Shooting

I am okay with armed security guards. I am not okay with armed teachers. Not all teachers are the brightest of people. I had many I would not trust with a firearm in school. I can think of a few who would not store it properly, some student would end up it getting ahold of it and accidently shooting themselves or something.
 
Also, obligatory “hey look! Another shooting not stopped by the removal or confederate flags and statues.”
 
Htown77 said:
I am not okay with armed teachers. Not all teachers are the brightest of people.
Click to expand...

This plays to the notion of declaring what others can or cannot do ... which is really irrelevant to the RIGHT exercsied.

There’s a grave responsibility to keep and bear arms. I wouldn’t suggest any given group of adults “unworthy.” Of what other activities are we going to have the government limit rights as a free citizen in These United States of America.

I’m not suggesting every person be a Delta Force fighter to be able to be in public, but the basic responsibility to attend to a firearm and employ it in self-defense under reasonably well executed results is not exclusive to a special ops member.

For ... what’s the alternative? We can’t have MI-6 agents in everyone’s back pocket for crying out loud. We’d rather revoke a person’s ability to defend themselves and accept they are probably going to be severely injured or killed because we’re concerned about what they’d do when they’re not having to respond to a life-threatening situation?

This problem in society is either big enough to warrant removing restrictions on where law-abiding adults can at least make a respectable effort to defend themselves ... or the situation doesn’t warrant, even for a “do something er” ... ban bump stocks, greater background checks, “assault weapons” ban ...

So ... those who think “reasonable restrictions” should be imposed ... which is it? Sufficient to ban firearms ... not not sufficient to warrant allowing a free person the right to self defense?
 
Securing schools is really not that complex of a proposal. Its just a matter or using best practices to make the campus inaccessible and then trained response officers at critical points. But right after we do that, the next event will happen at a football game, at a school concert or at the Walmart. There's an unlimited supply of soft targets.

gotta say, I'm loving me some Rubio right now. He's handling this about as well as any GOP could.
 
Ohio made a concealed carry training program available to teachers
They had 50 spots
250 teachers signed up

I am guessing CNN wont cover this
 
Little Marco. I thought that he already peed down his leg. He comes off very waffly to me given all of the NRA money he’s accepted.
 
So I've thought about this some. The school shooting problem is mostly a "screwed up parents having screwed up children" problem. That problem is moral and cultural and can't be fixed by government. It's not much of a gun or school security. Our schools used to have far more guns and far less security but didn't get shot up. However, dealing with gun access and school security can help mitigate the problem, even if they won't fix it.

Furthermore, we shouldn't be surprised that schools are often targets of mass shooters. It's a place packed with defenseless kids and women, and it's a place where the shooter knows he's usually the only armed person in the building. The cops will show up, but that shooter has a good 3 - 5 minutes in which he can completely have his way with the school. With a gun, you can kill a lot of people in 3 - 5 minutes if you know what you're doing. That dynamic needs to change.

First, I like the idea of the GVRO that some have proposed. We allow temporary restraining orders to prevent acts of fraud and physical harm. I don't see why we can't do the same with potential acts of gun violence. It's something that individuals (family members, school officials, friends, etc.) should be able to use (and with minimal hassle and expense) and shouldn't have to hire a lawyer to do. People aren't going to go pursue a GVRO if they have to shell out a $1,500.00 retainer. I think the judges who preside should be lawyers (no JPs).

Second, the idea of arming teachers has some problems. For one thing, the teachers largely don't want to be armed, which is unsurprising given the political and cultural leanings of most public school teachers. Having said that, I do think that teachers who are licensed to carry a gun shouldn't be prohibited from bringing it to school.

Third, security needs to be beefed up. Yes, that means metal detectors and professional security. That's going to be expensive, so be prepared. Taxes are going to go up.

Finally, I'm not a fan of the FBi taking the lead role in this issue. This is still primarily a local law enforcement and criminal justice issue. We should be looking to our state legislatures and school boards, not Congress, for solutions. Why? Because not all solutions are going to applicable or necessary for every school. For example, schools in urban and suburban areas are probably going to need more security than schools in rural areas. This shouldn't be a one-size-fits-all approach.
 
Mr. Deez said:
Finally, I'm not a fan of the FBi taking the lead role in this issue. This is still primarily a local law enforcement and criminal justice issue. We should be looking to our state legislatures and school boards, not Congress, for solutions. Why? Because not all solutions are going to applicable or necessary for every school. For example, schools in urban and suburban areas are probably going to need more security than schools in rural areas. This shouldn't be a one-size-fits-all approach.
Click to expand...

That's definitely true, but my concern is that the local people don't always have the resources to track down information on some leads like the YouTube comments that he apparently made. Of course, the FBI didn't do anything with that, either, so maybe that's a moot point.
 
ProdigalHorn said:
That's definitely true, but my concern is that the local people don't always have the resources to track down information on some leads like the YouTube comments that he apparently made. Of course, the FBI didn't do anything with that, either, so maybe that's a moot point.
Click to expand...

I don't have a problem with some federal resources (money and/or information) being involved, but they shouldn't be making the rules about what happens in a given school.
 
So if Hillary received $9000 from moveon.org, but then moveon.org spent an additional $3 million helping her without "cooperation, consultation, or concert," you don't think she'd have a little "bought loyalty?"
 
The NRA's power has never come from its money. It has always come from its political clout. People agree with them, and even those who don't walk with them in lockstep are deferential to them. Furthermore, their people vote in extremely high numbers.
 
