What a joke of a response. Lots of lies, falsehoods, and leftist talking points in here with no basis in truth.J.B.Katz said:Then educate me.JL said:From reading this, I can only assume you have very little knowledge of firearms and "freedom."J.B.Katz said:How about not selling people guns until they're old enough to legally drink alcohol?boognish_bear said:Ghostrider said:. What is a troubled kid? What troubling thing in his life would have prevented him from getting a gun? Knowing that he was bullied? Knowing he failed 12th grade? Knowing he wore eyeliner? Serious questions.J.B.Katz said:I don't want to ban guns.SIC EM 94 said:J.B.Katz said:Yeah, I really want my grandkids to spent their school hours doing lots of active shooter drills and investing time and energy in all of the rest of this stuff instead of actually learning how to read, right and do arithemetic so Cowboy can open carry.cowboycwr said:
1. Armed police officers works for districts that can afford an officer per school. It doesn't work for smaller schools.
And as pointed out it doesn't always help if the officer does nothing like the Florida shooting.
2. Then there is the issue that they can't be everywhere at once and a shooter can still get in to the school.
3. Someone mentioned the locked doors. This is huge. There should be one entrance used to the school. Which is a problem at older schools that have multiple buildings like detached gyms, locker rooms, band halls, etc.
4. All schools need the locked outer door and an interior vestibule door that is locked.
5. Then go a step further and the glass on both doors and windows next to them need to be bullet resistant. I know of plenty of schools that have the two door system but both are just regular safety glass. Hard to break with a rock, chair, etc. but a gun would be able to shoot it out.
6. Panic button at the front desk.
7. Front desk person armed/ safe with locked gun. Or at minimum something like a can of bear spray.
8. Armed staff
9. Lots of drills. Currently in Texas schools have to do two lock down/active shooter drills a year. It should be more. With practice on what to do.
10. All classrooms should have devices used to jam the doors shut. There are a lot of options for any type of door.
All of these don't need to be done but at least two or 3 would help a lot.
What the Hell does open carry have to do with school shootings? You are so consumed by your dream of banning guns, that you make the most irrelevant posts over and over. Can you please try and think like an adult?
I just want to restrict who can buy them so troubled 18-year-old kids can't buy assault weapons the week after they turn 18 and kill 19 kids and 2 teachers in an elementary school. Does that sound like a reasonble goal to you?
Seems like most….if not all…including this one….had posted pics online of themselves with their stockpile of weapons. That seems to be a common red flag.
I'm not sure exactly what schools or police have an authority to do or investigate when online pics like that surface….but that seems to be a definite commonality with these shooters.
Our society long ago concluded it was unwise to let teens drink adult beverages until they reached the minimum age of adulthood. Owning a gun is an adult responsibility.
My issue isn't with guns. They don't shoot themselves.
It's with the gun lobby's/politicians' complete failure to require people to exercise minimal care and responsibility in the sale of firearms and ammunition.
To get the guns this kid got, he should have been required to undergo gun safety training and get a license, like a hunting license. At his own expense. Tired of seeing "financial burden" arguments applied to gun safety training and licensing that conservatives don't accept when applied to the cost of healthcare and other basic necessities of life.
And, yes, if you want to own and use an assault weapon, you should be in a national database as the purchaser/owner of an assault weapon. There should be a clear public record of who has purchased assault weapons and ammo. The good guys who own these weapons proudly should have no problem with doing that on the record. And if somebody's assembling an arsenal to do a mass shooting, there should be ways to detect those purchases and investigate.
I'm really tired of an irresponsible level of "freedom" related to one specific product--guns--being valued far more than the lives and safety of children and other mass shooting victims.
It's also telling that there's a huge outcry about the 19 kids in Uvalde, but not so much of one about the racist shooter who carried out a carefully planned attack, right down to the body armor that made the "good guy with a gun" who was on the premises an inadequate defense against his attack, killing people for no other reason than because they lived in a black neighborhood and were shopping at their neighborhood grocery store.
Why should we have fewer restrictions on the purchase, ownership and use of lethal firearms and than we do on driving cars and drinking alcohol?
There are many areas of life in which we don't have unrestricted freedom. Conservatives obviously don't support unlimited freedom in many areas of life. Many are very eager to restrict the freedom of women and girls to make personal decisions for themselves, even in cases of rape or incest, the freedom of gay people to marry same-sex partners (some even favor laws outlawing certain sex acts most people do behind closed doors where the government should, IMO, never intrude), and the freedom of parents in the state of Texas to work with their children's doctors to make decisions about medical treatment without fear of having Child Protective Services show up.
So why should freedoms relating to the purchase of all types of guns and ammo be unrestricted when so many other freedoms are simultaneously at risk of being severely restricted or eliminated altogether?
If making sure deranged, angry teens can't easily arm up and kill more than 20 kids and teachers in an elementary school isn't pro-life, then what is?
It just strikes me as really ironic that conservatives claim to be pro-life and pro-child when they have done everything possible to make our country a very unfriendly place to have and raise children:
-high cost of child care,
-no paid parental leave for many workers (especially low-income workers who need it most),
-no secure access to medical care for many working-age people,
-few or no workplace accommodations for pregnant women,
-schools that aren't safe where kids are forced to do active shooter drills because the right of anybody over 18 to own and carry lethal assault weapons is valued much higher politically than the lives of little children,
-schools where the school boards are banning books and trying to force a sanitized version of American history into the curriculum,
-schools where one religion is clearly favored and endorsed over all others (a sore point with me--my high school in the 1960s couldn't even have a prom because our principal was Church of Christ and wouldn't permit a dance and my grade school had a Christmas pageant that my Jewish classmate participated in because his parents thought that might keep him from being bullied. I thought we'd moved beyond that pettiness, but we clearly haven't, despite living in a country founded on the principles of no state religion and separation of church and state.
And the strategy to cope with a declining birth rate? Forced birth, even in cases or rape or incest, reducing a woman to a "vessel" + restrictions on contraception. That dismissive attitude toward woman as people whose personal agency and freedom also matters is what made it to easy for Paige Patterson and his ilk to flourish in the SBC for so many years.
What's sad is, the gun lobby and its Republican enablers will just wait this out. As they have every other mass shooting. If Sandy Hook and Parkland, where most of the victims were white middle-class kids, didn't spark change, a small-town school where most victims are Hispanic certainly won't. Which is a sick commentary on a supposedly Christian nation where "in Christ there is no east or west, in him no north or south, but one great fellowship of love..."
Love is not what those kids felt when they were shot to death in Uvalde. Shame on us as a nation.
What should schools do to stop shootings
41,341 Views |
550 Replies |
Last: 3 yr ago by Jack Bauer
I'm wondering if the autopsy of the shooter will reveal some drug use.
saying you would ban semi automatics means you are for banning all guns. Pistols are semi automatic, ar15's are semi automatic.Ghostrider said:Limited IQ Redneck in PU said:
I am a law abiding man. At this point in my life the guns are just sentimental.
Many of mine are as well. I am all for banning ar15's, semi automatics, etc if it would prevent these type of shootings. Unfortunately, I don't think that would stop anything and second, it would just lead to calls for banning all guns…..even sentimental one's.
There is so much wrong information put out there about guns that people just look at a gun and see that it "looks scary" therefore it needs to be banned.
In his defense no 18 year olds are dying over seas to protect your freedoms.JL said:18 years olds are trained to use machine guns in the Army. You would allow 18 year olds to die for your freedom overseas, but they can't defend themselves at home?J.B.Katz said:You had to be 21 to buy alcohol. Not 18.JL said:Again, you obviously have never bought a firearm and know nothing about guns other than what CNN has told you.J.B.Katz said:Then educate me.JL said:From reading this, I can only assume you have very little knowledge of firearms and "freedom."J.B.Katz said:How about not selling people guns until they're old enough to legally drink alcohol?boognish_bear said:Ghostrider said:. What is a troubled kid? What troubling thing in his life would have prevented him from getting a gun? Knowing that he was bullied? Knowing he failed 12th grade? Knowing he wore eyeliner? Serious questions.J.B.Katz said:I don't want to ban guns.SIC EM 94 said:J.B.Katz said:Yeah, I really want my grandkids to spent their school hours doing lots of active shooter drills and investing time and energy in all of the rest of this stuff instead of actually learning how to read, right and do arithemetic so Cowboy can open carry.cowboycwr said:
1. Armed police officers works for districts that can afford an officer per school. It doesn't work for smaller schools.
And as pointed out it doesn't always help if the officer does nothing like the Florida shooting.
2. Then there is the issue that they can't be everywhere at once and a shooter can still get in to the school.
3. Someone mentioned the locked doors. This is huge. There should be one entrance used to the school. Which is a problem at older schools that have multiple buildings like detached gyms, locker rooms, band halls, etc.
4. All schools need the locked outer door and an interior vestibule door that is locked.
5. Then go a step further and the glass on both doors and windows next to them need to be bullet resistant. I know of plenty of schools that have the two door system but both are just regular safety glass. Hard to break with a rock, chair, etc. but a gun would be able to shoot it out.
6. Panic button at the front desk.
7. Front desk person armed/ safe with locked gun. Or at minimum something like a can of bear spray.
8. Armed staff
9. Lots of drills. Currently in Texas schools have to do two lock down/active shooter drills a year. It should be more. With practice on what to do.
10. All classrooms should have devices used to jam the doors shut. There are a lot of options for any type of door.
All of these don't need to be done but at least two or 3 would help a lot.
What the Hell does open carry have to do with school shootings? You are so consumed by your dream of banning guns, that you make the most irrelevant posts over and over. Can you please try and think like an adult?
I just want to restrict who can buy them so troubled 18-year-old kids can't buy assault weapons the week after they turn 18 and kill 19 kids and 2 teachers in an elementary school. Does that sound like a reasonble goal to you?
Seems like most….if not all…including this one….had posted pics online of themselves with their stockpile of weapons. That seems to be a common red flag.
I'm not sure exactly what schools or police have an authority to do or investigate when online pics like that surface….but that seems to be a definite commonality with these shooters.
Our society long ago concluded it was unwise to let teens drink adult beverages until they reached the minimum age of adulthood. Owning a gun is an adult responsibility.
My issue isn't with guns. They don't shoot themselves.
It's with the gun lobby's/politicians' complete failure to require people to exercise minimal care and responsibility in the sale of firearms and ammunition.
To get the guns this kid got, he should have been required to undergo gun safety training and get a license, like a hunting license. At his own expense. Tired of seeing "financial burden" arguments applied to gun safety training and licensing that conservatives don't accept when applied to the cost of healthcare and other basic necessities of life.
And, yes, if you want to own and use an assault weapon, you should be in a national database as the purchaser/owner of an assault weapon. There should be a clear public record of who has purchased assault weapons and ammo. The good guys who own these weapons proudly should have no problem with doing that on the record. And if somebody's assembling an arsenal to do a mass shooting, there should be ways to detect those purchases and investigate.
I'm really tired of an irresponsible level of "freedom" related to one specific product--guns--being valued far more than the lives and safety of children and other mass shooting victims.
It's also telling that there's a huge outcry about the 19 kids in Uvalde, but not so much of one about the racist shooter who carried out a carefully planned attack, right down to the body armor that made the "good guy with a gun" who was on the premises an inadequate defense against his attack, killing people for no other reason than because they lived in a black neighborhood and were shopping at their neighborhood grocery store.
Why should we have fewer restrictions on the purchase, ownership and use of lethal firearms and than we do on driving cars and drinking alcohol?
There are many areas of life in which we don't have unrestricted freedom. Conservatives obviously don't support unlimited freedom in many areas of life. Many are very eager to restrict the freedom of women and girls to make personal decisions for themselves, even in cases of rape or incest, the freedom of gay people to marry same-sex partners (some even favor laws outlawing certain sex acts most people do behind closed doors where the government should, IMO, never intrude), and the freedom of parents in the state of Texas to work with their children's doctors to make decisions about medical treatment without fear of having Child Protective Services show up.
So why should freedoms relating to the purchase of all types of guns and ammo be unrestricted when so many other freedoms are simultaneously at risk of being severely restricted or eliminated altogether?
If making sure deranged, angry teens can't easily arm up and kill more than 20 kids and teachers in an elementary school isn't pro-life, then what is?
It just strikes me as really ironic that conservatives claim to be pro-life and pro-child when they have done everything possible to make our country a very unfriendly place to have and raise children:
-high cost of child care,
-no paid parental leave for many workers (especially low-income workers who need it most),
-no secure access to medical care for many working-age people,
-few or no workplace accommodations for pregnant women,
-schools that aren't safe where kids are forced to do active shooter drills because the right of anybody over 18 to own and carry lethal assault weapons is valued much higher politically than the lives of little children,
-schools where the school boards are banning books and trying to force a sanitized version of American history into the curriculum,
-schools where one religion is clearly favored and endorsed over all others (a sore point with me--my high school in the 1960s couldn't even have a prom because our principal was Church of Christ and wouldn't permit a dance and my grade school had a Christmas pageant that my Jewish classmate participated in because his parents thought that might keep him from being bullied. I thought we'd moved beyond that pettiness, but we clearly haven't, despite living in a country founded on the principles of no state religion and separation of church and state.
And the strategy to cope with a declining birth rate? Forced birth, even in cases or rape or incest, reducing a woman to a "vessel" + restrictions on contraception. That dismissive attitude toward woman as people whose personal agency and freedom also matters is what made it to easy for Paige Patterson and his ilk to flourish in the SBC for so many years.
What's sad is, the gun lobby and its Republican enablers will just wait this out. As they have every other mass shooting. If Sandy Hook and Parkland, where most of the victims were white middle-class kids, didn't spark change, a small-town school where most victims are Hispanic certainly won't. Which is a sick commentary on a supposedly Christian nation where "in Christ there is no east or west, in him no north or south, but one great fellowship of love..."
Love is not what those kids felt when they were shot to death in Uvalde. Shame on us as a nation.
I've never had to have a backgound check to buy a car or alcohol.
You had to take driver's ed and pass 2 tests, a written test and a test where a cop got in the car with you and make you show you could responsibly operate a car, before you were issued a driver's license.
The state can also make you take an eye test to determine if you can see well enough to drive. Texas made my father-in-law do this, and he flunked it. Everybody in his family was relieved that he was no longer allowed behind the wheel.
The only reason there aren't licensure and training requirements for gun laws is that the extremely powerful gun lobby has bought and paid for Republican policians and campaigned hard on the idea that unlimited, unrestricted gun sales, ownership and use are a public good when that's clearly not true.
Others posting on this thread have accurately pointed out that the U.S. is awash in guns and they aren't going anywhere. But legal purchase and carry should be restricted to people old enough to drink alcohol. Everyone who carries should have to have a license to do so, and that license should be renewed at least as often as you renew your driver's license. And you should be required, at your own expense, to take and pass a gun safety test. Assault weapons should have special restrictions and involve more safety training.
Since the horse has left the barn, that's not going to stop deranged kids from getting their hands on guns and committing a massacre, as happened at Sandy Hook and this spring in Michigan, thanks to 2 of the most criminally stupid parents on the planet. But it's a start, and we need to make one.
What exactly is an assault weapon and why should they require special restrictions?
They may be dying for the interests of the liberal ruling class...but not for your rights....in fact the regime in D.C. is systemically engaged in oppression overseas and here at home.
They tear down your statues, allow riots in the streets along with rampant criminality, teach demented sexuality to your children, and monitor your cell phone calls.
You think this regime is "protecting our freedoms" by also engaging in globalist war mongering?
