(02-15-2018 12:55 PM)tigergreen Wrote:  

(02-15-2018 12:20 PM)tigergreen Wrote:  However, I do not agree that more laws wouldn't help. I'm going to try to go back & find that thread that I listed some options in so I'm not speaking off-the-cuff.

Found it - it was after the Vegas shooting, so 'bump stocks' were a hot topic, so take that into account:

-Support a crackdown on existing gun laws (certainly we can all agree on that one).
-Support a national “permit to purchase” policy.
-Support a ban on modifications like "bump stocks" (which I had never even heard of until this event) that serve no purpose other than to kill multitudes of people.
-Support across-the-board registration with fingerprints for all firearms.
-Support laws to keep those previously convicted of domestic violence and/or those with diagnosed mental health issues from getting a gun.
-Strict liability for gun owners who do not store & secure guns properly (if your gun is in your unlocked car & gets stolen, you pay.)
-Support that gun owners AND sellers be required to purchase insurance.
-Support the removal of the PLCAA, which keeps gun companies, gun shows & dealers from being able to be sued for illegal purchases.
-Support an end to ‘no questions asked’ type of gun sales (taken care of with some of the items above).
-Support improving healthcare options that provide more mental health treatment for those who need it.

The 'permit to purchase" was met with vitriol by some here, screaming about being on a list, and "omg muh guns," blah blah blah.

If we can all agree as we have earlier that the 2nd amendment is not being repealed, therefore all guns are not being taken away from you, here are the studies that showed where these things worked:

https://www.jhsph.edu/research/centers-a...ernick.pdf

Missouri REPEALED a law like this, and experienced a 14% uptick in the murder rate, and a 16% jump in the suicide by firearm rate.

After Missouri’s PTP law was repealed, the share of guns recovered from criminals that moved swiftly from a retail sale to crime involvement doubled, and the share of crime guns that originated from an in-state retail transaction doubled.

Connecticut IMPLEMENTED a law like this, and had a 40% REDUCTION in firearm homicides (!) and a 15% reduction in firearm suicides.

There was also no "substitution effect," where criminals chose to switch to another weapon....that goes back to my earlier statement of how we have some lazy criminals in this country who aren't going to go above & beyond just to get a gun, so the "criminals will get guns one way or the other" argument is moot.

From that same study:
https://www.jhsph.edu/news/news-releases...cides.html

States with handgun purchaser licensing laws have lower rates of guns being diverted to criminals shortly after retail sale and lower rates of exporting guns to criminals in other states.
A study of guns traced to crime in 53 cities found that the PTP laws allowing police discretion were associated with 64% lower risk of guns being diverted guns to criminals within the state compared to states without such laws.
Criminals in places with PTP laws who used guns typically acquired guns that originated from states with weaker laws.
Another study found that PTP laws requiring fingerprinting of applicants were among the most effective state policies to reduce diversions of guns to criminals across state borders. PTP laws that gave law enforcement discretion in issuing permits were associated with 76% lower per capita rates of exporting guns to criminals, while PTP laws that did not allow discretion but still required fingerprinting of purchasers were associated with 45% lower rates of exporting guns to criminals in other states.

This is just as stupid now as it was when you posted it before for the same reasons.

The solution is quite simple: train volunteer teachers to have them. Have 2-3 carry, that would be enough to deter idiots. Also, reveal to no one who the teachers are except to those who also carry so they do not become targets. Each school should be able to supply 5-6 so they can rotate. Pay them extra for this, and also make them take tests to make sure they are not crazy


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

(02-15-2018 02:44 PM)Jjoey52 Wrote:  The solution is quite simple: train volunteer teachers to have them. Have 2-3 carry, that would be enough to deter idiots. Also, reveal to no one who the teachers are except to those who also carry so they do not become targets. Each school should be able to supply 5-6 so they can rotate. Pay them extra for this, and also make them take tests to make sure they are not crazy


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Schools often have "resource officers" who are trained police to deal with troublesome students so teachers don't have to. School districts have police departments. But the Obama administration and lots of special interest groups have been trying to get "resource officers" and police out of the schools because they believe they are abusive to minority students. Anyone remember the story from a year or two ago about the defiant obnoxious Black girl who got dragged out of a classroom rather roughly by a "resource officer" in the Atlanta area and the outrage that followed?

