Enough is enough. Public massacres and school shootings must stop.

originally posted by: sdcigarpig
a reply to: Xcathdra

...
And funny how people who are on the terrorist watch list, and the no fly list, can still get a firearm.
...

The reason that is unacceptable is there is no due process to either get placed on the those lists nor be removed from them either. All it takes is some government "flunkee" to place your name on one of these lists, and they are not legally required to even inform you at all. Linking these completely mismanaged lists to stripping a citizen of their Constitutionally protected rights is wrong in so many ways.

That stipulation to add due process to the requirement was placed in the last attempt at a bill to manage that aspect, but the Democrats in Congress refused to accept that modification because it was not "expedient". In essence they said it would slow down the process of putting people on the list. Well, duh, of course. It SHOULD be difficult to strip a citizen of their Constitutionally protected rights. It SHOULD require due process and the right to dispute the charges. It should provide a legal means via due process to have yourself removed from the list. Otherwise, it is no different than the death lists the KGB used to keep when people would disappear in the dark of night never to be heard from again.

originally posted by: CharlesT
Just like locks on doors, laws are only for honest people. Locks don't stop burglars and more laws won't stop criminals

This, ladies and gentlemen, is precisely the notion we need to accept.

We cannot stop criminals, we can only deter them. Castle doctrines can be applied to public schools, but, like any public setting, teachers would need to hold public requirements. Excepting private schools, of course.

I don't like the idea of teachers carrying guns. I did not have good experiences with teachers at large, so yeah. I am bias.

a reply to: Iscool

That is far from the only difference that is different from long ago. I mean how about the technology today? Also back in those god fearing time many did not own a gun, and even farther back guns did not exist. And a million other things.

But I have heard this argument before. About temptation and sin and God. Really, if your only fear is of going to hell and god is watching you, and that is what is keeping you from going bonkers and the temptation of killing people left and right, then one must make a mental note that if the # hits the fan, your likely to go bat # first. You know, keep an eye on, just in case.

Because that is almost as wacky a reason as, Oh I'm depressed the world does not love me, wowz me, highschool life is just so hard and cruel. Those kids made fun of me, the world does not understand me...Lets shoot them!

Its childish to be sure, I mean, after highschool...Highschool is pretty much meaningless. Besides people were killing each other long before god was invented. In fact the invention of a good god and Jesus and all that has had a minimal effect on people killing people. Though I do admit it has had an effect overall to a degree, so the invention of Christianity was not a complete and total bust.

originally posted by: Willtell
You guys are just addicted to the same old arguments we have every time this happens

Look at yourselves for once.

Your own dogmatic thinking

Maybe your wrong

Maybe Im wrong but Im for trying to Intelligently deal with the problem

All you want to do is defend your ideas about guns.

Do you love guns more than your own children ?

What would you have the government do? Predictive programming to catch criminals if they even so much as think about committing a crime?

You keep attributing being against a total gun ban to loving guns more than kids. Banning guns will not do a thing except to drive the gun buyers underground. That particular genie is out of the bottle. There's no putting it back. I know you've heard of Prohibition. How did that particular boondoggle go again? People became tea-totalers overnight, right? It was all good after that, yeah?

Take that response to the prohibition of alcohol and multiply it into something far more deadly.

Society needs to take a step back and start focusing on dealing with kids. No more parents defending their little heathens when it's pointed out that they're bullying and harassing classmates. No more parents crying foul when their snowflake child gets in trouble at school for breaking the clear set rules. Teach kids how to be independent and how to deal with life's challenges. Schools need to step up themselves and start paying attention to kids behaviors that show something is wrong. Stop burying heads in the sand when a child reports being bullied and harmed. DEAL WITH IT and stop trying to sweep it under the carpet to save face.

That kid in the latest shooting was shown clearly to be in trouble and a danger. They did nothing aside from expelling him that I've read so far. No report to the police? No report to child services? His parents did nothing either? No counseling? No evaluation?

GUNS didn't cause this tragedy. That guy could have loaded up a car with homemade explosives and detonated it as kids exited the building. We should definitely outlaw cars! So many ways to harm people with them!

