your definition of a tease ... which by the way is a personal comment we are attempting to avoid must be when one only listens to one sentence.
I was commenting on your statement that you were answering my "giant question" and then yet, you didn't answer the question.
So let's try again: if there were a regulation that could have prevented the shooting, would you support it?
There was much substance to my post you ignore. Is that the best debate method?
To take one sentence out of context.
I've answered many times as others have... listening can be a challenge.
There is no regulation that can prevent shootings because laws do not control people.
There is no if.
Now a resource officer or a trained responsible gun owner had been in the school to protect
that very well would have stopped the murderer.
We can no longer leave our children unprotected and think a law will stop a killer.
We must be proactive.
There is no regulation that can prevent shootings because laws do not control people.
There is no if.
You have your mind absolutely made up it sounds... I think we will fail if we dont keep an open mind.
So, in the instance in AZ (Gabby Giffords shooting), when the shooter stopped after 30+ rounds to reload, then he was tackled...you dont think there's the slightest chance that if the regulations had been in place that restricted magazines to 10-12 rounds, that less people would have died? I know, you think he'd mow down the crowd with a car...but maybe he chose guns because they're easier.
Its not too much to imagine that some mentally ill potential murderers are already thwarted by the inability to get a gun (even in our environment where its easy), and some more might be deterred.
Now a resource officer or a trained responsible gun owner had been in the school to protect
that very well would have stopped the murderer.
You have no way to know if this is true or not.
Better than no protection... we see the result of that don't we?
Again, that is an assumption. An assumption that a guard would have been in position to save those children, that a possible crossfire would not have created even more victims, etc.
We have laws to punish those who hurt others. Do they work?
The jury is out on that look at the full prisons.
Some follow laws some do not, some pick and choose per their moral frame
what to follow.
of course laws work. is it perfect? of course not. but it's all we have. giving up on it is not the answer.
Relying on laws as a solution for a problem is not the answer either...
as we see with our prisons full. It's easy to pass a law but not the answer.
as I think we've all agreed before, there is no singular answer to this question. But laws are the first step (if not the first step, and integral one) in the solution to change. do you agree?
Gimli 1993
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
of course laws work. is it perfect? of course not. but it's all we have. giving up on it is not the answer.
Relying on laws as a solution for a problem is not the answer either...
as we see with our prisons full. It's easy to pass a law but not the answer.
as I think we've all agreed before, there is no singular answer to this question. But laws are the first step (if not the first step, and integral one) in the solution to change. do you agree?
exactly, it wont fix everything, but at this point, it cant hurt to try. When dozens of KIDS are dying...not just in CT, I think we should at least consider other options..
Now a resource officer or a trained responsible gun owner had been in the school to protect
that very well would have stopped the murderer.
You have no way to know if this is true or not.
Better than no protection... we see the result of that don't we?
What result is that? What I see are countless nations with stricter firearms laws that have far fewer gun fatalities per capita than you would find in the US. With many gun owners I see a paranoid and fearful group who feel empowered by firearms. As far as I know America is the only 1st world nation where people legitimately feel safer behind the barrel of a gun.
There was much substance to my post you ignore. Is that the best debate method?
To take one sentence out of context.
I've answered many times as others have... listening can be a challenge.
There is no regulation that can prevent shootings because laws do not control people.
There is no if.
Now a resource officer or a trained responsible gun owner had been in the school to protect
that very well would have stopped the murderer.
We can no longer leave our children unprotected and think a law will stop a killer.
We must be proactive.
laws DO control people. otherwise, they are useless, which we know is not the truth.
making new regulations and laws IS part of being proactive.
Gimli 1993
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
Better than no protection... we see the result of that don't we?
Again, that is an assumption. An assumption that a guard would have been in position to save those children, that a possible crossfire would not have created even more victims, etc.
So in the future you do not want a Resource Officer to protect your children at school?
It would be better to not fight back then yes?
Do you feel this way about the police protecting in general? In other situations?
Domestic violence, public terror as at a mall?
