Re: "Let's try some of that gun control . . . we've never tried it
before in a serious way."Surely you jest!EVERY high
crime area in the US has strict gun controls.Chicago has refused to
implement the Supreme Court's ruling permitting individual gun possession,
maintaining some of the most draconian gun-control laws in the US. And, 500+
people die there every year of gun violence.That's about 6
times more than have ever been killed in ANY year in the whole US by
"assault weapons."One New York prosecutor handled 40,000
cases a year for 12 years. In all that time, only ONE murder involved a legal
gun.Gun control has ZERO effect on crime. ZERO.Because
criminals pay no attention whatever to gun laws.Gun control is a
liberal darling for one reason, and one reason only -- it makes us defenseless
against a bloated, ineffective, distant, uncaring government intent on
controlling our every action.
Let's try some of that gun control stuff. It's not quick and easy, but
we've never tried it before in a serious way.
Gotta love all the talk about "trained professionals" toting fire arms
known as police officers. From what we read in the newspaper, almost
constantly, is that these "trained professionals" shoot first and ask
questions later. How many bystanders did these "trained professionals"
kill on the NY street outside of the Empire State Building when the gunmen
opened fire?The PRIMARY reason the forefathers gave for people to
"keep and bear arms" is defense from government tyranny. What is Obama
threatening? - Executive Action, going against the Constitution, to confiscate
semi-automatic weapons. If he does, we'll be reading of resistance across
the nation - gun fights, dead police officers, dead citizens, etc. Except for
the most part it won't be one or two men against a bunch of defenseless
people, but dozens of police officers massacring families or fathers/sons
holding pat and not giving up their weapons. Think Waco, Ruby Ridge, etc.
"Resistance is futile", right?
What makes "lunatics"? It seems that's the real problem.My vote is that raising children in daycare centers is a key component. (No,
not all children raised in daycare centers will become lunatics. But it shifts
the scale, resulting in more lunatics. I don't see how any mother could
think anything could possibly be more important that being at home with her
children - how many of them choose to be a secretary or a receptionist
instead?!? If you want to change the world, raise a child to have character and
maturity. (Yes, that's sexist - but women are far better at raising
children than men are. Mother nature makes them that way.)) Sometimes women with
children have to work. Having nice cars and a McMansion don't qualify in my
book.How many of the shooter were raised at home by their mothers,
and had a father who lived at home and supported them?
Re: "What if that does happen? What is next on your list of things to
try?"Well, at least it has SOME history of working.Liberal, freedom-reduction, gun control scams, on the other hand, have NEVER
worked. NEVER will.
The media is definitely on the side of the gun control argument and not just
because most of them are liberal. Why? Because news only gets reported when the
bad things happen regarding guns.There will never be a news story
that tells how a criminal decided it was just too risky to pull a gun on a group
of people in the park since one of them might be packing. It will never report
about a home break-in that never happened because the neighborhood was full of
hunters. It will never tell about someone who wasn't raped, robbed, or
murdered because a gun was either present or because the perpetrator thought one
at Anti Bush - Obama great if drug use is the problem. There will be more mass
murderers in Utah than any other state with its leading use of Anti-Depressants
and Pain Killers in the nation.
procuradorfiscal claims "And, it's working, so far."Maybe its
working because of this lucky penny I found on the ground.You had to
qualify that training and arming teachers is working "so far" because
(luckily) no lunatic has decided to shoot up a Utah school. What if that does
happen? What is next on your list of things to try?
Re: "Give us some solutions that we can at least try!"We've done so, here in Utah. Training and arming willing teachers and
staff. And, it's working, so far. Let's give it a chance before we
start ripping the Constitution to shreds.
So what do we do? Columbine did not happen yesterday. We still do not have any
solutions, but we have NOT tried anything and things have just continued to get
worse. Someone wrote that an automatic rifle would actually have
been a much better means to kill but none of these killers chose to use them.
Why? Maybe because we banned them? It is something to think about. Gangsters
in the thirties used machine guns to commit their crimes, but today, no one
does. Again, ask yourself why.We need solutions - we have had time
to ponder these things already. Give us some solutions that we can at least
I dunno. Your newspaper says it's Tarentino's fault.
Sensible Middle..you misssed the whole point of the question. It wasn't
what's the probablity of a teacher needing to defend themselves and their
students..it was that probablity compared to the other probablities, and Craig
Clark explained the consequenses of the other probablities quite nicely. This is a very complicated and confiluted problem compounded by the fact
that you can't end violence, just mitigate it or it's consequences.
Therefore it is a problem of probablities, and life should have taught you all
ready that the probablity of negative consequences flowing from gun toting
teachers is far greater than the probability that a teacher will ever have to
use a concealed weapon in their classroom.
The "main problem?" Or only one of many in a very complicated mess?
from the article:"Were they mentally ill? Perhaps, but some scholarly
studies show mental illness is rarely a factor in homicide, and that substance
abuse may be a bigger danger."=========Yes - there
was a substance present, but it wasn't anything illegal.Mall
shooters,School shooters, Geneology Library shooters, Jordan
River Temple shooters, Trolley Square shooters,Mothers drowning
their own children, Teachers have sex with students, Women trying to
drive over their estranged husbands, going Postal, all
unexplicable.all under a Doctor's care, and all being
perscribed the same meds.It's the only common denominator.----------@Anti Bush-ObamaWashington, DCAgreed!
