Gun Control Debate #2

[jillycat]

I'm really sorry to see veterans characterized as too twitchy and confused and disordered to know the difference between Iraq and a public school, or ISIS and a student. Veteran groups are constantly having to push back against this demeaning stereotype, where statistics simply do not support such a claim.

As for "mental illness", that's a vague and widely applied term that includes common problems in living, so if that generalization is the bar (and that's one of the claims on this thread), then the average person's constitutional rights are potentially at risk. There are already some states where a 3 day hold can be facilitated by a family member's claim that the person is unstable. This is already a slippery slope, without adding the gun 'control' debate to it. Because someone felt sad or anxious or sees a therapist during a divorce or a loss or any challenging time and receives a DSM diagnostic code for third party billing is not a reason to deny them possession of a weapon. And that's where the "mental illness" part of all this is headed. Can you imagine if society referred to people as "physically ill" and policy was made based on that characterization? The messaging about "mental illness" is off course.

I haven't seen anyone make a blanket statement that guns solve problems, as was referenced earlier. However, it follows that an armed person has a better opportunity at stopping another armed person, than a person using their fists or a knife or running away from a shooter. And unsupervised children will continue to be at risk for accessing guns in environments where adults don't secure their firearms, regardless of anyone's POV on the merits or purpose of guns.

I don't think it follows that someone armed with a handgun can't stop a shooter with an AR. A deadly shot is a deadly shot. That's why police and SEALs have Glocks. They're extremely reliable and effective. As the VA Tech shooter also demonstrated.

Violent people will continue to access guns and it seems that keeping these people and any kind of weapon they possess out of schools in the first place makes the most sense. And narratives will continue to be heavy with terms like "military grade", "assault weapon", and "machine guns" despite the inaccurate application of the terms and the often intentional political motivation of these terms. Dana Loesch said today that after the 'town hall', the stage was rushed and people were shouting "Burn her." Don't know who the offenders were, but no one is going to win anything meaningful by behaving this way.

Despite this latest outrage and media attention, and even if there are some new regulatory measures, I don't see this changing a whole lot due to both the highly politicized gridlocked nature of the discussion and 'reform', and also because society is increasingly broken and no government mandate can fix that.

One of these days we'll see a bomb go off in a school and what do we ban then and which 'side' do we blame for fertilizer and nail sales? So, I was also sorry to see the FBI get a convenient pass last night.

 

[jamiect]

NRA hits back: LaPierre, at CPAC, says 'opportunists' exploiting Florida tragedy for 'political gain'

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...iting-florida-tragedy-for-political-gain.html

LaPierre said the “elites don't care not one whit about school children. If they truly cared, what they would do is protect them.”

He also reiterated calls for “trained armed security” in schools.

“The whole idea from some of our opponents that armed security makes us less safe is completely ridiculous,” he said.

Wayne LaPierre made $5,110,985 last year and lives in Washington, DC. He is the ELITE.

 

[Tillicum]

This is from Local 10 TV and here's a link for the Fox interview.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bzthq41Ba-g

 

[gitana1]

I do not mean any disrespect to the students that are speaking out about gun control. No way do I believe they are crises acters. This is my state it happened and these students are genuine.
What I have a problem with is the media not giving all students that were at the school an equal opportunity to speak. Regarding the CNN discussion a student from the school states that he was not allowed to talk about security guards on campus. I believe him. I don't believe that those in attendance had scripted answers but I do believe that CNN determined what would be discussed.
Again, I have great respect for all the students speaking out it takes a lot of courage on thier part. I wish we had the statistics on how all 4000 students feel about gun control. We will never know since 100 cannot speak for 4000, and if those with opposing view points are not heard.
I feel for these students when they go back to class. I worry that instead of coming together as a school that there will be big problems on campus if not all are allowed to speak about how they feel.
Tricia, if you find my post any way offensive please delete because I am not in any way meaning to disrespect the students that were on CNN or that went to Tallahassee. I just feel the media needs to let every student speak equally.
I don't always explain myself well and this hits close to home working in a school in Florida.

I for one don't think you're being disrespectful in any way. I agree. Every survivor should have their opinion heard. But I've not seen anything that confirms certain survivors are being censored.

In the links on the subject previously provided, one kid gave an opinion that the media is politicizing the tragedy. He does not say anyone is being censored. He himself was interviewed by CNN.

