An amazing case for reducing gun ownership in America

tenacious said:
How could not selling and allowing cops to take away any assault riffles they find not cut down on deaths by assault riffle? You see how the cause effect relationship works there?
Click to expand...
Chicken and the egg, get rid of the eggs and there will cease to be chickens.
 
Bruddah IZ said:
You don't need to militarize (whatever that means) the nations schools. School shootings happen so infrequently. But using a tiered system to elevate awareness of a potential attack would be a good way for schools to mobilize the NG when an attack is imminent. I.D. checks are an easy way to ensure that non-students do not gain access to schools. Just common sense, but not a one size fits all plan that will bust the bank just on administrative cost alone. This national conversation that the U.S. Senate is supposed to respond to is insanely stupid. Most states don't have the same problems with school shootings. Lets not turn this in to a National mandate. State and local governments need to get plugged in and utilize the resources, like the States NG, to deter and stop attacks where needed.
Click to expand...
Cuz no one shoots up the poor schools?
 
Bruddah IZ said:
You don't need to militarize (whatever that means) the nations schools. School shootings happen so infrequently. But using a tiered system to elevate awareness of a potential attack would be a good way for schools to mobilize the NG when an attack is imminent. I.D. checks are an easy way to ensure that non-students do not gain access to schools. Just common sense, but not a one size fits all plan that will bust the bank just on administrative cost alone. This national conversation that the U.S. Senate is supposed to respond to is insanely stupid. Most states don't have the same problems with school shootings. Lets not turn this in to a National mandate. State and local governments need to get plugged in and utilize the resources, like the States NG, to deter and stop attacks where needed.
Click to expand...
Kent State?
 
Lion Eyes said:
This isn't nazi Germany, nobody is gonna confiscate legally purchased weapons.
The fact is, the vast majority of gun violence and murders are a result of pistols, not rifles.
Click to expand...
Like with the opioid "epidemic" no one cares until it reaches the white neighborhood, and they can afford more opioids and more guns.
 
Newsflash: Teachers Are Already Armed
Maybe we should just stop disarming them.

https://fee.org/articles/newsflash-teachers-are-already-armed/

Arm and Train?
The conservative answer to liberal prohibition (oxymoron?) is to “arm and train the teachers.” While no one has come out and suggested mandating teachers carry firearms or be trained in using them, every suggestion seems to suggest “we” (i.e., the government) need to do the arming and training.

Here’s a little newsflash for both sides: the teachers are already armed.
 
Four Little Words
I’ve often said the greatest danger to liberty is not a foreign army, terrorists, or even a homegrown tyrant. It is four little words. And they aren’t, “Up against the wall!” That comes later.

They are, “Something must be done.”
 
tenacious said:
Also who buys the fire arms? On one hand Trump cuts teachers ability to write off school supplies they buy for students... but now there is money for guns?QUOTE]


Hey einstein, suggest going back and read the tax plan again. Nothing was changed for teacher deductions.

Way to be informed... good job.
Click to expand...
 
Instead of the government “doing something” about mass shootings, it should stop doing something. It should stop prohibiting teachers from carrying into school the same firearms they are licensed and trusted to carry in most other places. It is the path of least resistance to providing realistic protection for schoolchildren. It requires no one to do anything they aren’t already doing.

No, this will not ensure that mass shootings “never happen again.” Nothing will. And not every teacher with a firearm, confronted with the pressure of an active shooter situation, will calmly dispatch the shooter. But as we saw in Parkland, FL, neither will every trained police officer.
 
Hüsker Dü said:
No surprise that you nutter-butters see it that way as you have now gone anti-law enforcement in anyway. I saw it as the "good guy with a gun" once again not being the answer. Protect our children, not gun manufacturers profit margins.
Click to expand...

Yes of course... We'll all join in taking a knee at the next national anthem.
 
Let's Try Freedom
Thomas Paine began his pamphlet, Common Sense, widely credited with convincing a critical mass of colonists to support American independence, by making a crucial distinction:

“SOME writers have so confounded society with government, as to leave little or no distinction between them; whereas they are not only different, but have different origins.” He went on to say, “Society in every state is a blessing, but Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one.”

It’s time Americans remembered the miracles possible within that blessing called society and the limitations of an institution based on nothing more than consolidated brute force. Mass shootings are horrible situations under any circumstances, but they may be rendered less horrible if the victims have options other than to call the government and wait.

............
The government has had its chance. It has failed.
 
Hüsker Dü said:
Like with the opioid "epidemic" no one cares until it reaches the white neighborhood, and they can afford more opioids and more guns.
Click to expand...

Just Like Drugs

The first problem is the goal. It is absurdly unrealistic to believe any set of rules is going to prevent anything from “ever happening again.” If you doubt that, I invite you to examine the war on drugs. Many decades ago, politicians decided American citizens taking heroin was never going to happen again. They banned that drug completely. You aren’t allowed to possess or sell it under any circumstances. Not after a background check. Not with a doctor’s prescription. Not at all.

Today, that drug is at the center of what the same government calls an opioid “epidemic.” Epidemic. So much for heroin overdoses “never happening again.”

Yet, despite this evidence, liberals still suggest what they’ve always suggested: further restrictions on gun ownership. A good portion of them believes that only government employees charged with national defense or public safety should be allowed to carry guns. Ban them completely for the civilian population, they say, and mass shooters won’t be able to obtain them.

You know, just like drugs.
 
Bruddah IZ said:
Just Like Drugs

The first problem is the goal. It is absurdly unrealistic to believe any set of rules is going to prevent anything from “ever happening again.” If you doubt that, I invite you to examine the war on drugs. Many decades ago, politicians decided American citizens taking heroin was never going to happen again. They banned that drug completely. You aren’t allowed to possess or sell it under any circumstances. Not after a background check. Not with a doctor’s prescription. Not at all.

Today, that drug is at the center of what the same government calls an opioid “epidemic.” Epidemic. So much for heroin overdoses “never happening again.”

Yet, despite this evidence, liberals still suggest what they’ve always suggested: further restrictions on gun ownership. A good portion of them believes that only government employees charged with national defense or public safety should be allowed to carry guns. Ban them completely for the civilian population, they say, and mass shooters won’t be able to obtain them.

You know, just like drugs.
Click to expand...
The goal is to lessen the possibility not exasperate it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top