Reply With Quote
Of course there are sick degenerates in our society. You think there aren't?
If you admit there are, then why wouldn't you want to attempt to protect the children from them?
"Why CAN'T we put an armed guard in each one"
because many schools are campuses with many buildings spread over acres. YOU, not me, would need an armed guard for every building, perhaps multiple guards for big buildings with several main doors.
And at $50K/year per guard + $1000 in armaments and ammo, YOU, tax whiner, wouldn't want to pay a penny more in taxes to pay for the armed fortressing of schools.
admit you're and your ilk are nothing, like the NR marketing A, but shills for the gun business.
You and your ilk prove that you sickos are intent on admitting that the USA is one very sick, degenerate society that you intend to make sicker and more degenerate for fun and profit.
Of course there are sick degenerates in our society. You think there aren't?
If you admit there are, then why wouldn't you want to attempt to protect the children from them?
.
Double post.
Like Columbine?
Sure, another school where guns weren't allowed.
to oppose the gross solicitation of pity for children and veterans to promote some public policy aim, is surely to oppose children and veterans.
Our airports have it. Why are they more important than our schools?
the idea that more guns might not make schools safer, seems not to have occurred to CC.
How about the idea that more security doesn't equate to more guns? Or how about the idea that only one gun is needed to wreak havoc on a school?
If someone breaks into your home in the middle of the night, someone with a gun, do you call the cops? Why would you want more guns brought into your home?
The NR marketing A's strategy of pushing for 300M+ guns ENABLES the sickos (who are often victims of a sick society, not isolated cases) to become mass killers.
The corporations and their suckered bubbas like yourself succeeding in turning schools into armed fortresses for profit is more proof of a sick society controlled by corporations, a corporatocracy.
So then your only solution is to change laws, and your flow chart has a block that says "..." between "guns are banned" and "shootings cease" because neither you nor anyone else here can explain how gun laws or even an outright ban on guns would affect the non-law abiding citizen.
If the problem is that parents are allowing their kids to acquire firearms, deal with that the same way you would deal with parents allowing their kids to acquire drugs or alcohol, both of which are illegal if you are not 21 years of age (drugs are banned regardless) and both of which a teen can acquire easily, usually just by buying the drugs at school and having someone strawman the alcohol.
Except for the deputy sheriff that was assigned to that school as its armed resource officer.
youd think all the cops who sit in school zones giving speeding tickets would be able to respond
"So then your only solution is to change laws"
only? do you know of any other way?
"change the laws"? which is not your strawman of BANNING GUNS for everybody.
What is your goal? Be precise.
If it's to prevent these events from happening, how will gun laws do that? You cannot look into the past and say "if this then that" because you do not know what would have been different had laws been different. Also, you need to know what laws currently exist. Just taking the position that, whatever laws exist, they aren't restrictive enough, is not good enough. Cite a specific law, tell me how you would alter or eliminate it, or what new laws you would want. Then tell me how these laws could be enforced and how the enforcing of them would help you achieve your goal.
If you're serious and not just running your mouth, you should be able to respond quite easily.
NRA Suggests a Police State
The irony of the NRA’s crackpot idea for protecting America’s children by dramatically expanding the use of armed guards is that the proposal would push the U.S. further down the path toward a police state, threatening the “liberties” that the NRA claims it wants to ensure
If one follows the “logic” of the National Rifle Association’s Wayne LaPierre, the United States should become an armed camp with armored-up police carrying high-powered weapons stationed at virtually every location where children might congregate and where a crazy person might show up with a semi-automatic assault rifle.
After all, why stop at protecting schools? A mentally unstable individual could just as easily walk into a shopping mall at Christmas and murder kids waiting to talk to Santa Claus or enter a theater showing a Disney film and open fire on the tiny movie-goers or stroll onto a field where children are playing soccer and empty a 100-round magazine.
If we are to really protect the children as LaPierre suggests, we should have armor-encased SWAT officers at literally every event where there are kids. It clearly wouldn’t do to just have some donut-eating cops with simple sidearms. All they would do is provide initial target practice for a gunman with his Bushmaster AR-15.
No, we would need “good guys with guns” at least equal in firepower to the “bad guys with guns.”
---
Of course, the real American Framers, people like James Madison and George Washington, were not crazed ideologues like Wayne LaPierre. They were pragmatic nationalists who feared the danger to their newly independent nation if “domestic Tranquility” could not be achieved through the creation of effective governance.
The Framers assembled in Philadelphia in 1787 to replace the ineffective, states’-rights-oriented Articles of Confederation. In writing the U.S. Cons ution, they opted instead for a new democratic Republic with a strong central government. [See Robert Parry’s America’s Stolen Narrative.]
With memories of the 1786-87 Shays’ Rebellion still fresh, Madison and Washington led the way in devising a system that allowed for the expression of popular will through the House of Representatives, elected every two years, yet with safeguards against hasty changes by having the Senate, elected (then by state legislatures) to six-year terms.
http://consortiumnews.com/2012/12/23...-police-state/
"What is your goal?"
severely regulated, heavily, repeatedly taxed firearms and ammunition with very punitive, expensive MANDATORY penalties for violations, including imprisonment. All Federal, not state or local.
So then your goal is legislation, not the result of the legislation? Your goal isn't centered around the use of firearms or the results of the use, but the fact that only the wealthy should be able to afford them?
Got it.
At least I know where you stand now.
A place where an armed guard didn't help.
"only the wealthy should be able to afford them?"
did I say that?
and let me know when you're bothered by extreme regressivity of (capped) SS taxes.
Last edited by boutons_deux; 12-24-2012 at 02:33 PM.
AISD has one too, but they are never at my daughter's elementary school.
These mass shootings don't only occur at schools. What's the solution to movie theater shootings? Do we put an armed guard in every movie theater? The Giffords shooting occurred in a grocery store. Should we put an armed guard in every grocery store?
The cost of this operation is also being grossly underestimated. It would be roughly 100,000 armed guards who would be public sector employees. They'd have a union and get great benefits (including a pension) like every other public sector group. There would also be the cost of mental health screening for all employees, training, etc. It would come out to at least 30k-40k per guard (which is a pretty conservative estimate) so at least 3-4 billion in additional spending for an idea that only addresses a small part of the problem and can easily be countered with a sniper rifle and decent aim.
I didn't know theaters, grocery stores, etc. were a designated gun free zone. I thought customers go in with concealed carry regularly.
No regularly enough to prevent mass shootings, apparently.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
