When is it gonna be enough?

[Resha Caner]

Like I said, you chose to form those opinions. I have no control over that except for submitting the truth.

Suppose you had been in the area when the shooting occurred, and immediately went to the school and said those things. "Hi parent who just lost a beloved child and policeman who just risked his life - I want you to know that if you try to take my gun, I'll fight to the death." That probably wouldn't go over very well.

I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one who got that as a first impression of how you think. Sometimes it's not the right time or place to say certain things.

Didn't you notice how I had to ask you questions to try to peel away the rhetoric - to find out that it's not really that you'd die for a gun, but that you are dedicated to defending your freedom. Dying for a gun just sounds a little silly. Defending your freedom is something I can agree with.

 

[teresa]

Give more money to hiring safety officers and securing the entrance ways as well.

When I was coaching in a school gym, it was common for all the side and back doors to be propped open in the summer to catch a breeze.

More ppl could use good jobs as safety officers.

 

[Aldebaran]

Suppose you had been in the area when the shooting occurred, and immediately went to the school and said those things. "Hi parent who just lost a beloved child and policeman who just risked his life - I want you to know that if you try to take my gun, I'll fight to the death." That probably wouldn't go over very well.

Of course not. That's because the situation is highly emotional, and you have to be conscious of that when you bring things up. However, where we are now is on an internet forum where discussions are open to everyone of all emotional states. If we are going to talk about actual solutions to a problem, we need to be something other than emotional about it.

 

[Resha Caner]

Of course not. That's because the situation is highly emotional, and you have to be conscious of that when you bring things up.

Exactly. And if you truly want to make progress, you need to be conscious of that everywhere - even on an Internet forum.

If we are going to talk about actual solutions to a problem, we need to be something other than emotional about it.

I agree.

 

[Aldebaran]

Exactly. And if you truly want to make progress, you need to be conscious of that everywhere - even on an Internet forum.

I remember after the attacks on 9/11, people were emotional. People were saying that we should find out who is responsible and then nuke their country. It's a good thing that didn't happen, although the security measures put into place that have resulted in old ladies being frisked at the airport are a good reminder of why we should think before acting based on the emotions of the moment. We end up living with those decisions decades or more later.

 

[SaintNick]

Well why are parents still sending their children to these places defenseless to begin with?
Why in the world with all the shootings going on would you not exercise common sense and say you know what I'm home schooling or I am insuring there is an armed guard at my school.
Guns aren't just going to go away because the good guys comply.

And I enjoy shooting at the range and exercising my right to do so thank you very much.
Look at the shooter in Texas where the officer was on station to stop him from inflicting further damage. The solution is armed security at schools. Because parents don't know how to raise their children.

Parents want to throw the responsibility of teaching and raising their children on the school system and teachers. Parent's wanna watch TV or let the violence of Hollywood poison their childrens minds. But no its us good guys who are armed out here who have to pay right? God forbid anybody has to take some responsibility.

 

[Invalidusername]

Suppose you had been in the area when the shooting occurred, and immediately went to the school and said those things. "Hi parent who just lost a beloved child and policeman who just risked his life - I want you to know that if you try to take my gun, I'll fight to the death." That probably wouldn't go over very well.

I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one who got that as a first impression of how you think. Sometimes it's not the right time or place to say certain things.

Didn't you notice how I had to ask you questions to try to peel away the rhetoric - to find out that it's not really that you'd die for a gun, but that you are dedicated to defending your freedom. Dying for a gun just sounds a little silly. Defending your freedom is something I can agree with.

Oh I'm sorry I didn't know an internet forum matched the description of "Suppose you had been in the area when the shooting occurred, and immediately went to the school and said those things."

A woman made a thread about gun control and I responded. She is not a grieving parent so thus it does not match the description above and thus my reaction is appropriate.

Also YES I would die for my guns. Freedom is a broad spectrum but gun ownership is a big factor of it since it gives you the freedom of self defense.

 

[Aldebaran]

Also YES I would die for my guns. Freedom is a broad spectrum but gun ownership is a big factor of it since it gives you the freedom of self defense.

One that is fundamental enough to have been the second item listed in the Constitution.

 

[mama2one]

x

 

[Invalidusername]

I did school my child at home until age 6 and have talked about homeschooling when she reaches middle school age (grade 6,7,8)

however, she is opposed to it as well as husband because she is a very social person and gets a lot out of interaction with other students and teachers (as they have more than one) plus art and music are favorites

although, don't doubt could teach child and we have has her in extracurricular activities from age 2, actually think HSing would be a disservice to her

do you really believe everyone should pull their kids out if school?
there have been some parents who have done that since school shootings have begun

however, there are many working parents
how would they homeschool while they're at work all day?

My mother didn't have any problems with homeschooling her children. Maybe if less women worked and did child rearing instead of working and ignoring their children, our generation would not be such a depraved, immoral one.

 

[mama2one]

x

 

[Invalidusername]

there's a women in my neighborhood whose husband died when her child was age 10 so she went back to work and many women work part time to supplement husband's income when they're layed off and taking lesser paying jobs

a big company closed in our town and devastated it and many men w/o jobs

it's not so simple

Oh sure I agree. There's some circumstances where it can't be helped. However I do know plenty of women who chose to be single mothers and plenty of mothers who chose to work instead of caring for her children because "her career is important and she has to express her individuality". Sad how a career is more important than the future generation of children.

 

[Southernscotty]

Sadly (but with due regard for employee safety) my employer gives "active shooter training" to its employees. The training is done by a former soldier/policeman who led a terror response unit.

