| |
look4angel
StuckOnPeas
PeaNut 49,444
September 2002
Posts: 2,745
Layouts: 181
Loc: Tn
 |  Posted: 12/24/2012 4:03:03 AM
It's a complicated nation. This is a complicated issue.
Left turn, all of that post is well and good, each state has it's own differences, but while we all have different expiration dates on our driver's licenses, we are still ALL required to have driver's licenses. Common sense laws for gun control could, and should be implemented, and a majority of American's feel this way.
This ABC News/Washington Post poll also finds that 54 percent of Americans favor stricter gun control laws in general, numerically a five-year high, albeit not significantly different than in recent years. Fifty-nine percent support a ban specifically on high-capacity ammunition clips, a step on which partisan and ideological gaps narrow substantially and "strong" support peaks.
ABC news |
|
|
leftturnonly
Will trade mosquitoes for cookies.
PeaNut 416,788
March 2009
Posts: 19,593
Layouts: 0
Loc: Living in Kim's Perfect World, again.
 | Posted: 12/24/2012 4:09:22 AM
Common sense laws for gun control could, and should be implemented, and the vast majority of American's feel this way.
I am not disagreeing.
What is common sense for one area makes no sense for another in a great many areas of normal everyday life.
It's best not to forget that.
|
If PC is the way to get to Heaven, I'm going straight to Hell.
| |
|
|
leftturnonly
Will trade mosquitoes for cookies.
PeaNut 416,788
March 2009
Posts: 19,593
Layouts: 0
Loc: Living in Kim's Perfect World, again.
| Posted: 12/24/2012 4:16:23 AM
Fifty-nine percent support a ban specifically on high-capacity ammunition clips, a step on which partisan and ideological gaps narrow substantially and "strong" support peaks.
Are 59% knowledgeable enough about the specifics of the capacity of ammunition clips to make good law about it?
Are the politicians able to make good laws? This time?
|
If PC is the way to get to Heaven, I'm going straight to Hell.
| |
|
|
look4angel
StuckOnPeas
PeaNut 49,444
September 2002
Posts: 2,745
Layouts: 181
Loc: Tn
| Posted: 12/24/2012 4:21:31 AM
Common sense laws for gun control could, and should be implemented, and the vast majority of American's feel this way.
I am not disagreeing.
What is common sense for one area makes no sense for another in a great many areas of normal everyday life.
It's best not to forget that.
I have not forgotten that, but I also realize that "we" are the United States, and every now, and then it is time to make laws that the majority believe in, especially when it comes to our children.
So if for their safety I have to infringe on someone else's right to have a huge clip of bullets, then so be it... it's a trade I'm willing to make, and it seems like it's a trade that a majority of American's are willing to make as well.. |
|
|
Sue_Pea
Ancient Ancestor of Pea
PeaNut 36,163
April 2002
Posts: 9,868
Layouts: 5
Loc: here, there and everywhere
 | Posted: 12/24/2012 5:06:10 AM
If we're discussing nation wide standards for reasonable gun control laws using states with successfully implemented gun control laws as examples, why can't we also consider a nation wide standard for SRO appointments with a reasonable officer-to-student ratio that looks to communities that have successfully implemented programs in place?
Who is going to pay for these programs? Many people will vehemently disagree with placing armed officers in every school. You know because you work in a school system that funding to schools has been cut. Here in Ohio, many counties/communities have generously passed levies to help to make up the difference. These standards would be an additional enormous expense, and one with which many parents would not agree. And the idea of national standards would seem to be inconsistent with the GOP position on practically everything. Many would see it as another unfunded federal mandate. From your conservative point of view, wouldn't this be the job of the states?
I am sincerely asking, because this does not at all comport with what I read about conservatives/federal standards and mandates. | |
|
writermom1
Thrift Whisperer
PeaNut 114,407
November 2003
Posts: 22,321
Layouts: 66
Loc: At the intersection of Hooterville and Stars Hollow
 | Posted: 12/24/2012 9:07:25 AM
I am not sure how I personally feel about armed security in our schools. I know that it is not the norm here - at all.
Most districts can't even afford a full-time school nurse so I'm unsure about the funding for all the armed security suggestions.
As mentioned Ohio schools are funded by property taxes and levies and many areas do not have their own police force. If they can't fund that I can't imagine what it would take to fund a team of Security Officers for each school?
We will hear lots of lip service given to no cost being too great but the truth is many simply can't pay for it.
A LEO told a story of a 6 yo almost getting a firearm off an on-duty officer - which gave me pause too.
I just don't know but I think we will see major changes. If I am so blessed with grandchildren I imagine we will look back on today's basically unguarded, buzzer doors, no "safe rooms" with a quaint nostalgia for the good old days.
I can't wait to take them through the metal detectors at the movies. 
|
|
|
~*kristina*~
Typical Liberal Pea
PeaNut 55,230
November 2002
Posts: 17,513
Layouts: 106
Loc: Hawkeye Nation
| Posted: 12/24/2012 9:50:15 AM
Mrs. T, your lack of military training it showing again. MANY, MANY military personnel are in fact trained to build roads, and many other functions in "our" country, and are not meant entirely for war, or just fighting with a gun.
No kidding.....says the Air Force veteran who worked in civil engineering units and only had to touch a gun once a year to qualify on the M-16.
