93 total posts
(Page 1 of 4)
In light of recent events, the actions taken by school boards or districts wasn't always reassuring. Many finally decided to fix long standing issues like having working cameras or added more or just installed them, finally. Some schools chained or locked-down doors but that may cause other issues. Further some decided to get that fixed with better door locks or controlled access. The whole being for me it was something they should have already been long done and/or in the works prior to the sad events. Also, there were all to often nothing in the "firearms" for school personal other than security or police officers. In out local area, before the sad event happend, some were already removing such personal or reduced them or sought different funding or billed directly. Now, you don't hear too much about them, but funding still hasn't changed but it seems some was gotten.
As for anyone other than true police or security personal, I wish no one has access to weapons. It doesn't make me feel safe if i have rely on someone that whose normal course of the day isn't security other than watchful eyes. It seems malls have better security than schools IMHO. -----Willy
.....is that the only way to keep us safe is to turn America into a heavily armed camp. I reject that message as defeatist.
Their main message is so fundamentally flawed I have trouble believing that intelligent people fall for it. The whole "regulation will only make it harder for the law-abiding to get guns" argument is absurd. The laws they consistently oppose would all make it harder for bad guys to get guns. You and I probably have nothing to worry about from a background check. Opposing background checks only makes it easier for guns to get into the hands of people who should not have them. Would bad guys still manage to find ways to get guns under the proposed new laws? If they want them badly enough, probably, but it would be a lot more difficult than it is now. Isn't that a good thing? Lack of regulation benefits criminals the most, just as lack of environmental regulation primarily benefits those companies that would pollute without it.
The story that Adam Lanza used a handgun to kill all those kids and left his semi-auto in the car is a lie. He used the semi-auto and only brought his highest-capacity magazines with him that day. The report released last week said so. He may have used the handgun to take his own life and that of his mother.
Saying the solution to the gun violence problem is more guns makes as much sense as saying the solution to the problem of alcoholism is more booze.
You've done what I hoped no one would
and that's to get brain freeze as soon as they hear it's an NRA recommendation.
No brain freeze
I just think it's a self-serving "recommendation." It treats the problem but makes no effort to cure it.
I thought my question was simple enough
If the choice was on site security or laws restricting arms purchases, which would you be more comfortable with? I'd asked that folks try to look at the thought rather than the source. I guess what I'd need to ask of you is "Had Obama sought what the NRA suggested, would you line up on his side?"
Then I vote....
.....for laws restricting arms purchases. Those seem to work pretty well pretty much everywhere in the world.
Tell that to
Chicago and DC, which have had the toughest gun restriction laws on the books across the whole country.......and they have the highest kill by gun stats anywhere.
Tell it to Maryland too.
They are going to enact stricter gun laws here. Seems the ones they already have fail too. Any new ones will fail also. Failure is the way of the Liberal.
Just recently a student at our local high school was stopped for going off campus and returning, and when questioned it was determined he needed his backpack searched. Inside, a loaded handgun. The "laws" did nothing, the observance of someone in authority at the location did.
We have all these representatives and senators and all sorts of legal eagles who seem to have nothing better to do than make everyone's lives more miserable with more laws, that only the law abiding will follow, not recognizing the real cause is never addressed by all their often useless laws.
Another thing is we hear about the shootings, too often we don't hear about the interventions due to on site supervision which averted any potential problems. Shootings get national headlines, interventions stay local news. Such presents a distorted image of the reality of what does and what doesn't work.
More useless laws don't work, but on site vigilance and intervention when called for, does.
Oh, not a single law under consideration in Maryland concerning guns today would have had any effect on the person bringing that gun to the school. Not a single law.
RE: but on site vigilance and intervention when called for,
I enjoyed reading about how to identify risk factors
and wondering just how teachers can be expected to know every intimate detail about their own students. Just how in the heck can they know such things without having 50 more hours in a day to follow everyone around with camera, notebook and pencil? How can they know about their home lives when most of their parents don't even show up for school open house or parent-teacher meetings? and if a teacher contacts a parent about their troubled or troublesome child, the parent cannot be expected to be cooperative. These lists look good on paper but not so good in a practical sense.
RE: These lists look good on paper but not so good in a prac
These lists look good on paper but not so good in a practical sense.
OK...You've shot those suggestions down.....What have you got?
Tell it to Indiana and Virginia...
.....which have much more lenient gun laws and are where most of the illegal guns in Chicago and DC come from.
Not exactly the full picture
Three states at border Illinois show as having weaker gun laws. This does say that Chicago gun traffic comes largely from Indiana so you may be correct about that. You'll need to consider that Chicago, and NW Indiana are practically merged into one city. East Chicago, Gary, Hammond, etc., have major freeway links. There is heavy commuter traffic by workers and shoppers for other good as well. Illinois also had...and maybe still has...lower alcohol taxes and folks streamed across the border for the great variety of cheap liquor Chicago offered. It does appear that my own state has more lax gun laws than Indiana so I'd not cite them as aiding and abetting gun crime.
