Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 26, 2018 15:08:55 GMT -6
Arming teachers will make matters worse, IMO. Someone who wants to murder as many people as possible won't be deterred. Rather, he'll be more determined and he'll find a way, and quite possibly with even more death and destruction. Ok, then lets leave schools no guns & add no bombs zone signs to that.. Wise arse.
|
|
|
Post by whitediamonds on Mar 26, 2018 15:11:07 GMT -6
Ok, then lets leave schools no guns & add no bombs zone signs to that.. Wise arse.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 26, 2018 15:14:45 GMT -6
Rocks? At first I thought this has to be fake news? That Super actually has a PhD. Some kind of stupid . Well, I will give him some credit, his choice of rocks is a good one. River Rocks. One rock to the back of the neck is as good as a bullet.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 26, 2018 15:17:26 GMT -6
Guess I should have been clearer. Do you really suppose a lunatic who's out to kill a lot of people is going to bother with a gun if the teachers are armed? Nah. He'll do a Mc Veigh. By the same logic, do you suppose a lunatic who's out to kill a lot of people is going to abandon his mission if sensible gun control laws prevent him from getting a gun? Nah. He'll do a McVeigh. You're right.
|
|
|
Post by whitediamonds on Mar 26, 2018 15:31:34 GMT -6
Rocks? At first I thought this has to be fake news? That Super actually has a PhD. Some kind of stupid . Well, I will give him some credit, his choice of rocks is a good one. River Rocks. One rock to the back of the neck is as good as a bullet. True, yet if your caught off guard by a shooter are you going to be able to aim that rock. What if the rocks hit student's,if all are throwing rocks? Not like the shooter will give them time to start throwing those rocks first, kinda like a gun that is not loaded & ready. Like sure wait, until I load my gun is senseless. Nah, more dead students some by bullets some by rocks flying.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 26, 2018 15:36:15 GMT -6
If I was in charge, I'd change gun laws. I'd make the age of owning a gun 21. I'd make it mandatory to be vigorously trained in gun safety and use to own a gun. I'd outlaw the sale of semi-automatic weapons like AR-15s. Would you outlaw all semi-automatics, or just the ones that have the cosmetic appearance of military hardware? Is there a difference? Really, I'm way over my head with this. I know squat about guns, semi-automatics, etc. And, I don't have any solutions. I think there's some risk that we (not me personally) *must* think is acceptable or we'd simply close schools. No schools, no school shootings.
|
|
|
Post by hawg on Mar 26, 2018 15:46:04 GMT -6
let's see, age to own at 21, yeah, because NOBODY over 21 has ever committed a mass shooting. (wait, we let 18 year olds go to war and shoot guns, hhmmm) vigorously trained, seems good but cops and soldiers are vigorously trained and they still die. oh wait, do you think you have to be "trained" NOT to commit mass shootings? outlaw AR-15's, you mean like the way we have outlawed and prevented murder in general? you know, we did essentially outlaw and severely restrict full-auto weapons (you do know the difference right?) and today nobody is shooting up schools with them, buuuut schools are still being shot up. and will still be shot up when you outlaw AR-15'S. here's an idea you can get behind. a school district in pennsylvania is now stocking classrooms with rocks to fight school shooters. is it truly possible that people can be this incredibly stupid?? oh yeah, we elected obama and almost elected hillary. yeah, this country is becoming that stupid. I'll bet they won't let them use a slingshot with those rocks though, as that might be considered an assault weapon and therefore not fair. So, your solution is to do nothing because it might not help. Sounds similar to what you accused me of. LOL Way to take what I say and say what I didn't say. Never said that my thoughts on what to do were a perfect solution. Most school shootings are committed by children (under 18) are committed by someone who got a weapon from home. IMO, parents should be charged when that happens. They either disregarded the training on gun safety or didn't get any training. Ya can't charge them if training isn't required. Regardless, in that world I run, 18 year-olds wouldn't be going to war, either. Many years ago, we decided that you had to be 21 to drink/buy alcohol and smoke/buy cigarettes because 18 year-olds aren't mature enough. I figure a person is either an adult under all circumstances ~ or not. Arming kids with rocks. Hmm. Well, in that case they oughta train them in the art of precise throwing. I don't actually think it's a stupid idea. Better than cowering under desks while their teacher is out trying to remember the combination to the lock-box his gun is in. first off i'm not so naive as to think every problem has a solution, but throwing rocks is stupid beyond all comprehension. if 18 year olds aren't mature enough to shoot why should we let them drive? here's the problem I see with "training". I've seen police "training", don't hold your breath. do you really think the drivers ed training you had, whenever, is really adequate for an emergency situation? about 30,000 to 33,000 thousand people a year aren't real impressed by it. why not require driving training every few years? cars are far more dangerous than guns. training is wonderful and should be sought, but what will happen with "mandatory" (read: government) training is that there will be a standard or score that must obtained. and when government controls the score it gets tighter and tighter until it is un-attainable. defense rights gone. how can YOU say who gets to defend themselves and who don't? what other "constitutional rights" are you willing to let the government decide "your" need for? punish parents? our system is not set up to punish people not responsible. a lot of parents would be locked up if we held them responsible for every stupid child decision or action. might as well charge victims for being victimized by thieves and burglars. better constructed schools with better controlled access and egress, better doors and windows, armed security,whatever, consider them all but don't discount the ability and right of a teacher to defend himself and others. I fully support the idea of picking "one" age of adulthood. 18 or 21, I really don't care but pick one, not two. by the way how many guns do you own and how often do YOU shoot? or is this one of those 'no skin off my nose' solutions?