I'm not pro gun. Don't own one, have never fired one and doubt I ever will. But for the love of all that's sacred, banning things has NEVER stopped those things from being a factor in bad things happening. Does the War on Drugs ring any bells? How did throwing millions upon millions of taxpayer dollars do in stopping drugs? They're already illegal. There are already penalties for dealing and for taking them. Yet the drug trade is as strong as ever in the US and many die every year to overdoses and drug related violence. What makes you so adamant that banning guns will suddenly cause a cessation of gun violence against kids when the root problem is a corrupted society?

originally posted by: MOMof3
a reply to: Violater1

Another empty stupid argument. I care a thimble full for your kind. Trying to convince me we can’t stop this. We can. Just get rid of republicans who can’t protect and govern.

You had EIGHT YEARS of DEMOCRATS and they DAMN NEAR took the WHEELS OFF THE BUS, yet you want to blame the Republicans who have been in office for barely over a year?

Blaming one side or the other does nothing but waste time, as a mom you should know this.

This can be blamed on government squarely, all sides, all parties.

We have a responsibility to FIX things, not blame other people. Stop looking at the past, and move forward with the responsibility on our shoulders.

We protect money with firearms, we protect important people with money with firearms, we protect people who are idolized with firearms. Why don't we protect the most vulnerable and easily targeted with firearms?

Because government officials don't want to spend the money on the kids!

Government Doesn't WANT to spend money helping or protecting the plebs, MoMof3. Your Democrats are no better than the Republicans. So stop playing the partisan politics game as it really is ignorant.

School administration is as corrupt as our government and every other officiating body in the country. Nothing will change, but go ahead and blame the Republicans.. Someday again the Democrats will get in office, and then I can ask you why the world isn't all honkey-dory utopian unicorns farting rainbows and glitter. (Could have asked that regarding Obama's 8 years, as it certainly wasn't very Utopian there.. )..

a reply to: Guyfriday

What happens when those very same teachers who are armed to protect the students snap and cause another massacre? I don't have an answer how to stop this, but arming teachers is not it in my opinion.

originally posted by: nightstalker78

originally posted by: carewemust
Here's a partial solution. Same one I post after every one of these mass shootings.

If it shoots more than one round at a time, that weapon should be only in the hands of the military, or the police. Control multi-shot guns just like rocket launchers and hand grenades.

Logically that's the answer. But sadly at this point there's too many guns already on the streets to start now. The world we live in now just flat out sucks.

Its not the whole world that has this problem it is the U.S and a few other countries, the world for the most part is pretty good.

a reply to: Krakatoa

But isn't it ironic. The federal government can restrict a persons right to travel. But they won't consider restricting some people from having access to firearms.

Now while we could go around and around about how it is not legal, but the bottom line is that the government has opened the door. Why not remove the worse of the 2, and not let those suspected not only know that they are on a watch list, why and at the same time suspend their right to own a fire arm, until it is cleared up?

a reply to: Krakatoa
You are right, it did not.

So would you not agree that maybe there are too many firearms out there for sale and in the hands of the public? That maybe it is time to start restricting or banning certain kinds of firearms to reduce down the number, or to raise the taxes on firearms and ammunition, to make it a bit harder for people to get.

Does the public really need a firearm that has the same firepower as say what the military uses? Or would something a bit less be more sufficient?

But then again, perhaps you can answer the question of what has more weight the 2nd amendment or the life of a child?

It seems to boil down to this:

We are so fearful of Might happen if we give up our guns that we are willing to accept what IS happening to our children.

Yeah, that’s a sign of a healthy society! /sarc

originally posted by: sdcigarpig
a reply to: Krakatoa
Does the public really need a firearm that has the same firepower as say what the military uses?

Please tell me how to acquire an Army M4 carbine.... please?

originally posted by: sdcigarpig
a reply to: Krakatoa
So would you not agree that maybe there are too many firearms out there for sale and in the hands of the public? That maybe it is time to start restricting or banning certain kinds of firearms to reduce down the number, or to raise the taxes on firearms and ammunition, to make it a bit harder for people to get.

Who gets to decide how much of any inanimate object someone gets to own? Certain kinds of guns already are banned or restricted. You expect the 99.99% of law-abiding gun owners to accept further infringements because why?

If we tax the ownership of "arms", which would encompass firearms and ammunition, can we tax voting? Can we tax freedom of religion? Can we tax 4th Amendment rights?

Does the public really need a firearm that has the same firepower as say what the military uses? Or would something a bit less be more sufficient?

Do a little more research into the Founder's intent of the 2nd Amendment, and that question answers itself.

But then again, perhaps you can answer the question of what has more weight the 2nd amendment or the life of a child?

Explain how the 99.99% of law-abiding gun owners and their 2nd Amendment rights directly caused the death of these 17 children.