Is that where Lanza got hers?
If legislation was all that effective
we'd have little need for prisons. Legislation must be both an effective deterrent and be partner with no nonsense enforcement. Look at Chicago and what's been reported as having a strong impact on gang related crime there. Was it more legislation? Nope. It was an increased police presence in high crime areas. To my knowledge, no one has rounded up the guns that are in the hands of gang members. They've merely made it unwise to wave them around on the streets. I'm not calling for armed guards in schools as a solution but just saying that the administration's proposals wouldn't be a more effective choice.
You are exactly right
Restricting arms only worked
in Nazi Germany.........take away the people's power to protect itself, even against its own government, and you have a country of sheep heading 'peacefully' into slaughter. Control the people and you can do whatever you want............Look at how well that's working out in the Middle East...........
RE: Restricting arms only worked in Nazi Germany
Gun rights activists who cite the dictator as a reason against gun control have their history dangerously wrong
And it makes a certain amount of intuitive sense: If you're going to impose a brutal authoritarian regime on your populace, better to disarm them first so they can't fight back.
Unfortunately for LaPierre et al., the notion that Hitler confiscated everyone's guns is mostly bogus. And the ancillary claim that Jews could have stopped the Holocaust with more guns doesn't make any sense at all if you think about it for more than a minute.
University of Chicago law professor Bernard Harcourt explored this myth in depth in a 2004 article published in the Fordham Law Review. As it turns out, the Weimar Republic, the German government that immediately preceded Hitler's, actually had tougher gun laws than the Nazi regime. After its defeat in World War I, and agreeing to the harsh surrender terms laid out in the Treaty of Versailles, the German legislature in 1919 passed a law that effectively banned all private firearm possession, leading the government to confiscate guns already in circulation. In 1928, the Reichstag relaxed the regulation a bit, but put in place a strict registration regime that required citizens to acquire separate permits to own guns, sell them or carry them.
They didn't have weapons because they lost WW1 and that was part of the terms of surrender...NOT because the Government wanted to control the people....AND it wasn't Hitler that did it.
which just goes to show
when you disarm an entire country you foment revolution from within, a dictator arises, and the latter state of the situation becomes even worse than before the disarming. The world disarmed their people, and then the world suffered. Nice analogy there you found.
I've told Toni that before
I even used the same link you did. Now she's been told twice, so Toni, if you make that false claim again I can only conclude that you are choosing to disregard facts that you find inconvenient.
There used to be a commercial on tv.....
You can't tell a Heinz pickle nothin'
Hitler did disarm
the people who weren't German........
And if you think I'd believe anything from a liberal regarding history when they have deliberately distorted it for decades, you're sadly mistaken. "If you tell a lie often enough, people will believe it"
I've ask this before...you've never responded
Exactly what would have to happen for YOU to take up arms against the government?
Do you think it will happen in your lifetime?
Can you envision the American government being so nasty that the population would take up arms?
I can't imagine myself
getting to that point.......but it has happened repeatedly in other countries and is currently happening in many. There have been groups here in this country that have taken up arms against our government........and a number of them have become professors in liberal colleges, along with other radicals unfortunately and are teaching our children (BO was one of those students as well, if you recall).
pretty good answer Toni
the previous "revolutionaries" got cushy tenured jobs in universities now. Not all of them, but some of the worst of them.
Any revolution will be more regional in application and probably first directed at particular agencies instead of the entire govt. Such actions finally prompt often overdue action in such agencies to reduce the friction. Unfortunately people then on both sides are hurt due to the earlier bullheaded intransigence of others.
It's a false dichotomy. There are lots more choices than 2.
It's a perfectly legitimate question, IMO
I was going for a choice of the two that have been thus far presented...one at government level and the other by the NRA. If someone wanted to add another, they could have done so.
steve, I don't see where Josh necessarily
reacted with brain freeze.
It's his position of some time, so I have to accept it as an honest one. Since he has consistently expressed that position, I don't see how it can be dismissed as a "brain freeze" because it opposes the position of an organization.
Did you see where a city in Nelson, Georgia required..........
The measure requires every head of household to own a gun and ammunition to "provide for the emergency management of the city" and to "provide for and protect the safety, security and general welfare of the city and its inhabitants.
It has no penalities and has exceptions for mentally ill, felons, etc etc. So they passed a law they don't plan to enforce to make a political statement.
It's just as wrong as denying everyone a gun.
The reason for the comment is that I believe
there are folks whose brain "freezes" as soon as they know who made the comment. A bad opinion of the person, organization or whatever, automatically exhibits a certain reaction that, had it been said by someone they like, they'd respond differently. Such is why I asked people to consider the suggestions but block out who made them. That was probably a lot to ask but I think not a bad thing to consider. I was taught that eliminating prejudice against a person requires that you try to treat every comment they make as though it was the first time you heard them speak. Not a bad idea, is it?