Try killing off 40 ATIFA rioters with a hand gun as they ransack your business. Try butchering BLM thugs as they approach your home with a hand gun. Try defending your ranch as thousands of illegals pour accross with a hand gun. You have a right to protect yourself and slaughter those trying to injure you, your family, or your property.cms186 said:Why? is it because common sense dictates that a normal, law abiding citizen shouldnt need a Weapon that powerful? then why would a normal, law abiding citizen need anything other than a Pistol for Self Defence or a Bolt Action Rifle/Pump Action Shotgun for Hunting?Redbrickbear said:The Bill of Rights (and rest of the Constitution) seems very much to anticipate the expansion of new rights as the people and their representatives deem them needed or justified.cms186 said:
Neither was Blacks or Women being able to vote, the Bill of Rights is a Living document, even the people who wrote it expected it to evolve over time
Thomas Jefferson:Quote:
I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and Constitutions. But laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors.
But it certainly does not imply that any already created and established Rights can ever be restricted.
So as an example the right of women to vote can be given...the right to vote for men can never be taken away.
The right to own space lasers might be give in the future...the right to own guns can never be taken away.
If you say that the 2nd Amendment would currently restrict someone from owning a Space Laser, then surely it can also restrict other weapons? it says a citizen has the right to bear Arms, it doesnt specify what kind.
J.B.Katz said:I don't want to ban guns.SIC EM 94 said:J.B.Katz said:Yeah, I really want my grandkids to spent their school hours doing lots of active shooter drills and investing time and energy in all of the rest of this stuff instead of actually learning how to read, right and do arithemetic so Cowboy can open carry.cowboycwr said:
1. Armed police officers works for districts that can afford an officer per school. It doesn't work for smaller schools.
And as pointed out it doesn't always help if the officer does nothing like the Florida shooting.
2. Then there is the issue that they can't be everywhere at once and a shooter can still get in to the school.
3. Someone mentioned the locked doors. This is huge. There should be one entrance used to the school. Which is a problem at older schools that have multiple buildings like detached gyms, locker rooms, band halls, etc.
4. All schools need the locked outer door and an interior vestibule door that is locked.
5. Then go a step further and the glass on both doors and windows next to them need to be bullet resistant. I know of plenty of schools that have the two door system but both are just regular safety glass. Hard to break with a rock, chair, etc. but a gun would be able to shoot it out.
6. Panic button at the front desk.
7. Front desk person armed/ safe with locked gun. Or at minimum something like a can of bear spray.
8. Armed staff
9. Lots of drills. Currently in Texas schools have to do two lock down/active shooter drills a year. It should be more. With practice on what to do.
10. All classrooms should have devices used to jam the doors shut. There are a lot of options for any type of door.
All of these don't need to be done but at least two or 3 would help a lot.
What the Hell does open carry have to do with school shootings? You are so consumed by your dream of banning guns, that you make the most irrelevant posts over and over. Can you please try and think like an adult?
I just want to restrict who can buy them so troubled 18-year-old kids can't buy assault weapons the week after they turn 18 and kill 19 kids and 2 teachers in an elementary school. Does that sound like a reasonble goal to you?
AR-15 is not an assault weapon.......
tough tough issue. something needs to be done to make this less common. banning the NRA is a start.
I love to play first person shooters. I guess I should be on a watchlist now?Coke Bear said:
I'd be willing to bet that the shooter was heavily involved in video games 1st-person shooter video games. The causes of mass-shooting are multi-faceted. I'm not arguing that this was the main cause. The causes of mass-shootings are multi-faceted: mental disorders (lack of/or resistance to help), readily access to guns, stress/anxiety, etc.
We want to look for a cause, reason, or some sense rationality for the brutal insanity of a tragic situation. There is rarely a single point of failure. Airplanes rarely crash due to a single point of failure. People don't do these horrific actions for one lone reason.
There is a book that some may find interesting, called Assassination Generation: Video Games, Aggression, and the Psychology of Killing by war hero and Ret. Lt. Col. Dave Grossman. He's written a few other topic related books as well.
It discusses the psychology behind the desensitizing and "training" to kill that happens in video games.
Studies show that only 15-20% of combat soldiers pulled the trigger during WWII. In Korea, the military upped it to 50-55%. By Vietnam, it reached 90-95%.
During basic for WWII, our soldiers were trained to shoot paper targets with the traditional concentric ring bullseye. They changed the training for Korea and Vietnam. They started using human silhouettes targets. Hence the increase in shooting.
Video games have played their role in these events too. I'm not condemning all video games. I play them with sons from time to time. I do enjoy stuff like GTA, Fortnite, etc. I'm not calling for a ban on these games. Pandora has opened the box. I'm not sure what we do now.
Does it though? HE engaged the police outside the school while he was between the school and the police right?C. Jordan said:Now we know that police actually engaged the shooter BEFORE he entered the building. So it appears an armed officer would have made no difference.C. Jordan said:I like having a policeman at the school, but in your district I don't know that it necessarily deterred any attack. While these attacks are horrible and happen, the odds of such a shooting at any individual school or even school district are really low.ScottS said:
Our school district has a policeman at each school. They implemented this in reaction Sandy Hook years ago. And guess what, no school shootings at any school in this district. The politicians in DC always have a back and forth but their solutions are all talk. They aren't on the local level and their solutions (and talk) won't solve anything.
I would also note, that the Tops grocery had an armed guard. The shooter knew it and it didn't deter him. He just wore body armor and killed the guard, who was a retired policeman.
I would love to see all handguns and assault rifles banned. But I'm a realist and know that won't happen.
Absent that, your policeman idea is helpful but not necessarily curative. These shooters all gave warning signs of what they were going to do. But they were either missed, ignored, or encouraged. Maybe schools engaging in closer monitoring of students. But that's difficult because I'm sure right now thousands of young men are showing warning signs, but most likely none of them will do anything.
No other country in the world has this problem. Maybe we could look to them for answers.
Would an officer in the school or between him and the school have prevented him from getting in? Probably, or at least a higher chance of preventing it than an officer not between him and the school.
Well the school resource officer did ****e. Nothing. So that argument does not work.
Also, those of you wanting to arm teachers don't trust them to teach anymore yet you are ok to arm them. So that argument is stupid as well.
Leaves us with few, but obvious options to just try to stop the definition of insanity. To simply try something.
Also, those of you wanting to arm teachers don't trust them to teach anymore yet you are ok to arm them. So that argument is stupid as well.
Leaves us with few, but obvious options to just try to stop the definition of insanity. To simply try something.
False.cms186 said:Im aware, im saying that the levels of Guns available to the average Citizen when the Bill of Rights was written are a world away from what you can get now, the 2nd amendment also says "Well Regulated", I would have thought that would give anyone enough scope to restrict what people can and cant buy on the open market without infringing on their right to be able to have a Pistol or something to defend themselves with in their own home if thats what they wantJL said:Passing gun control laws is not the same as a Constitutional Amendment, much different process.cms186 said:Neither was Blacks or Women being able to vote, the Bill of Rights is a Living document, even the people who wrote it expected it to evolve over timeJL said:Car ownership is not in the Bill of Rights. Should you have to take a test to be able to vote?cms186 said:You had to take a Driving Test to be able to drive didnt you? You have to have Insurance to drive, in case an accident happens whilst you are driving, right? I dont know about the US, but asides from New Vehicles (I think they are exempt for the first 5 years? not 100% sure about that), our Cars are subject to yearly checks to make sure they are fit to driveJL said:Again, you obviously have never bought a firearm and know nothing about guns other than what CNN has told you.J.B.Katz said:Then educate me.JL said:From reading this, I can only assume you have very little knowledge of firearms and "freedom."J.B.Katz said:How about not selling people guns until they're old enough to legally drink alcohol?boognish_bear said:Ghostrider said:. What is a troubled kid? What troubling thing in his life would have prevented him from getting a gun? Knowing that he was bullied? Knowing he failed 12th grade? Knowing he wore eyeliner? Serious questions.J.B.Katz said:
I don't want to ban guns.
I just want to restrict who can buy them so troubled 18-year-old kids can't buy assault weapons the week after they turn 18 and kill 19 kids and 2 teachers in an elementary school. Does that sound like a reasonble goal to you?
Seems like most….if not all…including this one….had posted pics online of themselves with their stockpile of weapons. That seems to be a common red flag.
I'm not sure exactly what schools or police have an authority to do or investigate when online pics like that surface….but that seems to be a definite commonality with these shooters.
Our society long ago concluded it was unwise to let teens drink adult beverages until they reached the minimum age of adulthood. Owning a gun is an adult responsibility.
My issue isn't with guns. They don't shoot themselves.
It's with the gun lobby's/politicians' complete failure to require people to exercise minimal care and responsibility in the sale of firearms and ammunition.
To get the guns this kid got, he should have been required to undergo gun safety training and get a license, like a hunting license. At his own expense. Tired of seeing "financial burden" arguments applied to gun safety training and licensing that conservatives don't accept when applied to the cost of healthcare and other basic necessities of life.
And, yes, if you want to own and use an assault weapon, you should be in a national database as the purchaser/owner of an assault weapon. There should be a clear public record of who has purchased assault weapons and ammo. The good guys who own these weapons proudly should have no problem with doing that on the record. And if somebody's assembling an arsenal to do a mass shooting, there should be ways to detect those purchases and investigate.
I'm really tired of an irresponsible level of "freedom" related to one specific product--guns--being valued far more than the lives and safety of children and other mass shooting victims.
It's also telling that there's a huge outcry about the 19 kids in Uvalde, but not so much of one about the racist shooter who carried out a carefully planned attack, right down to the body armor that made the "good guy with a gun" who was on the premises an inadequate defense against his attack, killing people for no other reason than because they lived in a black neighborhood and were shopping at their neighborhood grocery store.
Why should we have fewer restrictions on the purchase, ownership and use of lethal firearms and than we do on driving cars and drinking alcohol?
There are many areas of life in which we don't have unrestricted freedom. Conservatives obviously don't support unlimited freedom in many areas of life. Many are very eager to restrict the freedom of women and girls to make personal decisions for themselves, even in cases of rape or incest, the freedom of gay people to marry same-sex partners (some even favor laws outlawing certain sex acts most people do behind closed doors where the government should, IMO, never intrude), and the freedom of parents in the state of Texas to work with their children's doctors to make decisions about medical treatment without fear of having Child Protective Services show up.
So why should freedoms relating to the purchase of all types of guns and ammo be unrestricted when so many other freedoms are simultaneously at risk of being severely restricted or eliminated altogether?
If making sure deranged, angry teens can't easily arm up and kill more than 20 kids and teachers in an elementary school isn't pro-life, then what is?
It just strikes me as really ironic that conservatives claim to be pro-life and pro-child when they have done everything possible to make our country a very unfriendly place to have and raise children:
-high cost of child care,
-no paid parental leave for many workers (especially low-income workers who need it most),
-no secure access to medical care for many working-age people,
-few or no workplace accommodations for pregnant women,
-schools that aren't safe where kids are forced to do active shooter drills because the right of anybody over 18 to own and carry lethal assault weapons is valued much higher politically than the lives of little children,
-schools where the school boards are banning books and trying to force a sanitized version of American history into the curriculum,
-schools where one religion is clearly favored and endorsed over all others (a sore point with me--my high school in the 1960s couldn't even have a prom because our principal was Church of Christ and wouldn't permit a dance and my grade school had a Christmas pageant that my Jewish classmate participated in because his parents thought that might keep him from being bullied. I thought we'd moved beyond that pettiness, but we clearly haven't, despite living in a country founded on the principles of no state religion and separation of church and state.
And the strategy to cope with a declining birth rate? Forced birth, even in cases or rape or incest, reducing a woman to a "vessel" + restrictions on contraception. That dismissive attitude toward woman as people whose personal agency and freedom also matters is what made it to easy for Paige Patterson and his ilk to flourish in the SBC for so many years.
What's sad is, the gun lobby and its Republican enablers will just wait this out. As they have every other mass shooting. If Sandy Hook and Parkland, where most of the victims were white middle-class kids, didn't spark change, a small-town school where most victims are Hispanic certainly won't. Which is a sick commentary on a supposedly Christian nation where "in Christ there is no east or west, in him no north or south, but one great fellowship of love..."
Love is not what those kids felt when they were shot to death in Uvalde. Shame on us as a nation.
I've never had to have a backgound check to buy a car or alcohol.
Thomas Jefferson:Quote:
I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and Constitutions. But laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors.
Individual citizens owned cannons when the Bill of Rights was passed. Individual citizens owned ships with dozens of cannons on them.
Why just rich countries??? OH that's right because when you do poor countries it ruins this narrativeboognish_bear said:Gun homicide rates by country….https://t.co/ub33DTkSnN pic.twitter.com/TJ2Ey4KFH5
— Eric Umansky (@ericuman) May 25, 2022
Never said they were; I just said allowRedbrickbear said:In his defense no 18 year olds are dying over seas to protect your freedoms.JL said:18 years olds are trained to use machine guns in the Army. You would allow 18 year olds to die for your freedom overseas, but they can't defend themselves at home?J.B.Katz said:You had to be 21 to buy alcohol. Not 18.JL said:Again, you obviously have never bought a firearm and know nothing about guns other than what CNN has told you.J.B.Katz said:Then educate me.JL said:From reading this, I can only assume you have very little knowledge of firearms and "freedom."J.B.Katz said:How about not selling people guns until they're old enough to legally drink alcohol?boognish_bear said:Ghostrider said:. What is a troubled kid? What troubling thing in his life would have prevented him from getting a gun? Knowing that he was bullied? Knowing he failed 12th grade? Knowing he wore eyeliner? Serious questions.J.B.Katz said:I don't want to ban guns.SIC EM 94 said:J.B.Katz said:Yeah, I really want my grandkids to spent their school hours doing lots of active shooter drills and investing time and energy in all of the rest of this stuff instead of actually learning how to read, right and do arithemetic so Cowboy can open carry.cowboycwr said:
1. Armed police officers works for districts that can afford an officer per school. It doesn't work for smaller schools.
And as pointed out it doesn't always help if the officer does nothing like the Florida shooting.
2. Then there is the issue that they can't be everywhere at once and a shooter can still get in to the school.
3. Someone mentioned the locked doors. This is huge. There should be one entrance used to the school. Which is a problem at older schools that have multiple buildings like detached gyms, locker rooms, band halls, etc.
4. All schools need the locked outer door and an interior vestibule door that is locked.
5. Then go a step further and the glass on both doors and windows next to them need to be bullet resistant. I know of plenty of schools that have the two door system but both are just regular safety glass. Hard to break with a rock, chair, etc. but a gun would be able to shoot it out.
6. Panic button at the front desk.
7. Front desk person armed/ safe with locked gun. Or at minimum something like a can of bear spray.
8. Armed staff
9. Lots of drills. Currently in Texas schools have to do two lock down/active shooter drills a year. It should be more. With practice on what to do.
10. All classrooms should have devices used to jam the doors shut. There are a lot of options for any type of door.
All of these don't need to be done but at least two or 3 would help a lot.
What the Hell does open carry have to do with school shootings? You are so consumed by your dream of banning guns, that you make the most irrelevant posts over and over. Can you please try and think like an adult?
I just want to restrict who can buy them so troubled 18-year-old kids can't buy assault weapons the week after they turn 18 and kill 19 kids and 2 teachers in an elementary school. Does that sound like a reasonble goal to you?
Seems like most….if not all…including this one….had posted pics online of themselves with their stockpile of weapons. That seems to be a common red flag.
I'm not sure exactly what schools or police have an authority to do or investigate when online pics like that surface….but that seems to be a definite commonality with these shooters.
Our society long ago concluded it was unwise to let teens drink adult beverages until they reached the minimum age of adulthood. Owning a gun is an adult responsibility.
My issue isn't with guns. They don't shoot themselves.
It's with the gun lobby's/politicians' complete failure to require people to exercise minimal care and responsibility in the sale of firearms and ammunition.