Nobody likes to talk about what kinds of psychotropic drugs these killers were
on when they committed these crimes. I think the drugs are the main problem.
[Guns are being abused now, Muk. Do you have a better suggestion? If you do,
let's hear it. But criticizing without offering a better alternative is
useless.]Brainstorming is fun, but when somebody suggests a terrible
idea you don't need to offer another idea to be able to shoot it down.
Excellent comment, Craig. Thank you for using some good sense.
The fault lies in the deranged and insane mind of a mass murderer. There is no
guarantee that schools will be immune from such persons no matter how many
restrictions are placed on gun ownership. In this day and age, every school
should have an armed security officer.
Guns are being abused now, Muk. Do you have a better suggestion? If you do,
let's hear it. But criticizing without offering a better alternative is
As Jay Everson aptly put it, "talking points are replacing rational thought
and debate."I find myself as well being caught up in it.Before the 2012 spate of mass shootings commenced, the story the
country’s attention was fixed on was the case of Trayvon Martin who was
killed in a confrontation with a conscientious citizen on the lookout to
safeguard his own community. George Zimmerman was undoubtedly confident in his
ability with guns and his own good judgment. That may explain why he disregarded
a police dispatch discouraging him from going in to deal with a situation for
which he was not a trained professional. That case now seems irrelevant in the
heat of recent calls to quick-fix the mass shooting problem by arming school
teachers whose job is to teach. How stupid can one get?I don’t
have the answers but I do agree that the solution is not as simple as both sides
of the gun debate are trying to make it. But I’m glad we’re talking
about it. Now let’s see if we can listen as well as we talk.
one old man:[Would setting up a way for people to easily report someone
who seems to be mentally imbalanced help?]Oh yeah, that's not
gonna be abused. Worst suggestion so far.
We are told that James Holmes spent months buying (legally) an arsenal of
weapons and thousands of rounds of ammo.There were people who say
now that they had concerns about Holmes' mental state but didn't know
where they could report them.People are not prohibited from packing
guns legally until they have been convicted of a felony. But in many cases in
which guns have been used in domestic violence, the shooter had a very long
record of misdemeanors. The majority of gang bangers have not been convicted of
a felony, but do have long misdemeanor records. They can pack legally.Would a better solution be to change laws to include violent misdemeanors as a
cause to remove the privilege of packing a gun?Would a national data
base tracking system that would record purchases of weapons and ammo be a way
tip us off that someone is imitating Holmes in buying up an arsenal?Would setting up a way for people to easily report someone who seems to be
mentally imbalanced help?There ARE sensible ways to solve this
without confiscation of guns. We just need to find them.
The Sensible Middle,Agreed that teachers are professionals and that
some (my father and many others of the WWII generation) would have had the
necessary firearms background to be effective and safe. In today’s world,
many (not all, but many) of the teachers I know are not firearms folks. If they
had wanted to be police, they would have chosen that profession instead. And,
police get a lot of firearms and other training for emergency situations
(logically). Teachers will get far less because their training needs to focus
on teaching.KJB1,Yes, blame Quentin Tarantino and
Hollywood in general for fully embracing violence as an art form while howling
against the reality and assuming that the one has nothing to do with the other.
Do I say that the art creates the reality? No, but it is often its muse.
Quick, blame Quentin Tarantino!And no rational person is going to
say that gun control will prevent every gun-related death, but we can clearly do
better than we have been. Based on this logic, we might as well legalize drunk
driving. People are going to do it anyway, right?
re pragmatistferlifeA simple question. What is the probability that
any given teacher who is armed will have to draw that weapon and defend
themselves and their students lives any time during their teaching career?----We trust police to carry guns and for the most part this
has been a success. Teachers are professionals, and for those who choose to
carry, I would expect no less of them.
A simple question. What is the probability that any given teacher who is armed
will have to draw that weapon and defend themselves and their students lives any
time during their teaching career? Versus the probability that the weapon
carried by the teacher will be mishandled and do personal damage. Versus the
probablity that the weapon carried by the teacher will be stolen and either do
damage or fall into the wrong hands. Versus the probablity that if such a
horrific situation would occur and the teacher drew their weapon with lethal
intent against an ansailant clothed in body armor and firing a semi-automatic
weapon they wouldn't unintentionaly kill students themselves in the chaos
and terror.What does experience tell us?
Because there exist people who misuse guns does not mean that law abiding people
should have give up their constitutional rights to have guns.Congress most likely will not go along with further restrictions, and anything
the president does by executive order can and should and will be undone by the
next president if we vote right.I hate to put Obamacare at risk to
protect guns, but I am prepared to vote to do it.
Re: "If we allow these killers to divide us along mindless ideological
lines, we will have misunderstood the question, and our solutions will not be
answers."Whaaaa . . . ?So, you're saying we
should do nothing. Talk, maybe. Hold hearings. Grandstand. But do nothing, since
it might show we're divided?And the killers? Do you honestly
thinks they'll be deterred by all this "unity?"C'mon!There is a simple, readily available action that can
be, and is being, implemented today to make kids safer -- training and arming
willing school personnel.That's what can and should be done,
NOW.Then, after our kids are safe, if liberals want to blather,
pontificate, bloviate, and advocate some brave, new, untried touchy-feely hokum
-- fine. Let 'em.At least the kids will be safe in the