America's Gun Violence

pjhawks said:

riley540 said:

Second amendment states that there needs to be a well “regulated” militia. In my opinion, we have laws surrounding guns but people don’t do their jobs well enough, so shitty people are able to get guns. 

Im for registering guns, and I’m for people doing their jobs better. 

Im for the right to protection, in what ever legal fashion you feel necessary. 

Im for keeping guns away from kids, and crazy people. 

I think rubio made a good point in saying that an assault rifle ban wouldn’t have changed anything. 

Also, there is no legal definition for “assault” rifle or weapon, so creating laws would be challenging. What is an assault weapon? The way it looks? The type of bullet it has? 

People dont understand that all guns, besides revolvers are semi-automatic. You pull the trigger once, and one bullet comes out. The AR15 shoots the same way that a Cult 45 band gun shoots. One bullet at a time. 

The second amendement was written at a time when a group of people broke from a shitty government, and it proved challenging. It was written so something like that wouldn’t happen again. It wasn’t written for hunting. A civilian has every right to own a fire arm. 

Why cant people admit that 99% of gun owners don’t commit crimes with guns? They don’t shoot people. 

I think we need people to be better about actually enforcing current laws. Law enforcement should be trained to stereotype people and make sure communities are safe. parkland law enforcement failed miserably at this. 

People should do their jobs better. 

when does the greater good outweigh your individual rights?  everything in this country that kills people (cigarettes, industries, cars, etc.)  we eventually get around to  regulating...except guns.  the NRA is the greatest PR machine the world has ever seen.  it's really fucking sad that some gun owners refuse to compromise even a spec for the greater good. that's why we are where we are.  And now your solution is to just allow law enforcement to profile people...wow.

Gern Blansten said:

mrussel1 said:

rgambs said:

The Juggler said:

rgambs said:

The Juggler said:

rgambs said:

Ok, a teacher sacrifices his life to save students and a security cop cowered outside and the conclusion you draw is ass-backwards.
The lesson I'm hearing is that if the security cop didn't save the day a teacher never could...uh. 
DUH!  A teacher did!!!  How can you ignore such a doublethink??

Is this in response to me? I'm not sure I follow

No, a general response to mruss and my2hands and a few others who are using the cops cowardice to justify their feelings that teachers shouldn't be armed, even though a teacher laid his life on the line, unarmed.

Are you for arming teachers then?

I am for allowing physically fit and emotionally stable teachers to arm themselves voluntarily under strict guidelines and supervision if they have passed a thorough vetting, testing, and training program which would be an abbreviated version of police academy standards.

My point was, how can we expect a teacher to hunt down the shooter when a trained cop was unwilling to do it.  There's a difference between protecting the children (which too many teachers have done) and acting as a tactical response unit.  I'm very supportive of having armed police in the school.  My children's district already has cops in schools.  But they train full time for these situations.  Teachers do not.  
My wife and I agree that if teachers are armed in our school, they will be home schooled.  

Exactly.

There will always be some teachers that love the idea of being armed at school but most of these people just want to teach.  They have enough responsibility with that position.  Requiring them to go through training to ward off assault weapon fire is beyond their job descriptions.

All this talk is going on while tRump and his band of idiot republicans are trying to cut education budgets wherever possible.

I can't believe some people support this idea. It just seems to crazy to me. Teachers are underpaid to begin with, now we are going to bestow upon some of them the duty of protecting the entire school, in addition to educating these kids?

How are we going to pay for that?

How is the training going to be handled?

What about the insurance/liability implications for having armed teachers walking around school grounds?

How soon before some kid accidentally gets their hands on their teacher's loaded gun at school?

This isn't even putting a band on the problem....to me this is pouring gasoline on a fire.

The rest of the world is laughing at us.

The Juggler said:

Gern Blansten said:

mrussel1 said:

rgambs said:

The Juggler said:

rgambs said:

The Juggler said:

rgambs said:

Ok, a teacher sacrifices his life to save students and a security cop cowered outside and the conclusion you draw is ass-backwards.
The lesson I'm hearing is that if the security cop didn't save the day a teacher never could...uh. 
DUH!  A teacher did!!!  How can you ignore such a doublethink??