To get the guns this kid got, he should have been required to undergo gun safety training and get a license, like a hunting license. At his own expense. Tired of seeing "financial burden" arguments applied to gun safety training and licensing that conservatives don't accept when applied to the cost of healthcare and other basic necessities of life.
And, yes, if you want to own and use an assault weapon, you should be in a national database as the purchaser/owner of an assault weapon. There should be a clear public record of who has purchased assault weapons and ammo. The good guys who own these weapons proudly should have no problem with doing that on the record. And if somebody's assembling an arsenal to do a mass shooting, there should be ways to detect those purchases and investigate.
I'm really tired of an irresponsible level of "freedom" related to one specific product--guns--being valued far more than the lives and safety of children and other mass shooting victims.
It's also telling that there's a huge outcry about the 19 kids in Uvalde, but not so much of one about the racist shooter who carried out a carefully planned attack, right down to the body armor that made the "good guy with a gun" who was on the premises an inadequate defense against his attack, killing people for no other reason than because they lived in a black neighborhood and were shopping at their neighborhood grocery store.
Why should we have fewer restrictions on the purchase, ownership and use of lethal firearms and than we do on driving cars and drinking alcohol?
There are many areas of life in which we don't have unrestricted freedom. Conservatives obviously don't support unlimited freedom in many areas of life. Many are very eager to restrict the freedom of women and girls to make personal decisions for themselves, even in cases of rape or incest, the freedom of gay people to marry same-sex partners (some even favor laws outlawing certain sex acts most people do behind closed doors where the government should, IMO, never intrude), and the freedom of parents in the state of Texas to work with their children's doctors to make decisions about medical treatment without fear of having Child Protective Services show up.
So why should freedoms relating to the purchase of all types of guns and ammo be unrestricted when so many other freedoms are simultaneously at risk of being severely restricted or eliminated altogether?
If making sure deranged, angry teens can't easily arm up and kill more than 20 kids and teachers in an elementary school isn't pro-life, then what is?
It just strikes me as really ironic that conservatives claim to be pro-life and pro-child when they have done everything possible to make our country a very unfriendly place to have and raise children:
-high cost of child care,
-no paid parental leave for many workers (especially low-income workers who need it most),
-no secure access to medical care for many working-age people,
-few or no workplace accommodations for pregnant women,
-schools that aren't safe where kids are forced to do active shooter drills because the right of anybody over 18 to own and carry lethal assault weapons is valued much higher politically than the lives of little children,
-schools where the school boards are banning books and trying to force a sanitized version of American history into the curriculum,
-schools where one religion is clearly favored and endorsed over all others (a sore point with me--my high school in the 1960s couldn't even have a prom because our principal was Church of Christ and wouldn't permit a dance and my grade school had a Christmas pageant that my Jewish classmate participated in because his parents thought that might keep him from being bullied. I thought we'd moved beyond that pettiness, but we clearly haven't, despite living in a country founded on the principles of no state religion and separation of church and state.
And the strategy to cope with a declining birth rate? Forced birth, even in cases or rape or incest, reducing a woman to a "vessel" + restrictions on contraception. That dismissive attitude toward woman as people whose personal agency and freedom also matters is what made it to easy for Paige Patterson and his ilk to flourish in the SBC for so many years.
What's sad is, the gun lobby and its Republican enablers will just wait this out. As they have every other mass shooting. If Sandy Hook and Parkland, where most of the victims were white middle-class kids, didn't spark change, a small-town school where most victims are Hispanic certainly won't. Which is a sick commentary on a supposedly Christian nation where "in Christ there is no east or west, in him no north or south, but one great fellowship of love..."
Love is not what those kids felt when they were shot to death in Uvalde. Shame on us as a nation.
I've never had to have a backgound check to buy a car or alcohol.
You had to take driver's ed and pass 2 tests, a written test and a test where a cop got in the car with you and make you show you could responsibly operate a car, before you were issued a driver's license.
The state can also make you take an eye test to determine if you can see well enough to drive. Texas made my father-in-law do this, and he flunked it. Everybody in his family was relieved that he was no longer allowed behind the wheel.
The only reason there aren't licensure and training requirements for gun laws is that the extremely powerful gun lobby has bought and paid for Republican policians and campaigned hard on the idea that unlimited, unrestricted gun sales, ownership and use are a public good when that's clearly not true.
Others posting on this thread have accurately pointed out that the U.S. is awash in guns and they aren't going anywhere. But legal purchase and carry should be restricted to people old enough to drink alcohol. Everyone who carries should have to have a license to do so, and that license should be renewed at least as often as you renew your driver's license. And you should be required, at your own expense, to take and pass a gun safety test. Assault weapons should have special restrictions and involve more safety training.
Since the horse has left the barn, that's not going to stop deranged kids from getting their hands on guns and committing a massacre, as happened at Sandy Hook and this spring in Michigan, thanks to 2 of the most criminally stupid parents on the planet. But it's a start, and we need to make one.
What exactly is an assault weapon and why should they require special restrictions?
They may be dying for the interests of the liberal ruling class...but not for your rights....in fact the regime in D.C. is systemically engaged in oppression overseas and here at home.
They tear down your statues, allow riots in the streets along with rampant criminality, teach demented sexuality to your children, and monitor your cell phone calls.
You think this regime is "protecting our freedoms" by also engaging in globalist war mongering?
We may not trust them to teach 6 year olds about their preferred sexual lifestyles but that doesn't mean they or the children should be left without defense from psychotics.ScruffyD said:
Well the school resource officer did ****e. Nothing. So that argument does not work.
Also, those of you wanting to arm teachers don't trust them to teach anymore yet you are ok to arm them. So that argument is stupid as well.
Leaves us with few, but obvious options to just try to stop the definition of insanity. To simply try something.
Our vibrations were getting nasty. But why? I was puzzled, frustrated... Had we deteriorated to the level of dumb beasts?
cowboycwr said:What a joke of a response. Lots of lies, falsehoods, and leftist talking points in here with no basis in truth.J.B.Katz said:Then educate me.JL said:From reading this, I can only assume you have very little knowledge of firearms and "freedom."J.B.Katz said:How about not selling people guns until they're old enough to legally drink alcohol?boognish_bear said:Ghostrider said:. What is a troubled kid? What troubling thing in his life would have prevented him from getting a gun? Knowing that he was bullied? Knowing he failed 12th grade? Knowing he wore eyeliner? Serious questions.J.B.Katz said:I don't want to ban guns.SIC EM 94 said:J.B.Katz said:Yeah, I really want my grandkids to spent their school hours doing lots of active shooter drills and investing time and energy in all of the rest of this stuff instead of actually learning how to read, right and do arithemetic so Cowboy can open carry.cowboycwr said:
1. Armed police officers works for districts that can afford an officer per school. It doesn't work for smaller schools.
And as pointed out it doesn't always help if the officer does nothing like the Florida shooting.
2. Then there is the issue that they can't be everywhere at once and a shooter can still get in to the school.
3. Someone mentioned the locked doors. This is huge. There should be one entrance used to the school. Which is a problem at older schools that have multiple buildings like detached gyms, locker rooms, band halls, etc.
4. All schools need the locked outer door and an interior vestibule door that is locked.
5. Then go a step further and the glass on both doors and windows next to them need to be bullet resistant. I know of plenty of schools that have the two door system but both are just regular safety glass. Hard to break with a rock, chair, etc. but a gun would be able to shoot it out.
6. Panic button at the front desk.
7. Front desk person armed/ safe with locked gun. Or at minimum something like a can of bear spray.
8. Armed staff
9. Lots of drills. Currently in Texas schools have to do two lock down/active shooter drills a year. It should be more. With practice on what to do.
10. All classrooms should have devices used to jam the doors shut. There are a lot of options for any type of door.
All of these don't need to be done but at least two or 3 would help a lot.
What the Hell does open carry have to do with school shootings? You are so consumed by your dream of banning guns, that you make the most irrelevant posts over and over. Can you please try and think like an adult?
I just want to restrict who can buy them so troubled 18-year-old kids can't buy assault weapons the week after they turn 18 and kill 19 kids and 2 teachers in an elementary school. Does that sound like a reasonble goal to you?
Seems like most….if not all…including this one….had posted pics online of themselves with their stockpile of weapons. That seems to be a common red flag.
I'm not sure exactly what schools or police have an authority to do or investigate when online pics like that surface….but that seems to be a definite commonality with these shooters.
Our society long ago concluded it was unwise to let teens drink adult beverages until they reached the minimum age of adulthood. Owning a gun is an adult responsibility.
My issue isn't with guns. They don't shoot themselves.
It's with the gun lobby's/politicians' complete failure to require people to exercise minimal care and responsibility in the sale of firearms and ammunition.
To get the guns this kid got, he should have been required to undergo gun safety training and get a license, like a hunting license. At his own expense. Tired of seeing "financial burden" arguments applied to gun safety training and licensing that conservatives don't accept when applied to the cost of healthcare and other basic necessities of life.
And, yes, if you want to own and use an assault weapon, you should be in a national database as the purchaser/owner of an assault weapon. There should be a clear public record of who has purchased assault weapons and ammo. The good guys who own these weapons proudly should have no problem with doing that on the record. And if somebody's assembling an arsenal to do a mass shooting, there should be ways to detect those purchases and investigate.
I'm really tired of an irresponsible level of "freedom" related to one specific product--guns--being valued far more than the lives and safety of children and other mass shooting victims.
It's also telling that there's a huge outcry about the 19 kids in Uvalde, but not so much of one about the racist shooter who carried out a carefully planned attack, right down to the body armor that made the "good guy with a gun" who was on the premises an inadequate defense against his attack, killing people for no other reason than because they lived in a black neighborhood and were shopping at their neighborhood grocery store.
Why should we have fewer restrictions on the purchase, ownership and use of lethal firearms and than we do on driving cars and drinking alcohol?
There are many areas of life in which we don't have unrestricted freedom. Conservatives obviously don't support unlimited freedom in many areas of life. Many are very eager to restrict the freedom of women and girls to make personal decisions for themselves, even in cases of rape or incest, the freedom of gay people to marry same-sex partners (some even favor laws outlawing certain sex acts most people do behind closed doors where the government should, IMO, never intrude), and the freedom of parents in the state of Texas to work with their children's doctors to make decisions about medical treatment without fear of having Child Protective Services show up.
So why should freedoms relating to the purchase of all types of guns and ammo be unrestricted when so many other freedoms are simultaneously at risk of being severely restricted or eliminated altogether?
If making sure deranged, angry teens can't easily arm up and kill more than 20 kids and teachers in an elementary school isn't pro-life, then what is?
It just strikes me as really ironic that conservatives claim to be pro-life and pro-child when they have done everything possible to make our country a very unfriendly place to have and raise children:
-high cost of child care,
-no paid parental leave for many workers (especially low-income workers who need it most),
-no secure access to medical care for many working-age people,
-few or no workplace accommodations for pregnant women,
-schools that aren't safe where kids are forced to do active shooter drills because the right of anybody over 18 to own and carry lethal assault weapons is valued much higher politically than the lives of little children,
-schools where the school boards are banning books and trying to force a sanitized version of American history into the curriculum,
-schools where one religion is clearly favored and endorsed over all others (a sore point with me--my high school in the 1960s couldn't even have a prom because our principal was Church of Christ and wouldn't permit a dance and my grade school had a Christmas pageant that my Jewish classmate participated in because his parents thought that might keep him from being bullied. I thought we'd moved beyond that pettiness, but we clearly haven't, despite living in a country founded on the principles of no state religion and separation of church and state.
And the strategy to cope with a declining birth rate? Forced birth, even in cases or rape or incest, reducing a woman to a "vessel" + restrictions on contraception. That dismissive attitude toward woman as people whose personal agency and freedom also matters is what made it to easy for Paige Patterson and his ilk to flourish in the SBC for so many years.
What's sad is, the gun lobby and its Republican enablers will just wait this out. As they have every other mass shooting. If Sandy Hook and Parkland, where most of the victims were white middle-class kids, didn't spark change, a small-town school where most victims are Hispanic certainly won't. Which is a sick commentary on a supposedly Christian nation where "in Christ there is no east or west, in him no north or south, but one great fellowship of love..."
Love is not what those kids felt when they were shot to death in Uvalde. Shame on us as a nation.
Bring it on. Where did I lie?
This is a site where lots of people still believe Trump won the election when Trump clearly knows that's not true. Which is why he tried so hard to "intervene" (his word) and retain control of the government through chicany.
Which far too many Republicans like you and your despicable senator, Ted Cruz, still support.
If you believe in democracy re: gun rights, what about democracy re: elections? Or democracy re: women's rights to make personal decisions for themselves that 70% of Americans think should be up to them?
If democracy's good for gun rights, why not in these other areas?
The same people on this thread are pontificating about the Constitution and their rights to unlimited gun use under the Second Amendment were also fine with Trump trying to steal an election and eagerly participated in a lot of lying and gaslighting about a "stolen" election, many of them knowing full well their leader was pulling every corrupt lever he could pull to steal.
If you can't tell the truth about what happened in the last election, which is that Trump lost both the popular and electoral vote by a healthy margin because many Americans believed he was dangerously corrupt, I'm dying to see how you're going to spin how meanspirited, penurious policies that make it hard for working class families and professionals like teachers and nurses to afford child care and health care and decent housing are "pro-life" in any sense of the word, and what's important to you beyond a fertilized egg inside a body you value so little you want to completely snuff out its voice and agency with the force of law.
I only brought up machine guns because if the Army believes they can safely train an 18 year old to use one properly, why couldn't 18 years olds be trusted to learn to use a civilian firearm like the AR-15 at home.J.B.Katz said:Army personnel are trained professionals. They are supervised by commanding officers. They're using a weapon issued to them by the U.S. government. It doesn't belong to them. They can't take it with them when they leave military service. They face severe consequences if they misuse or abuse their weapon.JL said:18 years olds are trained to use machine guns in the Army. You would allow 18 year olds to die for your freedom overseas, but they can't defend themselves at home?J.B.Katz said:You had to be 21 to buy alcohol. Not 18.JL said:Again, you obviously have never bought a firearm and know nothing about guns other than what CNN has told you.J.B.Katz said:Then educate me.JL said:From reading this, I can only assume you have very little knowledge of firearms and "freedom."J.B.Katz said:How about not selling people guns until they're old enough to legally drink alcohol?boognish_bear said:Ghostrider said:. What is a troubled kid? What troubling thing in his life would have prevented him from getting a gun? Knowing that he was bullied? Knowing he failed 12th grade? Knowing he wore eyeliner? Serious questions.J.B.Katz said:
I don't want to ban guns.
I just want to restrict who can buy them so troubled 18-year-old kids can't buy assault weapons the week after they turn 18 and kill 19 kids and 2 teachers in an elementary school. Does that sound like a reasonble goal to you?
Seems like most….if not all…including this one….had posted pics online of themselves with their stockpile of weapons. That seems to be a common red flag.
I'm not sure exactly what schools or police have an authority to do or investigate when online pics like that surface….but that seems to be a definite commonality with these shooters.
Our society long ago concluded it was unwise to let teens drink adult beverages until they reached the minimum age of adulthood. Owning a gun is an adult responsibility.
My issue isn't with guns. They don't shoot themselves.
It's with the gun lobby's/politicians' complete failure to require people to exercise minimal care and responsibility in the sale of firearms and ammunition.
To get the guns this kid got, he should have been required to undergo gun safety training and get a license, like a hunting license. At his own expense. Tired of seeing "financial burden" arguments applied to gun safety training and licensing that conservatives don't accept when applied to the cost of healthcare and other basic necessities of life.
And, yes, if you want to own and use an assault weapon, you should be in a national database as the purchaser/owner of an assault weapon. There should be a clear public record of who has purchased assault weapons and ammo. The good guys who own these weapons proudly should have no problem with doing that on the record. And if somebody's assembling an arsenal to do a mass shooting, there should be ways to detect those purchases and investigate.