|
|
|
Post by hawg on Mar 26, 2018 15:52:17 GMT -6
To add to that we do not have the draft anymore for sometime, if an 18 yr old elects to join he will not be out shooting up kids in school or anyone. By the time he gets out he would be 21 yrs old. Hawg said my link did not work, about shelter in place Oklahoma is thinking of doing. I placed aanother post with the link, stating this link does now work. No comment for that idea either. So, yes I agree he does not provide or like any solutions at all. relax, I read it. from what I could tell EVERY single classroom would have to have one. I think better school construction with better security controls, doors, windows, even walls, better controlled access and egress would be just as effective and possibly even more cost effective. however, as I saw those kids pill into that space, I would take my chances with whatever the threat is. I'm EXTREMELY claustrophobic and would personally kill everyone inside with my bare hands trying to get out. but that's just me.
|
|
|
Post by whitediamonds on Mar 26, 2018 16:00:52 GMT -6
To add to that we do not have the draft anymore for sometime, if an 18 yr old elects to join he will not be out shooting up kids in school or anyone. By the time he gets out he would be 21 yrs old. Hawg said my link did not work, about shelter in place Oklahoma is thinking of doing. I placed aanother post with the link, stating this link does now work. No comment for that idea either. So, yes I agree he does not provide or like any solutions at all. relax, I read it. from what I could tell EVERY single classroom would have to have one. I think better school construction with better security controls, doors, windows, even walls, better controlled access and egress would be just as effective and possibly even more cost effective. however, as I saw those kids pill into that space, I would take my chances with whatever the threat is. I'm EXTREMELY claustrophobic and would personally kill everyone inside with my bare hands trying to get out. but that's just me. I am relaxed. Rebuild every school? Your idea would take ages, Cost effective your idea I find hard to buy. It would stall for lots of time. Scary to hear a cop( was ) state he would kill everyone.............................
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 26, 2018 16:41:33 GMT -6
So, your solution is to do nothing because it might not help. Sounds similar to what you accused me of. LOL Way to take what I say and say what I didn't say. Never said that my thoughts on what to do were a perfect solution. Most school shootings are committed by children (under 18) are committed by someone who got a weapon from home. IMO, parents should be charged when that happens. They either disregarded the training on gun safety or didn't get any training. Ya can't charge them if training isn't required. Regardless, in that world I run, 18 year-olds wouldn't be going to war, either. Many years ago, we decided that you had to be 21 to drink/buy alcohol and smoke/buy cigarettes because 18 year-olds aren't mature enough. I figure a person is either an adult under all circumstances ~ or not. Arming kids with rocks. Hmm. Well, in that case they oughta train them in the art of precise throwing. I don't actually think it's a stupid idea. Better than cowering under desks while their teacher is out trying to remember the combination to the lock-box his gun is in. first off i'm not so naive as to think every problem has a solution, but throwing rocks is stupid beyond all comprehension. if 18 year olds aren't mature enough to shoot why should we let them drive? here's the problem I see with "training". I've seen police "training", don't hold your breath. do you really think the drivers ed training you had, whenever, is really adequate for an emergency situation? about 30,000 to 33,000 thousand people a year aren't real impressed by it. why not require driving training every few years? cars are far more dangerous than guns. training is wonderful and should be sought, but what will happen with "mandatory" (read: government) training is that there will be a standard or score that must obtained. and when government controls the score it gets tighter and tighter until it is un-attainable. defense rights gone. how can YOU say who gets to defend themselves and who don't? what other "constitutional rights" are you willing to let the government decide "your" need for? punish parents? our system is not set up to punish people not responsible. a lot of parents would be locked up if we held them responsible for every stupid child decision or action. might as well charge victims for being victimized by thieves and burglars. better constructed schools with better controlled access and egress, better doors and windows, armed security,whatever, consider them all but don't discount the ability and right of a teacher to defend himself and others. I fully support the idea of picking "one" age of adulthood. 