Is this in response to me? I'm not sure I follow

No, a general response to mruss and my2hands and a few others who are using the cops cowardice to justify their feelings that teachers shouldn't be armed, even though a teacher laid his life on the line, unarmed.

Are you for arming teachers then?

I am for allowing physically fit and emotionally stable teachers to arm themselves voluntarily under strict guidelines and supervision if they have passed a thorough vetting, testing, and training program which would be an abbreviated version of police academy standards.

My point was, how can we expect a teacher to hunt down the shooter when a trained cop was unwilling to do it.  There's a difference between protecting the children (which too many teachers have done) and acting as a tactical response unit.  I'm very supportive of having armed police in the school.  My children's district already has cops in schools.  But they train full time for these situations.  Teachers do not.  
My wife and I agree that if teachers are armed in our school, they will be home schooled.  

Exactly.

There will always be some teachers that love the idea of being armed at school but most of these people just want to teach.  They have enough responsibility with that position.  Requiring them to go through training to ward off assault weapon fire is beyond their job descriptions.

All this talk is going on while tRump and his band of idiot republicans are trying to cut education budgets wherever possible.

I can't believe some people support this idea. It just seems to crazy to me. Teachers are underpaid to begin with, now we are going to bestow upon some of them the duty of protecting the entire school, in addition to educating these kids?

How are we going to pay for that?

How is the training going to be handled?

What about the insurance/liability implications for having armed teachers walking around school grounds?

How soon before some kid accidentally gets their hands on their teacher's loaded gun at school?

This isn't even putting a band on the problem....to me this is pouring gasoline on a fire.

The rest of the world is laughing at us.

riley540 said:

pjhawks said:

riley540 said:

Second amendment states that there needs to be a well “regulated” militia. In my opinion, we have laws surrounding guns but people don’t do their jobs well enough, so shitty people are able to get guns. 

Im for registering guns, and I’m for people doing their jobs better. 

Im for the right to protection, in what ever legal fashion you feel necessary. 

Im for keeping guns away from kids, and crazy people. 

I think rubio made a good point in saying that an assault rifle ban wouldn’t have changed anything. 

Also, there is no legal definition for “assault” rifle or weapon, so creating laws would be challenging. What is an assault weapon? The way it looks? The type of bullet it has? 

People dont understand that all guns, besides revolvers are semi-automatic. You pull the trigger once, and one bullet comes out. The AR15 shoots the same way that a Cult 45 band gun shoots. One bullet at a time. 

The second amendement was written at a time when a group of people broke from a shitty government, and it proved challenging. It was written so something like that wouldn’t happen again. It wasn’t written for hunting. A civilian has every right to own a fire arm. 

Why cant people admit that 99% of gun owners don’t commit crimes with guns? They don’t shoot people. 

I think we need people to be better about actually enforcing current laws. Law enforcement should be trained to stereotype people and make sure communities are safe. parkland law enforcement failed miserably at this. 

People should do their jobs better. 

when does the greater good outweigh your individual rights?  everything in this country that kills people (cigarettes, industries, cars, etc.)  we eventually get around to  regulating...except guns.  the NRA is the greatest PR machine the world has ever seen.  it's really fucking sad that some gun owners refuse to compromise even a spec for the greater good. that's why we are where we are.  And now your solution is to just allow law enforcement to profile people...wow.

Profiling is the most affective way to stop bad people from doing bad things. Many airports all over the world do this. Highly trained individuals. Don’t you want intelegent law enforcement that can stop these things? The greater good is that millions of people legally own guns to protect them selves and their families, and a few crooked people decided it was a good idea to shoot up schools/public places. Private gun dealers must do better. Law enforcement must do better. The government must do better. We can keep this stuff out of the hands of shitty people. 

tempo_n_groove said:

mrussel1 said:

Those 17 children lost ALL their rights so that a small % can retain their right to these weapons of war.  Seems a little fucked up.  