If I gave up all my guns today ( which must be defective, because they've never hurt anyone ), how does it make the world a better place?

Are you really placing the blame for dead children on 100+ million gun owners who have never harmed anyone through the exercise of their inalienable rights instead of the sick individual who actually pulled the trigger?

originally posted by: Bhadhidar
It seems to boil down to this:

We are so fearful of Might happen if we give up our guns that we are willing to accept what IS happening to our children.

Yeah, that’s a sign of a healthy society! /sarc

How about innocent until proven guilty? How about due process? How about my right to defend my family and self against any threats? How about having the right to enjoy my property that has never hurt anyone and keep said property without having it seized?

Prove to me that the largely law-abiding gun owning public is responsible for gun crime instead of criminals who illegally obtain guns and break multiple laws in the commission of their heinous crimes.

originally posted by: cynicalheathen

originally posted by: Bhadhidar
It seems to boil down to this:

We are so fearful of Might happen if we give up our guns that we are willing to accept what IS happening to our children.

Yeah, that’s a sign of a healthy society! /sarc

How about innocent until proven guilty? How about due process? How about my right to defend my family and self against any threats? How about having the right to enjoy my property that has never hurt anyone and keep said property without having it seized?

Prove to me that the largely law-abiding gun owning public is responsible for gun crime instead of criminals who illegally obtain guns and break multiple laws in the commission of their heinous crimes.

You prove my point.

Your fear of losing Your right(s), Your property, Your status, because of what might happen completely outweighs your ability to consider the demonstrated threat that is already existing.

If guns were illegal, only criminals would have guns; and having a gun would be sufficient reason for your arrest,

Before you had an opportunity to harm anyone with that gun.

But you’d rather take your chances, right?

Tell us, if your child was at that school in Florida, even with your perfectly legal guns,

Could you have done anything except pray to protect your child?

Whole lot of good that gun would have done either of you.

originally posted by: sdcigarpig
I have not missed the point of your argument. You however missed mine.

No you missed my point.

originally posted by: sdcigarpig
I am not saying that we need to ban guns. I am saying that we need to have the conversations and re-evaluate both the laws and the place of guns in this society. That we need to sit down and figure out if the people really needs weapons that can fire bullets that do the same kind of damage that say a military weapon can do.

and what bullets would those be?

originally posted by: sdcigarpig
I know that there is more than one kind of caliber of weapon and weapons. I am fully aware of that, but I am correct that it is an arms race out there. And as one side gets a bigger, better, newer weapon, the other side more often than not, gets one that is either the same or one class better. That is the very essence of a weapons race.

and, again, you would be incorrect. Criminals usually get better weapons before law enforcement does. Contrary to popular belief police agencies dont let cops carry what ever they want. Most agencies restrict types of weapons and accessories on those weapons. The agencies I have worked for restricted duty weapons and off duty personal to only those weapons where the department has a certified armorer for those weapons. They also require qualifications for duty and non duty weapons. Criminals dont have the same constraints

originally posted by: sdcigarpig
And yes I have looked at this and researched it out. I remember a crime that happened, where it was apparent. Do you remember the bank robbery in the 1980’s? 2 bank robbers robbed a bank, and the police were outgunned. Their vehicle was bullet proof, they wore body armor, and were carrying semiautomatic firearms, thousands of rounds, and several homemade bombs. The police could not take them down at all, they were ill prepared, and it was unexpected, and after that police were starting to get better equipment. So yes it is an arms race that is happening. It is not out in the open but it is there.

The North Hollywood shootout. The entire city of LA went on a city wide tactical alert which essentially brought every single officer to the location. The suspects in that incident used body armor in violation of CA law. They used firearms in violation of federal laws. The vehicle they drove was not bullet proof nor were the ones they later stole. LAPD at the time only had comparable weapons assigned to their SWAT units. Patrol went to a gun shop and grabbed surplus m-16s and ammo while the supervisors on scene ordered all officer to take head shots when they realized they had layered body armor that covered more than just the chest. PD also had to use a money delivery truck to get to wounded civilians and officers because it was armored and their cars were not.

In case you arent aware that incident was the catalyst for other agencies to adopt the use of certain high powered rifles, like AR's, for more than just SWAT/ERT units. It also saw them placed into standard patrol vehicles so they could have a chance should a similar incident occur.