I'm really tired of an irresponsible level of "freedom" related to one specific product--guns--being valued far more than the lives and safety of children and other mass shooting victims.
It's also telling that there's a huge outcry about the 19 kids in Uvalde, but not so much of one about the racist shooter who carried out a carefully planned attack, right down to the body armor that made the "good guy with a gun" who was on the premises an inadequate defense against his attack, killing people for no other reason than because they lived in a black neighborhood and were shopping at their neighborhood grocery store.
Why should we have fewer restrictions on the purchase, ownership and use of lethal firearms and than we do on driving cars and drinking alcohol?
There are many areas of life in which we don't have unrestricted freedom. Conservatives obviously don't support unlimited freedom in many areas of life. Many are very eager to restrict the freedom of women and girls to make personal decisions for themselves, even in cases of rape or incest, the freedom of gay people to marry same-sex partners (some even favor laws outlawing certain sex acts most people do behind closed doors where the government should, IMO, never intrude), and the freedom of parents in the state of Texas to work with their children's doctors to make decisions about medical treatment without fear of having Child Protective Services show up.
So why should freedoms relating to the purchase of all types of guns and ammo be unrestricted when so many other freedoms are simultaneously at risk of being severely restricted or eliminated altogether?
If making sure deranged, angry teens can't easily arm up and kill more than 20 kids and teachers in an elementary school isn't pro-life, then what is?
It just strikes me as really ironic that conservatives claim to be pro-life and pro-child when they have done everything possible to make our country a very unfriendly place to have and raise children:
-high cost of child care,
-no paid parental leave for many workers (especially low-income workers who need it most),
-no secure access to medical care for many working-age people,
-few or no workplace accommodations for pregnant women,
-schools that aren't safe where kids are forced to do active shooter drills because the right of anybody over 18 to own and carry lethal assault weapons is valued much higher politically than the lives of little children,
-schools where the school boards are banning books and trying to force a sanitized version of American history into the curriculum,
-schools where one religion is clearly favored and endorsed over all others (a sore point with me--my high school in the 1960s couldn't even have a prom because our principal was Church of Christ and wouldn't permit a dance and my grade school had a Christmas pageant that my Jewish classmate participated in because his parents thought that might keep him from being bullied. I thought we'd moved beyond that pettiness, but we clearly haven't, despite living in a country founded on the principles of no state religion and separation of church and state.
And the strategy to cope with a declining birth rate? Forced birth, even in cases or rape or incest, reducing a woman to a "vessel" + restrictions on contraception. That dismissive attitude toward woman as people whose personal agency and freedom also matters is what made it to easy for Paige Patterson and his ilk to flourish in the SBC for so many years.
What's sad is, the gun lobby and its Republican enablers will just wait this out. As they have every other mass shooting. If Sandy Hook and Parkland, where most of the victims were white middle-class kids, didn't spark change, a small-town school where most victims are Hispanic certainly won't. Which is a sick commentary on a supposedly Christian nation where "in Christ there is no east or west, in him no north or south, but one great fellowship of love..."
Love is not what those kids felt when they were shot to death in Uvalde. Shame on us as a nation.
I've never had to have a backgound check to buy a car or alcohol.
You had to take driver's ed and pass 2 tests, a written test and a test where a cop got in the car with you and make you show you could responsibly operate a car, before you were issued a driver's license.
The state can also make you take an eye test to determine if you can see well enough to drive. Texas made my father-in-law do this, and he flunked it. Everybody in his family was relieved that he was no longer allowed behind the wheel.
The only reason there aren't licensure and training requirements for gun laws is that the extremely powerful gun lobby has bought and paid for Republican policians and campaigned hard on the idea that unlimited, unrestricted gun sales, ownership and use are a public good when that's clearly not true.
Others posting on this thread have accurately pointed out that the U.S. is awash in guns and they aren't going anywhere. But legal purchase and carry should be restricted to people old enough to drink alcohol. Everyone who carries should have to have a license to do so, and that license should be renewed at least as often as you renew your driver's license. And you should be required, at your own expense, to take and pass a gun safety test. Assault weapons should have special restrictions and involve more safety training.
Since the horse has left the barn, that's not going to stop deranged kids from getting their hands on guns and committing a massacre, as happened at Sandy Hook and this spring in Michigan, thanks to 2 of the most criminally stupid parents on the planet. But it's a start, and we need to make one.
What exactly is an assault weapon and why should they require special restrictions?
They aren't just issued an assault weapon with no training because they had enough money to buy one and turned loose to figure out how to use it and where to use it.
You're the only one talking about unlimited gun use, StrawmanJ.B.Katz said:cowboycwr said:What a joke of a response. Lots of lies, falsehoods, and leftist talking points in here with no basis in truth.J.B.Katz said:Then educate me.JL said:From reading this, I can only assume you have very little knowledge of firearms and "freedom."J.B.Katz said:How about not selling people guns until they're old enough to legally drink alcohol?boognish_bear said:Ghostrider said:. What is a troubled kid? What troubling thing in his life would have prevented him from getting a gun? Knowing that he was bullied? Knowing he failed 12th grade? Knowing he wore eyeliner? Serious questions.J.B.Katz said:I don't want to ban guns.SIC EM 94 said:J.B.Katz said:Yeah, I really want my grandkids to spent their school hours doing lots of active shooter drills and investing time and energy in all of the rest of this stuff instead of actually learning how to read, right and do arithemetic so Cowboy can open carry.cowboycwr said:
1. Armed police officers works for districts that can afford an officer per school. It doesn't work for smaller schools.
And as pointed out it doesn't always help if the officer does nothing like the Florida shooting.
2. Then there is the issue that they can't be everywhere at once and a shooter can still get in to the school.
3. Someone mentioned the locked doors. This is huge. There should be one entrance used to the school. Which is a problem at older schools that have multiple buildings like detached gyms, locker rooms, band halls, etc.
4. All schools need the locked outer door and an interior vestibule door that is locked.
5. Then go a step further and the glass on both doors and windows next to them need to be bullet resistant. I know of plenty of schools that have the two door system but both are just regular safety glass. Hard to break with a rock, chair, etc. but a gun would be able to shoot it out.
6. Panic button at the front desk.
7. Front desk person armed/ safe with locked gun. Or at minimum something like a can of bear spray.
8. Armed staff
9. Lots of drills. Currently in Texas schools have to do two lock down/active shooter drills a year. It should be more. With practice on what to do.
10. All classrooms should have devices used to jam the doors shut. There are a lot of options for any type of door.
All of these don't need to be done but at least two or 3 would help a lot.
What the Hell does open carry have to do with school shootings? You are so consumed by your dream of banning guns, that you make the most irrelevant posts over and over. Can you please try and think like an adult?
I just want to restrict who can buy them so troubled 18-year-old kids can't buy assault weapons the week after they turn 18 and kill 19 kids and 2 teachers in an elementary school. Does that sound like a reasonble goal to you?
Seems like most….if not all…including this one….had posted pics online of themselves with their stockpile of weapons. That seems to be a common red flag.
I'm not sure exactly what schools or police have an authority to do or investigate when online pics like that surface….but that seems to be a definite commonality with these shooters.
Our society long ago concluded it was unwise to let teens drink adult beverages until they reached the minimum age of adulthood. Owning a gun is an adult responsibility.
My issue isn't with guns. They don't shoot themselves.
It's with the gun lobby's/politicians' complete failure to require people to exercise minimal care and responsibility in the sale of firearms and ammunition.
To get the guns this kid got, he should have been required to undergo gun safety training and get a license, like a hunting license. At his own expense. Tired of seeing "financial burden" arguments applied to gun safety training and licensing that conservatives don't accept when applied to the cost of healthcare and other basic necessities of life.
And, yes, if you want to own and use an assault weapon, you should be in a national database as the purchaser/owner of an assault weapon. There should be a clear public record of who has purchased assault weapons and ammo. The good guys who own these weapons proudly should have no problem with doing that on the record. And if somebody's assembling an arsenal to do a mass shooting, there should be ways to detect those purchases and investigate.
I'm really tired of an irresponsible level of "freedom" related to one specific product--guns--being valued far more than the lives and safety of children and other mass shooting victims.
It's also telling that there's a huge outcry about the 19 kids in Uvalde, but not so much of one about the racist shooter who carried out a carefully planned attack, right down to the body armor that made the "good guy with a gun" who was on the premises an inadequate defense against his attack, killing people for no other reason than because they lived in a black neighborhood and were shopping at their neighborhood grocery store.
Why should we have fewer restrictions on the purchase, ownership and use of lethal firearms and than we do on driving cars and drinking alcohol?
There are many areas of life in which we don't have unrestricted freedom. Conservatives obviously don't support unlimited freedom in many areas of life. Many are very eager to restrict the freedom of women and girls to make personal decisions for themselves, even in cases of rape or incest, the freedom of gay people to marry same-sex partners (some even favor laws outlawing certain sex acts most people do behind closed doors where the government should, IMO, never intrude), and the freedom of parents in the state of Texas to work with their children's doctors to make decisions about medical treatment without fear of having Child Protective Services show up.
So why should freedoms relating to the purchase of all types of guns and ammo be unrestricted when so many other freedoms are simultaneously at risk of being severely restricted or eliminated altogether?
If making sure deranged, angry teens can't easily arm up and kill more than 20 kids and teachers in an elementary school isn't pro-life, then what is?
It just strikes me as really ironic that conservatives claim to be pro-life and pro-child when they have done everything possible to make our country a very unfriendly place to have and raise children:
-high cost of child care,
-no paid parental leave for many workers (especially low-income workers who need it most),
-no secure access to medical care for many working-age people,
-few or no workplace accommodations for pregnant women,
-schools that aren't safe where kids are forced to do active shooter drills because the right of anybody over 18 to own and carry lethal assault weapons is valued much higher politically than the lives of little children,
-schools where the school boards are banning books and trying to force a sanitized version of American history into the curriculum,
-schools where one religion is clearly favored and endorsed over all others (a sore point with me--my high school in the 1960s couldn't even have a prom because our principal was Church of Christ and wouldn't permit a dance and my grade school had a Christmas pageant that my Jewish classmate participated in because his parents thought that might keep him from being bullied. I thought we'd moved beyond that pettiness, but we clearly haven't, despite living in a country founded on the principles of no state religion and separation of church and state.
And the strategy to cope with a declining birth rate? Forced birth, even in cases or rape or incest, reducing a woman to a "vessel" + restrictions on contraception. That dismissive attitude toward woman as people whose personal agency and freedom also matters is what made it to easy for Paige Patterson and his ilk to flourish in the SBC for so many years.
What's sad is, the gun lobby and its Republican enablers will just wait this out. As they have every other mass shooting. If Sandy Hook and Parkland, where most of the victims were white middle-class kids, didn't spark change, a small-town school where most victims are Hispanic certainly won't. Which is a sick commentary on a supposedly Christian nation where "in Christ there is no east or west, in him no north or south, but one great fellowship of love..."
Love is not what those kids felt when they were shot to death in Uvalde. Shame on us as a nation.
Bring it on. Where did I lie?
This is a site where lots of people still believe Trump won the election when Trump clearly knows that's not true. Which is why he tried so hard to "intervene" (his word) and retain control of the government through chicany.
Which far too many Republicans like you and your despicable senator, Ted Cruz, still support.
If you believe in democracy re: gun rights, what about democracy re: elections? Or democracy re: women's rights to make personal decisions for themselves that 70% of Americans think should be up to them?
If democracy's good for gun rights, why not in these other areas?
The same people on this thread are pontificating about the Constitution and their rights to unlimited gun use under the Second Amendment were also fine with Trump trying to steal an election and eagerly participated in a lot of lying and gaslighting about a "stolen" election, many of them knowing full well their leader was pulling every corrupt lever he could pull to steal.
If you can't tell the truth about what happened in the last election, which is that Trump lost both the popular and electoral vote by a healthy margin because many Americans believed he was dangerously corrupt, I'm dying to see how you're going to spin how meanspirited, penurious policies that make it hard for working class families and professionals like teachers and nurses to afford child care and health care and decent housing are "pro-life" in any sense of the word, and what's important to you beyond a fertilized egg inside a body you value so little you want to completely snuff out its voice and agency with the force of law.
A lot of truth here. The people that call you deplorable and racists and demand the restriction of your right to free speech, who demand the government force you to take their injections or lose your livelihood, homes and freedom of travel, the ones who claim we hate women unless we accept the wholesale slaughter of humans in the womb, the ones who cheer on riots and destruction and deaths in the name of social justice now tell us they want to disarm us because a nut job murdered people, which of course they blame us for. The violent left is just one of the many reasons for most law abiding citizens that refuse to disarm.Redbrickbear said:In his defense no 18 year olds are dying over seas to protect your freedoms.JL said:18 years olds are trained to use machine guns in the Army. You would allow 18 year olds to die for your freedom overseas, but they can't defend themselves at home?J.B.Katz said:You had to be 21 to buy alcohol. Not 18.JL said:Again, you obviously have never bought a firearm and know nothing about guns other than what CNN has told you.J.B.Katz said:Then educate me.JL said:From reading this, I can only assume you have very little knowledge of firearms and "freedom."J.B.Katz said:How about not selling people guns until they're old enough to legally drink alcohol?boognish_bear said:Ghostrider said:. What is a troubled kid? What troubling thing in his life would have prevented him from getting a gun? Knowing that he was bullied? Knowing he failed 12th grade? Knowing he wore eyeliner? Serious questions.J.B.Katz said:I don't want to ban guns.SIC EM 94 said:J.B.Katz said:Yeah, I really want my grandkids to spent their school hours doing lots of active shooter drills and investing time and energy in all of the rest of this stuff instead of actually learning how to read, right and do arithemetic so Cowboy can open carry.cowboycwr said:
1. Armed police officers works for districts that can afford an officer per school. It doesn't work for smaller schools.
And as pointed out it doesn't always help if the officer does nothing like the Florida shooting.
2. Then there is the issue that they can't be everywhere at once and a shooter can still get in to the school.
3. Someone mentioned the locked doors. This is huge. There should be one entrance used to the school. Which is a problem at older schools that have multiple buildings like detached gyms, locker rooms, band halls, etc.
4. All schools need the locked outer door and an interior vestibule door that is locked.
5. Then go a step further and the glass on both doors and windows next to them need to be bullet resistant. I know of plenty of schools that have the two door system but both are just regular safety glass. Hard to break with a rock, chair, etc. but a gun would be able to shoot it out.
6. Panic button at the front desk.
7. Front desk person armed/ safe with locked gun. Or at minimum something like a can of bear spray.
8. Armed staff
9. Lots of drills. Currently in Texas schools have to do two lock down/active shooter drills a year. It should be more. With practice on what to do.
10. All classrooms should have devices used to jam the doors shut. There are a lot of options for any type of door.
All of these don't need to be done but at least two or 3 would help a lot.
What the Hell does open carry have to do with school shootings? You are so consumed by your dream of banning guns, that you make the most irrelevant posts over and over. Can you please try and think like an adult?
I just want to restrict who can buy them so troubled 18-year-old kids can't buy assault weapons the week after they turn 18 and kill 19 kids and 2 teachers in an elementary school. Does that sound like a reasonble goal to you?
Seems like most….if not all…including this one….had posted pics online of themselves with their stockpile of weapons. That seems to be a common red flag.
I'm not sure exactly what schools or police have an authority to do or investigate when online pics like that surface….but that seems to be a definite commonality with these shooters.
Our society long ago concluded it was unwise to let teens drink adult beverages until they reached the minimum age of adulthood. Owning a gun is an adult responsibility.
My issue isn't with guns. They don't shoot themselves.
It's with the gun lobby's/politicians' complete failure to require people to exercise minimal care and responsibility in the sale of firearms and ammunition.