18 or 21, I really don't care but pick one, not two. by the way how many guns do you own and how often do YOU shoot? or is this one of those 'no skin off my nose' solutions? Didn't say you're naive and certainly wouldn't suggest you are ~ you're far more in the know about guns than I. Like I said to Bernard, I really have no solutions. Parents are held responsible all the time for the stupidity of their kids. When they themselves act irresponsibly and don't keep their guns safely out of their children's hands, the kid isn't to blame ~ the parent is. It's no different, to my mind, than the kid getting into their mom's meds and overdosing. She's charged because it was her responsibility to prevent that. How does that compare AT ALL with blaming victims for being victimized? I get your point about teachers having the right to defend themselves and others. How far would you take that? Should we all just carry? Everywhere? Wild-west style? And, what'll be the consequences of teachers (in particular) carrying guns in school? I don't presently own a gun. I used to. Someone else in my home does, however, and I do believe in our right to own a gun. I just want it done responsibly and believe there must be limitations. And, like it or not, those limitation must be put down by the government. I think that arming teachers is another quick fix, low budget, we're gonna pretend to care solution, because it'll make us feel safe. Better security is the only real (not perfect) solution. Poor teachers. They aren't even paid enough to teach, or given enough money to do their jobs properly. Now, we expect them to be security guards, too. Question: Do we supply their guns and training or do we expect them to pay for that as well?
|
|
|
Post by hawg on Mar 26, 2018 17:47:59 GMT -6
relax, I read it. from what I could tell EVERY single classroom would have to have one. I think better school construction with better security controls, doors, windows, even walls, better controlled access and egress would be just as effective and possibly even more cost effective. however, as I saw those kids pill into that space, I would take my chances with whatever the threat is. I'm EXTREMELY claustrophobic and would personally kill everyone inside with my bare hands trying to get out. but that's just me. Scary to hear a cop( was ) state he would kill everyone............................. now you're not serious right? you couldn't grasp the tongue in cheek response of a very claustrophobic person in an extremely close space?
|
|
|
Post by hawg on Mar 26, 2018 17:51:51 GMT -6
relax, I read it. from what I could tell EVERY single classroom would have to have one. I think better school construction with better security controls, doors, windows, even walls, better controlled access and egress would be just as effective and possibly even more cost effective. however, as I saw those kids pill into that space, I would take my chances with whatever the threat is. I'm EXTREMELY claustrophobic and would personally kill everyone inside with my bare hands trying to get out. but that's just me. Rebuild every school? no, but they remodel all the time and of course future builds. I don't know the costs. maybe for the time constraints, the little honeycombs would work. I didn't see the bathroom issues addressed? did I miss it?
|
|
|
Post by whitediamonds on Mar 26, 2018 17:54:24 GMT -6
Scary to hear a cop( was ) state he would kill everyone............................. now you're not serious right? you couldn't grasp the tongue in cheek response of a very claustrophobic person in an extremely close space? Oh, that makes me feel so much better. As long as I do not get stuck in a elevator with you in it. Tongue in cheek.