You do not want police to protect your children at the mall?
You want to remove the right to police protection? when there is a shooter? in case it would cause more shooting :?
If the above answers are yes no need in debating or replying we certainly could never agree
on giving up the right for our police to protect us with their weapons.
Is your wish really for guns to go away?
better start praying for divine intervention because bad people will always have a gun.
I wish someone with a gun had been there to stop the shooter
you can deny the real possibilityof real protection if you wish.
Again, that is an assumption. An assumption that a guard would have been in position to save those children, that a possible crossfire would not have created even more victims, etc.
So in the future you do not want a Resource Officer to protect your children at school?
It would be better to not fight back then yes?
Do you feel this way about the police protecting in general? In other situations?
Domestic violence, public terror as at a mall?
You do not want police to protect your children at the mall?
You want to remove the right to police protection? when there is a shooter? in case it would cause more shooting :?
If the above answers are yes no need in debating or replying we certainly could never agree
on giving up the right for our police to protect us with their weapons.
Is your wish really for guns to go away?
better start praying for divine intervention because bad people will always have a gun.
I wish someone with a gun had been there to stop the shooter
you can deny the real possibilityof real protection if you wish.
Whoa! Whole lotta words and ideas here that are not my own.
Again, my point is that you have no way to know if an armed guard would have prevented the shooting in Newtown. And, given the possibility of a crossfire, there is a chance the presence of one could have raised the victim count. You cannot say for sure an armed guard would have saved those children.
Better than no protection... we see the result of that don't we?
What result is that? What I see are countless nations with stricter firearms laws that have far fewer gun fatalities per capita than you would find in the US. With many gun owners I see a paranoid and fearful group who feel empowered by firearms. As far as I know America is the only 1st world nation where people legitimately feel safer behind the barrel of a gun.
We need guns in many areas including mine.
If you can not understand that no need to debate.
You have no experience,no knowledge of what conditions people live in.
Yet you would remove their option to protect themselves. How is that right?
I won't say what I see in that.
My neighbor would be dead if not for personal gun ownership.
By the way he has a wife and kids, a mother and father, sisters and brothers.
I guess it is your right to take him away from them.
Again, that is an assumption. An assumption that a guard would have been in position to save those children, that a possible crossfire would not have created even more victims, etc.
So in the future you do not want a Resource Officer to protect your children at school?
It would be better to not fight back then yes?
Do you feel this way about the police protecting in general? In other situations?
Domestic violence, public terror as at a mall?
You do not want police to protect your children at the mall?
You want to remove the right to police protection? when there is a shooter? in case it would cause more shooting :?
If the above answers are yes no need in debating or replying we certainly could never agree
on giving up the right for our police to protect us with their weapons.
Is your wish really for guns to go away?
better start praying for divine intervention because bad people will always have a gun.
I wish someone with a gun had been there to stop the shooter
you can deny the real possibilityof real protection if you wish.
Whoa! Whole lotta words and ideas here that are not my own.
Again, my point is that you have no way to know if an armed guard would have prevented the shooting in Newtown. And, given the possibility of a crossfire, there is a chance the presence of one could have raised the victim count. You cannot say for sure an armed guard would have saved those children.
It is not an armed guard is that what you call our police?
I certainly do not.
And you have no idea this policeman would have not stopped him.
Again those questions are important. Why should there not be protection in schools
when we have the same in other public areas?
There was much substance to my post you ignore. Is that the best debate method?
To take one sentence out of context.
I've answered many times as others have... listening can be a challenge.
There is no regulation that can prevent shootings because laws do not control people.
There is no if.
Now a resource officer or a trained responsible gun owner had been in the school to protect
that very well would have stopped the murderer.
We can no longer leave our children unprotected and think a law will stop a killer.
We must be proactive.
laws DO control people. otherwise, they are useless, which we know is not the truth.
making new regulations and laws IS part of being proactive.
There are no laws that control the lawless, that is who is killing,
not the law abiding protecting.
Whoa! Whole lotta words and ideas here that are not my own.