(02-15-2018 03:23 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(02-15-2018 02:44 PM)Jjoey52 Wrote:  The solution is quite simple: train volunteer teachers to have them. Have 2-3 carry, that would be enough to deter idiots. Also, reveal to no one who the teachers are except to those who also carry so they do not become targets. Each school should be able to supply 5-6 so they can rotate. Pay them extra for this, and also make them take tests to make sure they are not crazy


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Schools often have "resource officers" who are trained police to deal with troublesome students so teachers don't have to. School districts have police departments. But the Obama administration and lots of special interest groups have been trying to get "resource officers" and police out of the schools because they believe they are abusive to minority students. Anyone remember the story from a year or two ago about the defiant obnoxious Black girl who got dragged out of a classroom rather roughly by a "resource officer" in the Atlanta area and the outrage that followed?

Wow, did you just make the case for Obama?

(02-15-2018 11:39 AM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  

(02-15-2018 11:32 AM)tigergreen Wrote:  Parameters get defined the same way any law's parameter's get defined - quit being disingenuous.

It's a message board, you can't run out of ink.

I have been told constantly that "we must do something." Why can't those that demand something be done ever provide exact commentary? I am very interested in this conversation but all you offered was if a kid made a threat he should have a mental health evaluation. That is a serious, life-altering event. But you just want to wave your hands and let the law write itself? No way tiger, if you are going to put kids in front of mental health proffessionals and perhaps even the justice system you damn well better be able to show exactly what protections there are for Americans.

(02-15-2018 11:32 AM)tigergreen Wrote:  You clearly don't want anything to change, so tell me - how would YOU keep this from happening?

There are plenty of laws on the books. Enforce them.
Arm selected and anonymous teachers. Enable them.

(02-15-2018 11:32 AM)tigergreen Wrote:  Or do you just consider innocent kids dying in school "the price of freedom?"

Yes, I am not willing to repeal the Second Amendment and confiscate firearms from law abiding Americans.

And that, right there is the problem. We, as a nation, have repeatedly said we are willing to endure atrocities such as this one. We consider these deaths an acceptable price to pay. And until we decide that it isn't an acceptable price, events like this will just become more commonplace. Anything we are willing to do will just be a fig leaf. We cannot protect our children. It is that simple.

NSFW Language but an absolute homerrun

(02-15-2018 02:31 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(02-15-2018 12:55 PM)tigergreen Wrote:  

(02-15-2018 12:20 PM)tigergreen Wrote:  However, I do not agree that more laws wouldn't help. I'm going to try to go back & find that thread that I listed some options in so I'm not speaking off-the-cuff.

Found it - it was after the Vegas shooting, so 'bump stocks' were a hot topic, so take that into account:

-Support a crackdown on existing gun laws (certainly we can all agree on that one).
-Support a national “permit to purchase” policy.
-Support a ban on modifications like "bump stocks" (which I had never even heard of until this event) that serve no purpose other than to kill multitudes of people.
-Support across-the-board registration with fingerprints for all firearms.
-Support laws to keep those previously convicted of domestic violence and/or those with diagnosed mental health issues from getting a gun.
-Strict liability for gun owners who do not store & secure guns properly (if your gun is in your unlocked car & gets stolen, you pay.)
-Support that gun owners AND sellers be required to purchase insurance.
-Support the removal of the PLCAA, which keeps gun companies, gun shows & dealers from being able to be sued for illegal purchases.
-Support an end to ‘no questions asked’ type of gun sales (taken care of with some of the items above).
-Support improving healthcare options that provide more mental health treatment for those who need it.

The 'permit to purchase" was met with vitriol by some here, screaming about being on a list, and "omg muh guns," blah blah blah.

If we can all agree as we have earlier that the 2nd amendment is not being repealed, therefore all guns are not being taken away from you, here are the studies that showed where these things worked:

https://www.jhsph.edu/research/centers-a...ernick.pdf

Missouri REPEALED a law like this, and experienced a 14% uptick in the murder rate, and a 16% jump in the suicide by firearm rate.

After Missouri’s PTP law was repealed, the share of guns recovered from criminals that moved swiftly from a retail sale to crime involvement doubled, and the share of crime guns that originated from an in-state retail transaction doubled.

Connecticut IMPLEMENTED a law like this, and had a 40% REDUCTION in firearm homicides (!) and a 15% reduction in firearm suicides.