To get the guns this kid got, he should have been required to undergo gun safety training and get a license, like a hunting license. At his own expense. Tired of seeing "financial burden" arguments applied to gun safety training and licensing that conservatives don't accept when applied to the cost of healthcare and other basic necessities of life.
And, yes, if you want to own and use an assault weapon, you should be in a national database as the purchaser/owner of an assault weapon. There should be a clear public record of who has purchased assault weapons and ammo. The good guys who own these weapons proudly should have no problem with doing that on the record. And if somebody's assembling an arsenal to do a mass shooting, there should be ways to detect those purchases and investigate.
I'm really tired of an irresponsible level of "freedom" related to one specific product--guns--being valued far more than the lives and safety of children and other mass shooting victims.
It's also telling that there's a huge outcry about the 19 kids in Uvalde, but not so much of one about the racist shooter who carried out a carefully planned attack, right down to the body armor that made the "good guy with a gun" who was on the premises an inadequate defense against his attack, killing people for no other reason than because they lived in a black neighborhood and were shopping at their neighborhood grocery store.
Why should we have fewer restrictions on the purchase, ownership and use of lethal firearms and than we do on driving cars and drinking alcohol?
There are many areas of life in which we don't have unrestricted freedom. Conservatives obviously don't support unlimited freedom in many areas of life. Many are very eager to restrict the freedom of women and girls to make personal decisions for themselves, even in cases of rape or incest, the freedom of gay people to marry same-sex partners (some even favor laws outlawing certain sex acts most people do behind closed doors where the government should, IMO, never intrude), and the freedom of parents in the state of Texas to work with their children's doctors to make decisions about medical treatment without fear of having Child Protective Services show up.
So why should freedoms relating to the purchase of all types of guns and ammo be unrestricted when so many other freedoms are simultaneously at risk of being severely restricted or eliminated altogether?
If making sure deranged, angry teens can't easily arm up and kill more than 20 kids and teachers in an elementary school isn't pro-life, then what is?
It just strikes me as really ironic that conservatives claim to be pro-life and pro-child when they have done everything possible to make our country a very unfriendly place to have and raise children:
-high cost of child care,
-no paid parental leave for many workers (especially low-income workers who need it most),
-no secure access to medical care for many working-age people,
-few or no workplace accommodations for pregnant women,
-schools that aren't safe where kids are forced to do active shooter drills because the right of anybody over 18 to own and carry lethal assault weapons is valued much higher politically than the lives of little children,
-schools where the school boards are banning books and trying to force a sanitized version of American history into the curriculum,
-schools where one religion is clearly favored and endorsed over all others (a sore point with me--my high school in the 1960s couldn't even have a prom because our principal was Church of Christ and wouldn't permit a dance and my grade school had a Christmas pageant that my Jewish classmate participated in because his parents thought that might keep him from being bullied. I thought we'd moved beyond that pettiness, but we clearly haven't, despite living in a country founded on the principles of no state religion and separation of church and state.
And the strategy to cope with a declining birth rate? Forced birth, even in cases or rape or incest, reducing a woman to a "vessel" + restrictions on contraception. That dismissive attitude toward woman as people whose personal agency and freedom also matters is what made it to easy for Paige Patterson and his ilk to flourish in the SBC for so many years.
What's sad is, the gun lobby and its Republican enablers will just wait this out. As they have every other mass shooting. If Sandy Hook and Parkland, where most of the victims were white middle-class kids, didn't spark change, a small-town school where most victims are Hispanic certainly won't. Which is a sick commentary on a supposedly Christian nation where "in Christ there is no east or west, in him no north or south, but one great fellowship of love..."
Love is not what those kids felt when they were shot to death in Uvalde. Shame on us as a nation.
I've never had to have a backgound check to buy a car or alcohol.
You had to take driver's ed and pass 2 tests, a written test and a test where a cop got in the car with you and make you show you could responsibly operate a car, before you were issued a driver's license.
The state can also make you take an eye test to determine if you can see well enough to drive. Texas made my father-in-law do this, and he flunked it. Everybody in his family was relieved that he was no longer allowed behind the wheel.
The only reason there aren't licensure and training requirements for gun laws is that the extremely powerful gun lobby has bought and paid for Republican policians and campaigned hard on the idea that unlimited, unrestricted gun sales, ownership and use are a public good when that's clearly not true.
Others posting on this thread have accurately pointed out that the U.S. is awash in guns and they aren't going anywhere. But legal purchase and carry should be restricted to people old enough to drink alcohol. Everyone who carries should have to have a license to do so, and that license should be renewed at least as often as you renew your driver's license. And you should be required, at your own expense, to take and pass a gun safety test. Assault weapons should have special restrictions and involve more safety training.
Since the horse has left the barn, that's not going to stop deranged kids from getting their hands on guns and committing a massacre, as happened at Sandy Hook and this spring in Michigan, thanks to 2 of the most criminally stupid parents on the planet. But it's a start, and we need to make one.
What exactly is an assault weapon and why should they require special restrictions?
They may be dying for the interests of the liberal ruling class...but not for your rights....in fact the regime in D.C. is systemically engaged in oppression overseas and here at home.
They tear down your statues, allow riots in the streets along with rampant criminality, teach demented sexuality to your children, and monitor your cell phone calls.
You think this regime is "protecting our freedoms" by also engaging in globalist war mongering?
We have to address mental healthcare and we have to put age restrictions on social media. Get CPS involved if parents refuse to keep their kids off those platforms. Maybe provide monitored platforms as an alternative. The profits of Facebook , Insta etc shouldn't come before the mental health of our youth.
Our vibrations were getting nasty. But why? I was puzzled, frustrated... Had we deteriorated to the level of dumb beasts?
The military is like a parent. A commanding officer controls the personnel in his unit.JL said:I only brought up machine guns because if the Army believes they can safely train an 18 year old to use one properly, why couldn't 18 years olds be trusted to learn to use a civilian firearm like the AR-15 at home.J.B.Katz said:Army personnel are trained professionals. They are supervised by commanding officers. They're using a weapon issued to them by the U.S. government. It doesn't belong to them. They can't take it with them when they leave military service. They face severe consequences if they misuse or abuse their weapon.JL said:18 years olds are trained to use machine guns in the Army. You would allow 18 year olds to die for your freedom overseas, but they can't defend themselves at home?J.B.Katz said:You had to be 21 to buy alcohol. Not 18.JL said:Again, you obviously have never bought a firearm and know nothing about guns other than what CNN has told you.J.B.Katz said:Then educate me.JL said:From reading this, I can only assume you have very little knowledge of firearms and "freedom."J.B.Katz said:How about not selling people guns until they're old enough to legally drink alcohol?boognish_bear said:Ghostrider said:. What is a troubled kid? What troubling thing in his life would have prevented him from getting a gun? Knowing that he was bullied? Knowing he failed 12th grade? Knowing he wore eyeliner? Serious questions.J.B.Katz said:
I don't want to ban guns.
I just want to restrict who can buy them so troubled 18-year-old kids can't buy assault weapons the week after they turn 18 and kill 19 kids and 2 teachers in an elementary school. Does that sound like a reasonble goal to you?
Seems like most….if not all…including this one….had posted pics online of themselves with their stockpile of weapons. That seems to be a common red flag.
I'm not sure exactly what schools or police have an authority to do or investigate when online pics like that surface….but that seems to be a definite commonality with these shooters.
Our society long ago concluded it was unwise to let teens drink adult beverages until they reached the minimum age of adulthood. Owning a gun is an adult responsibility.
My issue isn't with guns. They don't shoot themselves.
It's with the gun lobby's/politicians' complete failure to require people to exercise minimal care and responsibility in the sale of firearms and ammunition.
To get the guns this kid got, he should have been required to undergo gun safety training and get a license, like a hunting license. At his own expense. Tired of seeing "financial burden" arguments applied to gun safety training and licensing that conservatives don't accept when applied to the cost of healthcare and other basic necessities of life.
And, yes, if you want to own and use an assault weapon, you should be in a national database as the purchaser/owner of an assault weapon. There should be a clear public record of who has purchased assault weapons and ammo. The good guys who own these weapons proudly should have no problem with doing that on the record. And if somebody's assembling an arsenal to do a mass shooting, there should be ways to detect those purchases and investigate.
I'm really tired of an irresponsible level of "freedom" related to one specific product--guns--being valued far more than the lives and safety of children and other mass shooting victims.
It's also telling that there's a huge outcry about the 19 kids in Uvalde, but not so much of one about the racist shooter who carried out a carefully planned attack, right down to the body armor that made the "good guy with a gun" who was on the premises an inadequate defense against his attack, killing people for no other reason than because they lived in a black neighborhood and were shopping at their neighborhood grocery store.
Why should we have fewer restrictions on the purchase, ownership and use of lethal firearms and than we do on driving cars and drinking alcohol?
There are many areas of life in which we don't have unrestricted freedom. Conservatives obviously don't support unlimited freedom in many areas of life. Many are very eager to restrict the freedom of women and girls to make personal decisions for themselves, even in cases of rape or incest, the freedom of gay people to marry same-sex partners (some even favor laws outlawing certain sex acts most people do behind closed doors where the government should, IMO, never intrude), and the freedom of parents in the state of Texas to work with their children's doctors to make decisions about medical treatment without fear of having Child Protective Services show up.
So why should freedoms relating to the purchase of all types of guns and ammo be unrestricted when so many other freedoms are simultaneously at risk of being severely restricted or eliminated altogether?
If making sure deranged, angry teens can't easily arm up and kill more than 20 kids and teachers in an elementary school isn't pro-life, then what is?
It just strikes me as really ironic that conservatives claim to be pro-life and pro-child when they have done everything possible to make our country a very unfriendly place to have and raise children:
-high cost of child care,
-no paid parental leave for many workers (especially low-income workers who need it most),
-no secure access to medical care for many working-age people,
-few or no workplace accommodations for pregnant women,
-schools that aren't safe where kids are forced to do active shooter drills because the right of anybody over 18 to own and carry lethal assault weapons is valued much higher politically than the lives of little children,
-schools where the school boards are banning books and trying to force a sanitized version of American history into the curriculum,
-schools where one religion is clearly favored and endorsed over all others (a sore point with me--my high school in the 1960s couldn't even have a prom because our principal was Church of Christ and wouldn't permit a dance and my grade school had a Christmas pageant that my Jewish classmate participated in because his parents thought that might keep him from being bullied. I thought we'd moved beyond that pettiness, but we clearly haven't, despite living in a country founded on the principles of no state religion and separation of church and state.
And the strategy to cope with a declining birth rate? Forced birth, even in cases or rape or incest, reducing a woman to a "vessel" + restrictions on contraception. That dismissive attitude toward woman as people whose personal agency and freedom also matters is what made it to easy for Paige Patterson and his ilk to flourish in the SBC for so many years.
What's sad is, the gun lobby and its Republican enablers will just wait this out. As they have every other mass shooting. If Sandy Hook and Parkland, where most of the victims were white middle-class kids, didn't spark change, a small-town school where most victims are Hispanic certainly won't. Which is a sick commentary on a supposedly Christian nation where "in Christ there is no east or west, in him no north or south, but one great fellowship of love..."
Love is not what those kids felt when they were shot to death in Uvalde. Shame on us as a nation.
I've never had to have a backgound check to buy a car or alcohol.
You had to take driver's ed and pass 2 tests, a written test and a test where a cop got in the car with you and make you show you could responsibly operate a car, before you were issued a driver's license.
The state can also make you take an eye test to determine if you can see well enough to drive. Texas made my father-in-law do this, and he flunked it. Everybody in his family was relieved that he was no longer allowed behind the wheel.
The only reason there aren't licensure and training requirements for gun laws is that the extremely powerful gun lobby has bought and paid for Republican policians and campaigned hard on the idea that unlimited, unrestricted gun sales, ownership and use are a public good when that's clearly not true.
Others posting on this thread have accurately pointed out that the U.S. is awash in guns and they aren't going anywhere. But legal purchase and carry should be restricted to people old enough to drink alcohol. Everyone who carries should have to have a license to do so, and that license should be renewed at least as often as you renew your driver's license. And you should be required, at your own expense, to take and pass a gun safety test. Assault weapons should have special restrictions and involve more safety training.
Since the horse has left the barn, that's not going to stop deranged kids from getting their hands on guns and committing a massacre, as happened at Sandy Hook and this spring in Michigan, thanks to 2 of the most criminally stupid parents on the planet. But it's a start, and we need to make one.
What exactly is an assault weapon and why should they require special restrictions?
They aren't just issued an assault weapon with no training because they had enough money to buy one and turned loose to figure out how to use it and where to use it.
My cousin went through the University of Rochester in the Navy ROTC and then was assigned to supervise a unit of sailers maintaining the engine of a battleship. He was 22, and most of his sailers were 18 or 19. He was responsible for them if they missed car payments, hit their wives (they were all men), whatever. There was no aspect of their lives for which the military didn't consider him personally accountable in his capacity as their unit commander. I don't think he had realized that he'd be responsible for making sure his unit toed the line in every aspect of their lives until he assumed that command, but he said it was great management training.
That's a lot different from buying an assault weapon at Walmart or a gun show and heading home with it to shoot your grandmother next time she tells you to make your bed.
right. cant trust you to teach but here take this handgun i guess and good luck with it. we dont require training for them anymore so im sure our garbage education system cant afford to train you how to use it. just aim and hope you dont hit any kids or yourself.
How was the Uvalde shooter limited? He murdered an entire 4th grade class and critically wounded his own grandmother with a gun and ammo he could legally purchase.JL said:You're the only one talking about unlimited gun use, StrawmanJ.B.Katz said:cowboycwr said:What a joke of a response. Lots of lies, falsehoods, and leftist talking points in here with no basis in truth.J.B.Katz said:Then educate me.JL said:From reading this, I can only assume you have very little knowledge of firearms and "freedom."J.B.Katz said:How about not selling people guns until they're old enough to legally drink alcohol?boognish_bear said:Ghostrider said:. What is a troubled kid? What troubling thing in his life would have prevented him from getting a gun? Knowing that he was bullied? Knowing he failed 12th grade? Knowing he wore eyeliner? Serious questions.J.B.Katz said:I don't want to ban guns.SIC EM 94 said:J.B.Katz said:Yeah, I really want my grandkids to spent their school hours doing lots of active shooter drills and investing time and energy in all of the rest of this stuff instead of actually learning how to read, right and do arithemetic so Cowboy can open carry.cowboycwr said:
1. Armed police officers works for districts that can afford an officer per school. It doesn't work for smaller schools.
And as pointed out it doesn't always help if the officer does nothing like the Florida shooting.
2. Then there is the issue that they can't be everywhere at once and a shooter can still get in to the school.
3. Someone mentioned the locked doors. This is huge. There should be one entrance used to the school. Which is a problem at older schools that have multiple buildings like detached gyms, locker rooms, band halls, etc.
4. All schools need the locked outer door and an interior vestibule door that is locked.
5. Then go a step further and the glass on both doors and windows next to them need to be bullet resistant. I know of plenty of schools that have the two door system but both are just regular safety glass. Hard to break with a rock, chair, etc. but a gun would be able to shoot it out.
6. Panic button at the front desk.
7. Front desk person armed/ safe with locked gun. Or at minimum something like a can of bear spray.
8. Armed staff
9. Lots of drills. Currently in Texas schools have to do two lock down/active shooter drills a year. It should be more. With practice on what to do.
10. All classrooms should have devices used to jam the doors shut. There are a lot of options for any type of door.
All of these don't need to be done but at least two or 3 would help a lot.
What the Hell does open carry have to do with school shootings? You are so consumed by your dream of banning guns, that you make the most irrelevant posts over and over. Can you please try and think like an adult?