In fact, in the vast military experience that my family has, only my father who was an MP had a job that's primary duty required weapons.
|
|
|
AmeliaBloomer
BucketHead
PeaNut 509,476
May 2011
Posts: 521
Layouts: 0
 | Posted: 12/24/2012 10:06:42 AM
... I believe it was earlier in this thread, [I asked] why President Obama doesn't begin his work on violence by focusing on Chicago.
Crickets.
Leftie/Angel/Angelus,
Okay, I'll bite. I did see, and notice, the question earlier, and it puzzled me.
Why I believe the president will not focus on Chicago:
1. Because Mr. Obama is the president of the entire country, not just Chicago.
2. Because the question could be interpreted as a challenge: why doesn't he clean up his own house first before messing with...say...Texas ( )
3. Because, unfortunately, gun violence in Chicago does not provoke a (national) citizen outcry like Mr. Obama has seen this week. As a country, we respond with horror to dead, white, suburban children in their classrooms...not dead, black, urban children on the streets of Chicago.
4. Because many gun control proponents who do not live in Chicago would say that the president is playing favorites. (Just read this message board to see the opinions some have of Chicago's sway over Mr. Obama.)
5. Because his relationship with Mayor Emmanuel (former chief of staff) would only bolster the cronyism hue and cry (with both sides of the gun argument)
6. Because some would claim the president is using his standing in Chicago to try to get a foothold in order to kick start his long-planned descent into Socialism...dismantling the Constitution...shredding states' rights...Shira law...dictatorship...whatever. (Yes, they're crazy, but they're legion.)
7. And again, because I think it's worth repeating: because he's president of the whole country.
(Besides, Chicago and environs TRIED to limit handguns and it got reversed by the Supreme Court. Illinois tried to be the lone state with a concealed carry ban and it got shut down by the appellate court - two days before Sandy Hook.)
| |
|
AmeliaBloomer
BucketHead
PeaNut 509,476
May 2011
Posts: 521
Layouts: 0
| Posted: 12/24/2012 10:09:18 AM
^ Also, the length of the above post is directly correlated to my distaste for cooking and entertaining.
Thank you for enabling my procrastination. I think they call that "co-dependence."
| |
|
Mrs_Tyler
Sorting Laundry
PeaNut 197,836
March 2005
Posts: 24,083
Layouts: 246
Loc: Enjoying the humid continental climate zone.
 | Posted: 12/24/2012 10:53:37 AM
I still don't see that the only answer we have is to arm people in our schools. There has still got to be better gun laws, and harsher punishment for those found to be lacking in their own home gun safety.
and I never intended it to be the ONLY answer. Remember that many of us began this thread with gun control laws we feel are sensible and do not greatly infringe on the rights of law-abiding citizens. | |
|
Mrs_Tyler
Sorting Laundry
PeaNut 197,836
March 2005
Posts: 24,083
Layouts: 246
Loc: Enjoying the humid continental climate zone.
| Posted: 12/24/2012 11:10:15 AM
"we" are the United States, and every now, and then it is time to make laws that the majority believe in, especially when it comes to our children
We don't make laws based on majority opinion. That is not how this republic works, and good thing or we'd still gave Jim Crow laws in the south and women may still be fighting for the right to vote. We have a Constitution to guide us and to restrict the powers of government from infringing on individual rights even if the majority think they're obsolete. | |
|
Mrs_Tyler
Sorting Laundry
PeaNut 197,836
March 2005
Posts: 24,083
Layouts: 246
Loc: Enjoying the humid continental climate zone.
| Posted: 12/24/2012 11:22:26 AM
No kidding.....says the Air Force veteran who worked in civil engineering units and only had to touch a gun once a year to qualify on the M-16.
Maybe things have changed since way back then. 
Both my Air Force brother in laws are trained in weapons and their primary job is loading planes. But they have drills with weapons regularly. And my navy lieutenant house guest is a navigator, but, being stationed in the ME for the fourth time, he as extensive weapons training. So maybe not everyone's military experience is the same as yours. | |
|
leftturnonly
Will trade mosquitoes for cookies.
PeaNut 416,788
March 2009
Posts: 19,593
Layouts: 0
Loc: Living in Kim's Perfect World, again.
| Posted: 12/24/2012 11:27:01 AM
Leftie/Angel/Angelus
Sweet talker. That was a nice surprise this morning. 
1. Because Mr. Obama is the president of the entire country, not just Chicago. True, but he is also personally tied to Chicago where crime is very high. Why wouldn't a president focus on a high-crime city? I've just always wondered about this, not just because of the recent horrible event.
2. Because the question could be interpreted as a challenge: why doesn't he clean up his own house first before messing with...say...Texas () It is a challenge. You put it into excellent terms, too.
3. Because, unfortunately, gun violence in Chicago does not provoke a (national) citizen outcry like Mr. Obama has seen this week. As a country, we respond with horror to dead, white, suburban children in their classrooms...not dead, black, urban children on the streets of Chicago.  I know there is a great bias in what is reported. While the lists of those killed in Iraq were being read every night on the evening news, I wanted to know where the lists of those killed in our inner cities were. I've seen the difference in the way children abducted/missing at the same time were reported. While one little blonde girl was headlining national news, one local little black girl made local news. Which in a very sad way is part of why I think President Obama should focus on inner city crime, since he can personally relate to this bias in a unique way among those who have been our president.
4. Because many gun control proponents who do not live in Chicago would say that the president is playing favorites. (Just read this message board to see the opinions some have of Chicago's sway over Mr. Obama.)5. Because his relationship with Mayor Emmanuel (former chief of staff) would only bolster the cronyism hue and cry (with both sides of the gun argument) Would they say it? Absolutely. Since when has Barack Obama cared what they say about him? Of all the things people are against him for, this is one that IMO would be the least offensive, especially if it worked and became a model for other high-crime cities.
