Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
And that begs the question-how do you defend a school without turning it into a prison ? Ever seen the average school. It's not just a single level building. It may have multiple levels, wings, additions, ells. Always many entries and exists.
It seems a simple idea to say, we'll just stick an armed guard in every school. Maybe for local authorities it will absolve them of legal liability if anything happens. Would it really protect students ? I highly doubt it. One person can't be every where as we've seen with Columbine. Many schools, usually at middle to high school level already have school resource officers assigned to them.
And you think by banning guns somehow the bad seeds will fork over their arsenals right? Does it even matter if they have an arsenal or not? Didn't lanza use just one arm?
I think there was a misunderstanding of the comment above. I stated there has been much mucn more murders when the people are dis-armed than when citizens are armed. 170 million people, yes million, have been killed by governments in the last 100 years. All after citizens had been un-armed. Remember the Jews in Germany? Yes, they were un-armed too. Do you hear anyone in government or the media referencing these numbers? No, but they sure refernce anything related to gun deaths, including figures with suicides and not even matching alcohol deaths.
Additionally, those wanting more 'regulation' are not thinking this through.
The government is by all and for all. We have laws. Some breaks the law while using a gun, a car, a stick, a shoe, and they should pay with a penalty imposed by the government, and this ok. Making it harder fof the good guys is not gonna get guns away from the bad guys. If anything, you may want more good guys to get guns so that when the bad guys show up they don't know what hit them. The law, and the right to carry are separate things. The law says killing is a crime, the constitution says everyone can carry. The law says driving is allowed, but killing with it is a crime. Alcohol kills more people than guns and the majority of gun deaths are self inflicted. Perhaps we should also ban bridges and high rises?
Taking a gun from one state to another is not 'smugling'. The US citizens have the right to life and the right to defend it. So says the constitution and so says the creator.
Your last statement on black you men is sad and shows why our society is rottening from within. We care about 30 mostly white children that were killed during one incident (as we all should), but can care less to see the same number of young black men die monthly by a stupid DRUG war that we started. Let's stop pretending we care, because we dont and let's stop pretending that this has anything to do with our safety because it's not. It's about one single thing, power.
First off you are starting with the premise that I want guns to be outlawed, which is not the case, its a straw man argument, talk about gun control you get back "oh you want to ban guns". To equate the right to live to the right to carry guns is a huge stretch, the constitution is a document written in a different era, like any set of laws it needs to be interpreted and updated if need be, some people want to hold it up like the gospel carried down from heaven. If i understand what you are saying is that gun violence and our gun culture are made up by the goverment because they want to disarm the public in case eventually they might want to do an ethnic cleansing, ok got it.
I am not sure what you understood, what i said was i do not think violent behavior is intrinsic on young black men as you seemed to imply. My main problem with your line of thinking and that whole "more guns for the good guys" mantra, is who decides who is a good guy. BTW taking guns from one state to another to circumvent that state's gun laws is smuggling. In general terms my creator may not be your creator that's why that is usually left out of rational arguments.
And that begs the question-how do you defend a school without turning it into a prison ? Ever seen the average school. It's not just a single level building. It may have multiple levels, wings, additions, ells. Always many entries and exists.
It seems a simple idea to say, we'll just stick an armed guard in every school. Maybe for local authorities it will absolve them of legal liability if anything happens. Would it really protect students ? I highly doubt it. One person can't be every where as we've seen with Columbine. Many schools, usually at middle to high school level already have school resource officers assigned to them.
I have no idea what the answer is.
One may not, but 10 could. Why restrict it to only one, when we have so much manpower already paid for and available if we could get over historically bad ways of thinking?
First off you are starting with the premise that I want guns to be outlawed, which is not the case, its a straw man argument, talk about gun control you get back "oh you want to ban guns". To equate the right to live to the right to carry guns is a huge stretch, the constitution is a document written in a different era, like any set of laws it needs to be interpreted and updated if need be, some people want to hold it up like the gospel carried down from heaven. If i understand what you are saying is that gun violence and our gun culture are made up by the goverment because they want to disarm the public in case eventually they might want to do an ethnic cleansing, ok got it.
I am not sure what you understood, what i said was i do not think violent behavior is intrinsic on young black men as you seemed to imply. My main problem with your line of thinking and that whole "more guns for the good guys" mantra, is who decides who is a good guy. BTW taking guns from one state to another to circumvent that state's gun laws is smuggling. In general terms my creator may not be your creator that's why that is usually left out of rational arguments.
Different era? We must not be thinking clearly. The founding fathers wrote the constitution in 1787 and we had genocide of 170 million people, by governments over 100 years later. For some magical mistery this never happens in countries where guns are allowed. Here is timeline - 1787 -> 1900 -> genocide of 170 million -> Rwanda 1994 -> today
What does era have anything to do with anything? Are there no government crimes today or the potential for it?
I will leave you with this...
In the united states we have gun lovers, gun haters, gay lovers, gay haters, catholic lovers, catholic haters, sport lovers, sport haters, democracy lovers, democracy haters, abortion lovers, abortion haters, life lovers, life haters.. let me ask you. If you were the government, who would you side with?
