Fox tell Trump to arm Teachers

[Slipknot]

what hypocrisy? that people don't kill people?
A bullet striking someone at a high rate of speed hitting a vital organ can kill someone just as dead as a nuke can, of course. So your point is to take the guns out of the hands of those who cannot be trusted? Like trying to keep a maniac dictator from getting one? Last I checked most lawful gun owners are not threatening mankind, so why gun control? there are laws that don't get enforced, do that first, if that doesn't work then work harder and smarter but don't put blame on others rights. So get rid of all weapons on earth and man will still kill even with bare hands. This could go on forever with your hypocrisy. Live in fear about every little thing that could end your life possibly. Stay inside if a revolution starts.

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Slipknot

what hypocrisy? that people don't kill people?no the hypocrisy that we hear every time that there is a mass shooting w/a semi - that guns don't kill people, people kill people. Yet, NK can't have a nuke bc the nuke could kill us all.
A bullet striking someone at a high rate of speed hitting a vital organ can kill someone just as dead as a nuke can, of course. So your point is to take the guns out of the hands of those who cannot be trusted? Like trying to keep a maniac dictator from getting one? Last I checked most lawful gun owners are not threatening mankind, so why gun control? there are laws that don't get enforced, do that first, if that doesn't work then work harder and smarter but don't put blame on others rights. So get rid of all weapons on earth and man will still kill even with bare hands. This could go on forever with your hypocrisy. Live in fear about every little thing that could end your life possibly. Stay inside if a revolution starts.

Yhea, I live in fear

Don't think I ever heard anyone here claim all weapons on earth should be banned.

sounds like you are paranoid someone is going come knocking on your door to take your gun away - And I'm the one living in fear

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Slipknot

what hypocrisy? that people don't kill people?
A bullet striking someone at a high rate of speed hitting a vital organ can kill someone just as dead as a nuke can, of course. So your point is to take the guns out of the hands of those who cannot be trusted? Like trying to keep a maniac dictator from getting one? Last I checked most lawful gun owners are not threatening mankind, so why gun control? there are laws that don't get enforced, do that first, if that doesn't work then work harder and smarter but don't put blame on others rights. So get rid of all weapons on earth and man will still kill even with bare hands. This could go on forever with your hypocrisy. Live in fear about every little thing that could end your life possibly. Stay inside if a revolution starts.

"Last I checked most lawful gun owners are not threatening mankind, so why gun control?"

Because too many guns (legally or otherwise) get in the hands of maniacs. You really don't understand that point of view at all? Yes, cars kill more people, heart attacks kill more people, but we cannot eliminate cars or legislate heart health.

I'd say as a start, no more bump stocks or high capacity magazines. The right wouldn't go for it, the left would say it's not enough. So we do nothing.

"there are laws that don't get enforced, do that first"

I keep hearing that, but it doesn't seem to be happening does it...What law on the books, would have prevented Sandy Hook from happening with proper enforcement?

"So get rid of all weapons on earth and man will still kill even with bare hands"

This is the argument that drives me crazy, this is the kind of extremist thinking that almost always happens on the left, but on this one issue, occurs on the right. Conservatives claim that if we get rid of AR-15s and high capacity magazines, then as sure as the day follows the night, eventually we will "get rid of all weapons on Earth".

The second amendment isn't absolute, it was never intended to be without limits.

"Stay inside if a revolution starts"

Another argument I hear is that we need guns to hold off a tyrannical government. Maybe in the 1930s that was true. But today, in this country? If the feds want to kill me and take my 401(k), they can launch a laser-guided missile through my bedroom window from a thousand miles away, and I'm not sure I can prevent that with an AR-15.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

This is the argument that drives me crazy, this is the kind of extremist thinking that almost always happens on the left, but on this one issue, occurs on the right. Conservatives claim that if we get rid of AR-15s and high capacity magazines, then as sure as the day follows the night, eventually we will "get rid of all weapons on Earth".

The second amendment isn't absolute, it was never intended to be without limits.

Why isn't the NRA publicly pushing to repeal the National Firearms Act?

[Slipknot]

just exaggerating obviously disgusted with the panic talk and hard push to go after peoples' rights. Don't piss on me because you can't have utopia. Nothing is 100 percent, not going to happen.

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

no more bump stocks or high capacity magazines.

that and some laws regarding mental health and maybe age limits (21) would be a great start.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

that and some laws regarding mental health and maybe age limits (21) would be a great start.

Agreed, though having an age limit higher than the minimum age to serve in the military could be viewed as strange...

I think violence in the entertainment industry ought to be a part of the discussion, too.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by PaulS

that and some laws regarding mental health and maybe age limits (21) would be a great start.

I think 26 would be better since that's the age that they're consider adults now thanks to Obamacare....

[The Dad Fisherman]

Originally Posted by scottw

I think 26 would be better since that's the age that they're consider adults now thanks to Obamacare....

But they still gotta be eligible to vote at 16...

[Slipknot]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

"Last I checked most lawful gun owners are not threatening mankind, so why gun control?"

Because too many guns (legally or otherwise) get in the hands of maniacs. You really don't understand that point of view at all? Yes, cars kill more people, heart attacks kill more people, but we cannot eliminate cars or legislate heart health.

I'd say as a start, no more bump stocks or high capacity magazines. The right wouldn't go for it, the left would say it's not enough. So we do nothing.

"there are laws that don't get enforced, do that first"

I keep hearing that, but it doesn't seem to be happening does it...What law on the books, would have prevented Sandy Hook from happening with proper enforcement? like we all know,
nothing is foolproof

"So get rid of all weapons on earth and man will still kill even with bare hands"

This is the argument that drives me crazy, this is the kind of extremist thinking that almost always happens on the left, but on this one issue, occurs on the right. Conservatives claim that if we get rid of AR-15s and high capacity magazines, then as sure as the day follows the night, eventually we will "get rid of all weapons on Earth".

The second amendment isn't absolute, it was never intended to be without limits.the states individually put limits and in our state we have a tyrant as AG who puts in her own edicts

"Stay inside if a revolution starts"

Another argument I hear is that we need guns to hold off a tyrannical government. Maybe in the 1930s that was true. But today, in this country? If the feds want to kill me and take my 401(k), they can launch a laser-guided missile through my bedroom window from a thousand miles away, and I'm not sure I can prevent that with an AR-15.

oh, so now we need laser guided missiles?

Jim, you don't get it that they take an inch, then another inch and keep on taking. Stand up for your rights.

blaming guns is like blaming the internet, cop out


As far as the thread title, I don't agree with Trump saying arm the teachers , but I don't agree with Biden making up gun free zones either. But taking away some teachers' choice if they wanted to carry is not cool. When I went to school there were some teachers that carried concealed and I bet there were when you went as well, you just did not know it. It did not end badly.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Slipknot

oh, so now we need laser guided missiles?

Jim, you don't get it that they take an inch, then another inch and keep on taking. Stand up for your rights.

blaming guns is like blaming the internet, cop out


As far as the thread title, I don't agree with Trump saying arm the teachers , but I don't agree with Biden making up gun free zones either. But taking away some teachers' choice if they wanted to carry is not cool. When I went to school there were some teachers that carried concealed and I bet there were when you went as well, you just did not know it. It did not end badly.

"nothing is foolproof"

I get that, I do. But this kid put up every imaginable red flag, and he passed the background check? We don't need to be flawless, but we need to be at least good enough to keep that kid from being able to buy a firearm, or we might as well pull the plug on the whole thing and arm everybody.

"Jim, you don't get it that they take an inch, then another inch and keep on taking"

You're right, I don't get that. I see zero reason to believe that it's an all or nothing situation. I haven't heard any liberal who has any meaningful influence, suggest they have their sights set on handguns and riles that aren't semi-automatic.

"Stand up for your rights"

I believe I do. I also have the burden of feeling obligated to stand up for the rights of others, not just mine. Including defenseless children.

"blaming guns is like blaming the internet"

I believe each plays a role in this. I am sure I am correct.

"I don't agree with Trump saying arm the teachers "

That's not really what he said...

"When I went to school there were some teachers that carried concealed and I bet there were when you went as well, you just did not know it"

I wonder. I went to Catholic schools, and on more than one occasion I was hit in the face with a ruler when misbehaving. I wonder what would have happened if they were armed...

"It did not end badly"

99.999% of the time it doesn't end badly. If you had a machine gun in your house, I would probably feel safe letting my kids sleep over. It's not you I'm worried about. The next Adam Lanza is out there. And he's not carrying a sign identifying himself as amass murderer.

[The Dad Fisherman]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

I wonder. I went to Catholic schools, and on more than one occasion I was hit in the face with a ruler when misbehaving. I wonder what would have happened if they were armed...

trust me, them nuns could decapitate a fly when they swing those yardsticks if they wanted to...they LET you live

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

trust me, them nuns could decapitate a fly when the swing those yardsticks if they wanted to...they LET you live

Oh, I hear THAT. No gold medal winning fencer was ever more accurate or deadly with his foil, than the nuns were with the yardsticks. Indigo Montoya from The Princess Bride, wasn't as good with his sword.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

But this kid put up every imaginable red flag, and he passed the background check?

what does this tell you?....we are going to learn why...you aren't going to like it.... and it will have nothing to do with the effectiveness of a background check......

Miami Herald reported on Friday that, in November 2017, a tipster called the Broward Sheriff's Office (BSO) to say Cruz "'could be a school shooter in the making,' but deputies did not write up a report on that warning."

The Herald added that this tip came just weeks after a relative called urging BSO to seize his weapons. Two years prior, "A deputy investigated a report that Cruz 'planned to shoot up the school' – intelligence that was forwarded to the school's RESOURCE OFFICER, with no apparent result."

CNN's Jake Tapper cited the 23 incidents before the shooting that involved Cruz and questioned whether the PROMISE program might have been responsible for the inaction by the sheriff's office.

"It's helping many, many people," Broward County Sheriff Scott Israel said in defense of the program. "What this program does is not put a person at 14, 15, 16 years old into the criminal justice system."


In 2014, Scot Peterson was named School Resource Officer of the Year by the Broward County Crime Commission for handling issues "with tact and judgment."


some sad irony there....


http://www.miamiherald.com/news/loca...201887629.html

[The Dad Fisherman]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

What law on the books, would have prevented Sandy Hook from happening with proper enforcement?

What new laws could be enacted to prevent a Sandy Hook from happening again. Prevent is the key word.

What we need to do is to look at each incident and figure out where it went wrong.

People screaming about banning AR-15's distracts from what actually needed to be fixed to possibly (nothing is 100%) deter the next one, and that was the flow of information that was reported and the inaction by agencies that had some this information. This is what we should focus on fixing right now.

If half of this was addressed that halfwit wouldn't have been able to legally get his hands on a gun.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

If half of this was addressed that halfwit wouldn't have been able to legally get his hands on a gun.

quite a few adults, many with badges were aware that he had guns, was troubled and was threatening to do bad things with his guns over and over...no one did anything....and somehow it's Washington's job to fix it....looking for solutions in the wrong places

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

What new laws could be enacted to prevent a Sandy Hook from happening again. Prevent is the key word.

What we need to do is to look at each incident and figure out where it went wrong.

People screaming about banning AR-15's distracts from what actually needed to be fixed to possibly (nothing is 100%) deter the next one, and that was the flow of information that was reported and the inaction by agencies that had some this information. This is what we should focus on fixing right now.

If half of this was addressed that halfwit wouldn't have been able to legally get his hands on a gun.

"What new laws could be enacted to prevent a Sandy Hook from happening again. Prevent is the key word."

How about this. A law saying that if you live in a house with a person who has mental issues (like Adam Lanza's mother did), then if you want a gun, maybe you have to keep it in a gun range. Or maybe you can only have a gun with fingerprint id so no one else can shoot it.

You are correct, we can't legislate everything. The question is, are we doing enough? I'm not saying we aren't. But I'm saying it's past time for that conversation.

I'm also interested in laws that don't prevent, but possibly reduce the carnage. Like banning high capacity magazines.

"What we need to do is to look at each incident and figure out where it went wrong"

Correct, none are identical.

"If half of this was addressed that halfwit wouldn't have been able to legally get his hands on a gun"

In this case, I completely agree.

Maybe we pass laws saying that if you want an AR-15 because they are fun to shoot, fine, but you have to keep it at the gun range, you can't take it home with you.

[The Dad Fisherman]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

How about this. A law saying that if you live in a house with a person who has mental issues (like Adam Lanza's mother did), then if you want a gun, maybe you have to keep it in a gun range. Or maybe you can only have a gun with fingerprint id so no one else can shoot it.

How do we define what mental health issues? Adam Lanza had Autism (Aspergers), that is hardly a violent mental illness. So a parent that has an autistic child loses their rights or has them infringed upon?

Columbine was just two angry A-Holes

Cruz from what I've read was a Violent Sociopath (and that should be a HUGE disqualifier).

When the towers fell on 911 we immediately changed airline security guidelines. Armed Marshalls, armed pilots, Metal detectors at every entrance, Steel doors on the cockpits

We didn't tell people they couldn't buy box cutters, we shored up security everywhere that could be a weakness.

A bunch of kids get killed and the gut reaction is to outlaw the "Box Cutters". Why wouldn't we put Armed Guards in the schools, Allow teachers to carry, metal detectors at the entrances to the school and secure doors on the classrooms. We need to change security procedures to ensure their safety.

They said on 911 that we were forever changed, I think with these school shootings we may need to change again

and of Note, since the Airlines implemented their Security procedures, I haven't seen another plane hijacked.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

How do we define what mental health issues? Adam Lanza had Autism (Aspergers), that is hardly a violent mental illness. So a parent that has an autistic child loses their rights or has them infringed upon?

ADD, ADHD...

I was listening to my classical music station this morning and there was a doctor being interviewed regarding binge eating which is apparently now categorized as a serious mental illness and people with eating disorders apparently have the highest risk of suicide...according to her...


so we need to ban people with eating disorders(mental illness) from owning guns...this will be very effective because we know that the majority of the country is obese

if you are fat...no gun for you

[The Dad Fisherman]

Originally Posted by scottw

if you are fat...no gun for you

...or too skinny (Anorexia, Bulimia)

the list of people they can say No to just keeps growing

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

How do we define what mental health issues? Adam Lanza had Autism (Aspergers), that is hardly a violent mental illness. So a parent that has an autistic child loses their rights or has them infringed upon?

Columbine was just two angry A-Holes

Cruz from what I've read was a Violent Sociopath (and that should be a HUGE disqualifier).

When the towers fell on 911 we immediately changed airline security guidelines. Armed Marshalls, armed pilots, Metal detectors at every entrance, Steel doors on the cockpits

We didn't tell people they couldn't buy box cutters, we shored up security everywhere that could be a weakness.

A bunch of kids get killed and the gut reaction is to outlaw the "Box Cutters". Why wouldn't we put Armed Guards in the schools, Allow teachers to carry, metal detectors at the entrances to the school and secure doors on the classrooms. We need to change security procedures to ensure their safety.

They said on 911 that we were forever changed, I think with these school shootings we may need to change again

and of Note, since the Airlines implemented their Security procedures, I haven't seen another plane hijacked.

"How do we define what mental health issues?"

The same we define that label when deciding whether or not to involuntarily commit someone.

"Adam Lanza had Autism (Aspergers), that is hardly a violent mental illness."

It's not often associated with violence. He had other issues.

Screening for mental health isn't perfect. We will miss some crazy people, we will mis-diagnose some healthy people as being sane. Those are the con's. We will also likely save some lives. Those are the pro's. Let's have an honest conversation about whether or not the pro's outweigh the con's. Maybe they do, maybe they don't. But one side says every idea has nothing but con's, the other side says it has no con's. Zero honesty.

"So a parent that has an autistic child loses their rights or has them infringed upon?"

Maybe, if the impediment is severe enough. I'm not saying I am advocating for this. You asked what new laws might have prevented Sandy Hook, and this is what I came up with of the top of my head. I'm not a constitutional lawyer or a lawmaker or a mental health expert.

"Columbine was just two angry A-Holes "

Yep. I have said many times, there is no law that would stop every conceivable situation. But when you think any flaws mean a law is therefore not a good idea, then you are letting perfect be the enemy of good.

Speeding laws also aren't perfect. Because they don't stop everyone from speeding, and sometimes speeding is a good idea. When my wife gave birth to my middle son, we almost didn't make it to the hospital (he was born 14 minutes after we walked through the door, waddled in her case, if I went 25 mph we might not have made it). Despite the shortcomings of speeding laws, I have never heard anyone suggest we do away with them.

"We didn't tell people they couldn't buy box cutters, we shored up security everywhere that could be a weakness."

That's a completely valid point, and part of what we need to do, unfortunately, is fortify the schools. At the same time, we do have no-fly lists...

"and of Note, since the Airlines implemented their Security procedures, I haven't seen another plane hijacked"

You are correct again, it seems to be working. But there are a lot more schools than there are major airports, not sure if that makes it harder...

Not all mass shootings happen within the confines of a school building, either.