Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Was Bob Costas Right?

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #76
    Originally posted by johnmjoy View Post
    The school is about seven miles as she flies from where I'm presently sitting. A friend of mine was there, and only made it out unharmed due to some quick thinking and a whole lot of luck.

    I have ZERO patience for the proposal that we take a policy that left a very vulnerable population exposed to the first madman to make it through the door, whereupon TWENTY-SIX OF THEM DIED, and extrapolate it to another three hundred million people.
    what policy is that? the madman killed his mother and stole legally purchased guns. too bad your friend didn't have a pistol in his/her car, or the school didn't have a security guard. when lanza shot out the front door, the guard would have splattered his brains all over the sidewalk and that would have been the end of it. the guard would have been a hero, nobody at that school would have been hurt. can we talk about the real issue here, mental illness?

    Comment


    • #77
      this is the real problem. this is what people are dealing with on a daily basis. kids like this are the adam lanzas of the world

      'I Am Adam Lanza's Mother': A Mom's Perspective On The Mental Illness Conversation In America

      Comment


      • #78
        Originally posted by not on the rug View Post
        what policy is that?
        The policy I'm referring to is the Tinkerbell fantasy called the GUN-FREE ZONE. Gee, if we just WISH REALLY REALLY HARD that there weren't bad people in the world, and just ban all the guns...

        You are absolutely correct. Had SOMEONE responsible been armed that day... but that's illegal, doncha know.

        Comment


        • #79
          Originally posted by johnmjoy View Post
          The policy I'm referring to is the Tinkerbell fantasy called the GUN-FREE ZONE. Gee, if we just WISH REALLY REALLY HARD that there weren't bad people in the world, and just ban all the guns...

          You are absolutely correct. Had SOMEONE responsible been armed that day... but that's illegal, doncha know.
          i agree. the gun free zone stuff is nonsense. it clearly didn't stop lanza from bringing guns on to the school property. but it did stop the law-abiding citizens from doing so. i wonder if we're going to see schools hire private security/law enforcement from now on. kind of like how after 9/11, planes had plainclothes air marshalls, and allowed pilots to carry guns.

          Comment


          • #80
            There are schools in Texas allowing certain teachers, that want to, to carry. They must have trainning and a ccl. Which teacher that has the ccl is kept secret from other teachers and students. Only the principle knows who is carrying
            Would I be putting a grain-feed cow on a fad diet if I took it out of the feedlot and put it on pasture eating the grass nature intended?

            Comment


            • #81
              The "funny" thing is is that all the anti-gun dumb ass scumbags are so quick to say that more gun laws will stop this, and it just shows how completely brainwashed and ignorant of the facts they are...

              1927, 38 children, 2 teachers, and 4 other adults killed. 58 people injured. Did not shoot a single person. Please, tell me again how taking away my rights will protect children.
              Bath School disaster - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

              Comment


              • #82
                NRA said that they'd help make sure that something like the Connecticut incident never happens again. What does that mean...are they going to entirely reverse their interpretation of the Second Amendment and their commitment to individual gun ownership rights? Or are they going to work hard to re-focus the debate on what actually would have made a difference in Connecticut, i.e. earlier detection of psychopathic and paranoid schizophrenic pre-teens, and their separation into a humane care setting where, if they're under control, they can live productive lives, but in any case they're secure?

                Emotions are high right now. Nothing has distracted the public since Sandy Hook. But, no one has a bill ready to vote on. Even if they did, lobbyists would work hard to make sure that it had a slow track through the committee system for evaluation. Soon there will be another leading story, and then another one and another one, and emotions will fade. Somewhere in there the bills will start to wend their way through the system. By then, the votes won't be there anymore
                Starting Date: Dec 18, 2010
                Starting Weight: 294 pounds
                Current Weight: 235 pounds
                Goal Weight: 195 pounds

                Comment


                • #83
                  Originally posted by kenn View Post
                  NRA said that they'd help make sure that something like the Connecticut incident never happens again. What does that mean...are they going to entirely reverse their interpretation of the Second Amendment and their commitment to individual gun ownership rights? Or are they going to work hard to re-focus the debate on what actually would have made a difference in Connecticut, i.e. earlier detection of psychopathic and paranoid schizophrenic pre-teens, and their separation into a humane care setting where, if they're under control, they can live productive lives, but in any case they're secure?

