...a couple staffers had been armed?

Tags: control, gun, guns, killings, mass

Views: 8209

Replies are closed for this discussion.

Replies to This Discussion

The only scenario that stands much chance of working is that the armed personnel don't stand out as security guards in uniform (who would simply be taken out first) but are teachers or staff having quick access to the weapons if they are needed.

@ Donald S. Chase

I also have a problem with the young murderers being treated as children and not adults when they commit premeditated murder. After killing 5 people Johnson and Golden were released on their 21st birthdays, Arkansas may want to rethink their laws.

But that isn't germane to my post above about Wyoming.  That post is about State government being consistent with and respectful toward the Second Amendment and their own State Rights.

I hope they pass it, I hope other States follow suit.

......................

The other part of your post tho isn't something I concur with.

Why are you only holding fathers and grandfathers accountable?  Why not mothers and grandmothers as well?

I agree with you the "guardians" of minors do bear some financial responsibility for the actions of the minors in their care, but in a Civil sense not a Criminal sense.

65 pages, and still going strong (while resolving nothing, as far as I can tell) - I'm SO glad I ran away from this thread, screaming, weeks ago --

Me and you Arch, me and you.

And yet, here you both are.

It sumthin' ain't it?

I was interested in the direction that the conversation has taken, but I'm convinced that no persuasion on the issue is really possible. Someone talked about how a random number combination lock would lock up the secretary's gun. Yet no one discusses that a random combination lock on his Mom's gun safe may have prevented the Newtown kid from having easy access to a gun.

Someone talked about self-disarming, and we had a little fun with the idea, yet if we persuaded the culture behaviorally through liability insurance, required gun locks and safes, required documentation, then people might feel that requirements might not be all that worth it to them, so they then decide not to get one. It's not disarmament as much as its influencing a trend that maybe more people will decide that don't have to get a gun the minute they are of age and are strong enough to squeeze the trigger. The net result would be less guns, less stolen guns, less kids with access to guns, less death because of guns. Less family tragedies when the gun which is kept for defense and ends up killing someone, less deaths when people have a chance to cool off before they grab a gun and kill someone. If you want to call that self disarmament go ahead. I thought we agreed that most of the gun violence statistically is Newtown NOT type stuff or protecting ones family from home invasion/rape etc. Rather, it's suicide and domestic violence. These are addressable issues, while we can still let the cowboys fight the street thugs and I don't have to wake up to an avoidable gun death or 10 every day.

It seems that the discussion here is based on the assumption that a bad guy walks in with a gun, what happens next? The idea that we could have a scenario where because the gun is not that easily accessible, the guy doesn't walk in with a gun, does not seem to be considered. Despite evidence in states that prove states with less guns have less gun death and countries with less guns have less gun death and less suicide from guns, and less suicide in general. If the premise is not considered possible, why bother discussing it?

so they then decide not to get one.

Or they get a gun by going around the law.

Exactly what I said Unseen. Point well proven.

NRA is the enemy here - plain and simple. Their influence doesn't come from their membership count; they represent arms dealers. So, like all lobbyists, the NRA will employ any strategy available to manipulate public opinion - like "you can only deter the bad guy with YOUR arsenal" and "duh gubmint is steppin on my freedoms". If they could, they'd claim that Jesus is pro-gun (assuming they haven't already somehow tried to make that association).

So you're right; laws aimed at guns themselves are futile - that horse has bolted. ALL strategies must, at this point, be LONG-term. 

The only effective weapon will be public opinion. NRA must be confronted DIRECTLY on their panic-inducing propaganda. Gun ownership must become pariah like insane driving. It will take decades because some clearly detrimental activities like these can be fun - but any sane society cannot sanction things just because they're fun.

The only semi-reasonable "excuse" for owning a gun is to protect yourself because there are so many guns out there. We have no choice but to break that cycle. The idea that you need a gun to protect yourself from dem dang revenuers has to be exposed as the laughable proposition that it is.

In summary: Guns are fun. Guns are bad. Outlaw guns by 2050.

In summary: Guns are fun. Evil is bad. Outlaw Evil by 2050.

I get it. Substituting the word "evil" for the word "guns". So witty. So clever. I will certainly be tuning in to see what you have to say.

Thanks, I will endeavor to keep you entertained. :)

RSS

Blog Posts

Aftermath

Posted by Belle Rose on September 20, 2014 at 2:42am 0 Comments

PI = 4

Posted by _Robert_ on September 16, 2014 at 8:53pm 5 Comments

Ads

Services we love!

We are in love with our Amazon

Book Store!

Gadget Nerd? Check out Giz Gad!

Advertise with ThinkAtheist.com

In need a of a professional web site? Check out the good folks at Clear Space Media

© 2014   Created by umar.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service