were up to four uniformed and armed officers present a the school while the shooting was taking place inside. None of them entered the building even though they were apparently aware of the probable situation.

        Did they doubt that a handgun would be sufficient to combat an AR-15? Were they obeying a given procedure to contain rather than engage until SWAT support arrived?

        The shooter would know of their presence - yet had apparently not bothered to neutralise them first. It is said he is a good marksman - so would have had the advantage of long range accuracy over a handgun.

        Whatever the reasons it suggests that armed staff on campus are unlikely to be the solution in such situations.

        1. Commswonk Silver badge

          Whatever the reasons it suggests that armed staff on campus are unlikely to be the solution in such situations.

          The idea of armed staff with concealed weapons being a "solution" is bizarre. An attacker with a "long arm" is going to out - shoot anyone with a handgun, on the grounds of both accuracy and magazine capacity.

          Even the idea of "concealed carry" is absurd. What sort of weapon is envisaged? A James Bond style Walther PPK? Little better than a popgun in the circumstances. A 38 Special? Maybe, just. A 357 Mag? A bit better, but a capacity of 6 rounds? Pointless. Colt 45ACP? Well it does mean a couple more rounds. Browning or Glock 9mm? Better magazine capacity certainly. Any handgun capable of stopping* an attacker is going to be big and "heavy". Concealed carry is relatively easy to achieve in some circumstances but impossible in others, with a classroom being one of the "others". Miss! Miss! It's a hot day why are you wearing a coat? And the coat can't be zipped up either because deploying the firearm would take too long.

          Arming teachers is likely to result in the teacher being the first one to be shot whether they are armed or not.

          The idea is so silly on so many levels it's hardly worth commenting further.

          *This is a euphemism for "killing"; no one should dream of thinking otherwise.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            "An attacker with a "long arm" is going to out - shoot anyone with a handgun, on the grounds of both accuracy and magazine capacity.

            Even the idea of "concealed carry" is absurd. What sort of weapon is envisaged? A James Bond style Walther PPK? Little better than a popgun in the circumstances. A 38 Special? Maybe, just. A 357 Mag? A bit better, but a capacity of 6 rounds? Pointless. "

            I get the feeling that you don't understand how this really works.

            You don't have to have extreme accuracy at long range, particularly inside a building. If you are defending a classroom full of children and have moderate competence, a pistol will do very likely, thank you. There should be no problem positioning yourself within perhaps 12 meters of the door, at which range you should be able to put an entire magazine in a 20 cm circle.

            Well chosen modern handgun ammunition in appropriate calibres (.357, 9mm, .40 S&W) has a 'one shot stop' percentage equal to or greater than 95%. An attacker coming through a doorway has a pre-determined location, and a properly sited defender will be invisible from outside the room, waiting.

            If putting the attacker down 99% of the time takes more than three rounds, you are not doing it right.

            Properly chosen clothing and holsters provide good concealment. There are a ton of references if you need advice on how to do it. Different body types will work with different modes of carriage and different weapons... some would find an SP101 or an LC9 ideal, while others could carry a full sized Sig 226 (my preferred choice for the above situation).

            1. John Brown (no body) Silver badge

              "There should be no problem positioning yourself within perhaps 12 meters of the door, at which range you should be able to put an entire magazine in a 20 cm circle."

              Yeah, but the real question is, how much training does it take for said teacher, in a live fire situation, probably in panic mode, not to put that entire magazine into the first person to put their head around the door? Teacher? Student? Police Officer?

        2. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          It's not like the movies.

          One pistol with ten rounds against a semi-automatic with up to thirty rounds, you choose. Even a highly trained soldier will think twice.

          How many readers have ever gone into combat? Until it happens you never know how you will react no matter how good the training. The training only filters out the majority of those unable to put themselves in the line of fire. The only way is to make access to firearms very difficult.

          1. jaywin

            Re: It's not like the movies.

            Even a highly trained soldier will think twice.

            Especially when they're on their own and not in any danger themselves at that moment. Asking members of the public to abandon their own safety and go hunting someone armed with an assault rifle with nothing more than a small handgun and an authoritative voice is simply not going to work.

            And what happens when the attackers wise up to these armed teachers? Turn up with bullet proof vests is what. Although they're not guns so it'll probably be a breeze to ban any sort of body armour...

            1. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Re: It's not like the movies.

              "Asking members of the public to abandon their own safety and go hunting someone armed with an assault rifle"

              That's a bad plan. The smart thing is for each teacher to defend their class... and let the attacker come to you. There is no charging in ... the defender is there already, and already at risk due to the attack. Arming them reduces the effective risk, rather than counting on a surge of self-sacrificial bravery in a police officer or security guard properly trained in careful, risk-reducing tactics rooted in an overwhelming response that requires time to put in place.

      3. John Brown (no body) Silver badge

        "School systems would be far better off to pay close and detailed attention to building physical security."

        Most UK schools are like fortresses or prisons nowadays and we've barely had anything close to what seems to be a fairly regular occurrence in the US. High strong fences, controlled access gates, and if you're going in to work on-site, DBS certificates to prove you've not been caught yet.

    3. Timmy B Silver badge

      @Boohoo4u

      You allow hunting rifles but disallow semi-automatics. The issues is that many of these are functionally similar or operationally similar. I've seen people use lever action rifles quicker than some can use a semi-automatic. A revolver pistol can be operationally similar to a semi-automatic pistol (one trigger press = one shot and no manual reload).