                  Emotions are high right now. Nothing has distracted the public since Sandy Hook. But, no one has a bill ready to vote on. Even if they did, lobbyists would work hard to make sure that it had a slow track through the committee system for evaluation. Soon there will be another leading story, and then another one and another one, and emotions will fade. Somewhere in there the bills will start to wend their way through the system. By then, the votes won't be there anymore
                  here's the thing with the NRA. they are going to have to tread very lightly with their members as well as the general public. they SHOULD fund and support some sort of plan of action in order to adress mental health, etc. that issue should be at the forefront, but i wonder if it will even be mentioned. i also wonder if they will soften their stance on the insanely mis-named "assault weapons." it might appease the idiot masses, tick off a few owners, and make the general gun owning population laugh because we know that all other semi-automatic rifles and shotguns would still be available for purchase. those guns just don't look as cool though. this is just like any other issue out there. you have to have extreme viewpoints on both ends so that they can meet in the middle and come up with a liveable resolution. its a slippery slope though. if the NRA caves in on one issues, its only a matter of time before the antis try to chip away at something else.

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    Those things are all fine and dandy, but the fact remains that having a building full of legally-disarmed individuals is an invitation for someone with ill intent to take advantage.

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      Originally posted by kenn View Post
                      NRA said that they'd help make sure that something like the Connecticut incident never happens again. What does that mean...are they going to entirely reverse their interpretation of the Second Amendment and their commitment to individual gun ownership rights? Or are they going to work hard to re-focus the debate on what actually would have made a difference in Connecticut, i.e. earlier detection of psychopathic and paranoid schizophrenic pre-teens, and their separation into a humane care setting where, if they're under control, they can live productive lives, but in any case they're secure?
                      Hopefully the latter. I'm sorry to anyone who disagrees with me, but I think that early detection and proper treatment of people who are capable of doing these horrific acts and re-evaluating and changing school security and emergency/evacuation plans will go a lot farther to saving lives than telling me or any other law-abiding citizen with no history of mental sickness or problems that they are not allowed to own a firearm (or specific firearm) will.

                      The people deranged and psychotic enough to go into a school and shoot over 20 children will find a way to fulfill their blood lust with or without a gun. They need to be the focus our energy and resources, not the tool.

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        Originally posted by not on the rug View Post
                        its a slippery slope though.
                        Yup. Give 'em an inch...

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          Originally posted by Primal Moose View Post
                          Hopefully the latter. I'm sorry to anyone who disagrees with me, but I think that early detection and proper treatment of people who are capable of doing these horrific acts and re-evaluating and changing school security and emergency/evacuation plans will go a lot farther to saving lives than telling me or any other law-abiding citizen with no history of mental sickness or problems that they are not allowed to own a firearm (or specific firearm) will.

                          The people deranged and psychotic enough to go into a school and shoot over 20 children will find a way to fulfill their blood lust with or without a gun. They need to be the focus our energy and resources, not the tool.
                          this is the topic of legislation that i am curious about. more mental health services and treatment for persons with mental illnesses and early intervention is great, and needs to happen. but, i wonder what the best way to go about this is. The incident in Connecticut may have been by a person with a documented mental illness (if that's even what led to his action), but there are plenty of people walking around who are living with un-documented mental illnesses that might be just as capable of committing violent crimes. it's that early intervention that needs a lot of focus...focusing on preventing the problem is better than fixing the problem, in my opinion.
                          http://www.marksdailyapple.com/forum/thread60178.html

                          Comment


                          • #88
                            Originally posted by not on the rug View Post
                            here's the thing with the NRA. they are going to have to tread very lightly with their members as well as the general public. they SHOULD fund and support some sort of plan of action in order to adress mental health, etc. that issue should be at the forefront, but i wonder if it will even be mentioned. i also wonder if they will soften their stance on the insanely mis-named "assault weapons." it might appease the idiot masses, tick off a few owners, and make the general gun owning population laugh because we know that all other semi-automatic rifles and shotguns would still be available for purchase. those guns just don't look as cool though. this is just like any other issue out there. you have to have extreme viewpoints on both ends so that they can meet in the middle and come up with a liveable resolution. its a slippery slope though. if the NRA caves in on one issues, its only a matter of time before the antis try to chip away at something else.
                            I'm thinking their solution has to revolve entirely around mental health or prescription drug issues. I handed in my NRA membership (stopped paying yearly dues more precisely) years ago because of their sell out policies and switched over to supporting GOA. Gun Owners of America has been all over the news this past week standing up for the Second Amendment while the NRA has been hiding like cowards. If the NRA were to come out with some pro-control nonsense in their presser on Friday, they'd risk their membership defecting to GOA en masse.

                            Comment


                            • #89
                              Originally posted by johnmjoy View Post
                              I have ZERO patience for the proposal that we take a policy that left a very vulnerable population exposed to the first madman to make it through the door, whereupon TWENTY-SIX OF THEM DIED, and extrapolate it to another three hundred million people.
                              Indeed.

                              Comment


                              • #90
                                (Sigh.) I give up. There's no reasoning with these people. Here's the discussion going on on the local Patch:
                                Police: Safety of All CT Schools Being Examined in Wake of Sandy Hook Shootings - Danbury, CT Patch

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X