NFR A Guardian Teacher Law

Discussion in 'Fly Fishing Forum' started by Brad Soliday, Dec 18, 2012.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. stilly stalker

    stilly stalker Tuna sniffer

    Typical response comparing apples to oranges. What about movies like "Scarface" "Rambo" etc? They serve no purpose beyond entertainment and glorify violence and the murder of human beings.
    Guns ACTUALLY KILL people, video games do not. If you play video games, but have zero access to guns, you have zero chance of committing a gun related crime.
  2. stilly stalker

    stilly stalker Tuna sniffer

    i AM NOT FOR THE REMOVAL OF INDIVIDUALS RIGHTS TO OWN WEAPONRY, but the right wing takes it to a ridiculous level when you start making indirect comparisons that have no actual logical link. You CANNOT compare access to instruments of death to video games or rock music as to what constitutes the reasons for crime. Guns are tools used in violent crime. THE CRIME WAS NOT SOLELY COMMITTED BECAUSE THE INDIVIDUAL OWNS A GUN, but you also cannot say that the only reason an individual is violent is due to exposure to video games.
    triploidjunkie likes this.
  3. Jeff Sawyer

    Jeff Sawyer Active Member

    As far as I can tell you, like many of our far right brothers and sisters, are completely impervious to facts or logic.
  4. Steve Saville

    Steve Saville Active Member

    I had guessed that this discussion would go all directions. It is a political football rolling all over the field right now while we are all quite emotional about the children who were killed by a madman. There wre no real answers. We cannot do away with guns, legally or morally. They are part of our society and protected. Being an American is a lesson in advanced citizenship. You may agree or disagree with Constitutional Rights but they are what has made this country free. We cannot do away with video games but we can, as parents, regulate for our children, not others. It takes a parent to make a change in a child. Teachers can do only so much and then they need help. Arming a teacher is a bad idea as is taking away guns or video games. Yes, I'm passonate about teaching and about guns and I'm also passionate about being a citizen in a democratic, free society. As much as I'd like to see all children safe and others as well, I don't want to give up my rights as a free American. We just need to be more vigilant each day and take action when necessary rather than turning a blind eye or deaf ear. It takes everybody to bring about great change. It would be great to have a real security officer in every school building but I doubt it would make much difference. A madman is still mad and will do whatever he intends. Maybe an armed guard would help. Heck, I don't know. I wish we could undo what happened but if the schools are guarded, what will happen in the malls and theaters? Or the open air rallies or college campuses? You can't guard everything. You have to make change.
  5. kjsteelhead

    kjsteelhead Member

    Nice graphs, Chris.

    Where are the graphs that compare age and gender of VIOLENT video game users to perpetrators of violent crimes?
    Where are the graphs that compare the number of individuals that have shot up schools to the number that have also watched violent video games and/or violent T.V. shows?
    Might there be a 100% correlation in the U.S.?
    Just like there might be a 100% correlation between how many individuals have shot up schools and how many have previously fired a gun.

    "Lies, damned lies, and statistics."
  6. Jason Rolfe

    Jason Rolfe Wanderer

    Okay, I'll bite. Even though this is a stupid discussion because it has been shown again and again that video games have no real correlation to these occurrences.

    1. I understand you didn't say all video games. Sorry. My point still stands. And yes, it is just like the argument of (some parts of) the left when it comes to gun control. That was my point.
    2. Why do you think video games are not protected under the constitution? I'd say they most certainly are. Just like porn and rap music (which I would guess you don't like, at least not openly). And also just like thousands of country songs about killing some person or another (Delia's Gone is one of my personal favorites), and plenty of classic movies. Should we ban those as well? Maybe the novels of Stephen King, cause those are pretty dark. The violence in many of those is just as senseless.
    3. Democracy? Republic? Please elabor...zzzzzzzzzz.
    4. My side? I'm simply trying to point out that your obsession with video games is pointless. You may think they serve no purpose. For many others, they serve plenty of different purposes. They are a creative outlet for some. They are a driver of innovations in technology. They are a fun way to unwind after a long day at work. They are a way to connect with friends that might live half way across the country, or even make new friends. Maybe you all just don't care about those things down in the great state of Jefferson.

    Finally, I don't know what you mean about the F word--did I say something about that? I don't expect this to change your mind either--you have made it very clear that you aren't interested in entering into practical discussions of the issue. I think facts and logic should be a part of every discussion, which is why I called you out. Facts and logic have shown that vilifying video games is way off base.