Again, my point is that you have no way to know if an armed guard would have prevented the shooting in Newtown. And, given the possibility of a crossfire, there is a chance the presence of one could have raised the victim count. You cannot say for sure an armed guard would have saved those children.
It is not an armed guard is that what you call our police?
I certainly do not.
And you have no idea this policeman would have not stopped him.
Again those questions are important. Why should there not be protection in schools
when we have the same in other public areas?
There never will be a police officer in every school in America. These will never be officers who graduated from any city's police academy. These will be security guards. Minimally trained and hired for the lowest wage possible. Call them whatever you like, but they will be security guards. And you have no way to know if one of them would have saved those children in Newtown or not.
Whoa! Whole lotta words and ideas here that are not my own.
Again, my point is that you have no way to know if an armed guard would have prevented the shooting in Newtown. And, given the possibility of a crossfire, there is a chance the presence of one could have raised the victim count. You cannot say for sure an armed guard would have saved those children.
It is not an armed guard is that what you call our police?
I certainly do not.
And you have no idea this policeman would have not stopped him.
Again those questions are important. Why should there not be protection in schools
when we have the same in other public areas?
There never will be a police officer in every school in America. These will never be officers who graduated from any city's police academy. These will be security guards. Minimally trained and hired for the lowest wage possible. Call them whatever you like, but they will be security guards. And you have no way to know if one of them would have saved those children in Newtown or not.
We needed them, we have them, it's clear Newtown needed them.
If my school district can afford a Resource officer in the schools
any can and yes they are specially trained.
Do we put a price on a tike now or protect our children? I say the latter.
There is no regulation that can prevent shootings because laws do not control people.
There is no if.
You have your mind absolutely made up it sounds... I think we will fail if we dont keep an open mind.
So, in the instance in AZ (Gabby Giffords shooting), when the shooter stopped after 30+ rounds to reload, then he was tackled...you dont think there's the slightest chance that if the regulations had been in place that restricted magazines to 10-12 rounds, that less people would have died? I know, you think he'd mow down the crowd with a car...but maybe he chose guns because they're easier.
Its not too much to imagine that some mentally ill potential murderers are already thwarted by the inability to get a gun (even in our environment where its easy), and some more might be deterred.
Guns easier than a car :? not so sure about that.
Deterred to what result? No Jonny I do not think they will be deterred from mass murder.
There is no regulation that can prevent shootings because laws do not control people.
There is no if.
You have your mind absolutely made up it sounds... I think we will fail if we dont keep an open mind.
So, in the instance in AZ (Gabby Giffords shooting), when the shooter stopped after 30+ rounds to reload, then he was tackled...you dont think there's the slightest chance that if the regulations had been in place that restricted magazines to 10-12 rounds, that less people would have died? I know, you think he'd mow down the crowd with a car...but maybe he chose guns because they're easier.
Its not too much to imagine that some mentally ill potential murderers are already thwarted by the inability to get a gun (even in our environment where its easy), and some more might be deterred.
Guns easier than a car :? not so sure about that.
Deterred to what result? No Jonny I do not think they will be deterred from mass murder.
Yes, guns easier than a car. Certainly. and I think its a society thing, as we've all said...easier for a young twisted man to wreak havoc and act out his freakish fantasies learned from Black-Ops video games. Cars into a crowd isnt going out in a blaze of glory, thats why we never hear about it.
...Deterred like this:
a pistol with 10 rounds = 10 possible deaths
they might accept this if their mother doesnt have a Bushmaster, or if they cant order one online or at a gun show on the spot with zero background check, so they settle for a pistol where they only get off half the rounds before police arrive. less death. Why is this so hard to fathom?
a Bushmaster 30+ round magazine vs. a pistol?? more death...common sense..
There never will be a police officer in every school in America. These will never be officers who graduated from any city's police academy. These will be security guards. Minimally trained and hired for the lowest wage possible. Call them whatever you like, but they will be security guards. And you have no way to know if one of them would have saved those children in Newtown or not.
