NFR A Guardian Teacher Law

Status
Not open for further replies.
#16
No, I do not believe arming teachers is the answer! I'm not anti-gun, I own several myself, I just see too many things that could go wrong with that scenario.

I think a better approach is to keep guns out of schools. Most of us have phones in our pockets that can do everything from turning the lights on/off at home when we're on the other side of the country, to watching movies, updating our WFF post and surfing porn. We have the ability drop bombs from the stratusphere and fly them thur a freaking window. We put someone on the moon over 40 years ago.

You mean to tell me someone couldn't create a door or turn-stile connected to a metal detector that wouldn't open or allow an individual in if they were packing. We don't even have to get that technical...how about secure doors and windows, allow passage to individuals with a code. That little skinny disturbed piece of shit forced his way in...alot can be done to prevent that without bringing more guns into our schools.
 

Chris Bellows

Your Preferred WFF Poster
#17
Yet it's OK for your kids to be bombarded every day with violent video games. I see nothing good in a game where the object is to kill as many people as you can within a given period of time. Even if they are supposed to be bad guys. Screw it. Ban and confiscate them all! Oh, we can't restrict content you say. That would violate some game manufacturers first amendment rights. Too f***in bad. Is their first amendment right to pollute your kid's mind with such crap more important than someone trying to protect your kid with a gun?






Washington Post
 

o mykiss

Active Member
#18
I might be in favor of something like that described in the original post except I wouldn't have the permit issued by the school board, I would have it issued by law enforcement agency. School board would opt into program but the licensing and training program should be handled by law enforcement. I would also require an annual or maybe semi-annual license that includes pyschological testing. And I would also require some hard core marksmanship and gun safety training - not 2-4 hourse but something more like what police cadets have to go through. Finally, weapon is kept in super secure safe overnight, issued by an administrator or safety officer to the licensed person in the morning when he/she arrives, and is returned to the safe at the end of the day.

On the other hand, I would rather have LEO at every school and pay for it through additional taxes on sales of semi-automatic weapons and high capacity magazines.

Speyfisher, your rant reminded me of something I've been thinking about a lot in the last several days. There are obviously a lot of very good folks (on this board and elsewhere) who are passionate about firearms and bristle at any attempt by the government to regulate them. Some of them can at least express themselves in a civil way; not sure your approach is going to win any converts but I'm guessing you do not care. That said, I am constantly frustrated by the fact that guys like you are so unwilling to consider what could be done in terms of regulating access to firearms to reduce the level of gun violence in our country. You are not capable of being objective if you are unwilling to admit that part of the problem is how easy it is in this country to obtain the sorts of firearms used in Newtown, a couple weeks ago in Oregon, in the Aurora, CO shootings last year, and in thousands of handgun-related homicides each year that get way less attention. That sort of blindness causes me to feel less and less enthusiastic about so-called gun rights. You (and the NRA) should be part of the conversation, other than saying constantly saying "no, no and fuck no" whenever gun control measures are brought into the conversation.

In any event, I believe there is a decent chance this strategy of yours and others like you will backfire (no pun intended) at some point in the future. We live in a democracy, and I believe that eventually the tide is going to turn on this issue because of things like the tragedy in Newtown. Eventually (and maybe the time is already here - seriously, the slaughter of 26 innocent people, of whom most were young children, will do that sort of thing), this could become such a hot button issue that more and more people will start voting for politicians who they believe will strike a better balance between society's need to minimize gun related violence and the right to possess and carry firearms, not to mention for presidents that will appoint Supreme Court justices that take a narrower view than Scalia and his pals on what the limits of the 2nd Amendment are. (I heard on the radio this morning about a poll that indicated 80% support for closing the gun show loophole, for example, yet politicians don't have the balls to accede to the will of the people on that issue.) It will appear to many that, while 26 families are going to endure the most hellish agony imaginable for the rest of their lives, you and others like you are more worried that your precious 2nd Amendment rights might be trod upon than how we might be motivated by this tragedy to take real steps to make it less likely that firearms (particularly ones capable of inflicting so much destruction in a short period of time) end up in the hands of madmen and criminals. May not be a fair conclusion but it's the sort of perception that will cause defections from the 2nd Amendment cause. The majority will have their way, at least partly, eventually. To paraphrase Noam Chomsky, we're free to live under these circumstances, but we're not required to.
 