I'm sure you may personally have some choices there, i may have others and both are ok. I hope you get the point now..
The founding fathers foresaw how one side of the isle could mean the destruction of the other and to circumbent created this amendment. Our differences are just that, differences of opinion, but our government should be impartial and should NOT be siding with either of us. The constitution states everyone has the right to defend their life. The only way a woman can defend agaisnt a 250 pound man that's going to rape her is a gun. The same way a tiny weak man can fight off an attacker. It makes us all equal. Removing guns from these folks removes the equalizer and returns the imbalance. The rapist cannot be stopped, neither the thug, criminal, killer.. should i still say who the good guy is? Yet, today, the geniuses in DC are siding with you although the constitution says it's the law. And with how dilligent they've been to propose changes to help the average joe, it's your choice on how to interpret the meaning of this.
The constitution is the ultimate law of the land and will be until amended whether anyone likes it or not. And so the life lovers say, molon labe.
The issue with young black men is 'intrinsic' or natural? I will have to pass. Did you by any chance miss the part about the 'government regulation' called war on drugs. Shall i spell it out? It's obvious the race makes a difference. I guess it's not as painful when someone does not consider young black men as worthy as white children although 12 times more die every single year. Sure, that stupid war that doesnt do jack to stop anyone from getting high cant be discontinued. I guess if the goal is to finish a certain group, this is the way to do it. I grew up in a rough neighborhood, you are not 'naturaly bad' you adjust to your environment to survive. I fought my way out, others weren't so lucky. Put a white kid with green eyes and blond hair in the same environment and he either dies or learns to survive.. It amazes me to read something like this in 2013, yet there it is.
Last edited by SarasotaBound1; 01-10-2013 at 09:27 PM..
Different era? We must not be thinking clearly. The founding fathers wrote the constitution in 1787 and we had genocide of 170 million people, by governments over 100 years later. For some magical mistery this never happens in countries where guns are allowed. Here is timeline - 1787 -> 1900 -> genocide of 170 million -> Rwanda 1994 -> today
What does era have anything to do with anything? Are there no government crimes today or the potential for it?
I will leave you with this...
In the united states we have gun lovers, gun haters, gay lovers, gay haters, catholic lovers, catholic haters, sport lovers, sport haters, democracy lovers, democracy haters, abortion lovers, abortion haters, life lovers, life haters.. let me ask you. If you were the government, who would you side with?
I'm sure you may personally have some choices there, i may have others and both are ok. I hope you get the point now..
The founding fathers foresaw how one side of the isle could mean the destruction of the other and to circumbent created this amendment. Our differences are just that, differences of opinion, but our government should be impartial and should NOT be siding with either of us. The constitution states everyone has the right to defend their life. The only way a woman can defend agaisnt a 250 pound man that's going to rape her is a gun. The same way a tiny weak man can fight off an attacker. It makes us all equal. Removing guns from these folks removes the equalizer and returns the imbalance. The rapist cannot be stopped, neither the thug, criminal, killer.. should i still say who the good guy is? Yet, today, the geniuses in DC are siding with you although the constitution says it's the law. And with how dilligent they've been to propose changes to help the average joe, it's your choice on how to interpret the meaning of this.
The constitution is the ultimate law of the land and will be until amended whether anyone likes it or not. And so the life lovers say, molon labe.
The issue with young black men is 'intrinsic' or natural? I will have to pass. Did you by any chance miss the part about the 'government regulation' called war on drugs. Shall i spell it out? It's obvious the race makes a difference. I guess it's not as painful when someone does not consider young black men as worthy as white children although 12 times more die every single year. Sure, that stupid war that doesnt do jack to stop anyone from getting high cant be stopped. I guess if the goal is to finish a certain group, this is the way to do it. I grew up in a rough neighborhood, you are not 'naturaly bad' you adjust to your environment to survive. I fought my way out, others weren't so lucky. Put a white kid with green eyes and blond hair in the same environment and he either dies or learns to survive.. It amazes me to read something like this in 2013, yet there it is.
The goverment has to take a side, it has laws that either abolish or allow abortion, etc etc. The same way you are allowed to have an abortion within certain parameters, the same way you should be able to carry a weapon within certain parameters, I don't see how requiring people to register their guns, have training etc makes it so hard that the women who want to carry one for self protection couldnt anymore. The point is that to me the money spent on armed guards for schools is an over-reaction and nothing more than a cya exercise. I never said anything that could be remotely construed as not thinking black people were my kind. You were saying how useless gun control was and closed by saying that young black man have been violent for a long time, I took it as you meaning that YBM are just prone to violence, as in they are intrinsically violent which would by definition a very racist statement, I simply mentioned that that is not my stance, i beleive violence in that community is because of socio-economic factors not race, which to me is whom gun control measures would help, I agree gun control measures won't entirely stop the Adam Lanza's of the world but they will make a difference in our streets and thats where you need to start, we need to attempt to disarm the criminals with harsher penalties.