Another kid said CNN handed him a script. CNN denied it and said they gave no one a script. That should be easy to show by producing the script.

He opted out of the program. Nothing prevented him from showing up and asking whatever he wanted to,live.

Fox news reported both stories. Where is their townhall?

I'm seeing no evidence of media censorship.

 

[Hatfield]

I'm really sorry to see veterans characterized as too twitchy and confused and disordered to know the difference between Iraq and a public school, or ISIS and a student. Veteran groups are constantly having to push back against this demeaning stereotype, where statistics simply do not support such a claim.

As for "mental illness", that's a vague and widely applied term that includes common problems in living, so if that generalization is the bar (and that's one of the claims on this thread), then the average person's constitutional rights are potentially at risk. There are already some states where a 3 day hold can be facilitated by a family member's claim that the person is unstable. This is already a slippery slope, without adding the gun 'control' debate to it. Because someone felt sad or anxious or sees a therapist during a divorce or a loss or any challenging time and receives a DSM diagnostic code for third party billing is not a reason to deny them possession of a weapon. And that's where the "mental illness" part of all this is headed. Can you imagine if society referred to people as "physically ill" and policy was made based on that characterization? The messaging about "mental illness" is off course.

I haven't seen anyone make a blanket statement that guns solve problems, as was referenced earlier. However, it follows that an armed person has a better opportunity at stopping another armed person, than a person using their fists or a knife or running away from a shooter. And unsupervised children will continue to be at risk for accessing guns in environments where adults don't secure their firearms, regardless of anyone's POV on the merits or purpose of guns.

I don't think it follows that someone armed with a handgun can't stop a shooter with an AR. A deadly shot is a deadly shot. That's why police and SEALs have Glocks. They're extremely reliable and effective. As the VA Tech shooter also demonstrated.

Violent people will continue to access guns and it seems that keeping these people and any kind of weapon they possess out of schools in the first place makes the most sense. And narratives will continue to be heavy with terms like "military grade", "assault weapon", and "machine guns" despite the inaccurate application of the terms and the often intentional political motivation of these terms. Dana Loesch said today that after the 'town hall', the stage was rushed and people were shouting "Burn her." Don't know who the offenders were, but no one is going to win anything meaningful by behaving this way.

Despite this latest outrage and media attention, and even if there are some new regulatory measures, I don't see this changing a whole lot due to both the highly politicized gridlocked nature of the discussion and 'reform', and also because society is increasingly broken and no government mandate can fix that.

One of these days we'll see a bomb go off in a school and what do we ban then and which 'side' do we blame for fertilizer and nail sales? So, I was also sorry to see the FBI get a convenient pass last night.

JMO
I knew this would happen because for one CNN is very bias news reporting to begin with. I have watched CNN for years and years and they used to actually report general news quite well but there was a certain turning point about 4-5 years ago where my CNN channel pretty much went totally political. I have to blame whoever owns or controls the station because all their reporters began marching to the same tune. I had to quit watching that station altogether as it was so political and not hardly any news unless something major happened.

And its probably and sadly too soon to the tragedy as emotions are still way too high for them to have had a meaningful debate.

We here at WS have had some very good and honest discussions and some really good ideas have been suggested that both sides can agree on. For that to happen with the right people involved that can make a difference is the key now.

The Loesch person at the meeting was trying to help explain some valid points and the audience was not listening very well at all. For example she explained how the 18 age limit only allows long arms to be purchased. A person still has to be 21 to buy a handgun in some states.
Most people probably didnt know that or even cared to listen.

I do think there is a lot of common sense things that can be done that both sides could agree on. Just not sure how anyone is going to make it happen as this reminds me so much of SH. We saw the same outrage and a lot of the same ideas and nothing ever really happened.

We need some real and serious champions that can make some things happen.

 

[Chelly]

I’d bump the age from 40 to 50, but I agree with everything else you said. A lot of 40-somethings’ own children are the age of these high-schoolers, and they don’t want their kids to be slaughtered anymore, either. Moo

Good point. There is hope.

 

[bears10]

I'm all for it, as long as it's 100% paid for by a tax on firearms and ammunition. The armed guards won't do anything to solve the problem, but the massive tax sure will. :thumb:

Heavily taxing guns and ammo won’t deter people from buying them IMO. Where I live, the tax on cigarettes is high, and a pack will run you about $15. Smokers gonna smoke.