I just want to restrict who can buy them so troubled 18-year-old kids can't buy assault weapons the week after they turn 18 and kill 19 kids and 2 teachers in an elementary school. Does that sound like a reasonble goal to you?
Seems like most….if not all…including this one….had posted pics online of themselves with their stockpile of weapons. That seems to be a common red flag.
I'm not sure exactly what schools or police have an authority to do or investigate when online pics like that surface….but that seems to be a definite commonality with these shooters.
Our society long ago concluded it was unwise to let teens drink adult beverages until they reached the minimum age of adulthood. Owning a gun is an adult responsibility.
My issue isn't with guns. They don't shoot themselves.
It's with the gun lobby's/politicians' complete failure to require people to exercise minimal care and responsibility in the sale of firearms and ammunition.
To get the guns this kid got, he should have been required to undergo gun safety training and get a license, like a hunting license. At his own expense. Tired of seeing "financial burden" arguments applied to gun safety training and licensing that conservatives don't accept when applied to the cost of healthcare and other basic necessities of life.
And, yes, if you want to own and use an assault weapon, you should be in a national database as the purchaser/owner of an assault weapon. There should be a clear public record of who has purchased assault weapons and ammo. The good guys who own these weapons proudly should have no problem with doing that on the record. And if somebody's assembling an arsenal to do a mass shooting, there should be ways to detect those purchases and investigate.
I'm really tired of an irresponsible level of "freedom" related to one specific product--guns--being valued far more than the lives and safety of children and other mass shooting victims.
It's also telling that there's a huge outcry about the 19 kids in Uvalde, but not so much of one about the racist shooter who carried out a carefully planned attack, right down to the body armor that made the "good guy with a gun" who was on the premises an inadequate defense against his attack, killing people for no other reason than because they lived in a black neighborhood and were shopping at their neighborhood grocery store.
Why should we have fewer restrictions on the purchase, ownership and use of lethal firearms and than we do on driving cars and drinking alcohol?
There are many areas of life in which we don't have unrestricted freedom. Conservatives obviously don't support unlimited freedom in many areas of life. Many are very eager to restrict the freedom of women and girls to make personal decisions for themselves, even in cases of rape or incest, the freedom of gay people to marry same-sex partners (some even favor laws outlawing certain sex acts most people do behind closed doors where the government should, IMO, never intrude), and the freedom of parents in the state of Texas to work with their children's doctors to make decisions about medical treatment without fear of having Child Protective Services show up.
So why should freedoms relating to the purchase of all types of guns and ammo be unrestricted when so many other freedoms are simultaneously at risk of being severely restricted or eliminated altogether?
If making sure deranged, angry teens can't easily arm up and kill more than 20 kids and teachers in an elementary school isn't pro-life, then what is?
It just strikes me as really ironic that conservatives claim to be pro-life and pro-child when they have done everything possible to make our country a very unfriendly place to have and raise children:
-high cost of child care,
-no paid parental leave for many workers (especially low-income workers who need it most),
-no secure access to medical care for many working-age people,
-few or no workplace accommodations for pregnant women,
-schools that aren't safe where kids are forced to do active shooter drills because the right of anybody over 18 to own and carry lethal assault weapons is valued much higher politically than the lives of little children,
-schools where the school boards are banning books and trying to force a sanitized version of American history into the curriculum,
-schools where one religion is clearly favored and endorsed over all others (a sore point with me--my high school in the 1960s couldn't even have a prom because our principal was Church of Christ and wouldn't permit a dance and my grade school had a Christmas pageant that my Jewish classmate participated in because his parents thought that might keep him from being bullied. I thought we'd moved beyond that pettiness, but we clearly haven't, despite living in a country founded on the principles of no state religion and separation of church and state.
And the strategy to cope with a declining birth rate? Forced birth, even in cases or rape or incest, reducing a woman to a "vessel" + restrictions on contraception. That dismissive attitude toward woman as people whose personal agency and freedom also matters is what made it to easy for Paige Patterson and his ilk to flourish in the SBC for so many years.
What's sad is, the gun lobby and its Republican enablers will just wait this out. As they have every other mass shooting. If Sandy Hook and Parkland, where most of the victims were white middle-class kids, didn't spark change, a small-town school where most victims are Hispanic certainly won't. Which is a sick commentary on a supposedly Christian nation where "in Christ there is no east or west, in him no north or south, but one great fellowship of love..."
Love is not what those kids felt when they were shot to death in Uvalde. Shame on us as a nation.
Bring it on. Where did I lie?
This is a site where lots of people still believe Trump won the election when Trump clearly knows that's not true. Which is why he tried so hard to "intervene" (his word) and retain control of the government through chicany.
Which far too many Republicans like you and your despicable senator, Ted Cruz, still support.
If you believe in democracy re: gun rights, what about democracy re: elections? Or democracy re: women's rights to make personal decisions for themselves that 70% of Americans think should be up to them?
If democracy's good for gun rights, why not in these other areas?
The same people on this thread are pontificating about the Constitution and their rights to unlimited gun use under the Second Amendment were also fine with Trump trying to steal an election and eagerly participated in a lot of lying and gaslighting about a "stolen" election, many of them knowing full well their leader was pulling every corrupt lever he could pull to steal.
If you can't tell the truth about what happened in the last election, which is that Trump lost both the popular and electoral vote by a healthy margin because many Americans believed he was dangerously corrupt, I'm dying to see how you're going to spin how meanspirited, penurious policies that make it hard for working class families and professionals like teachers and nurses to afford child care and health care and decent housing are "pro-life" in any sense of the word, and what's important to you beyond a fertilized egg inside a body you value so little you want to completely snuff out its voice and agency with the force of law.
Why do you think this should be possible and easy to do?
The teachers themselves would choose to be armed, no one would force them to do so. Should they choose they would have to be trained. Even slimy leftists deserve the right to defend themselves.ScruffyD said:
right. cant trust you to teach but here take this handgun i guess and good luck with it. we dont require training for them anymore so im sure our garbage education system cant afford to train you how to use it. just aim and hope you dont hit any kids or yourself.
Our vibrations were getting nasty. But why? I was puzzled, frustrated... Had we deteriorated to the level of dumb beasts?
Berg09 said:
I love to play first person shooters. I guess I should be on a watchlist now?
I stated that I enjoy them.
Two questions for you:
Have you read a book by an expert on the psychology of killing?
Did I state that video games are the sole reason for mass shootings?
Actually a third question:
Did you really understand the points in my post before popping off?
It's not the guns. It's not one political ideology or another. It is the way we address (or don't address) mental health. It is the way bring up boys and young men.
The last four instances of mass killings in this country featured and Asian man in California, a black man in New York City, a white man in New York, and a young Hispanic man in Texas. They had varying extremist political views both right and left. These events occurred in both states with highly restrictive gun laws and those with less restrictive gun laws. What they had in common was they were all perpetrated by men, they all had demonstrated mental health issues, and they all chose relatively soft targets.
We need to focus on protecting vulnerable targets like schools and churches and address mental health issues with individuals head on. There should be a zero tolerance policy for threats of violence in schools. Someone mentioned 2 weeks suspension. No thanks. This issue is too serious. If a student makes a verified threat of mass violence (written, social media, witnessed by a teacher, etc), they should be expelled, flagged in systems, and go through mandatory mental health counseling.
Both sides need to stop trying to score political points and talk about actually addressing issues related to this topic. We cant rationalize, support, and even celebrate mental health issues in some areas while demonizing it in others. We need politically neutral mental health experts to stop pandering to cultural movements and to speak truth about what constitutes actual mental health issues and what effective treatment should look like.
In schools, a single point of entry with multiple layers of doors. My school growing up had a resource officer. His office was tucked away somewhere secluded, although he did make rounds. That person's office should be in eyesight of that single point of entry. Magnetic locks and panic buttons should be installed. These are the kinds of things public dollars should be funding in schools. All schools, not matter how rare public school shooting instances are. I live in Oklahoma. The chance of your home getting hit by a tornado is relatively low but that doesn't stop almost everyone from installing a storm shelter. Prepare for the worst and invest in the safety of our children. Evil/mentally ill people will always exist and some may look for ways to inflict harm on others at scale. Let's not make it easy for them.
The last four instances of mass killings in this country featured and Asian man in California, a black man in New York City, a white man in New York, and a young Hispanic man in Texas. They had varying extremist political views both right and left. These events occurred in both states with highly restrictive gun laws and those with less restrictive gun laws. What they had in common was they were all perpetrated by men, they all had demonstrated mental health issues, and they all chose relatively soft targets.
We need to focus on protecting vulnerable targets like schools and churches and address mental health issues with individuals head on. There should be a zero tolerance policy for threats of violence in schools. Someone mentioned 2 weeks suspension. No thanks. This issue is too serious. If a student makes a verified threat of mass violence (written, social media, witnessed by a teacher, etc), they should be expelled, flagged in systems, and go through mandatory mental health counseling.
Both sides need to stop trying to score political points and talk about actually addressing issues related to this topic. We cant rationalize, support, and even celebrate mental health issues in some areas while demonizing it in others. We need politically neutral mental health experts to stop pandering to cultural movements and to speak truth about what constitutes actual mental health issues and what effective treatment should look like.
In schools, a single point of entry with multiple layers of doors. My school growing up had a resource officer. His office was tucked away somewhere secluded, although he did make rounds. That person's office should be in eyesight of that single point of entry. Magnetic locks and panic buttons should be installed. These are the kinds of things public dollars should be funding in schools. All schools, not matter how rare public school shooting instances are. I live in Oklahoma. The chance of your home getting hit by a tornado is relatively low but that doesn't stop almost everyone from installing a storm shelter. Prepare for the worst and invest in the safety of our children. Evil/mentally ill people will always exist and some may look for ways to inflict harm on others at scale. Let's not make it easy for them.
Asking teachers not to speak with your children about private sexuality or talk about race through a Howard Zinn/Nikole Hannah-Jones ideological prospective is just common decency.ScruffyD said:
right. cant trust you to teach but here take this handgun i guess and good luck with it. we dont require training for them anymore so im sure our garbage education system cant afford to train you how to use it. just aim and hope you dont hit any kids or yourself.
We can easily parse that out from discussions about what to do about keeping children physically safe from school shootings.
LOL took you long enough to bring up Trump.J.B.Katz said:cowboycwr said:What a joke of a response. Lots of lies, falsehoods, and leftist talking points in here with no basis in truth.J.B.Katz said:Then educate me.JL said:From reading this, I can only assume you have very little knowledge of firearms and "freedom."J.B.Katz said:How about not selling people guns until they're old enough to legally drink alcohol?boognish_bear said:Ghostrider said:. What is a troubled kid? What troubling thing in his life would have prevented him from getting a gun? Knowing that he was bullied? Knowing he failed 12th grade? Knowing he wore eyeliner? Serious questions.J.B.Katz said:I don't want to ban guns.SIC EM 94 said:J.B.Katz said:Yeah, I really want my grandkids to spent their school hours doing lots of active shooter drills and investing time and energy in all of the rest of this stuff instead of actually learning how to read, right and do arithemetic so Cowboy can open carry.cowboycwr said:
1. Armed police officers works for districts that can afford an officer per school. It doesn't work for smaller schools.
And as pointed out it doesn't always help if the officer does nothing like the Florida shooting.
2. Then there is the issue that they can't be everywhere at once and a shooter can still get in to the school.
3. Someone mentioned the locked doors. This is huge. There should be one entrance used to the school. Which is a problem at older schools that have multiple buildings like detached gyms, locker rooms, band halls, etc.
4. All schools need the locked outer door and an interior vestibule door that is locked.
5. Then go a step further and the glass on both doors and windows next to them need to be bullet resistant. I know of plenty of schools that have the two door system but both are just regular safety glass. Hard to break with a rock, chair, etc. but a gun would be able to shoot it out.
6. Panic button at the front desk.
7. Front desk person armed/ safe with locked gun. Or at minimum something like a can of bear spray.
8. Armed staff
9. Lots of drills. Currently in Texas schools have to do two lock down/active shooter drills a year. It should be more. With practice on what to do.
10. All classrooms should have devices used to jam the doors shut. There are a lot of options for any type of door.
All of these don't need to be done but at least two or 3 would help a lot.
What the Hell does open carry have to do with school shootings? You are so consumed by your dream of banning guns, that you make the most irrelevant posts over and over. Can you please try and think like an adult?
I just want to restrict who can buy them so troubled 18-year-old kids can't buy assault weapons the week after they turn 18 and kill 19 kids and 2 teachers in an elementary school. Does that sound like a reasonble goal to you?
Seems like most….if not all…including this one….had posted pics online of themselves with their stockpile of weapons. That seems to be a common red flag.
I'm not sure exactly what schools or police have an authority to do or investigate when online pics like that surface….but that seems to be a definite commonality with these shooters.
Our society long ago concluded it was unwise to let teens drink adult beverages until they reached the minimum age of adulthood. Owning a gun is an adult responsibility.
My issue isn't with guns. They don't shoot themselves.
It's with the gun lobby's/politicians' complete failure to require people to exercise minimal care and responsibility in the sale of firearms and ammunition.
To get the guns this kid got, he should have been required to undergo gun safety training and get a license, like a hunting license. At his own expense. Tired of seeing "financial burden" arguments applied to gun safety training and licensing that conservatives don't accept when applied to the cost of healthcare and other basic necessities of life.
And, yes, if you want to own and use an assault weapon, you should be in a national database as the purchaser/owner of an assault weapon. There should be a clear public record of who has purchased assault weapons and ammo. The good guys who own these weapons proudly should have no problem with doing that on the record. And if somebody's assembling an arsenal to do a mass shooting, there should be ways to detect those purchases and investigate.
I'm really tired of an irresponsible level of "freedom" related to one specific product--guns--being valued far more than the lives and safety of children and other mass shooting victims.
It's also telling that there's a huge outcry about the 19 kids in Uvalde, but not so much of one about the racist shooter who carried out a carefully planned attack, right down to the body armor that made the "good guy with a gun" who was on the premises an inadequate defense against his attack, killing people for no other reason than because they lived in a black neighborhood and were shopping at their neighborhood grocery store.
Why should we have fewer restrictions on the purchase, ownership and use of lethal firearms and than we do on driving cars and drinking alcohol?
There are many areas of life in which we don't have unrestricted freedom. Conservatives obviously don't support unlimited freedom in many areas of life. Many are very eager to restrict the freedom of women and girls to make personal decisions for themselves, even in cases of rape or incest, the freedom of gay people to marry same-sex partners (some even favor laws outlawing certain sex acts most people do behind closed doors where the government should, IMO, never intrude), and the freedom of parents in the state of Texas to work with their children's doctors to make decisions about medical treatment without fear of having Child Protective Services show up.
So why should freedoms relating to the purchase of all types of guns and ammo be unrestricted when so many other freedoms are simultaneously at risk of being severely restricted or eliminated altogether?
If making sure deranged, angry teens can't easily arm up and kill more than 20 kids and teachers in an elementary school isn't pro-life, then what is?
It just strikes me as really ironic that conservatives claim to be pro-life and pro-child when they have done everything possible to make our country a very unfriendly place to have and raise children:
-high cost of child care,
-no paid parental leave for many workers (especially low-income workers who need it most),
-no secure access to medical care for many working-age people,
-few or no workplace accommodations for pregnant women,
-schools that aren't safe where kids are forced to do active shooter drills because the right of anybody over 18 to own and carry lethal assault weapons is valued much higher politically than the lives of little children,
-schools where the school boards are banning books and trying to force a sanitized version of American history into the curriculum,
-schools where one religion is clearly favored and endorsed over all others (a sore point with me--my high school in the 1960s couldn't even have a prom because our principal was Church of Christ and wouldn't permit a dance and my grade school had a Christmas pageant that my Jewish classmate participated in because his parents thought that might keep him from being bullied. I thought we'd moved beyond that pettiness, but we clearly haven't, despite living in a country founded on the principles of no state religion and separation of church and state.