To go one step further the incident at Columbine was the catalyst for law enforcement to drop the strict policy of containment pending arrival of swat units. The policy change afterwards saw the adoption of policies where first officers on scene, regardless of agency and jurisdiction, were authorized to proceed into the situation without having to wait for swat to evacuate and to end the threat by any means.

originally posted by: sdcigarpig
Nor you did not answer my question either, as to what should have more weight, your right to carry a gun, or the life of a child. It is a difficult question, but one that needs to start being asked and answered. I know it is not a fair question, but if people are going to cling to the second amendment, they should at least be willing to answer that question and explain why.

No I answered it you apparently just didnt like or understand my answer. As I stated none if the weapons i own or have been assigned have ever been used to take another persons life. I refuse to surrender a constitutional right because another person thinks the gun is the problem instead of the person who is pulling the trigger.

originally posted by: sdcigarpig
Now as I stated before and in the first post, I am not for banning firearms. I am saying it is time to get proactive. In the last year of Obama, a new regulation was pushed to where those with mental illness would not be able to get a firearm. It was passed, and then in Feb Trump and the Congress, pretty much blocked that last minute regulation. And funny how people who are on the terrorist watch list, and the no fly list, can still get a firearm. And also how one can go to a gun show and still get a firearm without any sort of check.

News flash - All states have legislation that restricted a person from obtaining / owning a firearm if they were adjudicated as mentally unfit. A federal law is not needed and is nothing more than just politics to placate people who dont know the laws in place at the state level.

As for the watch list I reject any attempt to arbitrarily deny a person their rights based solely on the personal opinion of an analyst. The no gun no fly is a violation of due process. not to mention the fact the government is not required to0 divulge info as to why you are on the list and its close to impossible to get our name removed completely from the system. I had a situation where I ran a driver on a traffic stop. Long story short I got a terror watch list hit and had to call the feds. Turns out the driver was not a terrorist or even on the list. An analyst entering info accidentally tagged the guys date of birth to an actual terrorist on the watch list. Since the info is restricted and the driver was unaware and I wouldn't explain what occurred how does one fix it? I understand the need to have lists and terror watches etc. However when all it takes is a simple clerical error to cause mayhem I am dead set against denying rights based on a name on a list. Besides it can be abused by the government against people they dont like.. For instance Donald Trump and the FISA bs.

So yeah - due process is a constitutional guarantee as is the right to question your accusers along with evidence presented. When that can be denied by using the term national security.. Well lets just say you are not seeing the entire picture nor do you have an adequate understanding of the ramifications involved.

Travel within/across state lines is constitutionally protected. The method of travel is not.

originally posted by: sdcigarpig
The reality is that there is a real serious problem in the USA with firearms. And tomorrow has come, and now is the time to start questioning and looking for solutions. .... negligence.

Then those people who commit a crime will be held accountable. I wont give up my rights because people who are ignorant on the topic demand a knee jerk reaction when laws already make what occurred illegal.

a reply to: Bhadhidar

Probably not...

However the security officer and teachers / administrators could have. Its too bad really because had they been armed this might have turned out differently and with less blood shed.

Also - reference the "stat" going around saying there have been 18 school shootings this year.

Facts are fun
- In 10 of those "shootings" it was an accident, non-injury or suicide on school ground.

Ok ok we will not do it any more.....

What are you going to do ?
Make Marshall law. Soldiers in every class? TSA on the entrance?
Oh your going to ban guns knives and bombs.
That should do it.

Does anyone know if the AR belonged to the suspect or someone else?

originally posted by: Jerseymilker
a reply to: Guyfriday

What happens when those very same teachers who are armed to protect the students snap and cause another massacre? I don't have an answer how to stop this, but arming teachers is not it in my opinion.

People don't "just snap", there is always signs of that type of thing building up in a person. In a society where everyone can be legally armed, people by default would be more prone to looking out for others. We kind of do this now, but just like in the Florida example that happened, people are not telling authorities. In the Washington State event that I posted about here earlier, a person did care enough to inform authorites about a possible event.

If teachers were allowed to be armed in schools, then Deans and staff would probably be more vigilant about staff and teachers then they are now. Another issue here that's being over looked by the "No Armed Teacher" crowed, is that schools are an easy target for this kind event. If Teachers and Staff were allowed to be armed, then the risk to the people doing the shootings would be higher, and the schools would no longer be looked at as an easy target. Hard targets are less likely to be targeted. This is why Police stations don't get shot up, but churches, malls, and schools are.