    I like my shoes. They do look weird when they are on the wrong foot, but I learned to put them on the right foot a long time ago, so I'm good.

    triploidjunkie and dfl like this.
  7. Roper

    Roper Idiot Savant

    I'm still amused at the fervor that is brewing about this whole subject. Based mainly on emotion, with little regard for facts and data and the big picture. I doubt most of the anti-gun folks have ever owned, held, or fired a gun. That's not a bad thing, it just is. But in addition, most are ignorant of firearms use or abuse. Just sound bites and sensational articles in the press. This forms their belief system. That's too bad because when it comes to loss of innocent lives, gun related deaths pale in comparison to other "evils". Take the time to go to the CDC, MADD, or other site that focuses on hundreds of thousands of death a year. No clamoring to our "politicians" to ban any other substance or objects. Why not? Because you all like driving, drinking, and smoking, even getting high. Where's your bleeding heart when we need it?

    Like it or not Utopia does not exist, it never will. Life does not come with a guarantee other that it will end one day. Personal safety is up to you, not someone or something else. Cops are always minutes away when seconds count goes the saying and it's true. Take away all the guns and only criminals will have guns, you can bet on that. Do you think for a moment that the tweakers will stop using and breaking and entering? Do you think the gangs will turn in their guns? Do you think any country that has held off attacking US soil will fear the population now with their pepper spray? Do you think anything will stop the trend of our current government becoming totalitarian will turn around and be the "transparent" one they promised.

    We fail to learn from history, which shows us exactly what can happen to a society that is disarmed. Call me paranoid, gun nut, whatever. I don't care. I'm not drinking the KoolAid...

    And BTW, arming teachers, bad idea...Cops can't even get it right most of the time.
  8. Lugan

    Lugan Joe Streamer

    Roper - Hopefully you also recognize that many of us here on WFF are seeking and sharing data, and discussing the topic with an open mind. Me, I don't currently own a gun but probably will soon. I have shot many. I want a solution to violence, too much of which ends in bullets. I don't care how it gets solved; I just want it solved so that my three young kids, wife, and I can live free. Hopefully we can all agree on that.

    And as far as learning from history, you might take that lesson to heart yourself and note that countries like Australia, the UK, Japan and others have implemented gun bans FAR more draconian than anyone here is proposing, and none of them have lost their society's freedoms. Having spent time as an adult in all three (plus living for a long time in two other few-gun countries), it's clear that we are, on balance, just as free as the rest of the developed democracies in the world. I point this out not because I want to ban guns, but because I don't think fear of a theoretical fascist tide in the US is real. Most other people in the US would agree. You will probably continue to disagree, and that's fine. I can respect that, but hopefully you'll respect those of us who don't see things through such an apocalyptic lens.

    In fact, I'd argue that the greatest threat to our freedom in the USA today is from lobbyists, super PACs and other funnels of huge dollar amounts into politicians' re-election campaign coffers. That money inevitably causes politicians to craft laws that benefit big funders rather than common citizens.
    dfl and Chris Johnson like this.
  9. Steve Saville

    Steve Saville Active Member

    Japan, the UK, and Australia, Sweden; None are governed by the Constitution of The United States. Only we are. Be damned glad that we are. America is advanced citizenship. You have the right to disagree. And it is up to all three branches of the government to insure that right is not infringed on whether it be video games, rap music, movies, or guns. Take the time to look up and read the text of the Constitution and all of the amendments. I did, sevral weeks ago, relating to another matter. It's the fisrt time I've ever really done that as carefully as I did. It's actually quite interesting and enlightening. It makes me very glad that I live here.
  10. Yes, reading it every now and again is well worth doing. I have done so a few times since first reading and discussing it in a high school civics class (I don't know if high schools even have civics classes any more).

    I have a couple of friends who recently became US citizens. They had to learn about our constitution and many other aspects of our civic life, in order to pass their citizenship exam. They probably know our constitution better than 99% of our citizens by birth.

    I'm proud of our constitution even with, or maybe perhaps because of, all of its idiosyncracies and difficult interpretations (the 2nd amendment being one of the classics - what the hell DID they mean by that phrase about the militia?). It has been a world-wide model for many, many national constitutions since it was first adopted.