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        rubbish. there's no way you can fire a revolver as quickly as a semi automatic.

        in any case, the law just needs to be worded correctly. something along the lines of:

        - ban all automatic and semi automatic weapons.

        - ban all adaptations that allow a gun to be fired like a semi automatic

        - make it illegal to manually modify a gun to fire like an automatic or semi automatic

        - by <certain date in the future>, all future guns must be fitted with rate limiters so that they cannot be modified to operate as automatics or semi automatics

        - make it illegal to remove or modify the rate limiter

    4. jaywin
      Pint

      If you’re an adult (18) you can buy a gun. Pushing it to 21 makes no sense...

      IMHO, if you're not old enough to buy a beer (or what passes for it on that side of the pond), you've no place buying a piece of equipment solely designed to extinguish life.

    5. TheVogon Silver badge

      "You have a right to bare arms"

      Surely wearing a T-shirt would do just fine?

    6. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      "Civilians do not need automatic, or semi-automatic weapons"

      Need is not so easy to define, or dismiss.

      If you are confronted by a charging polar bear, something faster than a bolt action rifle - the epitome of which is the semi-automatic - is an excellent tool, which may well save your life.

      And yes, a polar bear will quite happily stalk and eat you.

      1. gnasher729 Silver badge

        “And yes, a polar bear will quite happily stalk and eat you.”

        Especially in Florida.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          “And yes, a polar bear will quite happily stalk and eat you.”

          reply: "Especially in Florida."

          I was under the impression that the issues in Florida were alligators, poisonous snakes, and perhaps boar.

          Given that alligators can run at 50 kph, and boar are notoriously nasty, a semi would seem useful there, too.

          The snakes, on the other hand, might just make me want to stay in the far north, where the polar bears may be easier to see....

  11. Byron "Jito463"

    That's okay

    I was never a fan of Symantec anyway. If they want to alienate millions of potential customers, they're free to do so. Maybe I should suggest the NRA strike up a deal with Eset. It's a much better solution than whatever Symantec makes.

    1. John Brown (no body) Silver badge

      Re: That's okay

      "If they want to alienate millions of potential customers, they're free to do so."

      Have you considered that they may have already thought this through and come to the conclusion that not taking this action might alienate even more millions of customers?

  12. Phil Kingston Silver badge

    "The loss of a discount will neither scare nor distract one single NRA member from our mission to stand and defend the individual freedoms that have always made America the greatest nation in the world."

    That's exactly the kind of quote I'd expect out of <insert name of favourite terrorist organisation>

  13. Potemkine! Silver badge

    The Land of the Insane

    Everyone outside the US knows this is insane to let so many guns going in the wild and that will lead mandatory to more deaths by guns . Which is a beginning of a solution by reducing the number of gun carriers, so sad so many innocent people are among the victims.

    1. Timmy B Silver badge

      Re: The Land of the Insane

      Whilst you are right, Potemkine! the USA has more gun deaths individual guns are quite unlikely to cause a death. The likelihood of any particular gun killing someone is roughly identical to Japan, and they have some of the toughest gun regulation in the world.

      1. Potemkine! Silver badge

        Re: The Land of the Insane

        the USA has more gun deaths individual guns are quite unlikely to cause a death. The likelihood of any particular gun killing someone is roughly identical to Japan,

        Japan is a country of more than 127 million people, but it rarely sees more than 10 gun deaths a year.

        On average there are nearly 13,000 gun homicides a year in the U.S.

        1. Jemma Silver badge

          Re: The Land of the Insane

          Yup, but you're expecting common sense and an understanding of reality here...

          To put it in context.

          "Common sense in America is like build quality in British Leyland"

          It very rarely happens and when it does is swamped by all the dross.

        2. Timmy B Silver badge

          Re: The Land of the Insane

          @Potemkine!

          Read what I said. I said the odds of any particular gun killing someone. Not the number of deaths. If you look at the number of deaths per gun and not the number of gun deaths then Japan and the USA are a rounding error apart. IIRC - 0.0001 for Japan and 0.00013 for the USA. The UK is 0.00003 I think. I'd have to check but don't have my sources to hand.

          1. Jemma Silver badge

            Re: The Land of the Insane @timmyb

            Did you actually read what you just wrote? Let me translate what everyone else read.

            "There are so many guns in the United States that despite the fact there's a mass shooting every single f**king *WEEK* in a US school 90% of the guns never hurt anyone.."

            And you see nothing wrong with this picture. That is the scariest part.

            You see precisely nothing wrong with the paragraph above.

            1. Timmy B Silver badge

              Re: The Land of the Insane @timmyb

              @Jemma

              Woah there. There is not a mass shooting in a school every week. We are 8 weeks into 2018 - please list the 8 mass shootings.

              Some facts, please.

              1. Timmy B Silver badge

                Re: The Land of the Insane @timmyb

                @Jemma continued...

                To help, there have been 2... Just 2 ( 3 if you really stretch what a mass shooting is) - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_school_shootings_in_the_United_States

                1. John Brown (no body) Silver badge

                  Re: The Land of the Insane @timmyb

                  "To help, there have been 2... Just 2"

                  "Just" 2? In most countries around the world, there have been "just"....none.

              2. Jemma Silver badge

                Re: The Land of the Insane @timmyb

                And I quote BBC NEWS.

                "A mass shooting every 60 hours, this YEAR so far".