Mr. Deez said:
The NRA's power has never come from its money. It has always come from its political clout. People agree with them, and even those who don't walk with them in lockstep are deferential to them. Furthermore, their people vote in extremely high numbers.
Click to expand...
28167383_552380925123662_8864245853208813069_n.jpg
 
Umm.... they're a lobbying group. That's what they do. That letter says nothing about whether it swayed someone's vote, or whether the person in question even sent it back. it also doesn't say whether the NRA will withdraw financial support. I'm pretty sure they don't donate only to people who get a perfect score.

Rubio and several others have voiced support for more stringent background checks as well as closing up some of the bureaucratic problems that have caused gaps in the process. But how is that possible, since they're apparently "bought and paid for" by the NRA, and therefore do everything the NRA tells them to do?
 
Mr. Deez said:
The NRA's power has never come from its money. It has always come from its political clout. People agree with them, and even those who don't walk with them in lockstep are deferential to them. Furthermore, their people vote in extremely high numbers.
Click to expand...
Money buys political clout. Surely we can agree on that. If not, then the NRA wouldn't spend more on political campaigns than any lobbying organization on the planet.
 
Last edited:
ProdigalHorn said:
Rubio and several others have voiced support for more stringent background checks as well as closing up some of the bureaucratic problems that have caused gaps in the process. But how is that possible, since they're apparently "bought and paid for" by the NRA, and therefore do everything the NRA tells them to do?
Click to expand...
https://everytown.org/senate-votes/

Maybe he's going to change. To this point he's voted in lock step with what your prototypical NRA senator would vote. It's obvious that he's trying to get his national name back out there. He's just such a ___________. Hard to describe. He'd try to sell sugar to diabetics if it helped him get elected.
 
ProdigalHorn said:
Umm.... they're a lobbying group. That's what they do. That letter says nothing about whether it swayed someone's vote, or whether the person in question even sent it back. it also doesn't say whether the NRA will withdraw financial support. I'm pretty sure they don't donate only to people who get a perfect score.

Rubio and several others have voiced support for more stringent background checks as well as closing up some of the bureaucratic problems that have caused gaps in the process. But how is that possible, since they're apparently "bought and paid for" by the NRA, and therefore do everything the NRA tells them to do?
Click to expand...

The NRA is running scared for the moment. Nothing that more time won't solve. They also realize that as long as they can stem any "kneejerk" legislation (see Florida's legislature not allowing discussion on the floor re: an assault weapons ban) time and the public's attention span is in their favor.

Foxnews is already trying to push the school shooting from the headlines. Did you realize that "2 police officers [sadly] lost their lives in a 24hr period" yesterday? That was the headline of an article they pushed to me. I added the "sadly".
 
Last edited:
Seattle Husker said:
Money buys political clout. Surely we can agree on that. If not, then the NRA wouldn't spend more on political campaigns than any lobbying organization on the planet.
Click to expand...

Certainly it does, but in terms of cash, they're not a huge player. Most politicians who take money from them could do without it. But they can't afford to have the NRA's supporters pissed off at them.
 
Not a huge player? Surely you jest, counselor. ;)

The mere threat of the NRA putting money towards an opponent is enough to keep a politician in line. It may not be direct contributions but they can use their multiple PACs to mischaraterize someone's stance as wanting to take all your guns away.

It's a fact that no lobbying organization spends as much on political contributions and lobbying as the NRA. Their power is in their money to shape the conversation, even when they practice in hyperbole.
 
Last edited:
Seattle Husker said:
Not a huge player? Surely you jest, counselor. ;)

The mere threat of the NRA putting money towards an opponent is enough to keep a politician in line. It may not be direct contributions but they can use their multiple PACs to mischaraterize someone's stance as wanting to take all your guns away.

It's a fact that no lobbying organization spends as much on political contributions and lobbying as the NRA. Their power is in their money to shape the conversation, even when they practice in hyperbole.
Click to expand...

My point is that there's a perception that they're just throwing money at politicians and buying them off like an oil company or tech company might and that this is why they get their way. That's not the case.

Do they donate money? Of course, but there are much, much bigger players in the money game. The real clout comes from the GOP base's support for and deference to the NRA. People listen to them and vote accordingly. Their endorsement is much more valuable than their check.
 
Joe Fan said:
Ohio made a concealed carry training program available to teachers
They had 50 spots
250 teachers signed up

I am guessing CNN wont cover this
Click to expand...
Of course they won't, but I happened to turn on the TV last night at my hotel and the story about this was on. Now don't get me wrong, I wouldn't trust some teachers with a water pistol, but this program seems to work well with the teachers getting the proper training and it's voluntary. I think a voluntary program where the teachers receive the same training as police is a good idea. I also like the Israeli program too. If anyone should know a good strategy it's the Israelis.

Maybe it's a combination of armed security guards, armed properly trained teachers and metal detectors. As more school districts try different things maybe we'll find the best (not perfect) model. We also need to concentrate more on the real root cause, mental illness.
 
OUBubba said:
Crisis actors. That’s where they slide into the Alex jones tin foil hat arena.
Click to expand...

Yep, this is dumb. It's the kind of allegation that better be true and provable before you make it. If not, then it's going to undermine your policy argument, and you could wind up in court with a libel lawsuit that (unlike most libel suits) would have a real chance at being successful.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Weekly Prediction Contest

* Predict HORNS-AGGIES *
Sat, Nov 30 • 6:30 PM on ABC

Recent Threads

Prediction Results Threads

2024 Schedules

Back
Top