No announcement yet.


  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Willowfang View Post
    All points a good except for this. Over 1/3 of our schools already have armed security guards. Your argument is invalid. Given the facts, disagreeing with the NRA in this case makes you batshit crazy. You may not have known this fact tho,.

    If you instead want to make an argument that, "yes, armed teacher could be effective, but I want a solution other than armed teacher because that to me ingrains that we can't do better or that this is as close to 'utopia' as we're ever gonna be" then yeah, that would make sense.

    An armed response person isn't going to be successful every time. But if that's your criteria, we might as well do away with all security guards, police, and soldiers.
    Apologies up front. I've quoted Willowfang, who was quoting Flagg. This isn't directed at either. It's just my musings at some of the comments I read as I worked my way down the thread.

    If we may skip back to 1999/2000 former President Clinton proposed tighter armed security in schools, in the wake of Columbine. He actually implemented it too. It was phased out, this year, by the current administration, with the cuts made to the education department budget.

    Columbine did have an armed deputy, on duty, the day of their shooting. He exchanged fire, with the shooters, and organized an evacuation which undoubtedly saved lives. Accepted it didn't prevent the shooting occurring in the first place. I mean, shit, what is going to prevent it?

    The Columbine shooting occurred during the last assault weapons ban, that many would like to see re-introduced. At a time when a democratic president wanted to do what the NRA are asking to go back to! Shit! My kids go to a school that already has a duty police officer on site during school hours, in a state that already allows teachers to carry concealed!! I raise your batshit insane to a already happenin,' Bub!

    I still maintain that removing all the dangerous aspects of guns is like pissing into the wind. It isn't going to happen. Ban them all if need be. Tomorrow, but it will not remove any of those currently in circulation. None. People are already stockpiling guns and ammunition. No argument with the rest but, like I said in a previous post, which laws would we like to see introduced which would bolster the several felonies he committed before he entered the school? Or the several more after?

    Has anyone here seen exactly how many guns, and rounds, of ammunition are currently being sold?! These firearms will be 'grandfathered' into any forthcoming legislation. It's pushing decades of gun and ammunition sales onto the streets years, maybe decades, ahead of when they would be! If at all!

    That is how gun culture is in the US. I can see that people want change but you have to unravel 236 years of second ammendment and that isn't going to happen in mine, yours, or anybody's, lifetime.


    • Originally posted by Talunex View Post

      That is how gun culture is in the US. I can see that people want change but you have to unravel 236 years of second ammendment and that isn't going to happen in mine, yours, or anybody's, lifetime.
      Like anything in life, if you take a certain path, sometimes you can't untangle the consequences very easily and are left with some crappy results to contend with for a very long time.

      Conceptually and theoretically we might say that guns should be removed from society but realistically and practically the solutions in the USA are extremely hard to implement.

      What with a significant amount of people who own guns believing that aliens walk amongst us, the earth is flat, Obama is an actual communist, and that the Government has some secret plan to disarm civilians in order to round people up and lock them up in secret concentration camps. After killing off the majority of them and keeping the rest as slaves for the elite ruling class. Therefore we need to have guns. Lots and lots and lots of them.

      I mention the above example as it highlights how difficult it is to have a rational debate about guns with a significant amount of people who are clearly on a different wavelength.

      (Btw, I'm not saying that all gun owners are fruitloops....just saying the debate is not clear cut when there's a diverse number of people who own guns. Some mad, some sane, some ill, some dangerous, some not dangerous, etc, etc).

      Nevertheless, even if things take time, and the obstacles are huge and difficult, it doesn't stop humans from tackling problems. Just like the ants who toil away, each ant doing their little duty for the good of the nest, do we humans work for years and centuries sometimes towards solving a particular problem.

      With guns in the USA, it's either throw the hands up and accept the status quo, or look to slowly instigate some reasonable and fair solution.

      Arming guards, etc to the teeth at schools, and various public places, as well as individuals arming themselves to feel safe in public is a natural, short term response to a violent episode.

      Of course it contributes to a higher risk due to more guns flooding the streets, but that's a natural consequence when there's a culture of guns on a nationwide scale for the last couple of centuries. Can't have the one without the other. (I'm not saying it's a good or smart response, just a natural response given the established gun culture).

      The trick is finding ways to start working on long term solutions. Even if it takes 100 years or more. I'm still scratching my head on this *lol*
      Last edited by darkcore; 12-29-2012, 06:47 PM.


      • I can agree with that. I can't begin to fathom a solution, either, and it goes way beyond putting armed police in schools or banning certain types of firearms.

        The 1st Amendment allows us to sit here and discuss our issues. The 4th protects us from the abuse of those that disagree with our exercising of the 1st. The 5th allows us fairness should we be held accountable and the 2nd allows us to defend all of them.

        You can't disagree with one without being open to losing them all.