                A day is, to my knowledge 24 hours. That means a mass shooting (ie over 3 people, once every 2.5 days). Even if I give you the benefit(s) of the doubt to the point even Jeremy Corbyn would be saying "hang on", and only count 60 hours of daylight that's 5 days.

                Last I looked a week had 7 days.

                It amazes me you're even arguing the point. Anywhere else in the world someone reading those statistics would be horrified to the point of stunned silence (bar possibly Brazil and Mexico) but its normal for you.

                And the irony is if a Muslim kid in Sarajevo machine-guns for the exact same reasons - he'd be a terrorist. A kid machine-guns a class in Redneck, Virginia and he's a "very naughty boy".*

                *and I do know that technically an AR-15 isn't a machine gun - since it has a lower rate of fire (450rpm vs 2500rpm (MG42)), doesn't have full auto and isn't belt fed. But you know, I doubt the teenage girl is all that bothered about semantics when her left hand ovary has just bounced off the opposite wall!

                1. Timmy B Silver badge

                  Re: The Land of the Insane @timmyb

                  @Jemma

                  You said a mass school shooting in the USA. Please list the 8 mass school shootings in the USA so far this year. And the BBC said there had been 18 school shootings this year too! A soundly debunked number (unless you want to include a person committing suicide in a car outside a school that had been previously closed down as a school shooting).

                  I want to see the list of mass shootings the BBC have or I call BS on your quote.

                  1. VinceH Silver badge

                    Re: The Land of the Insane @timmyb

                    "Please list the 8 mass school shootings in the USA so far this year."

                    Only one needs to be listed, because that one is already one too many.

                    And that applies to any "mass" shooting, not just at schools. Splitting hairs over what constitutes a "mass" shooting, or trying to narrow it down to only ones that take place at schools is just idiotic.

                    1. Anonymous Coward
                      Anonymous Coward

                      Re: The Land of the Insane @timmyb

                      "Only one needs to be listed, because that one is already one too many.

                      And that applies to any "mass" shooting, not just at schools. Splitting hairs over what constitutes a "mass" shooting, or trying to narrow it down to only ones that take place at schools is just idiotic."

                      No, advocating laws or policies based on nothing more than anecdotes without adequate objective and quantitative analysis is idiotic.

                      Nothing breeds bad laws faster than basing them on media hyped low probability anecdotes.

                      Of course it's even worse when it is based on a single event hyped through hysterical appeal to emotion.

                      It is a sound bet that anything called "(name of person, usually a child)'s law" is going to turn out to be either ineffective or a bad idea in the long run... but it makes useful political fodder, and sells advertising.

                      1. VinceH Silver badge
                        Unhappy

                        Re: The Land of the Insane @timmyb

                        "No, advocating laws or policies based on nothing more than anecdotes without adequate objective and quantitative analysis is idiotic."

                        Are you really lowering a major, widely reported incident involving seventeen people, some as young as 14, being killed by an idiot with a gun (as well as any other previous such incidents, in schools or not, involving children or not) to the level of "nothing more than anecdotes"?

                        No need to answer that - it's rhetorical. Anyone reading this thread can see that's what you're doing, and I've no intention of looking back at it again.

                  2. John Brown (no body) Silver badge

                    Re: The Land of the Insane @timmyb

                    And the BBC said there had been 18 school shootings this year too!

                    I want to see the list of mass shootings the BBC have or I call BS on your quote.

                    You just confused two issue there. The say the BBC claimed 18 school shootings this year then asked for evidence of a list "mass shootings". Which do you mean?

                2. Anonymous Coward
                  Anonymous Coward

                  Re: The Land of the Insane @timmyb

                  "*and I do know that technically an AR-15 isn't a machine gun - since it has a lower rate of fire (450rpm vs 2500rpm (MG42)), doesn't have full auto and isn't belt fed. "

                  You know rather less than that.

                  An AR-15 is semi-automatic, and has a probably rpm of 30-45, if you don't care about aiming much. You are confusing it with the M-16, which is a military selective fire weapon, or the M4, which is the carbine version.

                  The MG42 had a instantaneous (ignoring reloading, heating / cooling, barrel change, etc) firing rate of about 1100 - 1200 rpm with the light (fast) bolt and somewhere around a half to two thirds of that with a heavy bolt.

                  As for 'mass shooting', definitions vary all over the place, depending on the motivation of the compiler of the numbers.

                  For some people, a mass shooting involves shooting 2 or more people... which is more like a non-private argument than a real mass shooting. Phrases like, unless they are accompanied by the definition used, are completely useless as data.

              3. gnasher729 Silver badge

                Re: The Land of the Insane @timmyb

                There are about 10,000 people in the USA murdered by guns every year (and about twice as many suicides, plus about 1,000 legal killings by police plus accidents. )

                Only a small number is “gun killings in schools”. 25 murders a day, I don’t care if that is one mass shooting Or 25 individuals murdering a single person each.

          2. Timmy B Silver badge

            Re: The Land of the Insane

            Edit: I'll use the Wikipedia page you posted. Per 100K people has 0.6 guns. and 0.6 deaths. That's on death per gun. The USA has 101.05 guns per 100K people and 10.16 deaths by gun per 100K people that 1 death per 10 guns in the USA. Thus each gun is 10 times more likely to kill in Japan despite their far tougher training and control.

            1. Snorlax Silver badge
              FAIL

              Re: The Land of the Insane

              @Timmy B:"Thus each gun is 10 times more likely to kill in Japan despite their far tougher training and control."