6. Because some would claim the president is using his standing in Chicago to try to get a foothold in order to kick start his long-planned descent into Socialism...dismantling the Constitution...shredding states' rights...Shira law...dictatorship...whatever. (Yes, they're crazy, but they're legion.) Only if whatever new policies/regulations/laws were more Socialistic would this have any actual teeth, though. Why in the world would he need to do anything unconstitutional? The actual laws that have been passed under his administration are what have thrown wood on this fire: the start of this mantra is in our past already.
7. And again, because I think it's worth repeating: because he's president of the whole country. Your best point, too. Not one to be shrugged off.
(Besides, Chicago and environs TRIED to limit handguns and it got reversed by the Supreme Court. Illinois tried to be the lone state with a concealed carry ban and it got shut down by the appellate court - two days before Sandy Hook.) How effective are the limits they had in place, though? Mapchic and others think they have been very ineffective, and that more of the same would not be productive to lessening the violence.
^ Also, the length of the above post is directly correlated to my distaste for cooking and entertaining.
Thank you for enabling my procrastination. I think they call that "co-dependence."
 Anyone who recognizes my Angel on the board is OK by me. 
Merry Christmas, Amelia. 
|
If PC is the way to get to Heaven, I'm going straight to Hell.
| |
|
|
lynlam
Don'tcha wish your girlfriend had spurs like mine?
PeaNut 46,248
August 2002
Posts: 6,379
Layouts: 41
Loc: Ohio
| |
Mrs_Tyler
Sorting Laundry
PeaNut 197,836
March 2005
Posts: 24,083
Layouts: 246
Loc: Enjoying the humid continental climate zone.
| Posted: 12/24/2012 11:56:18 AM
The fancy private school the Obama girls attend? They have 11 full time guards. Armed guards. That is not including the girls secret service detail.
We know which lives are more valued. The ones who can afford the protection. | |
|
writermom1
Thrift Whisperer
PeaNut 114,407
November 2003
Posts: 22,321
Layouts: 66
Loc: At the intersection of Hooterville and Stars Hollow
| Posted: 12/24/2012 12:03:36 PM
The fancy private school the Obama girls attend? They have 11 full time guards. Armed guards. That is not including the girls secret service detail.
I think comparing the average citizen to the President of the United States is classic disassembling. Using this argument we probably need our own jets (will get you past most of that pesky TSA nonsense correct?) Bulletproof glass in the cars is a definite must.
Yes our lives are just as important but to pretend we are the same targets, even after 12/14, is disingenuous at best.
Using this analogy we may as well argue that every one of us should hire a PRIVATE security firm and bodyguards. I mean if it's good enough for the children of Captains of Industry and movie stars then by all means it is our DUTY to provide the same level of security for our own families. Don't you love your kids as much as Will Smith loves his?
Bringing the security detail for the President of the United States in as a model for why every small town elementary school should have the Secret Service too just makes the speaker look desperate.
It says to me that there is no desire for real compromise, only trite sound bites and "so there!" analogies.
|
|
|
I-95
It's all just nonsense anyway!
PeaNut 97,456
July 2003
Posts: 19,578
Layouts: 0
Loc: California, NY & Orlando
| Posted: 12/24/2012 12:12:54 PM
Bulletproof glass in the cars is a definite must.
Hey! My car has bulletproof glass windows!! However, I strongly suspect that its previous owner was a drug dealer, or a mafioso (the trunk is air conditioned too....very suspicious...) | |
|
crimsoncat05
PeaFixture
PeaNut 273,602
August 2006
Posts: 3,300
Layouts: 99
Loc: Phoenix, AZ area
 | |
leftturnonly
Will trade mosquitoes for cookies.
PeaNut 416,788
March 2009
Posts: 19,593
Layouts: 0
Loc: Living in Kim's Perfect World, again.
| Posted: 12/24/2012 12:14:28 PM
The fancy private school the Obama girls attend? They have 11 full time guards. Armed guards. That is not including the girls secret service detail.
We know which lives are more valued. The ones who can afford the protection.
Before the Obama girls were daughters of the President of the United States, they weren't as valuable to those who would try to force a sitting US president to comply with their wishes and they did not have this kind of constant security.
They are guarded because they present a national security vulnerability that is enormous.
|
If PC is the way to get to Heaven, I'm going straight to Hell.
| |
|
|
writermom1
Thrift Whisperer
PeaNut 114,407
November 2003
Posts: 22,321
Layouts: 66
Loc: At the intersection of Hooterville and Stars Hollow
| Posted: 12/24/2012 12:15:20 PM
Bulletproof glass in the cars is a definite must.
Hey! My car has bulletproof glass windows!! However, I strongly suspect that its previous owner was a drug dealer, or a mafioso (the trunk is air conditioned too....very suspicious...
I call shotgun with I-95 on all 2Peas Road trips! No pun intended. |
|
|
Chlerbie
Lover of Tubas
PeaNut 14,100
April 2001
Posts: 11,887
Layouts: 86
Loc: Gone to Chemo with BethAnne
 | Posted: 12/24/2012 12:17:50 PM
Give up the welfare and food stamps and protect our kids for Gods sake.
These DO protect our kids, for God's sake. |
Stephanie
I'm an enigma. Or am I?