There was also no "substitution effect," where criminals chose to switch to another weapon....that goes back to my earlier statement of how we have some lazy criminals in this country who aren't going to go above & beyond just to get a gun, so the "criminals will get guns one way or the other" argument is moot.

From that same study:
https://www.jhsph.edu/news/news-releases...cides.html

States with handgun purchaser licensing laws have lower rates of guns being diverted to criminals shortly after retail sale and lower rates of exporting guns to criminals in other states.
A study of guns traced to crime in 53 cities found that the PTP laws allowing police discretion were associated with 64% lower risk of guns being diverted guns to criminals within the state compared to states without such laws.
Criminals in places with PTP laws who used guns typically acquired guns that originated from states with weaker laws.
Another study found that PTP laws requiring fingerprinting of applicants were among the most effective state policies to reduce diversions of guns to criminals across state borders. PTP laws that gave law enforcement discretion in issuing permits were associated with 76% lower per capita rates of exporting guns to criminals, while PTP laws that did not allow discretion but still required fingerprinting of purchasers were associated with 45% lower rates of exporting guns to criminals in other states.

This is just as stupid now as it was when you posted it before for the same reasons.

Which reasons? The lowered crime rate? Fewer suicides? Or just your irrational fears?

(02-15-2018 05:23 PM)tigergreen Wrote:  

(02-15-2018 02:31 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(02-15-2018 12:55 PM)tigergreen Wrote:  

(02-15-2018 12:20 PM)tigergreen Wrote:  However, I do not agree that more laws wouldn't help. I'm going to try to go back & find that thread that I listed some options in so I'm not speaking off-the-cuff.

Found it - it was after the Vegas shooting, so 'bump stocks' were a hot topic, so take that into account:

-Support a crackdown on existing gun laws (certainly we can all agree on that one).
-Support a national “permit to purchase” policy.
-Support a ban on modifications like "bump stocks" (which I had never even heard of until this event) that serve no purpose other than to kill multitudes of people.
-Support across-the-board registration with fingerprints for all firearms.
-Support laws to keep those previously convicted of domestic violence and/or those with diagnosed mental health issues from getting a gun.
-Strict liability for gun owners who do not store & secure guns properly (if your gun is in your unlocked car & gets stolen, you pay.)
-Support that gun owners AND sellers be required to purchase insurance.
-Support the removal of the PLCAA, which keeps gun companies, gun shows & dealers from being able to be sued for illegal purchases.
-Support an end to ‘no questions asked’ type of gun sales (taken care of with some of the items above).
-Support improving healthcare options that provide more mental health treatment for those who need it.

The 'permit to purchase" was met with vitriol by some here, screaming about being on a list, and "omg muh guns," blah blah blah.

If we can all agree as we have earlier that the 2nd amendment is not being repealed, therefore all guns are not being taken away from you, here are the studies that showed where these things worked:

https://www.jhsph.edu/research/centers-a...ernick.pdf

Missouri REPEALED a law like this, and experienced a 14% uptick in the murder rate, and a 16% jump in the suicide by firearm rate.

After Missouri’s PTP law was repealed, the share of guns recovered from criminals that moved swiftly from a retail sale to crime involvement doubled, and the share of crime guns that originated from an in-state retail transaction doubled.

Connecticut IMPLEMENTED a law like this, and had a 40% REDUCTION in firearm homicides (!) and a 15% reduction in firearm suicides.

There was also no "substitution effect," where criminals chose to switch to another weapon....that goes back to my earlier statement of how we have some lazy criminals in this country who aren't going to go above & beyond just to get a gun, so the "criminals will get guns one way or the other" argument is moot.

From that same study:
https://www.jhsph.edu/news/news-releases...cides.html

States with handgun purchaser licensing laws have lower rates of guns being diverted to criminals shortly after retail sale and lower rates of exporting guns to criminals in other states.
A study of guns traced to crime in 53 cities found that the PTP laws allowing police discretion were associated with 64% lower risk of guns being diverted guns to criminals within the state compared to states without such laws.
Criminals in places with PTP laws who used guns typically acquired guns that originated from states with weaker laws.
Another study found that PTP laws requiring fingerprinting of applicants were among the most effective state policies to reduce diversions of guns to criminals across state borders. PTP laws that gave law enforcement discretion in issuing permits were associated with 76% lower per capita rates of exporting guns to criminals, while PTP laws that did not allow discretion but still required fingerprinting of purchasers were associated with 45% lower rates of exporting guns to criminals in other states.