              Nice spin you put on that, except that:

              1. Guns are inanimate objects. The meatbag pulling the trigger is what does the killing...

              2. When you look at the numbers objectively the US has 2.6 times the population of Japan (326 million v 126 million), yet has 1,300 times the number of gun deaths (13,000 v 10 per year).

              1. Timmy B Silver badge

                Re: The Land of the Insane

                @Snorlax

                I understand guns don't kill - it's obvious from what I was saying.

                Objectively you need to factor in all the relevant information - such as the number of available guns and the number of gun owners. You're not doing that.

                1. Snorlax Silver badge

                  Re: The Land of the Insane

                  @Timmy B:"I understand guns don't kill - it's obvious from what I was saying."

                  Really? Because this is what you wrote:

                  "Thus each gun is 10 times more likely to kill in Japan despite their far tougher training and control."

                  I know what you were doing; using a meaningless statistic to claim that there is some kind of comparison to be made between gun deaths in Japan and the US.

                  Deaths per gun means nothing.

                  Here are a few more numbers:

                  The US has 101 guns per 100 people - nearly twice as many as Serbia, which was a warzone in the recent past FFS!

                  Japan has 0.6 guns per 100 people

                  You're clutching at straws, trying to construct some kind of correlation where none exists.

              2. Timmy B Silver badge

                Re: The Land of the Insane

                @snorlax

                Back at you.

                1. The issue at hand is gun control. Control of access to guns. Thus I've conflated it to be the gun that is the issue. It's kind of obvious if you read what I'm saying and don't try to find issues.

                2. Irrelevant - If you look at the odds of a gun owner killing someone it's either about the same odds or way more likely in Japan. We're talking about gun control. Looking at a place with very strict gun control and you see that those deemed worthy under that system makes them no less likely to kill.

                1. Snorlax Silver badge
                  Facepalm

                  Re: The Land of the Insane

                  @Timmy B:"Irrelevant - If you look at the odds of a gun owner killing someone it's either about the same odds or way more likely in Japan. We're talking about gun control. Looking at a place with very strict gun control and you see that those deemed worthy under that system makes them no less likely to kill"

                  The facts speak for themselves:

                  126 million people with 10 gun deaths per year

                  versus

                  326 million people with 13,000 gun deaths per year

                  The rest is semantics and cherry-picking... Japan is one of the safest countries on the planet, joint 10th with Ireland. The US is way down the list at 114th, below Rwanda and Brazil.

            2. John Brown (no body) Silver badge

              Re: The Land of the Insane

              "Thus each gun is 10 times more likely to kill in Japan despite their far tougher training and control."

              Have you considered that that may be because with gun control, it's more likely mainly criminals are illegal gun owners, ie it's far less likely that there gun based suicides, accidents and "opportunist" shootings?

              No amount of gun control can eliminate guns, but the fewer there are, then the fewer deaths by gunshot per capita. Of course, in somewhere like the US, that sort of gun control would likely take decades to have any significant effect.

      2. John Brown (no body) Silver badge

        Re: The Land of the Insane

        "The likelihood of any particular gun killing someone is roughly identical to Japan, and they have some of the toughest gun regulation in the world."

        An excellent point! You're saying that the more guns in circulations, the more deaths by gunshot there will be. It's a percentage game. Well done. Although I suspect you meant the opposite. Congratulations on making your own foot one of the casualties.

  14. msknight Silver badge

    Companies that end their commercial relationships with the NRA...

    ...will have displayed that most cherished icon of living in a democracy. Choice.

  15. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Politics aside

    Wasn't Symantec's discount just for the first year?

    Did NRA members get charged full whack in the second and subsequent years?

    Taking out a subscription directly with an AV vendor can be an expensive way to keep a machine protected, if you don't like the free options. (Same goes for most of the competition to be honest)

    (Norton and McAfee - you know they're bad when their best products are their uninstallers)

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Politics aside

      A 50% discount from Symantec is basically a slightly worse deal than buying from Amazon ... and, as you say, renewing (especially auto-renewing) is almost always a bad deal.

  16. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Nice move, so while everyone is boycotting the NRA they don't focus on the politicians whose job it is to determine laws and can actually make changes. What difference do they think this will make? They'll just change their name again like they did when they used to be the KKK.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      An interesting question. There seems to be a trade-off for some politicians between NRA election support in cash and votes - against the loss of same from people who want a change in gun laws.

      With many politicians having to defend their exposed NRA funding - the mid-term elections should be interesting.

    2. Jemma Silver badge

      If I recall correctly at least one president of the United States was a out and proud member of the KKK. A man by the name of Harry S Truman (the one after Roosevelt (so you don't have to look it up on Wikipedia)). So I wonder how many senators and government employees and the like are members of the NRA?

      I think that might be some premium information right there!

      PS : Is it just me, or is the US government in general taking its policy from episodes of Futurama?

  17. Timmy B Silver badge

    If people actually wanted to make a difference and thought that taking any kind of guns away then the whole brouhaha about assault weapons and AR-15s would not be what they should talk about. If people really think that lessening the numbers of guns will make an impact then pistols is what they should be complaining about. The majority of deaths and the majority of crime with guns in the USA is with pistols.

    1. Jemma Silver badge

      *sigh*

      So we ban pistols, and semi automatic handguns and those kind of cool round palm gun thingies from the 19th century - all classifiable as hand guns.. Plus the DE .50 and the .46 handcannon that's the biggest I've heard of (I forget the manufacturer) and suddenly most gun crime goes away?