Aren't they cute? My Emmett and Bailey...
My Blog: Scrapadelia
| |
|
|
writermom1
Thrift Whisperer
PeaNut 114,407
November 2003
Posts: 22,321
Layouts: 66
Loc: At the intersection of Hooterville and Stars Hollow
| Posted: 12/24/2012 12:23:07 PM
Give up the welfare and food stamps and protect our kids for Gods sake.
These DO protect our kids, for God's sake.
Well said.
|
|
|
scrappower
Allons-y Alonso
PeaNut 174,150
October 2004
Posts: 13,022
Layouts: 0
| Posted: 12/24/2012 12:25:15 PM
Give up the welfare and food stamps and protect our kids for Gods sake.
Ahh so they can just starve and have no place to live, yup that is better.  |
 
Blessed Be! | |
|
|
leftturnonly
Will trade mosquitoes for cookies.
PeaNut 416,788
March 2009
Posts: 19,593
Layouts: 0
Loc: Living in Kim's Perfect World, again.
| Posted: 12/24/2012 12:25:35 PM
Give up the welfare and food stamps and protect our kids for Gods sake.
These DO protect our kids, for God's sake.
 Merry Christmas, Chlerbie! |
If PC is the way to get to Heaven, I'm going straight to Hell.
| |
|
|
WannaPea
No Peas for you ! Come back one year!
PeaNut 151,172
June 2004
Posts: 26,850
Layouts: 175
Loc: In my PJ's
| Posted: 12/24/2012 12:26:17 PM
We know which lives are more valued. The ones who can afford the protection.
Oh wait. Now you think we're all equal? |
Cop's wife - Mom to one
"The invisible and the non-existent look very much alike." ~ Delos B. McKown
     | |
|
|
scrappower
Allons-y Alonso
PeaNut 174,150
October 2004
Posts: 13,022
Layouts: 0
| Posted: 12/24/2012 12:29:04 PM
We know which lives are more valued. The ones who can afford the protection.
Oh wait. Now you think we're all equal?
Interesting, isn't it? |
Blessed Be! | |
|
|
WannaPea
No Peas for you ! Come back one year!
PeaNut 151,172
June 2004
Posts: 26,850
Layouts: 175
Loc: In my PJ's
| Posted: 12/24/2012 12:36:35 PM
Boy howdy. It sure is. |
Cop's wife - Mom to one
"The invisible and the non-existent look very much alike." ~ Delos B. McKown
| |
|
|
mapchic
Top Tier Pea
PeaNut 31,157
February 2002
Posts: 12,177
Layouts: 55
Loc: Chicagoland
| Posted: 12/24/2012 12:37:47 PM
He is also in favor of stricter gun laws, and restricting the sale of Kevlar piercing bullets. But as an officer with almost 20 years experience I guess his opinion is not worth much
His opinion is absolutely worth lots... just as the opinions of my friends who are CPD officers and who are opposed the Chicago's gun laws matter.
There are over 750,000 police officers in America... I am willing to bet there is a wide variety of opinions on this issue in a group that large. Just as there are police with a wide variety of skills and experiences.
For 200+ years, from generation to generation, Americans have been brought up with the knowledge that they have the right to keep & bear arms via the second amendment of the Constitution. Those that value gun rights are not going to give that up easily or willingly.
2 different countries, 2 completely different cultures. Respectfully, what works in Scotland would never work here.
I'm not saying that changes in gun laws couldn't be made within reason. However, it's going to take time & cooperation from both sides. To be honest, as I've said before, I don't see anyone being willing to compromise on anything here in America right now, so I don't see anything happening soon.
I agree.
Any attempt at blanket gun confiscation in America would be a miserable failure at best and a tragic bloodbath at worst.
It would be nice to think that we could have a conversation as a nation and come to some sort of cooperative agreement as a nation about what we can do about gun laws going forward. This conversation here makes me very, very cynical of the chances of that ever happening.
We can't have a serious discussion here without getting pulled into cul-de-sacs about how well cops in schools work in different districts. or without calling the other sides names and refusing to listen.
All this talk, but nobody has yet explained how an armed officer could stop a tragedy like that at Sandy Hook.
As I understand the situation the school principal attempted to stop an armed intruder to her school with her bare hands that is honorable but futile. Perhaps if she was armed it might have been a different story. Perhaps is someone, anyone was armed it might have been a different story. We *know* that keeping everyone in the school unarmed kept them all defenseless and easy targets.
If an SRO was at the front of my school, and someone broke into the 5th grade wing--they could do significant damage in the minutes it takes to get from one corner of the school to the other.
I am willing to bet it would take less time to get from one side of the building to the other than it would take for police to be called and come to the location from elsewhere in the town.
False. Sense. of. Security.
I think the idea of a 'gun free zone' is the definition of a false sense of security. |
 
"When someone asks you 'think about what Jesus would do', remember that a valid option is to freak out and turn over tables" -- Unknown
“I am a Roman Catholic - the one true faith, (the Microsoft of Christianity) and I know Roman Catholicism is the one true faith because Roman Catholicism tells me it’s the one true faith... And if you remember from earlier in this sentence Roman Catholicism is the one true faith – so how could it be wrong?” ~ Stephen Colbert ‘The Word’ 11-28-06
Vocatus atque non vocatus, Deus aderit | |
|
|
look4angel
StuckOnPeas
PeaNut 49,444
September 2002
Posts: 2,745
Layouts: 181
Loc: Tn
| Posted: 12/24/2012 12:49:15 PM
I'm just skimming the last couple pages of this thread, but I think that people are failing to comprehend one of the major components of the whole idea of 'armed security' or 'teachers having guns' in schools would be as a DETERRENT, not as some sort of SWAT force.