 

[gitana1]

Who pays? How about the federal government, by using the money they plan to use for foreign aid, which was 2.5 Billion in 2017 and 1.3 Billion in 2018.

We can’t afford to help other countries if we can’t even afford to protect our school children.

https://www.foreignassistance.gov/categories/Economic-Development#Funding

People view foreign aid as a gift. Instead, its insurance. When other nations fall apart or have dire economic situations, it acts as a
domino effect causing issues -like the creation of suicide bombers, refugee migrations and global economic instability - that transcend borders.

Aid prevents a bit of that. It also helps maintain allies.

 

[ohreally]

Thank you for your well thought out post. I understand what you are saying.

I would think that Fox New, bloggers, and the NRA could hopefully get the students who disagree with what others are saying some airtime to voice their opinions.

If you come across any of those students who do stand up and voice their opposing opinions and you can link to a mainstream media source please do so. If the student is not on a mainstream media source please send me the link in a PM. If I can I will post it.

Thank you very much.

Tricia

Thank you. Here are the articals I linked this morning.
http://insider.foxnews.com/2018/02/...inoff-media-pushing-gun-control-not-listening
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...wn-hall-quashed-question-on-armed-guards.html

 

[Hatfield]

People view foreign aid as a gift. Instead, its insurance. When other nations fall apart or have dire economic situations, it acts as a
domino effect causing issues -like the creation of suicide bombers, refugee migrations and global economic instability - that transcend borders.

Aid prevents a bit of that. It also helps maintain allies.

Those are really good points. However if we constantly say we cannot afford to give our own schools the funds they need to add a little security then its about time we shift a little money around to where they can afford it.

My understanding is the US is one of the most generous countries in the world. Perhaps so much so that they make their own schools , roads, bridges, etc. fall apart.

 

[Ambitioned]

I have.

As have I.

 

[Ambitioned]

It's clear here, that the audience was yelling and shouting Dana down. That's not noted in the transcript. There were people in the audience clearly calling her a murderer. Bias reporting in my opinion.

RSBM ~ I saw that. Sickening.

 

[EuTuCroquet?]

Brilliant.

Best gun control solution.

1. Require states to regulate firearms exactly as they do motor vehicles. Including firearms licenses for all gun owners. Registration and proof of liability insurance for each gun. Failure to comply would result in firearms and or motor vehicles being impounded.

2. Universal free health care services for everyone, with a requirement that everyone get a check up, at least once a year with a medical doctor and once a year with a psychiatrist. The check ups would include the doctors certifying that the patients are well and fit to operate a motor vehicle or use a firearm. Failing to get that certification would immediately result in suspension of driver's license and firearms license, and motor vehicles and firearms would be impounded until the person is certified well enough to operate a motor vehicle or use a gun.

 

[CARIIS]

beep beep breaking

apparently the school officer was in position to go after him and chickened out

suspended.

and he wants teachers packing heat

if cop aint in the mood to go chase a machine gun blasting dude I dont think the Baking teacher is up for a shootout !!



msnbc

https://www.nbcmiami.com/news/local...r-Who-Was-at-Parkland-Shooting-474889753.html

 

[sorrell skye]

LaPierre [the NRA’s executive vice president] said he wishes “more had heeded my words” after the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting in 2012, when he called for more security in schools. “To stop a bad guy with a gun, it takes a good guy with a gun,” he said.

“Schools must be the most hardened targets in this country,” LaPierre said. “And evil must be confronted immediately with all necessary force to protect our kids.”

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...iting-florida-tragedy-for-political-gain.html

Who will fund trained, armed security guards in every school? According to the link below, there are over 100,000 K-12 schools (public & private combined) in the U.S.

https://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=84

According to the link below, the average annual salary (2013) of an armed security (nationwide) was $31,000. Education, training requirements, and licensure varies, dependent upon jurisdiction.

Salary and Qualifications

Armed security guards earned average annual salaries of $31,000 as of 2013, according to the job website Indeed.

http://work.chron.com/much-money-armed-security-guard-paid-22140.html

Since the NRA is promoting armed security guards in schools, are they going to fund the salaries of these security guards?

Furthermore: How many adequately trained, armed security guards will be posted in each school? One, two, three - necessarily determined by school size/student population?

The average annual tab to pay the salaries of trained, armed security guards in K-12 schools could cost upwards of $3.1 billion.