And the strategy to cope with a declining birth rate? Forced birth, even in cases or rape or incest, reducing a woman to a "vessel" + restrictions on contraception. That dismissive attitude toward woman as people whose personal agency and freedom also matters is what made it to easy for Paige Patterson and his ilk to flourish in the SBC for so many years.
What's sad is, the gun lobby and its Republican enablers will just wait this out. As they have every other mass shooting. If Sandy Hook and Parkland, where most of the victims were white middle-class kids, didn't spark change, a small-town school where most victims are Hispanic certainly won't. Which is a sick commentary on a supposedly Christian nation where "in Christ there is no east or west, in him no north or south, but one great fellowship of love..."
Love is not what those kids felt when they were shot to death in Uvalde. Shame on us as a nation.
Bring it on. Where did I lie?
This is a site where lots of people still believe Trump won the election when Trump clearly knows that's not true. Which is why he tried so hard to "intervene" (his word) and retain control of the government through chicany.
Which far too many Republicans like you and your despicable senator, Ted Cruz, still support.
If you believe in democracy re: gun rights, what about democracy re: elections? Or democracy re: women's rights to make personal decisions for themselves that 70% of Americans think should be up to them?
If democracy's good for gun rights, why not in these other areas?
The same people on this thread are pontificating about the Constitution and their rights to unlimited gun use under the Second Amendment were also fine with Trump trying to steal an election and eagerly participated in a lot of lying and gaslighting about a "stolen" election, many of them knowing full well their leader was pulling every corrupt lever he could pull to steal.
If you can't tell the truth about what happened in the last election, which is that Trump lost both the popular and electoral vote by a healthy margin because many Americans believed he was dangerously corrupt, I'm dying to see how you're going to spin how meanspirited, penurious policies that make it hard for working class families and professionals like teachers and nurses to afford child care and health care and decent housing are "pro-life" in any sense of the word, and what's important to you beyond a fertilized egg inside a body you value so little you want to completely snuff out its voice and agency with the force of law.
I never said anything about Republican or dem. I never said a thing on here about Trump winning the election. Why you have seemed to tie that to me because I disagree with you is absurd and I don't get how you made that jump.
Where did you lie? Try the restrictions on guns being fewer than cars. That is false.
Then the whole paragraph about what conservatives want which is a bunch of lies and things that maybe a handful of conservatives favor.
But yeah go ahead and keep telling lies both about me and what I believe and on guns.
The USA has gun violence similar to Latin American and Sub-Saharan African nations.
I'm not sure how to analyze that.
Mexico for instance has harsh gun control laws...but still has high gun violence. South Africa as well has strict gun control laws and horrible violence. But as we have seen Israel has high gun ownership and little gun violence on the streets.
In Islamic North African nations you can quite easily get a gun license if your criminal record is free of criminal activity. And yet they have low gun violence.
Maybe there is some other cause at work.
I'm not sure how to analyze that.
Mexico for instance has harsh gun control laws...but still has high gun violence. South Africa as well has strict gun control laws and horrible violence. But as we have seen Israel has high gun ownership and little gun violence on the streets.
In Islamic North African nations you can quite easily get a gun license if your criminal record is free of criminal activity. And yet they have low gun violence.
Maybe there is some other cause at work.
AR doesnt stand for assault rifle no matter how much the ignorant people like Katz say it does..JL said:18 years olds are trained to use machine guns in the Army. You would allow 18 year olds to die for your freedom overseas, but they can't defend themselves at home?J.B.Katz said:You had to be 21 to buy alcohol. Not 18.JL said:Again, you obviously have never bought a firearm and know nothing about guns other than what CNN has told you.J.B.Katz said:Then educate me.JL said:From reading this, I can only assume you have very little knowledge of firearms and "freedom."J.B.Katz said:How about not selling people guns until they're old enough to legally drink alcohol?boognish_bear said:Ghostrider said:. What is a troubled kid? What troubling thing in his life would have prevented him from getting a gun? Knowing that he was bullied? Knowing he failed 12th grade? Knowing he wore eyeliner? Serious questions.J.B.Katz said:I don't want to ban guns.SIC EM 94 said:J.B.Katz said:Yeah, I really want my grandkids to spent their school hours doing lots of active shooter drills and investing time and energy in all of the rest of this stuff instead of actually learning how to read, right and do arithemetic so Cowboy can open carry.cowboycwr said:
1. Armed police officers works for districts that can afford an officer per school. It doesn't work for smaller schools.
And as pointed out it doesn't always help if the officer does nothing like the Florida shooting.
2. Then there is the issue that they can't be everywhere at once and a shooter can still get in to the school.
3. Someone mentioned the locked doors. This is huge. There should be one entrance used to the school. Which is a problem at older schools that have multiple buildings like detached gyms, locker rooms, band halls, etc.
4. All schools need the locked outer door and an interior vestibule door that is locked.
5. Then go a step further and the glass on both doors and windows next to them need to be bullet resistant. I know of plenty of schools that have the two door system but both are just regular safety glass. Hard to break with a rock, chair, etc. but a gun would be able to shoot it out.
6. Panic button at the front desk.
7. Front desk person armed/ safe with locked gun. Or at minimum something like a can of bear spray.
8. Armed staff
9. Lots of drills. Currently in Texas schools have to do two lock down/active shooter drills a year. It should be more. With practice on what to do.
10. All classrooms should have devices used to jam the doors shut. There are a lot of options for any type of door.
All of these don't need to be done but at least two or 3 would help a lot.
What the Hell does open carry have to do with school shootings? You are so consumed by your dream of banning guns, that you make the most irrelevant posts over and over. Can you please try and think like an adult?
I just want to restrict who can buy them so troubled 18-year-old kids can't buy assault weapons the week after they turn 18 and kill 19 kids and 2 teachers in an elementary school. Does that sound like a reasonble goal to you?
Seems like most….if not all…including this one….had posted pics online of themselves with their stockpile of weapons. That seems to be a common red flag.
I'm not sure exactly what schools or police have an authority to do or investigate when online pics like that surface….but that seems to be a definite commonality with these shooters.
Our society long ago concluded it was unwise to let teens drink adult beverages until they reached the minimum age of adulthood. Owning a gun is an adult responsibility.
My issue isn't with guns. They don't shoot themselves.
It's with the gun lobby's/politicians' complete failure to require people to exercise minimal care and responsibility in the sale of firearms and ammunition.
To get the guns this kid got, he should have been required to undergo gun safety training and get a license, like a hunting license. At his own expense. Tired of seeing "financial burden" arguments applied to gun safety training and licensing that conservatives don't accept when applied to the cost of healthcare and other basic necessities of life.
And, yes, if you want to own and use an assault weapon, you should be in a national database as the purchaser/owner of an assault weapon. There should be a clear public record of who has purchased assault weapons and ammo. The good guys who own these weapons proudly should have no problem with doing that on the record. And if somebody's assembling an arsenal to do a mass shooting, there should be ways to detect those purchases and investigate.
I'm really tired of an irresponsible level of "freedom" related to one specific product--guns--being valued far more than the lives and safety of children and other mass shooting victims.
It's also telling that there's a huge outcry about the 19 kids in Uvalde, but not so much of one about the racist shooter who carried out a carefully planned attack, right down to the body armor that made the "good guy with a gun" who was on the premises an inadequate defense against his attack, killing people for no other reason than because they lived in a black neighborhood and were shopping at their neighborhood grocery store.
Why should we have fewer restrictions on the purchase, ownership and use of lethal firearms and than we do on driving cars and drinking alcohol?
There are many areas of life in which we don't have unrestricted freedom. Conservatives obviously don't support unlimited freedom in many areas of life. Many are very eager to restrict the freedom of women and girls to make personal decisions for themselves, even in cases of rape or incest, the freedom of gay people to marry same-sex partners (some even favor laws outlawing certain sex acts most people do behind closed doors where the government should, IMO, never intrude), and the freedom of parents in the state of Texas to work with their children's doctors to make decisions about medical treatment without fear of having Child Protective Services show up.
So why should freedoms relating to the purchase of all types of guns and ammo be unrestricted when so many other freedoms are simultaneously at risk of being severely restricted or eliminated altogether?
If making sure deranged, angry teens can't easily arm up and kill more than 20 kids and teachers in an elementary school isn't pro-life, then what is?
It just strikes me as really ironic that conservatives claim to be pro-life and pro-child when they have done everything possible to make our country a very unfriendly place to have and raise children:
-high cost of child care,
-no paid parental leave for many workers (especially low-income workers who need it most),
-no secure access to medical care for many working-age people,
-few or no workplace accommodations for pregnant women,
-schools that aren't safe where kids are forced to do active shooter drills because the right of anybody over 18 to own and carry lethal assault weapons is valued much higher politically than the lives of little children,
-schools where the school boards are banning books and trying to force a sanitized version of American history into the curriculum,
-schools where one religion is clearly favored and endorsed over all others (a sore point with me--my high school in the 1960s couldn't even have a prom because our principal was Church of Christ and wouldn't permit a dance and my grade school had a Christmas pageant that my Jewish classmate participated in because his parents thought that might keep him from being bullied. I thought we'd moved beyond that pettiness, but we clearly haven't, despite living in a country founded on the principles of no state religion and separation of church and state.
And the strategy to cope with a declining birth rate? Forced birth, even in cases or rape or incest, reducing a woman to a "vessel" + restrictions on contraception. That dismissive attitude toward woman as people whose personal agency and freedom also matters is what made it to easy for Paige Patterson and his ilk to flourish in the SBC for so many years.
What's sad is, the gun lobby and its Republican enablers will just wait this out. As they have every other mass shooting. If Sandy Hook and Parkland, where most of the victims were white middle-class kids, didn't spark change, a small-town school where most victims are Hispanic certainly won't. Which is a sick commentary on a supposedly Christian nation where "in Christ there is no east or west, in him no north or south, but one great fellowship of love..."
Love is not what those kids felt when they were shot to death in Uvalde. Shame on us as a nation.
I've never had to have a backgound check to buy a car or alcohol.
You had to take driver's ed and pass 2 tests, a written test and a test where a cop got in the car with you and make you show you could responsibly operate a car, before you were issued a driver's license.
The state can also make you take an eye test to determine if you can see well enough to drive. Texas made my father-in-law do this, and he flunked it. Everybody in his family was relieved that he was no longer allowed behind the wheel.
The only reason there aren't licensure and training requirements for gun laws is that the extremely powerful gun lobby has bought and paid for Republican policians and campaigned hard on the idea that unlimited, unrestricted gun sales, ownership and use are a public good when that's clearly not true.
Others posting on this thread have accurately pointed out that the U.S. is awash in guns and they aren't going anywhere. But legal purchase and carry should be restricted to people old enough to drink alcohol. Everyone who carries should have to have a license to do so, and that license should be renewed at least as often as you renew your driver's license. And you should be required, at your own expense, to take and pass a gun safety test. Assault weapons should have special restrictions and involve more safety training.
Since the horse has left the barn, that's not going to stop deranged kids from getting their hands on guns and committing a massacre, as happened at Sandy Hook and this spring in Michigan, thanks to 2 of the most criminally stupid parents on the planet. But it's a start, and we need to make one.
What exactly is an assault weapon and why should they require special restrictions?
The AR-15 has been around since before the military started using the M16. People have changed, the weapons available to them havent..
We let teachers parent our kids, we let day cares parent our kids, we let TV and social media parent our kids.. we feed our kids poison aka processed food. We changed, the gun is not the issue. Mental health is the issue.
boognish_bear said:I think almost all schools now have a locked front door and you have to buzz in and show ID.BellCountyBear said:
Lock the front door.
This kid went in the back door.
Oh ok, so the 18 year olds will make their beds if the Navy says so, but if grandma says make your bed, then it's killing spree time. Makes senseJ.B.Katz said:The military is like a parent. A commanding officer controls the personnel in his unit.JL said:I only brought up machine guns because if the Army believes they can safely train an 18 year old to use one properly, why couldn't 18 years olds be trusted to learn to use a civilian firearm like the AR-15 at home.J.B.Katz said:Army personnel are trained professionals. They are supervised by commanding officers. They're using a weapon issued to them by the U.S. government. It doesn't belong to them. They can't take it with them when they leave military service. They face severe consequences if they misuse or abuse their weapon.JL said:18 years olds are trained to use machine guns in the Army. You would allow 18 year olds to die for your freedom overseas, but they can't defend themselves at home?J.B.Katz said:You had to be 21 to buy alcohol. Not 18.JL said:Again, you obviously have never bought a firearm and know nothing about guns other than what CNN has told you.J.B.Katz said:Then educate me.JL said:From reading this, I can only assume you have very little knowledge of firearms and "freedom."J.B.Katz said:How about not selling people guns until they're old enough to legally drink alcohol?boognish_bear said:Ghostrider said:. What is a troubled kid? What troubling thing in his life would have prevented him from getting a gun? Knowing that he was bullied? Knowing he failed 12th grade? Knowing he wore eyeliner? Serious questions.J.B.Katz said:
I don't want to ban guns.
I just want to restrict who can buy them so troubled 18-year-old kids can't buy assault weapons the week after they turn 18 and kill 19 kids and 2 teachers in an elementary school. Does that sound like a reasonble goal to you?
Seems like most….if not all…including this one….had posted pics online of themselves with their stockpile of weapons. That seems to be a common red flag.
I'm not sure exactly what schools or police have an authority to do or investigate when online pics like that surface….but that seems to be a definite commonality with these shooters.
Our society long ago concluded it was unwise to let teens drink adult beverages until they reached the minimum age of adulthood. Owning a gun is an adult responsibility.
My issue isn't with guns. They don't shoot themselves.
It's with the gun lobby's/politicians' complete failure to require people to exercise minimal care and responsibility in the sale of firearms and ammunition.
To get the guns this kid got, he should have been required to undergo gun safety training and get a license, like a hunting license. At his own expense. Tired of seeing "financial burden" arguments applied to gun safety training and licensing that conservatives don't accept when applied to the cost of healthcare and other basic necessities of life.
And, yes, if you want to own and use an assault weapon, you should be in a national database as the purchaser/owner of an assault weapon. There should be a clear public record of who has purchased assault weapons and ammo. The good guys who own these weapons proudly should have no problem with doing that on the record. And if somebody's assembling an arsenal to do a mass shooting, there should be ways to detect those purchases and investigate.
I'm really tired of an irresponsible level of "freedom" related to one specific product--guns--being valued far more than the lives and safety of children and other mass shooting victims.
It's also telling that there's a huge outcry about the 19 kids in Uvalde, but not so much of one about the racist shooter who carried out a carefully planned attack, right down to the body armor that made the "good guy with a gun" who was on the premises an inadequate defense against his attack, killing people for no other reason than because they lived in a black neighborhood and were shopping at their neighborhood grocery store.
Why should we have fewer restrictions on the purchase, ownership and use of lethal firearms and than we do on driving cars and drinking alcohol?
There are many areas of life in which we don't have unrestricted freedom. Conservatives obviously don't support unlimited freedom in many areas of life. Many are very eager to restrict the freedom of women and girls to make personal decisions for themselves, even in cases of rape or incest, the freedom of gay people to marry same-sex partners (some even favor laws outlawing certain sex acts most people do behind closed doors where the government should, IMO, never intrude), and the freedom of parents in the state of Texas to work with their children's doctors to make decisions about medical treatment without fear of having Child Protective Services show up.
So why should freedoms relating to the purchase of all types of guns and ammo be unrestricted when so many other freedoms are simultaneously at risk of being severely restricted or eliminated altogether?
If making sure deranged, angry teens can't easily arm up and kill more than 20 kids and teachers in an elementary school isn't pro-life, then what is?