|
|
|
Post by hawg on Mar 26, 2018 18:01:27 GMT -6
first off i'm not so naive as to think every problem has a solution, but throwing rocks is stupid beyond all comprehension. if 18 year olds aren't mature enough to shoot why should we let them drive? here's the problem I see with "training". I've seen police "training", don't hold your breath. do you really think the drivers ed training you had, whenever, is really adequate for an emergency situation? about 30,000 to 33,000 thousand people a year aren't real impressed by it. why not require driving training every few years? cars are far more dangerous than guns. training is wonderful and should be sought, but what will happen with "mandatory" (read: government) training is that there will be a standard or score that must obtained. and when government controls the score it gets tighter and tighter until it is un-attainable. defense rights gone. how can YOU say who gets to defend themselves and who don't? what other "constitutional rights" are you willing to let the government decide "your" need for? punish parents? our system is not set up to punish people not responsible. a lot of parents would be locked up if we held them responsible for every stupid child decision or action. might as well charge victims for being victimized by thieves and burglars. better constructed schools with better controlled access and egress, better doors and windows, armed security,whatever, consider them all but don't discount the ability and right of a teacher to defend himself and others. I fully support the idea of picking "one" age of adulthood. 18 or 21, I really don't care but pick one, not two. by the way how many guns do you own and how often do YOU shoot? or is this one of those 'no skin off my nose' solutions? Didn't say you're naive and certainly wouldn't suggest you are ~ you're far more in the know about guns than I. Like I said to Bernard, I really have no solutions. Parents are held responsible all the time for the stupidity of their kids. When they themselves act irresponsibly and don't keep their guns safely out of their children's hands, the kid isn't to blame ~ the parent is. It's no different, to my mind, than the kid getting into their mom's meds and overdosing. She's charged because it was her responsibility to prevent that. How does that compare AT ALL with blaming victims for being victimized? with an estimated 130 million guns in 100 million peoples hands and only an extremely few kids shooting schools up I would say most kids are well trained by their parents and respectful of firearms. unless it can be shown that parents are very negligent (crack heads ect) then spanking a few of them isn't much of an answer. hell, we can't even get enough actual killers executed, don't think spanking a few parents will do it. parents who teach their kids firearms safety and then the kid still manages to steal a family gun and goes crazy is exactly the same as blaming a homeowner because a burglar broke into his home and stole a gun.
|
|
|
Post by hawg on Mar 26, 2018 18:02:56 GMT -6
now you're not serious right? you couldn't grasp the tongue in cheek response of a very claustrophobic person in an extremely close space? Oh, that makes me feel so much better. As long as I do not get stuck in a elevator with you in it. Tongue in cheek. you'll be fine....alone. but if you bring 20 friends I offer no promises.
|
|
|
Post by whitediamonds on Mar 26, 2018 18:05:49 GMT -6
Oh, that makes me feel so much better. As long as I do not get stuck in a elevator with you in it. Tongue in cheek. you'll be fine....alone. but if you bring 20 friends I offer no promises. My 20 friends carry. I offer no promises.
|
|
|
Post by hawg on Mar 26, 2018 18:20:52 GMT -6
first off i'm not so naive as to think every problem has a solution, but throwing rocks is stupid beyond all comprehension. if 18 year olds aren't mature enough to shoot why should we let them drive? here's the problem I see with "training". I've seen police "training", don't hold your breath. do you really think the drivers ed training you had, whenever, is really adequate for an emergency situation? about 30,000 to 33,000 thousand people a year aren't real impressed by it. why not require driving training every few years? cars are far more dangerous than guns. training is wonderful and should be sought, but what will happen with "mandatory" (read: government) training is that there will be a standard or score that must obtained. and when government controls the score it gets tighter and tighter until it is un-attainable. defense rights gone. how can YOU say who gets to defend themselves and who don't? what other "constitutional rights" are you willing to let the government decide "your" need for? punish parents? our system is not set up to punish people not responsible. a lot of parents would be locked up if we held them responsible for every stupid child decision or action. might as well charge victims for being victimized by thieves and burglars. better constructed schools with better controlled access and egress, better doors and windows, armed security,whatever, consider them all but don't discount the ability and right of a teacher to defend himself and others. I fully support the idea of picking "one" age of adulthood. 18 or 21, I really don't care but pick one, not two. by the way how many guns do you own and how often do YOU shoot? or is this one of those 'no skin off my nose' solutions? I get your point about teachers having the right to defend themselves and others. How far would you take that? Should we all just carry? Everywhere? Wild-west style? And, what'll be the consequences of teachers (in particular) carrying guns in school? Question: Do we supply their guns and training or do we expect them to pay for that as well? how far would I take it? not my call. it's up to the teachers. I wonder how many teachers in any school shooting situation would have given their pensions for a gun? should we all carry? your life, your call. the WHOLE point of the 2nd amendment rights and freedom. well over 16 million people in this country have concealed carry permits, wild west style I suppose. feel free to name the problems with these folks. and the teachers consequences? same as the 16 million ccw holders, teachers get no pass. if you carry, know the laws. make no mistake a defensive handgun is exactly the same as a seatbelt, motorcycle helmet, floatation device or fire extinquisher. and some of those we require use by law. so how do we tell teachers they can't use whatever they think is best for defense? I am absolutely NOT recommending forcing teachers to train and carry a gun, but by the same token you can't force a teacher to go defenseless. so there fore it's voluntary and they can buy their guns but yes, we should provide training.
|
|
|
Post by hawg on Mar 26, 2018 18:22:12 GMT -6
you'll be fine....alone. but if you bring 20 friends I offer no promises. My 20 friends carry. I offer no promises. super, then they can put me out of my claustrophobic misery.
|
|
|
Post by hawg on Mar 26, 2018 18:31:37 GMT -6
first off i'm not so naive as to think every problem has a solution, but throwing rocks is stupid beyond all comprehension. if 18 year olds aren't mature enough to shoot why should we let them drive? here's the problem I see with "training". I've seen police "training", don't hold your breath. do you really think the drivers ed training you had, whenever, is really adequate for an emergency situation? about 30,000 to 33,000 thousand people a year aren't real impressed by it. why not require driving training every few years? cars are far more dangerous than guns. training is wonderful and should be sought, but what will happen with "mandatory" (read: government) training is that there will be a standard or score that must obtained. and when government controls the score it gets tighter and tighter until it is un-attainable. defense rights gone. how can YOU say who gets to defend themselves and who don't? what other "constitutional rights" are you willing to let the government decide "your" need for? punish parents? our system is not set up to punish people not responsible. a lot of parents would be locked up if we held them responsible for every stupid child decision or action. might as well charge victims for being victimized by thieves and burglars. better constructed schools with better controlled access and egress, better doors and windows, armed security,whatever, consider them all but don't discount the ability and right of a teacher to defend himself and others. I fully support the idea of picking "one" age of adulthood. 18 or 21, I really don't care but pick one, not two. by the way how many guns do you own and how often do YOU shoot? or is this one of those 'no skin off my nose' solutions? .... and I do believe in our right to own a gun. I just want it done responsibly and believe there must be limitations. And, like it or not, those limitation must be put down by the government. I've read where there are 20,000 local, state and federal gun laws. (limitations) and guns are the only consumer product in which FBI permission is required to purchase. prescriptions narcotics don't even require it. so just how many more limitations do we need? kind of a far cry from "shall NOT be infringed", don't ya think?
|
|
|
Post by bernard on Mar 27, 2018 2:04:47 GMT -6
they'll just do something "different" so why try? that's your plan? If I was in charge, I'd change gun laws. I'd make the age of owning a gun 21. I'd make it mandatory to be vigorously trained in gun safety and use to own a gun. I'd outlaw the sale of semi-automatic weapons like AR-15s. Arming teachers will make matters worse, IMO. Someone who wants to murder as many people as possible won't be deterred. Rather, he'll be more determined and he'll find a way, and quite possibly with even more death and destruction. What is your evidence for believing this? What is your evidence for believing this? History. Human nature. You bring your stick and I'll bring my hand-full of rocks... you send your attack planes, we'll drop an atomic bomb.... Though I must also add that someone packing a semi-automatic has little to fear from someone who has to first access the gun he's going to use, possibly load it, and then get off a shot or two. I don't understand. If you believe that sensible gun control laws would stop the creep from getting a gun, you must surely believe that our rocket launcher control laws currently work to stop him getting a rocket launcher. Hence there is already a ceiling on what weaponry he can reasonably acquire. He cannot forever one-up his victims. Well, unless his victim is forever ready to one-up the attacker, then, yes, he sure can. My point was that he would hit the legal limit for the weapons that can legally be acquired. Assuming that such legal restrictions work (and you seemed to be assuming exactly that) the arms race would stop there. If you like, try my quiz: 1. Is passing laws against weapon X effective in stopping creeps from getting their hands on weapon X? If you think YES, go to 2. If you think NO, go to 3. 2. Then, thanks to present laws, the creep can't get weapons more hardcore than a semi-automatic. So if we arm the schools with semi-automatics, the creeps can't one-up the school. 3. Then there is no use passing new laws to control firearms. Those do not work to stop the creeps from getting the guns. We have to look at other solutions like arming the schools.
|
|
|
Post by bernard on Mar 27, 2018 2:49:06 GMT -6
Would you outlaw all semi-automatics, or just the ones that have the cosmetic appearance of military hardware? Is there a difference? What is an automatic? A machine gun. If you keep the trigger pulled, you can produce rapid-fire bursts. Then we should make those illegal! They're already illegal to produce for sale in the US. Yeah, but you can buy them at gun shows!! No you can't. It is impossible to legally buy a new automatic anywhere. But you can buy old automatics. Old (>30 yrs) and relatively rare collectors' items, yes. About 7000 dollars, for high end rampage killers.
