The Great Gun Debate

[VtDivot]

So why did iOS change their to there in my last post?

 

[Dogfish Head]

Still requires funding which is an issue in this country when we can't even balance a budget in over 13 years.

 

[limpalong]

http://www.wibw.com/home/localnews/...ing-At-Grocery-Store-In-Topeka-183724341.html

And, we had two police officers shot to death yesterday afternoon about 5 p.m. This grocery store is in a better area of town, just a few blocks from our firm's office buildings.

This suspect is 22 years old. The kid who slaughtered the 20 children was 20. Columbine, to VTech, to Aurora, to Newtown... no perpatrator has been over 24 years old. Gang bangers... those who kill each other in drive-bys on urban streets... most in their late teens to early 20s. We seek solutions. I, too, am one of those who believe any attempt for Congress to impose a firearm ban is not the answer. We can debate the firearm ban forever, yet when a bill goes through a legislative body it is so buried in "legal speak" the attorneys can easily slide most evil through the system for a few bucks. Today, hack someone to death, plead down to a lesser charge, pay the attorney, and be back on the streets in a few months. Rob a bank... plead to petty larceny and not have a felony on your record so you can still purchase firearms.

I still believe these kids have been brought up sitting hour after hour in front of video consoles, killing people. From age 6 or 8, they begin working the most violent video games. There is no policing of movie theaters where we see young kids sitting in "R" or "NC17" movies, watching horrendous violence. The music many of these kids listen to talks about killing police or using violence against your fellow man.

No way does the placing of violence in the hands of these youngsters from toddler stage to adulthood fall under First Amendment rights. The evolution of a sick and violent society has, in my opinion, nothing to do with firearms. Having something as deadly as semi-auto weapons available makes the tragedies of that violence more deadly. If we continue the trend of 17 to 20 year old kids slaughtering school children, families, and police officers... and each other... the blame comes right back to our own society which seems reluctant to impose restrictions on what our children see, read, listen to, and learn from that very society.

 

[eclark53520]

vt, why you feel only military or police should carry a gun?

 

[eclark53520]

Still requires funding which is an issue in this country when we can't even balance a budget in over 13 years.

When everyone, or the vast majority is for something, its not difficult to get funding. Make it a federal solution. There are billions of federal dollars being spent on things far less important than our children's safety.

 

[nututhugame]

http://www.wibw.com/home/localnews/...ing-At-Grocery-Store-In-Topeka-183724341.html

And, we had two police officers shot to death yesterday afternoon about 5 p.m. This grocery store is in a better area of town, just a few blocks from our firm's office buildings.

This suspect is 22 years old. The kid who slaughtered the 20 children was 20. Columbine, to VTech, to Aurora, to Newtown... no perpatrator has been over 24 years old. Gang bangers... those who kill each other in drive-bys on urban streets... most in their late teens to early 20s. We seek solutions. I, too, am one of those who believe any attempt for Congress to impose a firearm ban is not the answer. We can debate the firearm ban forever, yet when a bill goes through a legislative body it is so buried in "legal speak" the attorneys can easily slide most evil through the system for a few bucks. Today, hack someone to death, plead down to a lesser charge, pay the attorney, and be back on the streets in a few months. Rob a bank... plead to petty larceny and not have a felony on your record so you can still purchase firearms.

I still believe these kids have been brought up sitting hour after hour in front of video consoles, killing people. From age 6 or 8, they begin working the most violent video games. There is no policing of movie theaters where we see young kids sitting in "R" or "NC17" movies, watching horrendous violence. The music many of these kids listen to talks about killing police or using violence against your fellow man.

No way does the placing of violence in the hands of these youngsters from toddler stage to adulthood fall under First Amendment rights. The evolution of a sick and violent society has, in my opinion, nothing to do with firearms. Having something as deadly as semi-auto weapons available makes the tragedies of that violence more deadly. If we continue the trend of 17 to 20 year old kids slaughtering school children, families, and police officers... and each other... the blame comes right back to our own society which seems reluctant to impose restrictions on what our children see, read, listen to, and learn from that very society.

I totally agree here. Some people think this is just avoiding the obvious solution of "just getting rid of the guns". That's why this thread is so long yet going nowhere.

 

[VtDivot]

When everyone, or the vast majority is for something, its not difficult to get funding. Make it a federal solution. There are billions of federal dollars being spent on things far less important than our children's safety.

I agree - that's why I suggested national guard

 

[VtDivot]

vt, why you feel only military or police should carry a gun?

Because nodody else "needs" one - in an ideal world. However we don't live in that kind of world. I am just not comfortable with Joe Ordinary being able to buy a gun without any training or anything.

 

[eclark53520]

Because nodody else "needs" one - in an ideal world. However we don't live in that kind of world. I am just not comfortable with Joe Ordinary being able to buy a gun without any training or anything.

Not being comfortable with something is understandable, however its hardly a solid argument against rights laid out by the constitution.

 

[nututhugame]

When everyone, or the vast majority is for something, its not difficult to get funding. Make it a federal solution. There are billions of federal dollars being spent on things far less important than our children's safety.

Oh don't worry E... they will. At least try to make it a federal solution that is.

 

[eclark53520]

I agree - that's why I suggested national guard

I suppose that would work. How many should we have at an average sized school?

Again these people are there specifically to battle an issue that happens a statistically insignificant amount of the time. I cringe every time I use the word insignificant in this thread for fear someone will misunderstand my meaning. obviously shootings are not insignificant, however the percentages show you're child is far more likely to be killed on the way to school than be shot by a school shooting.

Im just not confident this would be a good use of a national guardsmans time when we have able bodied people already at the school every single day.

Maybe a hybrid of the two systems can be developed?

 

[VtDivot]

Not being comfortable with something is understandable, however its hardly a solid argument against rights laid out by the constitution.

I agree - that's why I am not arguing your position. It's your right. I don't like guns. That's my right.

 

[VtDivot]

I suppose that would work. How many should we have at an average sized school?

Again these people are there specifically to battle an issue that happens a statistically insignificant amount of the time. I cringe every time I use the word insignificant in this thread for fear someone will misunderstand my meaning. obviously shootings are not insignificant, however the percentages show you're child is far more likely to be killed on the way to school than be shot by a school shooting.

Im just not confident this would be a good use of a national guardsmans time when we have able bodied people already at the school every single day.

Maybe a hybrid of the two systems can be developed?

I think your typical service person would find this job to be very rewarding for them. I also think it's a much better use of their time then fighting XYZ battle in XYZ country.

 

[nututhugame]

Maybe we could use the 1,600 covert agents that Obama just approved to do "operations" in other countries along with our military men and women that Obama promised to bring home a long time ago. That can be the jobs for them you were wondering about Jim. Integrate them with metal detectors, which the installation of would create jobs as well. I'm not really for the feds running our schools, but if we can spend trillions overseas we can do this I guess. Or even state and locally run school security agencies could hire police, retired police, coming home military, retired military, etc... I like the idea of them being hired more at a state or local or even private level because then it's not a police/military state.

 

[eclark53520]

I think your typical service person would find this job to be very rewarding for them. I also think it's a much better use of their time then fighting XYZ battle in XYZ country.

I see your angle, but i see it from a different angle.

Day after day, week after week, month after month of literally nothing but waiting. (many)Cops don't like working day shift because its nothing but waiting for traffic stops, paper work, and case work in most places. Im not sure how rewarding a job where you do nothing would be. Especially for people like guards who enjoy high stress go go go type situations.

Just my opinion. But knowing some guards and police officers, this wouldn't be an assignment that would be high on their list.