It just strikes me as really ironic that conservatives claim to be pro-life and pro-child when they have done everything possible to make our country a very unfriendly place to have and raise children:
-high cost of child care,
-no paid parental leave for many workers (especially low-income workers who need it most),
-no secure access to medical care for many working-age people,
-few or no workplace accommodations for pregnant women,
-schools that aren't safe where kids are forced to do active shooter drills because the right of anybody over 18 to own and carry lethal assault weapons is valued much higher politically than the lives of little children,
-schools where the school boards are banning books and trying to force a sanitized version of American history into the curriculum,
-schools where one religion is clearly favored and endorsed over all others (a sore point with me--my high school in the 1960s couldn't even have a prom because our principal was Church of Christ and wouldn't permit a dance and my grade school had a Christmas pageant that my Jewish classmate participated in because his parents thought that might keep him from being bullied. I thought we'd moved beyond that pettiness, but we clearly haven't, despite living in a country founded on the principles of no state religion and separation of church and state.
And the strategy to cope with a declining birth rate? Forced birth, even in cases or rape or incest, reducing a woman to a "vessel" + restrictions on contraception. That dismissive attitude toward woman as people whose personal agency and freedom also matters is what made it to easy for Paige Patterson and his ilk to flourish in the SBC for so many years.
What's sad is, the gun lobby and its Republican enablers will just wait this out. As they have every other mass shooting. If Sandy Hook and Parkland, where most of the victims were white middle-class kids, didn't spark change, a small-town school where most victims are Hispanic certainly won't. Which is a sick commentary on a supposedly Christian nation where "in Christ there is no east or west, in him no north or south, but one great fellowship of love..."
Love is not what those kids felt when they were shot to death in Uvalde. Shame on us as a nation.
I've never had to have a backgound check to buy a car or alcohol.
You had to take driver's ed and pass 2 tests, a written test and a test where a cop got in the car with you and make you show you could responsibly operate a car, before you were issued a driver's license.
The state can also make you take an eye test to determine if you can see well enough to drive. Texas made my father-in-law do this, and he flunked it. Everybody in his family was relieved that he was no longer allowed behind the wheel.
The only reason there aren't licensure and training requirements for gun laws is that the extremely powerful gun lobby has bought and paid for Republican policians and campaigned hard on the idea that unlimited, unrestricted gun sales, ownership and use are a public good when that's clearly not true.
Others posting on this thread have accurately pointed out that the U.S. is awash in guns and they aren't going anywhere. But legal purchase and carry should be restricted to people old enough to drink alcohol. Everyone who carries should have to have a license to do so, and that license should be renewed at least as often as you renew your driver's license. And you should be required, at your own expense, to take and pass a gun safety test. Assault weapons should have special restrictions and involve more safety training.
Since the horse has left the barn, that's not going to stop deranged kids from getting their hands on guns and committing a massacre, as happened at Sandy Hook and this spring in Michigan, thanks to 2 of the most criminally stupid parents on the planet. But it's a start, and we need to make one.
What exactly is an assault weapon and why should they require special restrictions?
They aren't just issued an assault weapon with no training because they had enough money to buy one and turned loose to figure out how to use it and where to use it.
My cousin went through the University of Rochester in the Navy ROTC and then was assigned to supervise a unit of sailers maintaining the engine of a battleship. He was 22, and most of his sailers were 18 or 19. He was responsible for them if they missed car payments, hit their wives (they were all men), whatever. There was no aspect of their lives for which the military didn't consider him personally accountable in his capacity as their unit commander. I don't think he had realized that he'd be responsible for making sure his unit toed the line in every aspect of their lives until he assumed that command, but he said it was great management training.
That's a lot different from buying an assault weapon at Walmart or a gun show and heading home with it to shoot your grandmother next time she tells you to make your bed.
To be honest, no, I did not read it all. I made a rash decision to reply and I'm sorry I did that. I love playing video games and have always hated the argument that video games lead to violence.Coke Bear said:Berg09 said:
I love to play first person shooters. I guess I should be on a watchlist now?
I stated that I enjoy them.
Two questions for you:
Have you read a book by an expert on the psychology of killing?
Did I state that video games are the sole reason for mass shootings?
Actually a third question:
Did you really understand the points in my post before popping off?
Again, I'm sorry for my response. Thank you for calling me out on it.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.J.B.Katz said:How was the Uvalde shooter limited? He murdered an entire 4th grade class and critically wounded his own grandmother with a gun and ammo he could legally purchase.JL said:You're the only one talking about unlimited gun use, StrawmanJ.B.Katz said:cowboycwr said:What a joke of a response. Lots of lies, falsehoods, and leftist talking points in here with no basis in truth.J.B.Katz said:Then educate me.JL said:From reading this, I can only assume you have very little knowledge of firearms and "freedom."J.B.Katz said:How about not selling people guns until they're old enough to legally drink alcohol?boognish_bear said:Ghostrider said:. What is a troubled kid? What troubling thing in his life would have prevented him from getting a gun? Knowing that he was bullied? Knowing he failed 12th grade? Knowing he wore eyeliner? Serious questions.J.B.Katz said:I don't want to ban guns.SIC EM 94 said:J.B.Katz said:Yeah, I really want my grandkids to spent their school hours doing lots of active shooter drills and investing time and energy in all of the rest of this stuff instead of actually learning how to read, right and do arithemetic so Cowboy can open carry.cowboycwr said:
1. Armed police officers works for districts that can afford an officer per school. It doesn't work for smaller schools.
And as pointed out it doesn't always help if the officer does nothing like the Florida shooting.
2. Then there is the issue that they can't be everywhere at once and a shooter can still get in to the school.
3. Someone mentioned the locked doors. This is huge. There should be one entrance used to the school. Which is a problem at older schools that have multiple buildings like detached gyms, locker rooms, band halls, etc.
4. All schools need the locked outer door and an interior vestibule door that is locked.
5. Then go a step further and the glass on both doors and windows next to them need to be bullet resistant. I know of plenty of schools that have the two door system but both are just regular safety glass. Hard to break with a rock, chair, etc. but a gun would be able to shoot it out.
6. Panic button at the front desk.
7. Front desk person armed/ safe with locked gun. Or at minimum something like a can of bear spray.
8. Armed staff
9. Lots of drills. Currently in Texas schools have to do two lock down/active shooter drills a year. It should be more. With practice on what to do.
10. All classrooms should have devices used to jam the doors shut. There are a lot of options for any type of door.
All of these don't need to be done but at least two or 3 would help a lot.
What the Hell does open carry have to do with school shootings? You are so consumed by your dream of banning guns, that you make the most irrelevant posts over and over. Can you please try and think like an adult?
I just want to restrict who can buy them so troubled 18-year-old kids can't buy assault weapons the week after they turn 18 and kill 19 kids and 2 teachers in an elementary school. Does that sound like a reasonble goal to you?
Seems like most….if not all…including this one….had posted pics online of themselves with their stockpile of weapons. That seems to be a common red flag.
I'm not sure exactly what schools or police have an authority to do or investigate when online pics like that surface….but that seems to be a definite commonality with these shooters.
Our society long ago concluded it was unwise to let teens drink adult beverages until they reached the minimum age of adulthood. Owning a gun is an adult responsibility.
My issue isn't with guns. They don't shoot themselves.
It's with the gun lobby's/politicians' complete failure to require people to exercise minimal care and responsibility in the sale of firearms and ammunition.
To get the guns this kid got, he should have been required to undergo gun safety training and get a license, like a hunting license. At his own expense. Tired of seeing "financial burden" arguments applied to gun safety training and licensing that conservatives don't accept when applied to the cost of healthcare and other basic necessities of life.
And, yes, if you want to own and use an assault weapon, you should be in a national database as the purchaser/owner of an assault weapon. There should be a clear public record of who has purchased assault weapons and ammo. The good guys who own these weapons proudly should have no problem with doing that on the record. And if somebody's assembling an arsenal to do a mass shooting, there should be ways to detect those purchases and investigate.
I'm really tired of an irresponsible level of "freedom" related to one specific product--guns--being valued far more than the lives and safety of children and other mass shooting victims.
It's also telling that there's a huge outcry about the 19 kids in Uvalde, but not so much of one about the racist shooter who carried out a carefully planned attack, right down to the body armor that made the "good guy with a gun" who was on the premises an inadequate defense against his attack, killing people for no other reason than because they lived in a black neighborhood and were shopping at their neighborhood grocery store.
Why should we have fewer restrictions on the purchase, ownership and use of lethal firearms and than we do on driving cars and drinking alcohol?
There are many areas of life in which we don't have unrestricted freedom. Conservatives obviously don't support unlimited freedom in many areas of life. Many are very eager to restrict the freedom of women and girls to make personal decisions for themselves, even in cases of rape or incest, the freedom of gay people to marry same-sex partners (some even favor laws outlawing certain sex acts most people do behind closed doors where the government should, IMO, never intrude), and the freedom of parents in the state of Texas to work with their children's doctors to make decisions about medical treatment without fear of having Child Protective Services show up.
So why should freedoms relating to the purchase of all types of guns and ammo be unrestricted when so many other freedoms are simultaneously at risk of being severely restricted or eliminated altogether?
If making sure deranged, angry teens can't easily arm up and kill more than 20 kids and teachers in an elementary school isn't pro-life, then what is?
It just strikes me as really ironic that conservatives claim to be pro-life and pro-child when they have done everything possible to make our country a very unfriendly place to have and raise children:
-high cost of child care,
-no paid parental leave for many workers (especially low-income workers who need it most),
-no secure access to medical care for many working-age people,
-few or no workplace accommodations for pregnant women,
-schools that aren't safe where kids are forced to do active shooter drills because the right of anybody over 18 to own and carry lethal assault weapons is valued much higher politically than the lives of little children,
-schools where the school boards are banning books and trying to force a sanitized version of American history into the curriculum,
-schools where one religion is clearly favored and endorsed over all others (a sore point with me--my high school in the 1960s couldn't even have a prom because our principal was Church of Christ and wouldn't permit a dance and my grade school had a Christmas pageant that my Jewish classmate participated in because his parents thought that might keep him from being bullied. I thought we'd moved beyond that pettiness, but we clearly haven't, despite living in a country founded on the principles of no state religion and separation of church and state.
And the strategy to cope with a declining birth rate? Forced birth, even in cases or rape or incest, reducing a woman to a "vessel" + restrictions on contraception. That dismissive attitude toward woman as people whose personal agency and freedom also matters is what made it to easy for Paige Patterson and his ilk to flourish in the SBC for so many years.
What's sad is, the gun lobby and its Republican enablers will just wait this out. As they have every other mass shooting. If Sandy Hook and Parkland, where most of the victims were white middle-class kids, didn't spark change, a small-town school where most victims are Hispanic certainly won't. Which is a sick commentary on a supposedly Christian nation where "in Christ there is no east or west, in him no north or south, but one great fellowship of love..."
Love is not what those kids felt when they were shot to death in Uvalde. Shame on us as a nation.
Bring it on. Where did I lie?
This is a site where lots of people still believe Trump won the election when Trump clearly knows that's not true. Which is why he tried so hard to "intervene" (his word) and retain control of the government through chicany.
Which far too many Republicans like you and your despicable senator, Ted Cruz, still support.
If you believe in democracy re: gun rights, what about democracy re: elections? Or democracy re: women's rights to make personal decisions for themselves that 70% of Americans think should be up to them?
If democracy's good for gun rights, why not in these other areas?
The same people on this thread are pontificating about the Constitution and their rights to unlimited gun use under the Second Amendment were also fine with Trump trying to steal an election and eagerly participated in a lot of lying and gaslighting about a "stolen" election, many of them knowing full well their leader was pulling every corrupt lever he could pull to steal.
If you can't tell the truth about what happened in the last election, which is that Trump lost both the popular and electoral vote by a healthy margin because many Americans believed he was dangerously corrupt, I'm dying to see how you're going to spin how meanspirited, penurious policies that make it hard for working class families and professionals like teachers and nurses to afford child care and health care and decent housing are "pro-life" in any sense of the word, and what's important to you beyond a fertilized egg inside a body you value so little you want to completely snuff out its voice and agency with the force of law.
Why do you think this should be possible and easy to do?
. What libs don't understand is that an ar15 isn't anything special. It is just like a semi auto pistol, but in rifle form. Maybe limit the length of a magazine, but limiting ar 15 won't do anything. It's not even the most powerful semi auto rifle.GrowlTowel said:Try killing off 40 ATIFA rioters with a hand gun as they ransack your business. Try butchering BLM thugs as they approach your home with a hand gun. Try defending your ranch as thousands of illegals pour accross with a hand gun. You have a right to protect yourself and slaughter those trying to injure you, your family, or your property.cms186 said:Why? is it because common sense dictates that a normal, law abiding citizen shouldnt need a Weapon that powerful? then why would a normal, law abiding citizen need anything other than a Pistol for Self Defence or a Bolt Action Rifle/Pump Action Shotgun for Hunting?Redbrickbear said:The Bill of Rights (and rest of the Constitution) seems very much to anticipate the expansion of new rights as the people and their representatives deem them needed or justified.cms186 said:
Neither was Blacks or Women being able to vote, the Bill of Rights is a Living document, even the people who wrote it expected it to evolve over time
Thomas Jefferson:Quote:
I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and Constitutions. But laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors.
But it certainly does not imply that any already created and established Rights can ever be restricted.
So as an example the right of women to vote can be given...the right to vote for men can never be taken away.
The right to own space lasers might be give in the future...the right to own guns can never be taken away.
If you say that the 2nd Amendment would currently restrict someone from owning a Space Laser, then surely it can also restrict other weapons? it says a citizen has the right to bear Arms, it doesnt specify what kind.
Nope, not this school.boognish_bear said:I think almost all schools now have a locked front door and you have to buzz in and show ID.BellCountyBear said:
Lock the front door.
so pushing alternative lifestyles, saying men can be women and have babies, etc isn't helpful? To many these people are mentally ill. I wonder if they will be allowed to purchase a gun? Guess it depends who is defining mental illness.FormerFlash said:
It's not the guns. It's not one political ideology or another. It is the way we address (or don't address) mental health. It is the way bring up boys and young men.
The last four instances of mass killings in this country featured and Asian man in California, a black man in New York City, a white man in New York, and a young Hispanic man in Texas. They had varying extremist political views both right and left. These events occurred in both states with highly restrictive gun laws and those with less restrictive gun laws. What they had in common was they were all perpetrated by men, they all had demonstrated mental health issues, and they all chose relatively soft targets.
We need to focus on protecting vulnerable targets like schools and churches and address mental health issues with individuals head on. There should be a zero tolerance policy for threats of violence in schools. Someone mentioned 2 weeks suspension. No thanks. This issue is too serious. If a student makes a verified threat of mass violence (written, social media, witnessed by a teacher, etc), they should be expelled, flagged in systems, and go through mandatory mental health counseling.
Both sides need to stop trying to score political points and talk about actually addressing issues related to this topic. We cant rationalize, support, and even celebrate mental health issues in some areas while demonizing it in others. We need politically neutral mental health experts to stop pandering to cultural movements and to speak truth about what constitutes actual mental health issues and what effective treatment should look like.
In schools, a single point of entry with multiple layers of doors. My school growing up had a resource officer. His office was tucked away somewhere secluded, although he did make rounds. That person's office should be in eyesight of that single point of entry. Magnetic locks and panic buttons should be installed. These are the kinds of things public dollars should be funding in schools. All schools, not matter how rare public school shooting instances are. I live in Oklahoma. The chance of your home getting hit by a tornado is relatively low but that doesn't stop almost everyone from installing a storm shelter. Prepare for the worst and invest in the safety of our children. Evil/mentally ill people will always exist and some may look for ways to inflict harm on others at scale. Let's not make it easy for them.