We needed them, we have them, it's clear Newtown needed them.
If my school district can afford a Resource officer in the schools
any can and yes they are specially trained.
Do we put a price on a tike now or protect our children? I say the latter.
I truly hope your school district never faces a crises that proves one way or the other whether your security guard would save a child's life or not. I truly hope no school district faces that crisis.
There never will be a police officer in every school in America. These will never be officers who graduated from any city's police academy. These will be security guards. Minimally trained and hired for the lowest wage possible. Call them whatever you like, but they will be security guards. And you have no way to know if one of them would have saved those children in Newtown or not.
We needed them, we have them, it's clear Newtown needed them.
If my school district can afford a Resource officer in the schools
any can and yes they are specially trained.
Do we put a price on a tike now or protect our children? I say the latter.
I truly hope your school district never faces a crises that proves one way or the other whether your security guard would save a child's life or not. I truly hope no school district faces that crisis.
Of course ...
being prepared with a highly trained police officer means the children are protected.
That is what is important.
what I find really disconcerting is the pro-gun crowd aren't actually looking for practical long term solutions. All they want is more guns. Do you want the next generation to grow up not knowing a carefree school life, or do you want them growing up nervous and afraid for their lives because there is armed security at every entrance? I'm guessing it will eventually come to kids no longer being allowed to go out for recess or gym class in the field.It will be lockdown from 8-4. No one in or out.
At least the people who are for gun regulations understand that it is a multi-faceted problem. Banning assault rifles won't solve it alone. Posting people with guns in schools won't solve it alone. People need to work together in solving this very complex issue.
But if people are too steadfast and stubborn in clinging to their guns at any and all costs, nothing will ever be solved, and future preventable tragedies will keep happening.
Gimli 1993
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
back to Distracted Driving; drunk, texting, whatever.
The price to get a license, the age requirements etc, and the penalties for drunk driving are more stringent in other countries. With that said, many European countries have been working on public transportation options much longer than the U.S.
How to diminish reckless driving without more laws?
Education. I think of the many programs first ladies have integrated at grade school levels; just say no and now healthy eating etc... I believe these programs help. It's nothing overnight but if we keep dinging at it....
Living by example. Kids learn at a young age -- what hypocrites look like as they usually have at least two fine examples providing a roof over their heads. At least when we error, we need to call it like it is. Better to raise kids by honesty, good & bad examples included. Again, nothing overnight, but we need to ever-strive to be a better, and more genuine self.
The answer to alcohol abuse is....more alcohol.
The answer to rape is....more rape.
The answer to hate is.....more hate.
The answer to crime is .....more crime.
The answer to the teenage pregnancy problem is.....more teenage pregnancies.
The answer to the national debt problem is.....increased national debt.
the answer to the light pollution problem is.....more light pollution.
The answer to the pollution of the planet is.....to pollute the planet more.
You're right....
This madness has got to stop indeed.
I read the entire article, and you see things quite differently than I do. I see the interlocking devices working. Are all offenders getting them installed in their vehicle when ordered to do so? Nope. But if they don't, they take their car off the road, or sell it. THAT MEANS THEY AREN'T DRIVING. And if they have a friend dumb enough to enable them to drink and drive, there are laws put in place to prosecute them as well.
any law that is new is going to have speed bumps. But if it has the potential to save one life (which it obviously does), then it's worth it.
it's unbelievable to me that someone would be opposed to something like this.
On the first highlighted point...it doesn't keep them from driving.
On the second highlighted point...shouldn't all cars be banned then? I mean that would at least save one life If we did that correct?
Again those questions are important. Why should there not be protection in schools
when we have the same in other public areas?