Many of these mass shooting incidents- Sandy Hook and the Colorado theater shooting are two examples- happened in places that were KNOWN to be 'gun free zones.' (I believe there are a number of reports that say the Colorado shooter even bypassed several theaters that were closer to him, and choose the one he did largely because it was gun free, to lessen the chances that someone could stop him.)
Having a security officer in a school, or giving teachers the ABILITY (not requirement, just the ability) to bring their gun to school- and publicizing that fact- doesn't mean their only responsibility would be to attack a shooter AFTER a mass shooting happens. I believe that in large part it would mean greatly lessening the chance that anyone would attempt a mass shooting in such a place in the first place.
The problem with this analogy is that Columbine already HAD armed guards where they were attacked, as did other places, and it did nothing to stop the shootings. |
|
|
WannaPea
No Peas for you ! Come back one year!
PeaNut 151,172
June 2004
Posts: 26,850
Layouts: 175
Loc: In my PJ's
| Posted: 12/24/2012 12:50:05 PM
As I understand the situation the school principal attempted to stop an armed intruder to her school with her bare hands that is honorable but futile. Perhaps if she was armed it might have been a different story. Perhaps is someone, anyone was armed it might have been a different story. We *know* that keeping everyone in the school unarmed kept them all defenseless and easy targets.
It must actually make you feel better to say this.  |
Cop's wife - Mom to one
"The invisible and the non-existent look very much alike." ~ Delos B. McKown
| |
|
|
look4angel
StuckOnPeas
PeaNut 49,444
September 2002
Posts: 2,745
Layouts: 181
Loc: Tn
| Posted: 12/24/2012 12:52:52 PM
"Who is going to pay for these programs? "
--------
I'm sorry, but I am once again going to call bullshit on this! We found ways to "pay" for a trillion dollar stimulus that did nothing at all except pay off many special interests and unions.
We found lots of money to pay for Obamacare. We found lots of money to pay for Solyndra and Fiskars and a whole laundry list of other green energy con jobs. We found money to pay for the TSA and their naked scanners. We found money to pay for the Obamas to fly to HI. We can find money to increase food stamp enrollment by 60%.
We can damn sure find five billion or so to pay for school security! Give up the welfare and food stamps and protect our kids for Gods sake.
I'm not saying it is the only answer, security in schools. But it is logical. What is illogical is believing that trained and armed guards would somehow make things more dangerous. That makes zero sense.
The fancy private school the Obama girls attend? They have 11 full time guards. Armed guards. That is not including the girls secret service detail.
I don't see anyone storming that school, and I don't see the guards shooting the place up either.
Use some logic and leave emotion at the door. Emotion does us no good here.
Lynlam, since your husband makes his living off of selling high powered weapons, that can kill people, I wouldn't be calling out the President on anything if I was you, much less this topic, and who needs guards for children if they are starving to death, because you want to cut off their food stamps so you can still sell guns.  |
|
|
mapchic
Top Tier Pea
PeaNut 31,157
February 2002
Posts: 12,177
Layouts: 55
Loc: Chicagoland
| Posted: 12/24/2012 12:57:34 PM
I'm not following the logic of saying that although armed guards in schools won't stop every attack or prevent every fatality it's worth trying even if it 'just' reduces the numbers..... but the measures that other countries have tried that virtually eliminated random shooting aren't worth trying because it won't stop every potential attack.
In the countries that have very strict gun controls criminals can still get guns but that doesn't infiltrate into the daily life of the vast majority of the general public in schools, shopping malls etc. Gun shootings tend to be between gangs, drugs rings etc not kids.
The measures that other countries have tried (in particular the UK and Australia) are non starters here. Those countries responded with gun bans and nationwide gun confiscation.
We are a very different country with a different history, different culture and different constitution... all of which make it difficult if not impossible to ban and confiscate guns as was done in your country. Repeating that the only way to fix our problems is to do what your country did just won't advance the conversation. I appreciate the suggestions and contribution to the conversation but I think it has been explained again and again on the many threads that it will never work here. I am glad it has worked to your satisfaction in Australia and the UK (though not all of your fellow subjects would agree) but it just will not happen here in our lifetime.
|
"When someone asks you 'think about what Jesus would do', remember that a valid option is to freak out and turn over tables" -- Unknown
“I am a Roman Catholic - the one true faith, (the Microsoft of Christianity) and I know Roman Catholicism is the one true faith because Roman Catholicism tells me it’s the one true faith... And if you remember from earlier in this sentence Roman Catholicism is the one true faith – so how could it be wrong?” ~ Stephen Colbert ‘The Word’ 11-28-06
Vocatus atque non vocatus, Deus aderit | |
|
|
Mrs_Tyler
Sorting Laundry
PeaNut 197,836
March 2005
Posts: 24,083
Layouts: 246
Loc: Enjoying the humid continental climate zone.
| Posted: 12/24/2012 12:59:01 PM
Before the Obama girls were daughters of the President of the United States, they weren't as valuable to those who would try to force a sitting US president to comply with their wishes and they did not have this kind of constant security.
The president's daughters have their own secret service protection which they very well should have.
The school itself has armed security guards to secure the entire school.
I'm thinking this is for more than just the first family.