      Nope

      Everyone goes out and gets a knock off MP40, aka the Uzi (thank you Nazi Germany and the Jews respectively - ironic much). And being the US they get it chambered for .45 so yay it's even more dangerous than the common or garden 9mm Parabellum variety (I'm sure the 9 year old girl who accidentally blew her instructors head off *will* be pleased) and go and shoot their classmates anyway.

      So then you say - hmm, let's ban those, but no one would be mad enough, or for that matter strong enough to bring an M2 .50cal to school so they're OK... Until some little cretin thinks "wheelbarrow... Hmmm" and the rest (of the class, along with most of the people on the other side of the wall) is/are history. By the time your idea has got to its natural conclusion some 11 year old has turned up in the playground with a fully restored M18 hellcat, and reduced half a school to cat food (even if'n he got no ammo, he got them tracks and kids can't run at 30mph *squelch*). And they're more likely to do him for driving offences than mass slaughter..

      I feel like I'm talking to a real life Early Cuyler and stuck in the "Drawn Together" universe..after all

      "You can't spell Slaughter without laughter"…

      .

    2. Jemma Silver badge

      OK. Let me put this bluntly. Everyone is capable of murder if pushed to the limit. Most are capable of torture as well (scientifically proved using the electric shock tests in the 60s/70s in guess where…).

      Or in the short version.

      Giving any American a gun is like giving Jimmy Saville a 9 year old. It may not happen straight away but it'll happen eventually and it won't be good.

      If it isn't deliberate it'll be accidental or just utter and sheer incompetence (which is how I personally almost got shot in Georgia).

      No guns no gun shot wounds and no families losing kids or Gods forbid children like the young girl at the shooting range, having to deal with having killed someone, or a sibling or a parent.

      One of the Columbine girls took 9 hits! and survived with some limited paralysis - good news, what wasn't so great was her mother suicided not long after - so not only did the teen have to deal with being in the middle of a live fire Kohima reenactment and wounds which should have killed her outright she had to deal with a parental suicide as well as a result.

      Still think guns are cool.. Oh right.. Stupid question.

      PS: since Donnie Dickwit isn't going to do anything useful on gun control could he at least give all the survivors Purple Hearts? After all they should get *something* out of their education. Maybe a new campaign medal for graduating high school/college students because it's starting to look a lot like Sunnydale High if you know what I mean…

      1. Timmy B Silver badge

        @Jemma

        "Giving any American a gun is like giving Jimmy Saville a 9 year old. It may not happen straight away but it'll happen eventually and it won't be good."

        No. You are simply wrong. An American gun owner is less likely to be involved in a killing than a Japanese gun owner. I've proved it.

        You are wrong and other that huff and puff you've backed nothing up.

        1. John Brown (no body) Silver badge

          "No. You are simply wrong. An American gun owner is less likely to be involved in a killing than a Japanese gun owner. I've proved it."

          Which would you rather have? Every gun using killer in Japan takes one dollar from you, or every gun using killer in the US takes one dollar from you. Remember, dollars equal lives in this case.

  18. iron Silver badge
    Mushroom

    Out of the fire, into the fire

    "Dear Symantec, attached is a copy of my receipt to McAfee I think I have convinced 27 people so far to do the same as me"

    ROFL. Did you really hate them that much that you persuaded them to use the one AV that is worse than Norton?

    #FriendsDontLetFriendsUseNortonOrMcAfee

  19. Timmy B Silver badge

    Aside from the Gun Issue

    A friend took up a sales job with Symantec and on his first day a multi-national company returned over 150K copies of their AV stuff. The company weren't too bothered and carried on nicely. This is just virtue signalling.

  20. codejunky Silver badge

    Ha

    I expect gun ranges will have a lot of shattered cd's down range after this. It was fun enough shooting the old free internet disks with an air rifle. Hang them up down range and if you could get them to rotate side on and then shoot it they would explode.

  21. DuncanLarge Bronze badge

    "stand and defend the individual freedoms that have always made America the greatest nation in the world"

    According to who?

  22. DuncanLarge Bronze badge

    If the constitution gives the right to have firearms then who the heck says it needs to be any particular type of weapon?

    Honestly, let the army have the rifles and the public can make do with a modern version of the musket. If the public want guns then restrict it to a musket. It still shoots, can not be loaded quickly so people you are shooting at can run away or have time to shoot you back plus a modern musket can be designed to be much more accurate than those of old so can still let you shoot that bear that threatens your life.

    If guns cant be banned for freedoms sake, lets agree to have crapper guns that do the minimum required. There is no reason to have anything else.

    1. Timmy B Silver badge

      @DuncanLarge

      "If the constitution gives the right to have firearms then who the heck says it needs to be any particular type of weapon?

      Honestly, let the army have the rifles and the public can make do with a modern version of the musket."

      Simple answer - because the person invading your home won't have that kind of gun. If they are allowed for protection then you need to look at something that will protect you.

      1. codejunky Silver badge

        @ Timmy B

        You quoted- "If the constitution gives the right to have firearms then who the heck says it needs to be any particular type of weapon?

        Honestly, let the army have the rifles and the public can make do with a modern version of the musket."

        The funniest response I have seen to people saying stuff like that was- 'when you write your argument on parchment with your quill pen and send your horseman to deliver it to me we can then discuss why you are wrong'.