    Like or not, however, we are stuck with our own constitution. That may sound like an odd construct, especially given my confession above of being proud of it. But, our constitution is pretty darn old, by global standards. When asked recently what advice he would have for one of the newly formed governments in the Middle East that was developing a new constitution, one of our sitting Supreme Court justices recommended studying the constitutions of a few countries, none of which were named the USA. Why? Because other countries have learned from our example, and those of other countries that have thrown off monarchies and other forms of authoritarian rule, and have developed newer constitutions that embody the same values as ours, but do so in ways that take advantage of our experience.

    There is a lot to be proud of in our constitution, but it's not the be all and end all of constitutions. To a significant extent, what has made it, and our country, so great, is the consistent way in which our judicial system has upheld individual freedoms and civil rights above those of a centralized government. And that is something that every generation since the founding fathers has had a hand in. They all are owed our gratitude.

    speyfisher likes this.
  11. speyfisher

    speyfisher Active Member

    Democracy? Republic? Please elabor...zzzzzzzzzz.

    Well, since you obviously do not understand the difference, I'll spell it out for you.
    Democracy: Majority rules. Plain & simple. Look it up in the dictionary. Which means if 51% of the population votes that they don't like you, or me, and want to make sure there will be no more of us in the future, they can mandate we get fixed.
    Republic: Bound by a set of laws. We call ours the Constitution. Kapeesh?

    There is a difference, albeit maybe not much, between watching violence and participating in it by killing all the bad guys in a video game. And btw: they all get up right after you kill them and keep on fighting. Right? Now you & I know that if you kill someone, they don't get back up. But does a four or five year old really know the difference?

    Anyone who feels life is better, for whatever reason, in some other country, is free to relocate.

    There is something wrong with (our) society. There must be reasons why we keep having mass murders like this. But until we get to the place where we are willing to discuss all the issues, rather than looking for a quick fix, these psycho's will continue too find ways to wreak havoc. No one is born a psycho. So how do they get that way? And this latest one didn't go down to Sportsman's Warehouse and buy his guns. He murdered the owner, and stole them. As far as I know, murder and theft have been against the law since Moses came down off the mountain. The law did not seem to have any effect on this guy.
  12. Jamie Wilson

    Jamie Wilson Active Member

    Cops in schools - Resource Officers - were one of the first cuts on the block, remember?
  13. Jason Rolfe

    Jason Rolfe Wanderer


    Completely agree with everything you just said.

    I do understand the difference between democracy and republic--I just didn't think it had as much relevance here--just my opinion.

    But you're right--no one is born a psycho. They end up that way, somehow. Perhaps some of them end up that way because their parents allow them to play violent video games when they are 6 or 7 years old; I absolutely agree that that is wrong and is a problem. Is the solution to ban violent video games--I don't think so.

    We obviously disagree on a lot, and that's fine. I respect your beliefs about guns, and definitely respect your right to own, appreciate, and enjoy them.

    I think video games are a very similar thing--people care about them and love them for basically the same reasons that you care about guns.

    So, I just think it would be good to step back and look at it from that perspective.


    dfl likes this.
  14. seasel

    seasel New Member

    A few responses to the rationale posted:
    I agree that something should be done. I disagree that schools are the ones to do it.
    1. Our schools have proven the most vulnerable targets in our society for the violence of demented minds.
    No, by far the most vulnerable children in our society are the ones not in school. Pushers and pimps like the kids in schools, but they love the kids who have dropped out.

    As a society we have no more precious treasure than our children, yet we guard armored trucks better than our schools.
    Yes, for the very few minutes of exchange at a specific place of business. However, providing armored truck security throughout a school day, and afternoon with activities, and weekends with more activities would be impossible, even with unlimited funding.

    2. The cost of having full time protection from police officers or trained and armed security guards is more than most districts can afford.
    Agreed, but with one qualification: every school has full time protection, just as every residence and individual has full time protection, after calling 911. Of course harm can and does occur before help arrives, but there is one level of full time protection already provided.

    3. Regardless of anyone’s position on gun control legislation or the passage of future gun control laws, it is likely that these acts of insanity will plague our society well into the future. A Guardian Teacher law could make our schools safer in a matter of weeks (if passed).
    Completely disagree for two reasons. 1) Gun rights supporters tend to point out that outlawing guns would be pointless because people bent on doing harm would just use other means. If every school were armed to repel a gun attack, why wouldn’t an attacker simply use other means? And 2) increasing the number of weapons on a campus increases the potential for a weapon to be misused, either by its owner or by someone who takes it from the owner.