He made it very clear arming teachers, etc. is a horrible idea to which he is strongly opposed. His worst nightmare is unhinged cowboys like you. Maybe school guards, but not armed teachers. When the SWAT team comes in, they don't know who the good guys and bad guys are. They are likely to take down anyone who is armed and shooting.

Imagine the news story about a SWAT team that gets into a shooting match with a teacher ... or the first time an armed teacher mistakenly shoots a student ... or an angry student who takes away the teacher's gun in the classroom - the bad permutations are endless.

unhinged cowboy like me? ok

 

[gideon123]

America is now trapped in a terrible cycle of violence. Our own school students are being massacred in classrooms and playgrounds.

I dont think this will stop, unless the whole nation gets down on its knees and PRAYS seriously about the issue.

For that matter ... even our own churches have not declared a National Day Of Prayer about school shootings.

Where is the national will ... to PRAY to God??? Does America believe that God is irrelevant? ... it sure looks that way.

 

[Micah888]

If we are going to talk about actual solutions to a problem, we need to be something other than emotional about it.

Quite right. Emotion is not a substitute for calm, deliberate, and intelligent planning.

Every level of government, law enforcement, and school administration in every part of the USA has been fully aware of mass school shootings FOR DECADES. Yet no one provided the leadership to make this a national concern and a national effort so that every student would be protected from evildoers.

Even after what has happened over the more recent past (e.g. Columbine, 1999) there was a lot of emotion, a lot of ranting against guns, and a lot of hot air, but little in the way of a concrete and solid plan to be implemented across the board.

Also, this latest shooter had already been sending signals about his obsession with killing. Did anyone care to report that or insist that their be a proper investigation?

Social media pages with the same name as Pagourtzis show the person was obsessed with guns, knives and animal torture, and he owned a trench coat with USSR and Nazi medals on it.

Suspect In Texas Shooting Posted Disturbing Images Of Guns, Knives, 'Born To Kill' Shirt Online

 

[Archivist]

My mother didn't have any problems with homeschooling her children. Maybe if less women worked and did child rearing instead of working and ignoring their children, our generation would not be such a depraved, immoral one.

Or maybe if more husbands stayed home and schooled their children. Why should the burden be placed on wives?

 

[Anguspure]

Which simply confirms that guns are not the problem. The same thing has happened in the UK. Now they want to ban knives. Then they will go after potato peelers (this was just reported recently).

Now the real question is" If guns are so evil, how come the politicians and celebrities do not ban them from their security guards, and ask them to use wooden spoons?

Nevertheless when we do an analysis of tbe risk (likelihood x consequence), given a range of other factors, we find that tighter weapon controls act both to reduce the liklihood (arguably only very little as you have stated), and reduce the consequence considerably.
i.e. The liklihood that somebody in Switzerland or North Dakota is going to run amok with a fire arm or other weapon is considerably lower than in other places, and so even though the consequence (because weapons are readily available) could be devastating the risk is viewed as acceptable.
Conversely the liklihood of a person wanting to run out and kill everybody in Illinois or Texas seems to be a very high one and so the presence of similarly high consequences results in unnacceptable risks.
So to lower the risk to a reasonably acceptable level we could work to change the liklihood through social reforms and we could lower the consequence by making high consequence hazards (such as weapons) less available.
I agree that simply focusing on removal of the hazards is not an ideal approach and serves to hide the true problems behind the killings, but where the lives of defenceless people are at stake I think that it is a wise move to do so anyway.
For example if my employee injures himself with an angle grinder it is not the fault of the angle, it is his own ineptitude that lead to the injury. Nevertheless I need to prevent him from using a grinder again at least until I have properly ascertained that he is competent and able to use the grinder.

 

[dogs4thewin]

Nevertheless when we do an analysis of tbe risk (likelihood x consequence), given a range of other factors, we find that tighter weapon controls act both to reduce the liklihood (arguably only very little as you have stated), and reduce the consequence considerably.
i.e. The liklihood that somebody in Switzerland or North Dakota is going to run amok with a fire arm or other weapon is considerably lower than in other places, and so even though the consequence (because weapons are readily available) could be devastating the risk is viewed as acceptable.
Conversely the liklihood of a person wanting to run out and kill everybody in Illinois or Texas seems to be a very high one and so the presence of similarly high consequences results in unnacceptable risks.
So to lower the risk to a reasonably acceptable level we could work to change the liklihood through social reforms and we could lower the consequence by making high consequence hazards (such as weapons) less available.
I agree that simply focusing on removal of the hazards is not an ideal approach and serves to hide the true problems behind the killings, but where the lives of defenceless people are at stake I think that it is a wise move to do so anyway.
For example if my employee injures himself with an angle grinder it is not the fault of the angle, it is his own ineptitude that lead to the injury. Nevertheless I need to prevent him from using a grinder again at least until I have properly ascertained that he is competent and able to use the grinder.

There are literally MILLIONS of gun owners in Texas. The fact that a VERY few went off the handle does not make unacceptable risk.

 

[Archivist]

There are literally MILLIONS of gun owners in Texas. The fact that a VERY few went off the handle does not make unacceptable risk.

That means nothing to the families of those killed and to those wounded.

 

[dogs4thewin]

That means nothing to the families of those killed and to those wounded.

I understand that that was not my point. My point was the user said that in given places guns were judged to be worth the risk because no one had ( recently) gone off the handle and committed mass murder, but that is not a good agruement when there are MILLIONS of people in Texas who have guns and have not gone off the handle. In other words, people from anywhere can go off the handle and commit mas murder the fact that thankfully no one has in a given place does not mean that they could not and the fact that a few people have in a particular place have does not make it any more or less worth the risk to have guns in that place.