This is just as stupid now as it was when you posted it before for the same reasons.

Which reasons? The lowered crime rate? Fewer suicides? Or just your irrational fears?

For the exact same reasons that were posted in the thread you copied and pasted it from. Go back and read up.


BTW...you ever get around to listing the many facets?

(02-15-2018 05:10 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(02-15-2018 11:39 AM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  

(02-15-2018 11:32 AM)tigergreen Wrote:  [quote='tigergreen' pid='15076529' dateline='1518712339']
Or do you just consider innocent kids dying in school "the price of freedom?"

Yes, I am not willing to repeal the Second Amendment and confiscate firearms from law abiding Americans.

And that, right there is the problem. We, as a nation, have repeatedly said we are willing to endure atrocities such as this one. We consider these deaths an acceptable price to pay. And until we decide that it isn't an acceptable price, events like this will just become more commonplace. Anything we are willing to do will just be a fig leaf. We cannot protect our children. It is that simple.

...and that is sad. The reasons most people say they want guns in the first place (protecting their family) is the reason why their kids are having to live in fear of going to school & not coming back home one day or worse, actually being killed.

(02-15-2018 05:26 PM)tigergreen Wrote:  

(02-15-2018 05:10 PM)ken d Wrote:  And that, right there is the problem. We, as a nation, have repeatedly said we are willing to endure atrocities such as this one. We consider these deaths an acceptable price to pay. And until we decide that it isn't an acceptable price, events like this will just become more commonplace. Anything we are willing to do will just be a fig leaf. We cannot protect our children. It is that simple.

...and that is sad. The reasons most people say they want guns in the first place (protecting their family) is the reason why their kids are having to live in fear of going to school & not coming back home one day or worse, actually being killed.

But you remain uncommitted to discussing the only way to resolve firearm deaths - which is the confiscation and the repeal of the Second Amendment.

So don't damn well lecture me that I'm the problem. You can solve this problem by stating that your solution is the full confiscation of firearms, otherwise you are as complicit as anyone else.

You can preen any puff up and broaden you shoulders and scream "why won't you think of the children" all you both want, but you are in this boat with the rest of us. You're not sufficiently committed to the safety of kids unless you demand that there are no firearms or other deadly weapons available to the spree shooters.

Otherwise turn your nose down, we can see up into your sinuses.

(02-15-2018 05:51 PM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  

(02-15-2018 05:26 PM)tigergreen Wrote:  

(02-15-2018 05:10 PM)ken d Wrote:  And that, right there is the problem. We, as a nation, have repeatedly said we are willing to endure atrocities such as this one. We consider these deaths an acceptable price to pay. And until we decide that it isn't an acceptable price, events like this will just become more commonplace. Anything we are willing to do will just be a fig leaf. We cannot protect our children. It is that simple.

...and that is sad. The reasons most people say they want guns in the first place (protecting their family) is the reason why their kids are having to live in fear of going to school & not coming back home one day or worse, actually being killed.

But you remain uncommitted to discussing the only way to resolve firearm deaths - which is the confiscation and the repeal of the Second Amendment.

So don't damn well lecture me that I'm the problem. You can solve this problem by stating that your solution is the full confiscation of firearms, otherwise you are as complicit as anyone else.

You can preen any puff up and broaden you shoulders and scream "why won't you think of the children" all you both want, but you are in this boat with the rest of us. You're not sufficiently committed to the safety of kids unless you demand that there are no firearms or other deadly weapons available to the spree shooters.

Otherwise turn your nose down, we can see up into your sinuses.

That bolded part is, of course, complete poppycock.

Keep in mind here, I am not the one who said that mass shootings is an acceptable price to pay for regulating some types of weapons. This isn't an either-or choice we are faced with, as you seem to think it is. There is a middle ground between conficating all guns and regulating some weapons. And until we as a nation are ready to accept that there is a middle ground, we will just continue to get more of the same.