      2. John Brown (no body) Silver badge

        "Simple answer - because the person invading your home won't have that kind of gun."

        Are there any stats on how many home invasions have escalated into murders due to home-owners confronting armed intruders with their own guns as opposed to successful defence attempts? That would an interesting stat, whichever way it swings.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          "Are there any stats on how many home invasions have escalated into murders due to home-owners confronting armed intruders with their own guns as opposed to successful defence attempts? That would an interesting stat, whichever way it swings."

          Not sure... but there is evidence that increasing concealed carry tends to push crime away from people to things.

          Murder, rape, robbery, carjacking, home invasion and burglary of occupied buildings carry a higher risk of a criminal being killed or injured by their victim and tend to be avoided as defensive handguns become more common.

          Instead the crime tends to displace into theft of unattended property, burglary of uninhabited buildings and the like.

          Many people do not notice this effect because there are not headlines like 'no home invasions in the city this weekend'..

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      "[...] plus a modern musket can be designed to be much more accurate than those of old"

      The biopic of Davy Crockett (1786–1836) reckoned he did what was effectively rapid fire for a musket - and still put his two shot balls one behind the other - plumb centre of the bullseye.

    3. tom dial Silver badge

      "restrict it to a musket"

      This often repeated suggestion ignores the fact that the American colonists and their immediate successors generally had the most modern and effective of the available that they could afford. For personal weapons, they had the same range and types as those in any military service of the time.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: "restrict it to a musket"

        "This often repeated suggestion ignores the fact that the American colonists and their immediate successors generally had the most modern and effective of the available that they could afford. For personal weapons, they had the same range and types as those in any military service of the time."

        And a lot of constitutional experts think that that equivalence between military and civilian armament was the intent of the writers of the second amendment.

        Remember that democracy and civil rights (the Magna Carta) did not really gain traction (post Athenian Greece) until the longbow gave the populace weaponry effective against the ruling class whose armour previously allowed them to impose whatever rule they wanted with impunity. The full story is more complicated, as always, but that's the bottom line.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: "restrict it to a musket"

          "[...] did not really gain traction (post Athenian Greece) until the longbow gave the populace weaponry effective against the ruling class whose armour previously allowed them to impose whatever rule they wanted with impunity."

          Was armour really necessary for the Lord of the Manor to subdue any rumblings of his serfs or villeins? Basically they were his foot soldiers for when he was obliged to provide his contribution to the King's army. There were more effective social controls than the Sheriff's men. Upset your lord and you were an outlaw to be hunted by your peers in the compulsory Hue and Cry. The long bow had been a staple weapon for many years - with compulsory Sunday practice. While probably a myth - Robin Hood's outlaws were typically cast as proficient with the long bow.

          Wat Tyler's Peasants Uprising wasn't a potential battle of archers against armoured soldiers. It was the threat of superior numbers that led to the King attempting a resolution meeting - and Wat Tyler's unexpected death at that meeting was the end of any organised resistance.

          My school history said two things. Magna Carta was just the nobles wanting some of the King's powers for themselves - everyone else was as oppressed as before. The serfs were effectively liberated by the Black Death which made agricultural labour scarce and they were able to make demands for concessions.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: "restrict it to a musket"

            "My school history said two things. Magna Carta was just the nobles wanting some of the King's powers for themselves - everyone else was as oppressed as before." (snipped from a bunch of good comments)

            I did say it was complicated... and it did not all happen in one fell swoop. Like most historical processes, it played out over time.

            Yes the Magna Carta was seen by the nobles as protection from arbitrary arrest by the King, but it was not written to apply only to them, though they may have been the first beneficiaries, In time, the application spread to everyone in a lot of countries.

            Similarly, parliamentary democracy was originally about the nobles constraining the taxation powers of the king... but again, over time, the House of Lords yielded supremacy to the Commons (if I understand the way it works) and derivative models of the system in Commonwealth countries dispensed with the Lords entirely.

            Historically, classes or groups with absolute immunity tend to act selfishly or even badly. While power is one measure, immunity is sometimes more useful. You may have power, but if you or your minions are vulnerable, it tends to temper your actions a bit.

            Not every revolt has to be successful to push a note of caution into the actions of a ruling group... certainly it makes the use of arbitrary violence a much less attractive option, which in turn prevents or mitigates certain types of rigid oppression, and a continuing threat to unlucky or unpopular rulers can lead to compromise which over centuries shifts the centers of power.

        2. Francis Boyle Silver badge

          Re: "restrict it to a musket"

          "the longbow gave the populace weaponry effective against the ruling class whose armour previously allowed them to impose whatever rule they wanted with impunity."

          Oddly enough, the version of this that I'm familiar with has it that the crucial change was from the bow which requires skill to use effectively to the musket which requires only a few hours training.

          Probably the truth is that each new technology changes the balance of power between different social groups in ways that can only be appreciated with hindsight.

      2. John Brown (no body) Silver badge
        Joke

        Re: "restrict it to a musket"

        "For personal weapons, they had the same range and types as those in any military service of the time."

        Are you arguing for personal ownership of nuclear armed cruse missile and hellfire armed drones? Maybe Apple, MS and Google could have their nuclear powered aircraft carriers and a squadron each of F35's.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: "restrict it to a musket"

          "For personal weapons, they had the same range and types as those in any military service of the time."

          ------------

          "Are you arguing for personal ownership of nuclear armed cruse missile and hellfire armed drones? Maybe Apple, MS and Google could have their nuclear powered aircraft carriers and a squadron each of F35's."