#20
So let me get this straight:

You get pissed off when someone suggests that people take another look at gun control because one crazy person massacred a bunch of kids. You're basically saying, all the rest of us law-abiding citizens shouldn't be punished for the mistakes of one or a few.

BUT, it's okay to completely ban video games--something that millions enjoy responsibly--because of the actions of one person, or a few.

So as long as it's something you love and understand (guns), you think no one should touch it. But if it is something you disapprove of and don't understand (video games) you think it should be okay to completely ban it.

Great logic there. And for the record, I don't own a gun, but I also don't think banning guns is the solution. I do play video games occasionally, though I'm not an avid gamer.
Jason
  1. I didn't say all video games should be banned & confiscated. Just the violent games involving killing people. And yes, why not because of the actions of a few? After all, that is no different than the logic of the left when it comes to guns.
  2. Video games are not protected by the constitution, guns are.
  3. We do not live in a democracy. We live in a republic. There is a big difference.
  4. What concessions has your side made? Why can you not "compromise" and give up a few video games that serve no useful purpose? Maybe we should have a buy back program on them. We'll give you 10% of what you paid for them and destroy them. Sounds to me like the same argument made about guns.
Oh yeah, and by the way, we'll keep a file on everyone that had them. Just in case we need to go looking for anyone that may have held back a few, or might be a threat to society some day.
Why should facts or logic enter into the discussion when it's aimed at you rather than me? Again, stupid video games. Like I should give a rats ass? The world got along fine before we had those things. It will survive without them. And I never used the "f" word. If your mind interpreted it that way,,,well.
The shoe doesn't look so good when it's on the other foot, does it?
 
#21
  1. I didn't say all video games should be banned & confiscated. Just the violent games involving killing people. And yes, why not because of the actions of a few? After all, that is no different than the logic of the left when it comes to guns.
  2. Video games are not protected by the constitution, guns are.
  3. We do not live in a democracy. We live in a republic. There is a big difference.
  4. What concessions has your side made? Why can you not "compromise" and give up a few video games that serve no useful purpose? Maybe we should have a buy back program on them. We'll give you 10% of what you paid for them and destroy them. Sounds to me like the same argument made about guns.
Oh yeah, and by the way, we'll keep a file on everyone that had them. Just in case we need to go looking for anyone that may have held back a few, or might be a threat to society some day.

Why should facts or logic enter into the discussion when it's aimed at you rather than me? Again, stupid video games. Like I should give a rats ass? The world got along fine before we had those things. It will survive without them. And I never used the "f" word. If your mind interpreted it that way,,,well.
The shoe doesn't look so good when it's on the other foot, does it?

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.
 
#22
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.
 
#24
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.
 
#25
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."
 
#26
  1. I didn't say all video games should be banned & confiscated. Just the violent games involving killing people. And yes, why not because of the actions of a few? After all, that is no different than the logic of the left when it comes to guns.
  2. Video games are not protected by the constitution, guns are.
  3. We do not live in a democracy. We live in a republic. There is a big difference.
  4. What concessions has your side made? Why can you not "compromise" and give up a few video games that serve no useful purpose? Maybe we should have a buy back program on them. We'll give you 10% of what you paid for them and destroy them. Sounds to me like the same argument made about guns.
Oh yeah, and by the way, we'll keep a file on everyone that had them. Just in case we need to go looking for anyone that may have held back a few, or might be a threat to society some day.

Why should facts or logic enter into the discussion when it's aimed at you rather than me? Again, stupid video games. Like I should give a rats ass? The world got along fine before we had those things. It will survive without them. And I never used the "f" word. If your mind interpreted it that way,,,well.
The shoe doesn't look so good when it's on the other foot, does it?
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.

Jason
 

Roper

Idiot Savant
#27
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.
 

Lugan

Joe Streamer
#28
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.
 
#29
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.
 
#30
Japan, the UK, and Australia, Sweden; None are governed by the Constitution of The United States. Only we are.
...
Take the time to look up and read the text of the Constitution and all of the amendments.
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.

D
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts