The kids will want their toys
Despite the fiscal cliff
Apparently a thread reviewed by now by ALL the moderators and containing a varied and expressive conversation on gun control is now baiting.
Must be the answer when your crazy ass party has no legitimate argument. Cry foul and beg to be relieved of having to talk about it...." oh wait no one agrees with me?? OK then i will simply fill every post with my useless debunked claim that it is baiting."
Content and quality...psssshaaaaa... republicans dont need that ..they have conspiracy and rhetoric.
You should appply your scrutiny to all evidence and not only to the ones which disagree with the more guns is safer country position.
A better solution?
Most jurisdictions have off-duty policemen and/or deputy sheriffs available. In fact, many of them serve in other functions at schools. In any number of rural areas there are policemen living on school premises.
These guys are already trained, and most of them hungry for the hours. So, let them man the metal detectors at school entrances.
The metal detectors are already a problem in and of themselves.
Protection in schools is not a new concept - armed guards that is
and the anti gun ideological slaves would have u believe that is not the case and that having an armed guard is not only but MORE dangerous than not .........
not so true
it is certainly a worthy debate
While about a third of public schools nationwide have armed guards on campus, those who do not say they worry that allowing police officers with guns in schools would be far more destructive to the day-to-day culture of schools than any benefit they might bring in protecting against the worst-case scenario.
As a practical matter, placing trained professional security officers in all of the country’s schools would be costly, and it is not clear that there are enough people who could even do the job.
Joseph Dedam, 16, a junior at Elizabethtown-Lewis Central School in Elizabethtown, N.Y., said the proposal “is proactive. Right now, the best a school can do is have the teachers lock the classroom door and have the kids try to hide in a corner. But this is a situation where you can’t fight fire with water. You need to fight fire with fire.” He added, “you would not want a school official who is scared of a gun or not fully trained to have one.”
Citation and proof. You make the claim, you have to back it up. "Oh, puhleeze" (writer? Published? My ass) doesn't cut it.
The NRA and the fill the schools with armed police don't want you to talk about this.
And I guess since the supposition is that having an armed guard on site should be 100% effective, then the guard who didn't successfully take out the Columbine shooters must have been personally negligent in his duties and are solely responsible for the shooters massacring all those people that day.
But wait for them to come back and say that 'Gee...It could have been worse'
BTW. Virginia Tech also had police presence.
As a tax accountant I've prepared many tax returns for police and firemen who work one and sometimes two side jobs.
It's quite common for guys who work 12 hour shifts 4 days a week to earn money where they can to support their families.
Where do you think the deputies come from who monitor school scrossings in the mornings and afternoons, for example.
I realize I'm talking to a stone wall of liberal ignorance, but one does what one can.
So a writer, editor, accountant and what else? I wish any of these showed in your posting style without you telling us...
Uh right. So the experience in your tiny little burg of Bumfuck, Backwardaho can be extrapolated for the entire nation????? Is that it?
Uhhhhh. And what you are also saying is that their pay is so shit poor in your state that even working 48 hours a week at a stressful job isn't enough for them to decently take care of their families? So sending someone out who already has worked more hours in one week than most shift workers, to be alert and ready as Blart the mall cop, is the only solution?
Or is this the Ayn Rand workers' paradise that you dream of.
Paid for, naturally, by the taxpayers? But no price is too great, is it?
Gee, I know that I'd get better and more politically consistent logic out of a box of rocks, but look at me. I just haven't totally given up yet.
By the way....you say that you are a tax accountant. One hopes you appreciate the irony of making a living out of the very thing that you despise. It is an ill wind that doesn't blow some good, eh????
Happy to steal form your country :) And then complain as it doesn't do enough for you...
And those things should be quite obvious from your manner of posting. Instead, your opinions seem uneducated, uncultured, shallow, repetitive and based exclusively on fake superiority and blanket insults. Nowadays you don't post a single post that doesn't include some sweeping judgment of "liberals"... Do you think you contribute anything but static here? Or is that the goal?
Crazy shift work usually means that even a very part time job will often clash schedules directly with the main job, or require unsustainable sleep schedules.
Byron York pointing out how the media has gone crazy "discussing" gun control since Sandy Hook
[Quote removed by moderator] Copyright
Similar to a post that I made on another website:
Absolutely. When firearms are outlawed, only outlaws will have firearms. It's at least 90 years too late to get rid of all the guns, which began permeating the entire crime world during Prohibition. The well-armed crime world has never retreated from that, and it never will. Do you want proof that contraband (such as illegal guns) cannot be kept out of the hands of criminals? This article [AN ARTICLE ABOUT THE GUY WHO KILLED THE FIREMEN THIS WEEK] proves one case of that, but also consider that even inmates on death row have ready access to illegal drugs. If contraband can make it all the way into the deepest recesses of a LAW ENFORCEMENT FORTRESS, how can something be kept from criminals in the outside world? CONSIDER, TOO, that all of the marijuana and cocaine that comes from other countries has to make it through the hurdles of U. S. Customs, which is "supposed to be" an absolute barrier. We all know better.
So no, you can't say no restrictions/bans/limits/laws/regulations could or would do anything. The only thing we know for certain is what happens when restrictions are weak inconsistent half-measures that vary from state to state and county to county.
MAY have stopped Virginia Tech...I have little doubt that, if he was really determined to do his mayhem, he could have easily gotten an illegal weapon.
Yes, it's possible, but don't do the NRA thing of opposing sensible things that would reduce these types of incidents because "you cant prove it'd be 100% foolproof."
He might have been able to obtain a weapon illegally, but for a college student to make the proper underworld contact seems unlikely.
We're getting into Henry Reardon territory now. "You are not worth responding to, so I'll tell you that". Can we get beyond the point of telling each other how illogical we are, and address the actual stances we hold? Kuli, we're yet to hear yours in any sort of specific form.
I am torn. I hate new threads for similar topics but i am loathe to bump this one. However, it is quite germane.
We have discussed in this and other threads the concept of 'assault' weapons. Here are two videos to give you a clear example of what an assault weapons ban would and would not do. It also clears up the misconception Kuli has tried to explain multiple times about what an actual assault weapon is defined as capability wise.
Just to put it into words again before the videos. An assault weapon continuously fires upon one squeeze of the trigger until the trigger is released. Where as an automatic auto reloads the next round but requires the shooter to release and then squeeze the trigger shoot again. The first video is of an MP40 Assault weapon... if you watch the first 15 seconds you will see the capability adequately demonstrated. The second video is not even an automatic but a lever action repeater. SO to make it completely clear a weapons ban modeled after the last weapons ban would not effect this weapon.
So considering that the second weapon is still on the streets and has that rate of fire in capable hands. How effective do any of you think an 'assault' weapons ban will be in the long run?
Clearly, the terminology needs to be adequately defined in any law or regulation. The law should define functionality clearly.
Ah but then you remove the application down to simply muzzle loader single shot weapons. Why? Any modern weapon can be rapid fired by a competent shooter who has used the weapon repeatedly. We simply wont ban semi-automatic weapons like pistols in this country right now. if they tried? Then no chance in hell of banning any type of weapons in this country.
Yet I didn't post to try and find an adequate solution. I am beyond looking for a solution that involves restriction of specific weapons. I just want you all to have that in mind when you read about whatever legislation they offer. It will undoubtedly be tone deaf and offer no solution inclusive of mental health care which is the real crux of the issue.
There's no public support for the banning of semi-autos, according to the polls. The NRA have done their job well, and have convinced the American people that the most fearsome things in their lives are their own government, and their fellow Americans. Despite the fact that statistics tell us that US states with less gun regulation have more gun deaths, and nations with more guns have more gun deaths.
Meanwhile, those of us who live in countries with few guns and few gun deaths, are far more scared by nutters with readily available guns.