          -----------------------

          PERSONAL weapons.

          If you can carry it and use it effectively by yourself, you can have it.

          No drones, no jets, no ICBMs, no nukes.

          We want to strike a reasonable balance here.

  23. adam payne Silver badge

    "The loss of a discount will neither scare nor distract one single NRA member from our mission to stand and defend the individual freedoms that have always made America the greatest nation in the world."

    Defend the individual freedom to go hunting with an Uzi.

    1. Jemma Silver badge

      Saying it with Futurama..

      "Ah don't go nowhere without my mutated anthrax... Fer duck huntin'"

  24. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    the idea that the second ammendment is any kind of protection against government overreach is laughable.

    the government/corporate machine already screws you nine ways till sunday and all you right wing gun nuts do is whimper and beg for more. that's because you are not the radical freedom-defending libertarians you think you are. those guys all, (yes *all*) fight with the socialists. they always have. you're coward's and always have been. it's in your nature to bow your heads to authority. its why you think your guns will defend you. they wont. the government has drones, dumbasses.

  25. Dave Rickmers

    Death of the Minuteman

    Every farm had a Kentucky/Pennsylvania rifle to harvest game. That was never considered re: Amendment 2. A sheriff confiscating a cowboy's gun was never imagined an infringement on the right of the People to have a well trained local militia.

    The numbers don't lie. Our flaming lead subculture is killing us. The NRA are vultures. Five million vs 300+. The NRA has morphed into a guns and ammo lobby. Death be damned.

  26. Winkypop Silver badge
    Devil

    And if the NRA don't change their ways...

    They will offer them a lifetime subscription.

  27. Andrew Scott

    Guns

    Not surprising that nra members would choose software from a company founded by a nut that loved guns and is a person of interest in a murder in Belize. Being arrested while carrying an unlicensed gun or any gun while intoxicated, just the kind of person who would attract gun nuts.

    1. Snorlax Silver badge

      Re: Guns

      You're thinking of John McAfee. Peter Norton made Norton Antivirus, later sold to Symantec.

  28. EnviableOne Bronze badge
    IT Angle

    The NRA are a JOKE

    on average a US citizen owns at least 1 gun this average is a bit on the skewed side as 3% of the population own over half the guns (at least 17 each) and 57% of housholds don't own one.

    the NRA has 5 million members (or less than 1% of the population.)

    7.7 million Americans own over 40 guns, so theres at least 2.7million people who own over 40 guns who arent NRA members.

    So how do they claim to speak for US gun owners?

    Oh and all this second ammendment stuff is really a reach, here it is in all its glory:

    "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"

    so its basically saying that the individual states have the power to retain an armed force that can be used to defend the freedom of the people and this will not be infringed by the forming of the United States. the NRA et all like to forget the first part of it.

    The NRA try to whip up the gun owners by saying gun regulations will remove their right to own any, but even talking to NRA confrence delegates or Trump supporters, they accept that some people shouldn't have guns, and that some controlls are nessacary.

    limit legal arms to Hunting rifles and Handguns, except where stored secureley at a licenced gun club, that is inspected and controlled.

    Mandatory check on applicants for mental illness, violent convictions or other relevant crimes.

    Mandatory training on safe use and storage

    that will not impinge the avarge gun user, apart from the time to carry out checks, but but any sensible person will build that into there scheduling.

  29. Clive Galway
    FAIL

    "Dear Symantec, attached is a copy of my receipt to McAfee"

    Having been a Symantec customer and then going with McAfee as your next choice makes your opinion instantly worthless, end of story.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: "Dear Symantec, attached is a copy of my receipt to McAfee"

      "Mandatory check on applicants for mental illness"

      The American Civil Liberties Union opposed this for very good reason. This is far too broad a brush.

      More than 18% of American adults suffer from mental illness in any given year.

      There is zero evidence that most of them would be a risk to themselves or others if they were allowed to have guns. Depriving them of the ability to protect themselves is clearly unjust and discriminatory.

      Given the American attitude to guns, fear of a formal diagnosis costing them the ability to possess firearms would probable cause some number of those suffering from mental illness to avoid diagnosis and treatment - quite possibly INCREASING the risk by having people forego appropriate professional help.

      That would be another predictable 'own goal' from poorly thought out policies in a long and illustrious line of such follies.

      Always remember that the Chernobyl nuclear accident was caused in part by a plan intended to help increase reactor safety.

      1. John Brown (no body) Silver badge

        Re: "Dear Symantec, attached is a copy of my receipt to McAfee"

        "More than 18% of American adults suffer from mental illness in any given year."

        Based on US tv shows, both drama and reality, I always assumed every American had a therapist on speed dial anyway.

  30. Aristotles slow and dimwitted horse Silver badge

    Tigers

    If I release 100 Tigers into my local country park then I would naturally expect a significant uptick in the amount of people being injured or killed by Tigers. That's why we don't allow Tigers to be released into the wild in the UK.

    Same logic applies to guns. The answer to the question of guns is not more guns. It's less guns combined with making it MUCH MUCH harder to get one.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Tigers

      "Same logic applies to guns."

      No, it clearly does not.

      if you can't tell the difference between a hungry predator and an inanimate object that requires specific human acts to function, you are very, very confused.

  31. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    If you're using Norton

    you're already shooting yourself in the foot.