 

[ohreally]

I for one don't think you're being disrespectful in any way. I agree. Every survivor should have their opinion heard. But I've not seen anything that confirms certain survivors are being censored.

In the links on the subject previously provided, one kid gave an opinion that the media is politicizing the tragedy. He does not say anyone is being censored. He himself was interviewed by CNN.

Another kid said CNN handed him a script. CNN denied it and said they gave no one a script. That should be easy to show by producing the script.

He opted out of the program. Nothing prevented him from showing up and asking whatever he wanted to,live.

Fox news reported both stories. Where is their townhall?

I'm seeing no evidence of media censorship.

I respect your posts, but on this one I disagree.
CNN has been caught in the past with setting up a town hall. They denied it for a long time till the truth came out. I believe the student over CNN.

 

[jillycat]

JMO
I knew this would happen because for one CNN is very bias news reporting to begin with. I have watched CNN for years and years and they used to actually report general news quite well but there was a certain turning point about 4-5 years ago where my CNN channel pretty much went totally political. I have to blame whoever owns or controls the station because all their reporters began marching to the same tune. I had to quit watching that station altogether as it was so political and not hardly any news unless something major happened.

And its probably and sadly too soon to the tragedy as emotions are still way too high for them to have had a meaningful debate.

We here at WS have had some very good and honest discussions and some really good ideas have been suggested that both sides can agree on. For that to happen with the right people involved that can make a difference is the key now.

The Loesch person at the meeting was trying to help explain some valid points and the audience was not listening very well at all. For example she explained how the 18 age limit only allows long arms to be purchased. A person still has to be 21 to buy a handgun in some states.
Most people probably didnt know that or even cared to listen.

I do think there is a lot of common sense things that can be done that both sides could agree on. Just not sure how anyone is going to make it happen as this reminds me so much of SH. We saw the same outrage and a lot of the same ideas and nothing ever really happened.

We need some real and serious champions that can make some things happen.

I agree about CNN. I used to watch it routinely but, as you say, it became just another biased mouthpiece. And I also think that 'town hall' type discussions during the early stages of traumatic events are strictly cathartic. I just don't see anything coming from this, particularly given the hatefulness, other than a swelling of zeal which will not carry the weight of practical or meaningful change.

I do hope that cooler heads will prevail and that first of all, some practical protections of schools will commence, but that really starts at the community and district level. If Columbine was 20 years ago and we're still having someone like this shooter waltz into a school with a weapon, particularly after an FBI failure and a history of multiple contacts with law enforcement, then we seem not to have grasped that schools should be no different than federal buildings. I had to go to the SSA last week on a routine paperwork mission about my deceased mom and I was met by three armed guards the minute I entered. We've all been there with these security experiences. One asked for ID and my bag, which he went through along with my coat, while another scanned me through, and the third observed while they were doing their tasks. It's very simple. Had I posed any kind of threat it would have been caught minute 1 and the protocols, and potentially gun fire if I was stupid enough to take on three guards, would have commenced then and there and gone no farther into the building. And they would have been standing and I wouldn't have. I'm not sure why this is viewed as impractical or more harmful to the minds of children than children being slaughtered while they're either sitting ducks or running for their lives.

We will never get all weapons out of the hands of these kinds of killers so we might as well make it central to the solution to stop them at the doors and windows. Without that, laws are simply a mild and temporary inconvenience to them.

We have no choice but to make schools harder targets through practical resources.

 

[Tillicum]

LaPierre [the NRA’s executive vice president] said he wishes “more had heeded my words” after the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting in 2012, when he called for more security in schools. “To stop a bad guy with a gun, it takes a good guy with a gun,” he said.

“Schools must be the most hardened targets in this country,” LaPierre said. “And evil must be confronted immediately with all necessary force to protect our kids.”

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...iting-florida-tragedy-for-political-gain.html

Who will fund trained, armed security guards in every school? According to the link below, there are over 100,000 K-12 schools (public & private combined) in the U.S.

https://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=84

According to the link below, the average annual salary (2013) of an armed security (nationwide) was $31,000. Education, training requirements, and licensure varies, dependent upon jurisdiction.

Salary and Qualifications

Armed security guards earned average annual salaries of $31,000 as of 2013, according to the job website Indeed.

http://work.chron.com/much-money-armed-security-guard-paid-22140.html


Since the NRA is promoting armed security guards in schools, are they going to fund the salaries of these security guards?