At which the FBI dropped the ball and the guard became a coward so there is PLENTY of blame to be thrown around.

my2hands said:

PJPOWER said:

my2hands said:

PJPOWER said:

tbergs said:

Leaving it up to someone with a gun to stop a shooter, or shooters, is a crapshoot. You can get a hero type who would lay down their life when unarmed, a loose cannon type like a George Zimmerman that may shoot someone they perceived as a threat or a licensed cop milking his/her retirement who isn't in the least bit interested in taking on someone with an assault rifle. None of them are a solution to making schools safer. They're feel good responses from people who have seen too many movies where the good guy always wins under pressure. Focusing on the idea of arming more people allows for nothing to change while people get a false sense of security.

If all airports did after 9/11 was allow more "good guys" to carry guns on planes would that have been an acceptable solution to anyone here?

If I remember correctly, most airlines started putting armed air marshals on planes after 911...now why do you think they would do that?

They didn't arm the flight attendants and pilots, they used people whose only job is security/law enforcement... 

Your support for arming teachers, is the same as arming the flight attendants, not using air Marshalls

Do people realize most public schools in america have an armed presence already? Every public school in my state has an armed police officer present

PJPOWER... do you have any ideas you support besides guns in America's classrooms?

I used to counsel “at risk” students and was always amazed at how easily the majority (especially rural) schools could be accessed.  Some even have their main office in the fucking middle of the school where you have to walk past several classrooms to get to it.  That’s not securing a campus in my mind.  I live in TX, and nowhere near the majority schools/campuses have armed security personnel

Sounds like red states don't like to pay taxes or fund education to me, sorry about your luck...

i've gone to high schools & middle schools in my state on a weekly basis for 15 years and have seen them make changes and invest in infrastructure...  main offices are at main entrances... must he buzzed into every school... most schools you also gave to be buzzed through the main office so it's at least 2 doors... everybody must show ID... police officer at every school... staff dedicated to discipline/behavior issues/high risk kids... wellness centers with trained therapeutic staff... child protective workers at all elementary & middle schools...

tempo_n_groove said:

mrussel1 said:

Those 17 children lost ALL their rights so that a small % can retain their right to these weapons of war.  Seems a little fucked up.  

At which the FBI dropped the ball and the guard became a coward so there is PLENTY of blame to be thrown around.

OnWis97 said:

tempo_n_groove said:

mrussel1 said:

Those 17 children lost ALL their rights so that a small % can retain their right to these weapons of war.  Seems a little fucked up.  

At which the FBI dropped the ball and the guard became a coward so there is PLENTY of blame to be thrown around.

That the FBI dropped the ball is really neither here nor there unless we assume all, or even most, future shootings will be as predictable as this one is suggested to have been.

tempo_n_groove said:

OnWis97 said:

tempo_n_groove said:

mrussel1 said:

Those 17 children lost ALL their rights so that a small % can retain their right to these weapons of war.  Seems a little fucked up.  

At which the FBI dropped the ball and the guard became a coward so there is PLENTY of blame to be thrown around.

That the FBI dropped the ball is really neither here nor there unless we assume all, or even most, future shootings will be as predictable as this one is suggested to have been.

The FBI admitted to dropping the ball so it is here and there.

OnWis97 said:

tempo_n_groove said:

OnWis97 said:

tempo_n_groove said:

mrussel1 said:

Those 17 children lost ALL their rights so that a small % can retain their right to these weapons of war.  Seems a little fucked up.  

At which the FBI dropped the ball and the guard became a coward so there is PLENTY of blame to be thrown around.

That the FBI dropped the ball is really neither here nor there unless we assume all, or even most, future shootings will be as predictable as this one is suggested to have been.

The FBI admitted to dropping the ball so it is here and there.

For assessing blame for what just happened?  Yes.  For improvement in the future?  Sure.  But the problem with shootings is going to usually highlight shooters about whom the FBI is not warned about.  So blaming the FBI in response to "Those 17 children lost ALL their rights so that a small % can retain their right to these weapons of war.  Seems a little fucked up" is neither here nor there. Future children/people will lose their lives for the same reason.  It's not going to be the FBI's fault every time.