(02-15-2018 06:09 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(02-15-2018 05:51 PM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  

(02-15-2018 05:26 PM)tigergreen Wrote:  

(02-15-2018 05:10 PM)ken d Wrote:  And that, right there is the problem. We, as a nation, have repeatedly said we are willing to endure atrocities such as this one. We consider these deaths an acceptable price to pay. And until we decide that it isn't an acceptable price, events like this will just become more commonplace. Anything we are willing to do will just be a fig leaf. We cannot protect our children. It is that simple.

...and that is sad. The reasons most people say they want guns in the first place (protecting their family) is the reason why their kids are having to live in fear of going to school & not coming back home one day or worse, actually being killed.

But you remain uncommitted to discussing the only way to resolve firearm deaths - which is the confiscation and the repeal of the Second Amendment.

So don't damn well lecture me that I'm the problem. You can solve this problem by stating that your solution is the full confiscation of firearms, otherwise you are as complicit as anyone else.

You can preen any puff up and broaden you shoulders and scream "why won't you think of the children" all you both want, but you are in this boat with the rest of us. You're not sufficiently committed to the safety of kids unless you demand that there are no firearms or other deadly weapons available to the spree shooters.

Otherwise turn your nose down, we can see up into your sinuses.

That bolded part is, of course, complete poppycock.

Keep in mind here, I am not the one who said that mass shootings is an acceptable price to pay for regulating some types of weapons. This isn't an either-or choice we are faced with, as you seem to think it is. There is a middle ground between conficating all guns and regulating some weapons. And until we as a nation are ready to accept that there is a middle ground, we will just continue to get more of the same.

Which weapons shall we regulate?

(02-15-2018 06:09 PM)ken d Wrote:  Keep in mind here, I am not the one who said that mass shootings is an acceptable price to pay for regulating some types of weapons. This isn't an either-or choice we are faced with, as you seem to think it is. There is a middle ground between conficating all guns and regulating some weapons. And until we as a nation are ready to accept that there is a middle ground, we will just continue to get more of the same.

So you are for some shootings with some guns, but not as much shootings with other guns. Got it. Middle ground. So what’s your model of an alternative society in which this middle ground eliminates school shootings?

Americans choose to live with guns and the associated real and imagined gun violence. It's not an ignorant policy decision and I think most Americans are aware of the ramifications of that policy and we do so because it is a sensible, rational decision.

Well ABQ Public Schools policy when an active shooter/threat is on campus: Don't be a hero and run away. If confronted by the attacker, do not fight them or defend yourself. If you defend yourself you will face expulsion or put on leave.

Overall there policy is so they will not be sued if they were to tell you to defend yourself. So they tell you not to defend yourself.

(02-15-2018 06:20 PM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  

(02-15-2018 06:09 PM)ken d Wrote:  Keep in mind here, I am not the one who said that mass shootings is an acceptable price to pay for regulating some types of weapons. This isn't an either-or choice we are faced with, as you seem to think it is. There is a middle ground between conficating all guns and regulating some weapons. And until we as a nation are ready to accept that there is a middle ground, we will just continue to get more of the same.

So you are for some shootings with some guns, but not as much shootings with other guns. Got it. Middle ground. So what’s your model of an alternative society in which this middle ground eliminates school shootings?

Americans choose to live with guns and the associated real and imagined gun violence. It's not an ignorant policy decision and I think most Americans are aware of the ramifications of that policy and we do so because it is a sensible, rational decision.

So you are going with piling more BS on top of your original BS. If you continue to mischaracterize everything anybody says that you don't agree with, how will you ever solve anything? You know damn well that's not what I said or what I meant.

If you want to have a civil discussion, I'm all for it. But I'm not going to put up with your crap. I expect better from a mod.

(02-15-2018 09:43 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(02-15-2018 06:20 PM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  

(02-15-2018 06:09 PM)ken d Wrote:  Keep in mind here, I am not the one who said that mass shootings is an acceptable price to pay for regulating some types of weapons. This isn't an either-or choice we are faced with, as you seem to think it is. There is a middle ground between conficating all guns and regulating some weapons. And until we as a nation are ready to accept that there is a middle ground, we will just continue to get more of the same.

So you are for some shootings with some guns, but not as much shootings with other guns. Got it. Middle ground. So what’s your model of an alternative society in which this middle ground eliminates school shootings?

Americans choose to live with guns and the associated real and imagined gun violence. It's not an ignorant policy decision and I think most Americans are aware of the ramifications of that policy and we do so because it is a sensible, rational decision.