I hear people saying they don't want children exposed to guns in a school setting. :? But it's ok for those same kids to walk the streets and see people carrying illegal weapons and live in fear? It's ok for those same children to go home and watch movies and television exposing them to this? It's ok for those children to listen to music glorifying gun violence? It's ok for children to play video games with gun violence? It truly makes zero sense to me. Such fear by many people in this country of what the real problem is and the thought that penalizing the innocent will somehow stop the criminals. Mindblowing actually. :fp:
I hear people saying they don't want children exposed to guns in a school setting. :? But it's ok for those same kids to walk the streets and see people carrying illegal weapons and live in fear? It's ok for those same children to go home and watch movies and television exposing them to this? It's ok for those children to listen to music glorifying gun violence? It's ok for children to play video games with gun violence? It truly makes zero sense to me. Such fear by many people in this country of what the real problem is and the thought that penalizing the innocent will somehow stop the criminals. Mindblowing actually. :fp:
No, what's mindblowing are your constant attempts to twist everything by putting words in other people's mouths. Nobody in this thread made any mention of it being o.k for kids to 'walk the streets and see people carrying illegal weapons and live in fear', to 'go home and watch movies and television exposing them to this', or to 'listen to music glorifying gun violence', e.t.c.
You said that. You claimed that this is what people who disagree with you about gun control are saying, because you're incapable of responding to their comments honestly or reasonably. Therefore, you make shit up and put words in their mouths which they never said.
Oh, and people who own semi-automatic weapons are not innocent. They are dangerously irresponsible.
being prepared with a highly trained police officer
Highly trained? Hmmm.... I seem to remember some quite derogatory posts about 'twitchy' cops shooting willy-nilly , undependable cops, unreliable cops, etc.....
I know... it was some cops. What if it's one of those 'some' in the school?
These 'security' officers will not be the highly trained ones - these go on to 'better' things.
It is recommended that these armed guards/police officers receive some training to act as police officer in a school setting (and not just at the door waiting for a shooter to come in). It is also recommended that these school based armed police officers receive some kind of more specialised training on how to properly confront/respond to a shooter (which seems to be the main reason people are clamoring for armed guards in schools).
Recommendations.
No disrespect to police officers, but we are seeing your 'normal' beat cop in these schools, not highly trained/specialised officers.
"...Dimitri...He talks to me...'.."The Ghost of Greece..".
"..That's One Happy Fuckin Ghost.."
“..That came up on the Pillow Case...This is for the Greek, With Our Apologies.....”
I read the entire article, and you see things quite differently than I do. I see the interlocking devices working. Are all offenders getting them installed in their vehicle when ordered to do so? Nope. But if they don't, they take their car off the road, or sell it. THAT MEANS THEY AREN'T DRIVING. And if they have a friend dumb enough to enable them to drink and drive, there are laws put in place to prosecute them as well.
any law that is new is going to have speed bumps. But if it has the potential to save one life (which it obviously does), then it's worth it.
it's unbelievable to me that someone would be opposed to something like this.
On the first highlighted point...it doesn't keep them from driving.
On the second highlighted point...shouldn't all cars be banned then? I mean that would at least save one life If we did that correct?
it keeps them from driving THEIR CAR. Do I have to spell everything out for you?
again with the fucking car anology. CARS WERE NOT INVENTED TO KILL. I'LL AGREE WITH THIS ANALOGY WHEN I SEE SOMEONE RIDING THEIR SEMI-AUTOMATIC TO WORK.
Gimli 1993
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
CARS WERE NOT INVENTED TO KILL. I'LL AGREE WITH THIS ANALOGY WHEN I SEE SOMEONE RIDING THEIR SEMI-AUTOMATIC TO WORK.
Yippee Ki Yay Mother Fuckers!!!dont forget the scream along!!!
"...Dimitri...He talks to me...'.."The Ghost of Greece..".
"..That's One Happy Fuckin Ghost.."
“..That came up on the Pillow Case...This is for the Greek, With Our Apologies.....”
Comments
To take one sentence out of context.
I've answered many times as others have... listening can be a challenge.
There is no regulation that can prevent shootings because laws do not control people.
There is no if.
Now a resource officer or a trained responsible gun owner had been in the school to protect
that very well would have stopped the murderer.
We can no longer leave our children unprotected and think a law will stop a killer.
We must be proactive.