    4. The mere knowledge that Guardian Teachers are present in a school may dissuade potential attacks.
    Completely disagree. A rational thought process would simply lead an attacker to use other means, as noted above. An irrational, deranged thought process is impossible to predict.

    5. There seems to be an ever increasing number of disturbed people who view our children as targets. As there are wolves in our world, let us put Guardians among the lambs.
    It does seem that “an ever increasing number of disturbed people… view our children as targets.” However, as noted in point one, people targeting kids for nefarious purposes have been present forever. In addition, dividing the number of schools attacked over the last few years by the number not attacked yields a very, very small fraction.
    I agree that something should be done. I disagree that schools are the ones to do it
  15. fifafu

    fifafu Guest

    I'm not sure all of you guys understand what these "video games" can do to young minds. This is a game named Call of Duty(Modern Warfare 2) which I believe is one of the biggest video game releases of all time. In this scene you are a CIA agent working deep cover in Russia. At the end of the scene you will be executed and then blamed for the massacre which starts WW3.

    To deny this game wouldn't warp the young or weak minds is just naive.

    Warning this scene is graphic and disturbing.
  16. Gary Knowels

    Gary Knowels Active Member

    I don't agree with this statement in the least bit. The human psyche is governed both by genetic code and experiences. It is not implausible that errors in the genetic code can lead to psychological defects just as easily as they can lead to physical defects. Down syndrome, aspbergers, bipolar disorder, all have huge genetic components if not entirely related to genetic defects.
    Sent from my SGH-T679 using Tapatalk 2
    Chris Johnson likes this.
  17. Steve Saville

    Steve Saville Active Member

    I can' t believe it. I am watching the news and the report is that the powers that be are now willing to discuss gun control, violent video games, and mental health issues. Someone must be reading this forum besides a bunch of overly active fly fishermen.
    Lugan likes this.
  18. Dave Alberts

    Dave Alberts Member

    Actually that "he" justice was a "she" justice, as in R. B. Ginsberg... spoken in Egypt I believe... not one of her better moments, IMO.
    Alex MacDonald likes this.
  19. triploidjunkie

    triploidjunkie Active Member

    Dead on Reverend Roper. Disarming Americans is the worst possible outcome. I can see restrictions on certain assault style weapons, and high capacity magazines, but all guns could only lead to disaster. It's funny Japan was brought into this discussion. They were poised to invade our West coast during the peak of WWII. The only thing that made them hesitate was the amount of resistance they feared from the average American household. They envisioned every American armed, and ready to defend themselves and their country. And they would have been mostly correct. I hope that never changes. And you're right about if you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns.
  20. Derek Day

    Derek Day Rockyday

    I'm curious about what the gun rights folks think they've given up? The Supreme Court had thrown out nearly every attempt to regulate guns. Are you upset about not having access to full auto weapons? Grenade launchers? I'm actually really curious what the percieved "conscessions" are.

    The second amendment was important when it was written. It's outdated and unrealistic. It was designed to arm the populace should the British try and retake their colonies or the federal government get out of control. It was intended to put state of the art tools of war in every household (rifles/muskets), do create a diffuse military that couldn't be easily controlled by a tyrant. Now it's more about individuals and personal protection. If we were to actually take a constructionist view of the second amendment, we would have state of the art weaponry in every household--no holds barred, and I don't think that anyone (I could be wrong) thinks that's reasonable.

    I was really struck by a fact from the recent Colorado theater shootings. The only person who had any sense that there was something wrong with James Holmes was the local gun club president/range supervisor. The thing to remember is, that we are trying to keep the guns out of the hands of unstable people. It's not the guns that kill people. It's not people with normal coping skills that kill people. It's people with underdeveloped coping skills who kill people, and guns make them much more efficient killing mechanisms. I think that there is an opportunity for local organizations, I say gun clubs, to screen people for permits. If you're going to regulate this, put it in the hands of people who care about, respect and understand guns. If it had been up to the local gun club president in the Colorado case, James Holmes woudn't have been able to aquire a gun. I just think there is an opportunity to take a community based approach, we need there to be somewhere where someone can throw up a red flag and say "I'm not sure this person should have access to a weapon". Not deny a permit per-se but maybe be a stoppong point along the road to aquiring a weapon, where someone might be able to recognize a potential problem. The answer isn't a stricter ban, it's getting the community involved in preventing gun ownership by unstable people.
    Lugan likes this.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.