As far as public education goes, we should have equal opportunities and resources for all our kids. I realize there are private schools that parents can choose to pay more for to better protect and educate their kids. But if if we have an opportunity to increase school safety for all our nation's kids, I say we go for it. | |
|
crimsoncat05
PeaFixture
PeaNut 273,602
August 2006
Posts: 3,300
Layouts: 99
Loc: Phoenix, AZ area
| Posted: 12/24/2012 1:01:04 PM
greatly lessening the chance ...
I didn't say removing the 'gun free zone' designation in schools (i.e. having a security officer or allowing teachers to bring their weapons to school if they so choose) would stop all mass shootings, I said it might greatly lessen the chances of one.
Or are you saying because having security didn't work in Columbine, it shouldn't be tried at all anywhere else??
|
"Accepting anything without question is the antithesis of critical thinking and education. ~wren*walk, 8/20/12"
   | |
|
|
Kelpea
In a HapPea Place
PeaNut 176,832
November 2004
Posts: 12,249
Layouts: 2
Loc: gone to chemo with BethAnne
| Posted: 12/24/2012 1:06:32 PM
Before the Obama girls were daughters of the President of the United States, they weren't as valuable to those who would try to force a sitting US president to comply with their wishes and they did not have this kind of constant security.
They are guarded because they present a national security vulnerability that is enormou
And I would venture to guess that all President's children, now, in the past presidencies and all future presidencies will have that sort of detail...it is what it is. Doesn't matter what your political affiliation is as President. |
|
|
look4angel
StuckOnPeas
PeaNut 49,444
September 2002
Posts: 2,745
Layouts: 181
Loc: Tn
| Posted: 12/24/2012 1:13:27 PM
I didn't say removing the 'gun free zone' designation in schools (i.e. having a security officer or allowing teachers to bring their weapons to school if they so choose) would stop all mass shootings, I said it might greatly lessen the chances of one.
Or are you saying because having security didn't work in Columbine, it shouldn't be tried at all anywhere else??
No, what I"m saying it that it didn't help, nor did it stop someone who was determined to attack that particular school, armed guards or not. |
|
|
Mrs_Tyler
Sorting Laundry
PeaNut 197,836
March 2005
Posts: 24,083
Layouts: 246
Loc: Enjoying the humid continental climate zone.
| Posted: 12/24/2012 1:20:52 PM
And I would venture to guess that all President's children, now, in the past presidencies and all future presidencies will have that sort of detail...it is what it is. Doesn't matter what your political affiliation is as President.
You are missing to point. The armed security at the private school in DC where the Obama girls attend is a normal part of the school regardless of the first family attending (they come with their own secret service security detail).
Some interesting news has broken in the wake of the latest push for gun control by President Obama and Senate Democrats: Obama sends his kids to a school where armed guards are used as a matter of fact.
The school, Sidwell Friends School in Washington, DC, has 11 security officers and is seeking to hire a new police officer as we speak.
If you dismiss this by saying, "Of course they have armed guards -- they get Secret Service protection," then you've missed the larger point.
The larger point is that this is standard operating procedure for the school, period. And this is the reason people like NBC's David Gregory send their kids to Sidwell, they know their kids will be protected from the carnage that befell kids at a school where armed guards weren't used (and weren't even allowed).
Shame on President Obama for seeking more gun control and for trying to prevent the parents of other school children from doing what he has clearly done for his own. His children sit under the protection guns afford, while the children of regular Americans are sacrificed.
Opinion piece
ETA- I don't agree with the author's opinion saying "shame on Obama".i don't believe the President wants our public school children to be shot at. But I do think he should take a look at the school he has chosen for his own daughters' safety and security and see how some of those same security measures might benefit the rest of the nation's kids,
| |
|
TraceyS
StuckOnPeas
PeaNut 25,442
December 2001
Posts: 2,529
Layouts: 16
Loc: Kentucky
| Posted: 12/24/2012 1:25:40 PM
And I would venture to guess that all President's children, now, in the past presidencies and all future presidencies will have that sort of detail...it is what it is. Doesn't matter what your political affiliation is as President.
Yes, they will, and should. But I think the point she was making about Sidwell Friends is that the Secret Service are there to protect the Obama girls, but the school itself has its own security department, which is there independent of the President's daughters. | |
|
Mrs_Tyler
Sorting Laundry
PeaNut 197,836
March 2005
Posts: 24,083
Layouts: 246
Loc: Enjoying the humid continental climate zone.
| Posted: 12/24/2012 1:27:46 PM
Yes, they will, and should. But I think the point she was making about Sidwell Friends is that the Secret Service are there to protect the Obama girls, but the school itself has its own security department, which is there independent of the President's daughters.
Bingo. Thank you once again, Tracey, for actually reading what I have posted. | |
|
mapchic
Top Tier Pea
PeaNut 31,157
February 2002
Posts: 12,177
Layouts: 55
Loc: Chicagoland
| Posted: 12/24/2012 1:28:03 PM
Besides, Chicago and environs TRIED to limit handguns and it got reversed by the Supreme Court. Illinois tried to be the lone state with a concealed carry ban and it got shut down by the appellate court - two days before Sandy Hook.
Chicago had a total ban on handguns for 28 years before it was struck down by the Supreme court. It is not like the ban never got a full opportunity to be tried. It was fully tried and fully failed.