You have no way to know if this is true or not.
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
You have your mind absolutely made up it sounds... I think we will fail if we dont keep an open mind.
So, in the instance in AZ (Gabby Giffords shooting), when the shooter stopped after 30+ rounds to reload, then he was tackled...you dont think there's the slightest chance that if the regulations had been in place that restricted magazines to 10-12 rounds, that less people would have died? I know, you think he'd mow down the crowd with a car...but maybe he chose guns because they're easier.
Its not too much to imagine that some mentally ill potential murderers are already thwarted by the inability to get a gun (even in our environment where its easy), and some more might be deterred.
Again, that is an assumption. An assumption that a guard would have been in position to save those children, that a possible crossfire would not have created even more victims, etc.
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
as I think we've all agreed before, there is no singular answer to this question. But laws are the first step (if not the first step, and integral one) in the solution to change. do you agree?
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
exactly, it wont fix everything, but at this point, it cant hurt to try. When dozens of KIDS are dying...not just in CT, I think we should at least consider other options..
What result is that? What I see are countless nations with stricter firearms laws that have far fewer gun fatalities per capita than you would find in the US. With many gun owners I see a paranoid and fearful group who feel empowered by firearms. As far as I know America is the only 1st world nation where people legitimately feel safer behind the barrel of a gun.
laws DO control people. otherwise, they are useless, which we know is not the truth.
making new regulations and laws IS part of being proactive.
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
It would be better to not fight back then yes?
Do you feel this way about the police protecting in general? In other situations?
Domestic violence, public terror as at a mall?
You do not want police to protect your children at the mall?
You want to remove the right to police protection? when there is a shooter?
in case it would cause more shooting :?
If the above answers are yes no need in debating or replying we certainly could never agree
on giving up the right for our police to protect us with their weapons.
Is your wish really for guns to go away?
better start praying for divine intervention because bad people will always have a gun.
I wish someone with a gun had been there to stop the shooter
you can deny the real possibility of real protection if you wish.
Whoa! Whole lotta words and ideas here that are not my own.
Again, my point is that you have no way to know if an armed guard would have prevented the shooting in Newtown. And, given the possibility of a crossfire, there is a chance the presence of one could have raised the victim count. You cannot say for sure an armed guard would have saved those children.
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
If you can not understand that no need to debate.
You have no experience,no knowledge of what conditions people live in.
Yet you would remove their option to protect themselves. How is that right?
I won't say what I see in that.
My neighbor would be dead if not for personal gun ownership.
By the way he has a wife and kids, a mother and father, sisters and brothers.
I guess it is your right to take him away from them.
I certainly do not.
And you have no idea this policeman would have not stopped him.
Again those questions are important. Why should there not be protection in schools
when we have the same in other public areas?
not the law abiding protecting.
There never will be a police officer in every school in America. These will never be officers who graduated from any city's police academy. These will be security guards. Minimally trained and hired for the lowest wage possible. Call them whatever you like, but they will be security guards. And you have no way to know if one of them would have saved those children in Newtown or not.
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
If my school district can afford a Resource officer in the schools
any can and yes they are specially trained.
Do we put a price on a tike now or protect our children? I say the latter.
Deterred to what result? No Jonny I do not think they will be deterred from mass murder.
Yes, guns easier than a car. Certainly. and I think its a society thing, as we've all said...easier for a young twisted man to wreak havoc and act out his freakish fantasies learned from Black-Ops video games. Cars into a crowd isnt going out in a blaze of glory, thats why we never hear about it.
...Deterred like this:
a pistol with 10 rounds = 10 possible deaths
they might accept this if their mother doesnt have a Bushmaster, or if they cant order one online or at a gun show on the spot with zero background check, so they settle for a pistol where they only get off half the rounds before police arrive. less death. Why is this so hard to fathom?
a Bushmaster 30+ round magazine vs. a pistol?? more death...common sense..
I truly hope your school district never faces a crises that proves one way or the other whether your security guard would save a child's life or not. I truly hope no school district faces that crisis.