So you are going with piling more BS on top of your original BS. If you continue to mischaracterize everything anybody says that you don't agree with, how will you ever solve anything? You know damn well that's not what I said or what I meant.

If you want to have a civil discussion, I'm all for it. But I'm not going to put up with your crap. I expect better from a mod.

I'm sure it's been said plenty of times already, but the only thing "regulation" will do is restrict those that obey the law already. The criminal element and mentally ill will ignore whatever gun regulation laws we implement - they break a bunch of existing laws as soon as they point a gun at another person and pull the trigger.

LS is right, you want to totally eliminate the threat of a mass shooting.........the only way to do it is total gun confiscation- period. Anything else is the equivalent of being partially pregnant.

(02-15-2018 10:17 PM)Crebman Wrote:  

(02-15-2018 09:43 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(02-15-2018 06:20 PM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  

(02-15-2018 06:09 PM)ken d Wrote:  Keep in mind here, I am not the one who said that mass shootings is an acceptable price to pay for regulating some types of weapons. This isn't an either-or choice we are faced with, as you seem to think it is. There is a middle ground between conficating all guns and regulating some weapons. And until we as a nation are ready to accept that there is a middle ground, we will just continue to get more of the same.

So you are for some shootings with some guns, but not as much shootings with other guns. Got it. Middle ground. So what’s your model of an alternative society in which this middle ground eliminates school shootings?

Americans choose to live with guns and the associated real and imagined gun violence. It's not an ignorant policy decision and I think most Americans are aware of the ramifications of that policy and we do so because it is a sensible, rational decision.

So you are going with piling more BS on top of your original BS. If you continue to mischaracterize everything anybody says that you don't agree with, how will you ever solve anything? You know damn well that's not what I said or what I meant.

If you want to have a civil discussion, I'm all for it. But I'm not going to put up with your crap. I expect better from a mod.

I'm sure it's been said plenty of times already, but the only thing "regulation" will do is restrict those that obey the law already. The criminal element and mentally ill will ignore whatever gun regulation laws we implement - they break a bunch of existing laws as soon as they point a gun at another person and pull the trigger.

LS is right, you want to totally eliminate the threat of a mass shooting.........the only way to do it is total gun confiscation- period. Anything else is the equivalent of being partially pregnant.

Agree. If we are looking at the weapon we need to also look at the scene of the crime. If every student was home schooled then this wouldn’t have happened.
These killers need to act in the school. That needs to be explored. That seems to be the place of pain. They kill some people on purpose but others they don’t even know. It’s the place as much as anything. No shocker.

1. Stop publishing the shooter's identity. Media seems to be able to do this for rape victims. Why give these pieces of sh!t notoriety?
2. Don't publicize the shootings.

I would guess that more than 80% of the people doing these shootings want to be famous. There probably will still/always be the jealous lover, dispute that goes wrong, etc.

(02-15-2018 10:17 PM)Crebman Wrote:  

(02-15-2018 09:43 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(02-15-2018 06:20 PM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  

(02-15-2018 06:09 PM)ken d Wrote:  Keep in mind here, I am not the one who said that mass shootings is an acceptable price to pay for regulating some types of weapons. This isn't an either-or choice we are faced with, as you seem to think it is. There is a middle ground between conficating all guns and regulating some weapons. And until we as a nation are ready to accept that there is a middle ground, we will just continue to get more of the same.

So you are for some shootings with some guns, but not as much shootings with other guns. Got it. Middle ground. So what’s your model of an alternative society in which this middle ground eliminates school shootings?

Americans choose to live with guns and the associated real and imagined gun violence. It's not an ignorant policy decision and I think most Americans are aware of the ramifications of that policy and we do so because it is a sensible, rational decision.

So you are going with piling more BS on top of your original BS. If you continue to mischaracterize everything anybody says that you don't agree with, how will you ever solve anything? You know damn well that's not what I said or what I meant.

If you want to have a civil discussion, I'm all for it. But I'm not going to put up with your crap. I expect better from a mod.

I'm sure it's been said plenty of times already, but the only thing "regulation" will do is restrict those that obey the law already. The criminal element and mentally ill will ignore whatever gun regulation laws we implement - they break a bunch of existing laws as soon as they point a gun at another person and pull the trigger.