If you look at Chicago you will see that outlawing guns does NOTHING to end crime - and particularly nothing to end gun crimes. THAT is the reason that the president does not want to discuss this issue as it pertains to the situation in Chicago.
|
"When someone asks you 'think about what Jesus would do', remember that a valid option is to freak out and turn over tables" -- Unknown
“I am a Roman Catholic - the one true faith, (the Microsoft of Christianity) and I know Roman Catholicism is the one true faith because Roman Catholicism tells me it’s the one true faith... And if you remember from earlier in this sentence Roman Catholicism is the one true faith – so how could it be wrong?” ~ Stephen Colbert ‘The Word’ 11-28-06
Vocatus atque non vocatus, Deus aderit | |
|
|
angievp
Ideay pues?
PeaNut 143,106
April 2004
Posts: 6,644
Layouts: 36
Loc: Miami
| Posted: 12/24/2012 1:29:19 PM
We don't make laws based on majority opinion. That is not how this republic works, and good thing or we'd still gave Jim Crow laws in the south and women may still be fighting for the right to vote. We have a Constitution to guide us and to restrict the powers of government from infringing on individual rights even if the majority think they're obsolete.
That's great to hear you say that. I'm glad you've changed your mind about gay marriage!! | |
|
*maureen*
Bad Wolf
PeaNut 191,892
February 2005
Posts: 5,316
Layouts: 0
Loc: Wheaton
| Posted: 12/24/2012 1:32:41 PM
You are missing to point. The armed security at the private school in DC where the Obama girls attend is a normal part of the school regardless of the first family attending (they come with their own secret service security detail).
Yes and people can choose to send their children to Sidwell Friends, people can not opt for a different public school if they don't want their children in a school with armed guards. | |
|
Mrs_Tyler
Sorting Laundry
PeaNut 197,836
March 2005
Posts: 24,083
Layouts: 246
Loc: Enjoying the humid continental climate zone.
| Posted: 12/24/2012 1:54:16 PM
That's great to hear you say that. I'm glad you've changed your mind about gay marriage!!
This is a perfect example of making assumptions about a person and then refusing to actually listen to what they say. I have never advocated for laws that ban gay marriage. I might think homosexuality is a sin, just as you might think owning a semi-automatic rifle for the sake if sport and personal protection is disgusting. But I am not advocating for laws to be passed to legislate my morality. It's the same with abortion. I'm as pro-life and anti-abortion as possible but I have also stated repeatedly that abortion is legal and even if we banned the procedure, women would have them illegally. So I have not advocated for reversing the decision of Roe v Wade. But I do think there are sensible and reasonable legislation that could be enacted that might reduce the number of abortions that occur in the US each year.
Nice try at the "gotcha" game, but you actually only proved you don't pay attention to what I have actually said and believe. | |
|
scrappower
Allons-y Alonso
PeaNut 174,150
October 2004
Posts: 13,022
Layouts: 0
| |
wren*walk
PeaAddict
PeaNut 481,431
September 2010
Posts: 1,822
Layouts: 0
| Posted: 12/24/2012 2:03:56 PM
Repeating that the only way to fix our problems is to do what your country did just won't advance the conversation. I appreciate the suggestions and contribution to the conversation but I think it has been explained again and again on the many threads that it will never work here. I am glad it has worked to your satisfaction in Australia and the UK (though not all of your fellow subjects would agree) but it just will not happen here in our lifetime.
Thanks but, whether or not the experiences of other countries that have tried gun control will advance the conversation or not is a matter of personal opinion. Not just the NRAs. Not just yours.
I'm happy to hear of the expereinces in other countries and hear how both the UK and Aus have virtually eradicated mass shootings. And gun suicides. I'm heartened to hear those things. And of course other countries are different to the US. But they are different to each other too. How similar do think the UK is to Aus? Or the UK to Japan, where they also have very few gun deaths and virtually no guns?
The way I work you take a problem and your work out the best solution. That means looking at everything on the table and doing a cost/benefit analysis.
You don't start out by saying the most obvious solution is a non starter for politcal/constitutional/personal preference reasons, so don't even consider it. That's asinine. In my job, that would be akin to having a man who is bleeding to death and saying, "don't even think about applying that tourniquet, he has a death wish/right to privacy/just doesn't like tight things". You do your best with ALL the information you have to best preserve his life. You don't begin by ruling out the obvious.
People like you keep trying to say, "oh it won't work here". But there is quite a lot of evidence to the contrary. The facts do not seem to be on your side. Statistics are not on your side. But you keep on repeating it, because your guns seem to be so much more important to you than the continued mindless slaughter of the innocents.
You know, people like you are fond of comparing guns to other dangerous objects that people can kill with. To press home your point that it is the person, not the gun that is the issue. And you know what? You are right. It is the person weilding the weapon that is the moving factor. But in the problem solving sense, it is not a rational, obvious, effective answer. Because you can't ever confidently predict who that person is going to be. But you can always safely predict the potential damage a particular gun is capable of doing.
| |
|
janet r
AncestralPea
PeaNut 22,327
October 2001
Posts: 4,074
Layouts: 17
| Posted: 12/24/2012 2:07:33 PM
So how do you take away 200,000,000+ guns from people? How does the government go about that?
ETA: I can't really decide where I stand on this issue.  | |
|
Sarah*H
Bring me that horizon!
PeaNut 239,162
December 2005
Posts: 27,910
Layouts: 413
Loc: The final frontier
 | Posted: 12/24/2012 2:14:03 PM
We can damn sure find five billion or so to pay for school security! Give up the welfare and food stamps and protect our kids for Gods sake.