Furthermore: How many adequately trained, armed security guards will be posted in each school? One, two, three - necessarily determined by school size/student population?

The average annual tab to pay the salaries of trained, armed security guards in K-12 schools could cost upwards of $3.1 billion.

Here's how Ohio is paying for it. I think it's great the kids feel safe.

In Ohio, many of the students seem to agree with some of their teachers being trained to use firearms.

“To have people inside the school who know what they are doing and who can protect us, I mean, that's amazing and I don't think there's really any room for complaints,” said Liberty Flynn, a 10th-grade student at Stebbins High School in Riverside, Ohio.

“When we are inside those four walls, they are our safety. That's our safety for the day,” said Stebbins High School sophomore, Will Rodriguez.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/02/2...n-teachers-to-handle-guns-are-our-safety.html

The state of Ohio currently offers funding for schools to train their staff to respond in emergency situations. There are more than a dozen other states across the country with school districts that have teachers or staff who are trained to fire back, or which legally allow adults with guns on school grounds.

 

[Hatfield]

Best gun control solution.

1. Require states to regulate firearms exactly as they do motor vehicles. Including firearms licenses for all gun owners. Registration and proof of liability insurance for each gun. Failure to comply would result in firearms and or motor vehicles being impounded.

2. Universal free health care services for everyone, with a requirement that everyone get a check up, at least once a year with a medical doctor and once a year with a psychiatrist. The check ups would include the doctors certifying that the patients are well and fit to operate a motor vehicle or use a firearm. Failing to get that certification would immediately result in suspension of driver's license and firearms license, and motor vehicles and firearms would be impounded until the person is certified well enough to operate a motor vehicle or use a gun.

JMO
Both these ideas really are fantastic ideas. I love these ideas.

I want to focus on #1 for a minute because even for drivers license and the requirement of insurance I have seen where my particular state is way too laxed in that area already.

I feel they should impound the vehicle if a person is caught driving without a license or without insurance. Because when that person gets into a car accident injuring others its the other persons insurance that has to pick up the hospital bills and its why our automobile insurance is way too high.

I live in a sanctuary city and I think its one of the reaons why they dont enforce the laws here about requiring insurance or even licenses. They give the person a warning or ticket if they cannot prove insurance and let them drive off. And I cant count the number of times I have heard in the news about a terrible accident where the person did not even have a drivers license.

My city maybe unique because of the sanctuary city it is but I sure wish your ideas were enacted with full enforcement. If we hit the people hard where it hurts it will force people into compliance.

If they are caught without it, then take away their car until they have a license and insurance. Dont just let them drive off.
If they are caught without it, take away their gun until they have a license and insurance.

Im all for this.

 

[Hatfield]

I agree about CNN. I used to watch it routinely but, as you say, it became just another biased mouthpiece. And I also think that 'town hall' type discussions during the early stages of traumatic events are strictly cathartic. I just don't see anything coming from this, particularly given the hatefulness, other than a swelling of zeal which will not carry the weight of practical or meaningful change.

I do hope that cooler heads will prevail and that first of all, some practical protections of schools will commence, but that really starts at the community and district level. If Columbine was 20 years ago and we're still having someone like this shooter waltz into a school with a weapon, particularly after an FBI failure and a history of multiple contacts with law enforcement, then we seem not to have grasped that schools should be no different than federal buildings. I had to go to the SSA last week on a routine paperwork mission about my deceased mom and I was met by three armed guards the minute I entered. We've all been there with these security experiences. One asked for ID and my bag, which he went through along with my coat, while another scanned me through, and the third observed while they were doing their tasks. It's very simple. Had I posed any kind of threat it would have been caught minute 1 and the protocols, and potentially gun fire if I was stupid enough to take on three guards, would have commenced then and there and gone no farther into the building. And they would have been standing and I wouldn't have. I'm not sure why this is viewed as impractical or more harmful to the minds of children than children being slaughtered while they're either sitting ducks or running for their lives.

We will never get all weapons out of the hands of these kinds of killers so we might as well make it central to the solution to stop them at the doors and windows. Without that, laws are simply a mild and temporary inconvenience to them.

We have no choice but to make schools harder targets through practical resources.

I agree.
And the beauty is the schools that can afford it can start to protect themselves right away without waiting on the government or anyone else.