LS is right, you want to totally eliminate the threat of a mass shooting.........the only way to do it is total gun confiscation- period. Anything else is the equivalent of being partially pregnant.

I literally showed where some laws that had been passed in Connecticut & Missouri reduced not only crime & murder rates, but suicide rates as well, and when Missouri repealed it it went back up, but some here still want to stick their head in the sand & say “laws won’t change anything.”

I guess all those laws against drunk driving, texting & driving, etc., shouldn’t have happened either, because they didn’t totally eliminate the threat.

Nothing will be 100% foolproof - no one trying to have a real discussion here has even remotely suggested that...but clearly the current situation is not working, and we need to vote some people out of office who aren’t willing to have those conversations because they are unduly influenced by the NRA.

(02-15-2018 08:12 AM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  

(02-15-2018 05:38 AM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  First off, the latest Trump budget proposal has education spending lowered by 5.3 percent (with some spending increase on education choices). Plain and simple, you can't take that much money away from schools and expect them to be safer. If we're losing teachers and administrators, schools become more dangerous and not less.

Can you show any correlation between lower budgets and less safe schools?

Have to admit I didn't follow this either. Not saying i agree with lower budgets, but I don't see the correlation, unless schools choose to keep an unnecessary administrator and not repair the security cameras. I suppose I get the idea that a 20:1 ratio is 'safer' than a 25:1 ratio because the more adults, the less kids can get away with, but having watched HISD from the inside, there is lots of waste that could be corrected without sacrificing teachers or safety.

Quote:

(02-15-2018 05:38 AM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  But where does the budget show increases? In two ways in particular - defense spending (14 percent) and homeland security (12 percent). Now I'm not saying I think this budget proposal will pass Congress or is justified, but here is what I am saying.

While I am not sure I agree with the amount of increase, the Constitution does require that our borders are secure. It doesn't mention education.

I'd say it differently. Borders and wars are the job of the feds... Education is the job of the states. The feds can help/support etc, but borders and wars aren't the job of the states

Quote:

(02-15-2018 05:38 AM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  Defense and Homeland Security should include the safety of our schools. Maybe it's time to think about putting a military member in large high schools and middle schools across the country.

No. God no. Never. You do not any way shape of form to place military members in civilian law enforcement responsibilities.

They can perhaps share some equipment/training, but I agree that you don't want pit bulls babysitting.

Quote:

(02-15-2018 05:38 AM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  In terms of Homeland Security, I think the FBI and other departments need to be more proactive in protecting potential threats to the schools.

The government already cannot be trusted to respect the civil rights of Americans. We should not look to give them more powers. They are not good at what they do, and their decisions are enforced through the threat of violence. Sadly, current law enforcement attitudes means some cops often treat ordinary decent citizens as if they were pants-down trash-talking troublemakers. Is this how you want a pimply 13 year old to answer for angry tweet or Snapchat?

I agree, but something needs to be done about the callousness of our society that results in people feeling that killing people is a reasonable response.

Quote:

(02-15-2018 05:38 AM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  I don't believe arming the teachers is the answer. Their job is to teach, not police our youth.

When seconds count in active shooter situations, the police are minutes away.

Agree with FBO here. Don't disagree with you Stanley, but I don't want it mandated. If they're licensed and trained to carry, then let them carry (I'd make licensed carry have some liability insurance)

Quote:

(02-15-2018 05:38 AM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  Maybe you disagree with my suggestions but at least I'm suggesting potential ways of making the schools safer. I have 2 high schoolers, and 3 siblings who are teachers so incidents like the one in Florida really hit home with me. Today is going to be a somber day in our nation's schools.

This nation long ago reconciled the Second Amendment with firearm deaths. The only solution to stopping firearm deaths is to repeal the Second Amendment and confiscate all firearms. This is the only solution.

Are you willing to support that?

I don't agree that this is the only solution, in fact I'm 100% convinced that it isn't a solution at all. Prohibition doesn't work, and certainly wouldn't work with guns.

If we're going to adopt this stance, then let's go back to prohibition since drunk driving has far more rules and consequences etc etc etc and yet still we have a multiple of the deaths and injuries by drunk drivers than mass shooters. It's not a question of either or... it's simply a question of not letting politicians deflect us. If the purpose of regulation is to save lives, then let's start with those actions that kill the most people... and that's not mass shooters.