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
being prepared with a highly trained police officer means the children are protected.
That is what is important.
At least the people who are for gun regulations understand that it is a multi-faceted problem. Banning assault rifles won't solve it alone. Posting people with guns in schools won't solve it alone. People need to work together in solving this very complex issue.
But if people are too steadfast and stubborn in clinging to their guns at any and all costs, nothing will ever be solved, and future preventable tragedies will keep happening.
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
The price to get a license, the age requirements etc, and the penalties for drunk driving are more stringent in other countries. With that said, many European countries have been working on public transportation options much longer than the U.S.
How to diminish reckless driving without more laws?
Education. I think of the many programs first ladies have integrated at grade school levels; just say no and now healthy eating etc... I believe these programs help. It's nothing overnight but if we keep dinging at it....
Living by example. Kids learn at a young age -- what hypocrites look like as they usually have at least two fine examples providing a roof over their heads. At least when we error, we need to call it like it is. Better to raise kids by honesty, good & bad examples included. Again, nothing overnight, but we need to ever-strive to be a better, and more genuine self.
The answer to rape is....more rape.
The answer to hate is.....more hate.
The answer to crime is .....more crime.
The answer to the teenage pregnancy problem is.....more teenage pregnancies.
The answer to the national debt problem is.....increased national debt.
the answer to the light pollution problem is.....more light pollution.
The answer to the pollution of the planet is.....to pollute the planet more.
You're right....
This madness has got to stop indeed.
On the first highlighted point...it doesn't keep them from driving.
On the second highlighted point...shouldn't all cars be banned then? I mean that would at least save one life If we did that correct?
I hear people saying they don't want children exposed to guns in a school setting. :? But it's ok for those same kids to walk the streets and see people carrying illegal weapons and live in fear? It's ok for those same children to go home and watch movies and television exposing them to this? It's ok for those children to listen to music glorifying gun violence? It's ok for children to play video games with gun violence? It truly makes zero sense to me. Such fear by many people in this country of what the real problem is and the thought that penalizing the innocent will somehow stop the criminals. Mindblowing actually. :fp:
No, what's mindblowing are your constant attempts to twist everything by putting words in other people's mouths. Nobody in this thread made any mention of it being o.k for kids to 'walk the streets and see people carrying illegal weapons and live in fear', to 'go home and watch movies and television exposing them to this', or to 'listen to music glorifying gun violence', e.t.c.
You said that. You claimed that this is what people who disagree with you about gun control are saying, because you're incapable of responding to their comments honestly or reasonably. Therefore, you make shit up and put words in their mouths which they never said.
Oh, and people who own semi-automatic weapons are not innocent. They are dangerously irresponsible.
Highly trained? Hmmm.... I seem to remember some quite derogatory posts about 'twitchy' cops shooting willy-nilly , undependable cops, unreliable cops, etc.....
I know... it was some cops. What if it's one of those 'some' in the school?
These 'security' officers will not be the highly trained ones - these go on to 'better' things.
It is recommended that these armed guards/police officers receive some training to act as police officer in a school setting (and not just at the door waiting for a shooter to come in). It is also recommended that these school based armed police officers receive some kind of more specialised training on how to properly confront/respond to a shooter (which seems to be the main reason people are clamoring for armed guards in schools).
Recommendations.
No disrespect to police officers, but we are seeing your 'normal' beat cop in these schools, not highly trained/specialised officers.
Schools cannot be protected this way.
"..That's One Happy Fuckin Ghost.."
“..That came up on the Pillow Case...This is for the Greek, With Our Apologies.....”
it keeps them from driving THEIR CAR. Do I have to spell everything out for you?
again with the fucking car anology. CARS WERE NOT INVENTED TO KILL. I'LL AGREE WITH THIS ANALOGY WHEN I SEE SOMEONE RIDING THEIR SEMI-AUTOMATIC TO WORK.
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
"..That's One Happy Fuckin Ghost.."
“..That came up on the Pillow Case...This is for the Greek, With Our Apologies.....”