Yeah, who cares if those children have food or shelter but by God, that federal money will warm the pockets of the gun manufacturers and dealers because they weren't already making enough money off these tragedies.
I think the conservative movement in this country has officially gone off the rails.  |
|
|
wren*walk
PeaAddict
PeaNut 481,431
September 2010
Posts: 1,822
Layouts: 0
| Posted: 12/24/2012 2:22:12 PM
So how do you take away 200,000,000+ guns from people? How does the government go about that?
And I didn't say that did I?
Neither do I claim to have the right answers here. I'm saying we can't even agree on how to look at the problem. It's the guns stupid! would be the best way to describe my view. And I do think the answer lies in some form of rational gun control. That is not the same as saying take away all the guns.
| |
|
mapchic
Top Tier Pea
PeaNut 31,157
February 2002
Posts: 12,177
Layouts: 55
Loc: Chicagoland
| Posted: 12/24/2012 2:26:23 PM
I think that people are failing to comprehend one of the major components of the whole idea of 'armed security' or 'teachers having guns' in schools would be as a DETERRENT, not as some sort of SWAT force.
Having a security officer in a school, or giving teachers the ABILITY (not requirement, just the ability) to bring their gun to school- and publicizing that fact- doesn't mean their only responsibility would be to attack a shooter AFTER a mass shooting happens. I believe that in large part it would mean greatly lessening the chance that anyone would attempt a mass shooting in such a place in the first place.
Very good point.
If teachers and staff who have CCW permits were allowed to carry in schools then even if very, very few of them decide to do so (as I imagine would be the case) then bad guys would never know who would be able to defend themselves and the children entrusted in the school's care.
Those who think that schools should be maintained as 'gun free zones'... is your home a gun free zone? If yes, then why not put a big sign on the front door or in the front yard informing the world of that fact?
If you won't do that it is because you don't want your home to be seen as an easy target... then why are you willing to keep schools as easy targets?
Even those who do not own guns on some level benefit from the deterrent effect in place because other Americans own guns. Criminals in America have no idea who does or does not have a gun... and this leads to a much lower rate of home invasions (or 'hot burglary' ) here in America than there are in other countries. Why? Because criminals don't know if they will be dealing with armed homeowners when they enter a home while residents are home here in America.
Before the Obama girls were daughters of the President of the United States, they weren't as valuable to those who would try to force a sitting US president to comply with their wishes and they did not have this kind of constant security.
Before their father was president they attended a school (University of Chicago Lab School) which has armed guards on campus all day every day.
The private police force at that school is protecting the children of the wealthy and powerful in Chicago... while just blocks away on the south side children at Chicago Public Schools are living in danger and without protection. Why do the children at the Lab school deserve protection and the children at the public schools don't?
You don't start out by saying the most obvious solution is a non starter for politcal/constitutional/personal preference reasons, so don't even consider it. That's asinine.
Thanks for telling me what you think of me.
I am saying it is a non starter because any attempt to confiscate all of the guns in America is presently illegal under the constitution and will lead to a national crisis. I am not just ruling out the obvious for no reason. The reasons that it would not work here have been covered very completely in our discussions on this board in the last week.
People like you keep trying to say, "oh it won't work here". But there is quite a lot of evidence to the contrary. The facts do not seem to be on your side. Statistics are not on your side. But you keep on repeating it, because your guns seem to be so much more important to you than the continued mindless slaughter of the innocents.
What facts are not on my side? What statistics are not on my side?
If you are interested in the intersection of statistics, gun control and crime I would highly recommend that you check out the work of John Lott and in particular his book More Guns, Less Crime - understanding crime and gun control laws
Intentionally insulting me and claiming that I think guns are more important than innocents isn't really going to help move the discussion forward... but I hope it makes you feel better.
|
"When someone asks you 'think about what Jesus would do', remember that a valid option is to freak out and turn over tables" -- Unknown
“I am a Roman Catholic - the one true faith, (the Microsoft of Christianity) and I know Roman Catholicism is the one true faith because Roman Catholicism tells me it’s the one true faith... And if you remember from earlier in this sentence Roman Catholicism is the one true faith – so how could it be wrong?” ~ Stephen Colbert ‘The Word’ 11-28-06
Vocatus atque non vocatus, Deus aderit | |
|
|
look4angel
StuckOnPeas
PeaNut 49,444
September 2002
Posts: 2,745
Layouts: 181
Loc: Tn
| Posted: 12/24/2012 2:31:34 PM
This is a perfect example of making assumptions about a person and then refusing to actually listen to what they say. I have never advocated for laws that ban gay marriage. I might think homosexuality is a sin, just as you might think owning a semi-automatic rifle for the sake if sport and personal protection is disgusting. But I am not advocating for laws to be passed to legislate my morality. It's the same with abortion. I'm as pro-life and anti-abortion as possible but I have also stated repeatedly that abortion is legal and even if we banned the procedure, women would have them illegally. So I have not advocated for reversing the decision of Roe v Wade. But I do think there are sensible and reasonable legislation that could be enacted that might reduce the number of abortions that occur in the US each year.
Nice try at the "gotcha" game, but you actually only proved you don't pay attention to what I have actually said and believe.
Using most of your own words here, just changing them to fit this topic.
But I do think there are sensible and reasonable legislation that could be enacted that might reduce the number of "death due to guns" that occur in the US each year.
So it's okay to legislate abortion but not guns, I completely understand now! |
|
|