    (pun intended)

  32. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Going gun shopping

    Just for that I am taking my Symantec paycheck and going out to buy a gun.

  33. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Symantec

    Doesn't Symantec produce the "trust" certificates that are being banned due to security concerns?

  34. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    SYMC is giving money to the NRA - really!

    You betcha! Symantec has a company match for charitable contributions made by employees to approved 503c non-profits. So the check I cut to the NRA Foundation will be matched in full with a check from Symantec.

  35. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    "Everyone outside the US knows this is insane to let so many guns going in the wild and that will lead mandatory to more deaths by guns"

    People keep saying this, which leads me to think no one ever looks at actual data and analyzes it.

    There are countries with high levels of gun availability. Some of them have less restrictive concealed carry laws than the US. Furthermore, most accounting of gun availability uses estimates for civilian owned guns, whereas in some countries significant numbers of people have immediate (in their homes, or cars, or on their person) access to weapons provided to them by the military or government. This significantly under-counts weapon availability in those countries... and these are often all-up military weapons - not cosmetically enhanced regular ones.

    The interesting thing is that these countries have ample supplies of guns, but do not have similarly high rates of gun murders. At the same time, countries with lower densities of firearms have much much higher (up to 10 - 20 times higher) rates of firearms murders when compared to the US.

    It's not the guns, people, it's the culture. You can have lots of guns with few murders, or not that many guns (compared to the US) and way more murders.

    You want to reduce firearms murders in the US, stop glorifying cowboys, cops, and soldiers who fix everything by shooting people.

    For an exercise in cultural attitudes check out Hollywood films and TV shows and count the number ot times you get guns drawn and brandished, guns fired, people shot,.. by the 'good' guys.

    Then compare it to European shows on the same kind of themes (cop, mystery, spy, supernatural) for the same metrics.

    The stupidity really sunk home when I had the misfortune to watch a few episodes of Supernatural... about two jerks who do 'exorcisms' of dangerous demons, ghosts, etc. It seems in America, the way you get rid of a nasty spirit or magic is by shooting it... or maybe burning something. If that doesn't work, your only recourse is to get a better gun??!!?? This brain dead 'if it moves, shoot it' idiocy is now into its 13th season, making me think that the lowest common denominator has a shovel, and is digging for all it is worth.

    1. EnviableOne Bronze badge

      See previous post -> The NRA are a JOKE

      private non-military gun ownership per capita in the US is twice the next highest country

  36. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    "Mandatory check on applicants for .... r relevant crimes."

    In practice, the term 'relevant' is not used, but laws are proposed or in place banning 'felons' from possessing firearms.

    Of course, big media companies have made sure that copying a DVD that you own to a file so you can watch it on your tablet at the cottage is a felony.

    Land of the free, where you can lose your second amendment rights by copying a DVD you bought to a different format.

    Not the best reason in the world to designate someone as a helpless target.

  37. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    I am a shooter in the UK. I believe in the responsible private ownership of firearms for sporting purposes.

    The key word above, I see as "responsible."

    I don't believe anyone with a record of violence or with a condition that makes them a danger to themselves or others should have a gun. I do believe that, before being allowed to own a gun, the prospective owner should receive training in its correct and safe use and have been assessed on their competence. I believe that guns and ammunition should be stored securely to prevent those who are not competent and children from having unsupervised access to them.

    None of us want to see anyone get hurt and our sport to be taken away as a result. We all have a responsibility to behave properly, look out for the safety of others on the range and the public and to flag up anyone whose behaviour around guns causes us concern. My son has started shooting too and I've seen a big change in his sense of responsibility and in the way he thinks ahead before doing things. It's been a positive influence on him.

    When told I go shooting, one of my work colleagues commented, "Why don't you get a normal hobby?" Their perception was that hardly anyone here shoots. The truth is very much the opposite. There are tens of thousands of legal gun owners in my county alone. Part of the reason for this perception is that one of the recommendations for protecting your firearms is to have as few people as possible know you have them as possible so that people don't know you have them. In fact, you can be denied a firearms certificate if the police find out you've told all your neighbours. There's more of us than you think and 99.999% of us are responsible. A firearms certificate is hard to get and very easy to lose.

  38. Brian Allan 1

    Why the heck would anyone offer the NRA discounts!? Sounds like a dumb idea to begin with!!

  39. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    One thing this has Done...

    I work for a Medium-Large US Financial comnpany and Symantec is our currently deployed Security solution for all Wintel Platforms. That will change in coming months as what Symantec does not seem to understand and has suffered a sever bout of tone-deafness to is that entrusting your Security to a firm should be apolitical, above the fray regardless of personall beliefs. This act is a simple and complete breach of trust. The ability to be swayed by a political wind in an area as sensitive as this is unbelievable. We can no longer trust Symantec and their management to exercise appropriate judgement to protect our data from ALL threats. Their products will be replaced in a timely manner and from tlaking to a few peers, we are not the only ones moving in this direction.

    I can just imagine the repercussions if we had different lending practices for say Planned Parenthood and the NRA based upon politics alone. I agree with everyone's right to exercise their right of free speech and voting with their wallets. However, for a company to make a politically motivated decision like this completely breaks our trust with Symantec. This is not about guns, but about a company entrusted with securing our data exercising a political value opinionated judgement. I am sure we are not the first nor will be the last large account to take a long hard look at our business relationship with Symantec based upon this breach of trust. It is not something we take lightly, but feel compelled to move forward with.

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019