The goverment has to take a side, it has laws that either abolish or allow abortion, etc etc. The same way you are allowed to have an abortion within certain parameters, the same way you should be able to carry a weapon within certain parameters, I don't see how requiring people to register their guns, have training etc makes it so hard that the women who want to carry one for self protection couldnt anymore. The point is that to me the money spent on armed guards for schools is an over-reaction and nothing more than a cya exercise. I never said anything that could be remotely construed as not thinking black people were my kind. You were saying how useless gun control was and closed by saying that young black man have been violent for a long time, I took it as you meaning that YBM are just prone to violence, as in they are intrinsically violent which would by definition a very racist statement, I simply mentioned that that is not my stance, i beleive violence in that community is because of socio-economic factors not race, which to me is whom gun control measures would help, I agree gun control measures won't entirely stop the Adam Lanza's of the world but they will make a difference in our streets and thats where you need to start, we need to attempt to disarm the criminals with harsher penalties.
Although related, the government is neither forcing all women to have abortions or blocking all abortions. There are different opinions on when life starts, that's the main topic of discussion. That's where the government, surprise, has chosen the more liberal approach. But again, the ones for are not impacted by the ones agaisnt directly.
Again i go back to the constitution. It did not say we needed a license, it didnt say we needed training, or any other parameters that tomorrow will be changed to someone else's liking. Is it not enough that the state of nj and nyc blatently broke their rules to publish where gun owners lived, their phone numbers, etc... maybe we should do the same with bloomberg and his crew of thugs.
You want license and training, fine, that shouldn't block anyone from carrying a gun. After 'assault' it will be hand guns. After hand guns knives. After license it will be another license. And i can guarantee, nobody will ever, ever disarm criminals. How? How well did preventing drug usage work out for you? Take that as a queue of how effective regulations are.
I would rather the gov spend the funds in security here rather thsn abroad. The funds will be spent anyway, might as well take advantage.
It seems a simple idea to say, we'll just stick an armed guard in every school.
I have no idea what the answer is.
Putting an armed guard in every school is just a starting point. It won't solve all the problems.
It will not solve the problem of irresponsible gun owners who leave the guns accessible so children or insane people can use them.
It will not solve the problems, of which there are many, that caused the 41 pages of school shootings detailing the hundreds of deaths in that brady report. Some are basic things like relationships. Some are likely testosterone fueled, gangs, firings, sport rivalries.
Those same things cause mass shootings in post offices and a host of other work places.
The idea that there isnt a serious problem with people taking guns in to workplaces, schools and houses of worship and killing innocent people is detached from the facts.
The idea that we shouldnt spend 4 mil a year to put guards in some schools because newtown was an isolated incident is also detached from the facts.
Mass public shootings are so regular now that people seem to have gotten to the "whats the point of trying to do anything" stage.
We put helmets and pads on our kids when they ride their bikes, because we don't expect the government to pay to have traffic cops on every street in America. We also do not expect the government to provide us with said pad's and helmets to protect out children. Some parents require their children to wear this safety gear, while others do not.
So....
If you, as a parent are that concerned about your kids getting shot in school, you should purchase your kid a bulletproof vest and helmet on your own dime.
I'm curious which percentage of parents that say we should have an armed guard in school are the same parents that put rubber bumpers all over their house, toilet locks, door locks, fridge locks, etc. when their kids were babies.
Or... how about this? If hell bent on having armed guards at schools, why not have the crossing guards also be the armed guards? Seems to consolidate the expense and make it more affordable.
A situation which had never happened before is causing Hillsborough County to spend $4.1 million dollars on armed security guards next year?
First off, they'll never have to spring into action.
Second, if something like this occurs, the 'bad guy' is a lot more heavily armed than a security guard with a single 9mm pistol. People that do this are CRAZY, LOONEY, NUTSO. They do not care if there is an 'Armed Guard' there and would likely shoot them first with their assault rifle, large caliber hand gun and shotgun.
Third, amazing how they can spend $4.1 million dollars on our schools for something that will never be used and yet they cannot find $4.1 million for educational purposes when its budget time.
Why do government leaders always overreact on these types of things yet sit idle and procrastinate on other things? Go figure.
What a waste of taxpayer's money.
Meanwhile, most schools are way understaffed with teachers.
I am not sure i agree with what appears to be the majority. I will ask you this..
Why dont they shoot down courthouses?
Why not police stations? Or any other place they know there is a chance there will be a gun.
Why do they always seem to pick places where they know for sure there is no guns, like gun free-zone, i.e. schools, churches.?
It's no whether the rookie guard can stop the nut, it's that it removes the 'come and shoot' sign from schools.
To those unknowing souls who support banning guns, you want to avoid gun deaths, yet genocide by governments on un-armed citizens top 170 million in the last century. Get any other figures that come close to that.
My 2 cents.
Usually schools are targets because the kids who do the shooting, spend everyday there at school. Something sets them off, and they go there.
Most kids would have a hard time locating the local courthouse.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