With no background check!! Actually, to even get one of these old, expensive weapons you need to jump through a LOT of hoops. Additional taxes, registration, background checks, passport photos and a signature from your chief law enforcement official.So how come rampage killers keep getting their hands on them? They don't. Rampage killers have only ever used semi-automatic weapons.
What is a semi-automatic? A gun that automatically gets another bullet ready after you fire, but doesn't fire until you pull the trigger again. Like a machine gun? No. Not in the slightest. For a semi-automatic, one trigger pull = one shot, maximum. Another name for "semi-automatic" is "assault rifle", right? No. Assault rifles are a special kind of semi-automatic rifle that are styled to look like machine guns. Most other rifles and handguns, however, are also semi-automatic. Nobody needs an assault rifle! Maybe not. But they are no more dangerous than any other semi-automatic. But don't they fire more rapidly? No. All semi-automatics fire at the same rate. As fast as you can keep pulling the trigger, but no faster.
You mean like an ordinary gun? Exactly. Most ordinary guns are semi-automatics. An ordinary revolver, for example, is a semi-automatic.
So what's the difference between an ordinary gun and an assault rifle? In terms of firing rate, there isn't one. One trigger pull = one shot. Wanna shoot two bullets? Pull the trigger twice. But the media says that assault weapons are different. They're "military style"!
They're "military style" only in the sense that they look like military weapons. The difference is principally cosmetic.Ah. But assault weapons take large clips. You can fire them more times before you have to reload. True. Though a rampage killer would get roughly the same advantage using multiple preloaded handguns that he simply discards when empty. So why do rampage killers normally use assault rifles? They don't. Most rampage fatalities result from handguns. (In fact, most firearm homicides of any kind result from handguns.) Why? Probably because handguns are easier to carry and hide. "Assault rifles", in contrast, are conspicuous and hard to conceal. They are cumbersome, foolish weapons for civilians with murderous intent.Well let's just make them illegal anyway. Okay. But we've done it before and it didn't make any difference. Why not? Because assault rifles were never the problem. They are not the firearm of choice for any kind of murder. We just banned them for looking mean.
|
|
|
Post by hawg on Mar 27, 2018 10:54:40 GMT -6
Execellant bernard, execellant. But the people you're talking to have interest in facts
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 27, 2018 15:00:02 GMT -6
Didn't say you're naive and certainly wouldn't suggest you are ~ you're far more in the know about guns than I. Like I said to Bernard, I really have no solutions. Parents are held responsible all the time for the stupidity of their kids. When they themselves act irresponsibly and don't keep their guns safely out of their children's hands, the kid isn't to blame ~ the parent is. It's no different, to my mind, than the kid getting into their mom's meds and overdosing. She's charged because it was her responsibility to prevent that. How does that compare AT ALL with blaming victims for being victimized? with an estimated 130 million guns in 100 million peoples hands and only an extremely few kids shooting schools up I would say most kids are well trained by their parents and respectful of firearms. unless it can be shown that parents are very negligent (crack heads ect) then spanking a few of them isn't much of an answer. hell, we can't even get enough actual killers executed, don't think spanking a few parents will do it. parents who teach their kids firearms safety and then the kid still manages to steal a family gun and goes crazy is exactly the same as blaming a homeowner because a burglar broke into his home and stole a gun. Touche. And, largely, good point, that I agree with. You can do everything right, and still things go bad, so blaming parents isn't (necessarily) fair.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 27, 2018 15:23:53 GMT -6
Thank you, Bernard, for your explanation. And, thank you, Hawg for your patience. Between you, you've convince me that I'm wrong. And, as WD can attest, I'm rarely wrong ;~)
|
|
|
Post by hawg on Mar 27, 2018 17:25:38 GMT -6
Thank you, Bernard, for your explanation. And, thank you, Hawg for your patience. Between you, you've convince me that I'm wrong. And, as WD can attest, I'm rarely wrong ;~) you're welcome but not at all trying to prove you wrong. We just want folks to be informed
|
|
|
Post by whitediamonds on Mar 27, 2018 18:44:26 GMT -6
Thank you, Bernard, for your explanation. And, thank you, Hawg for your patience. Between you, you've convince me that I'm wrong. And, as WD can attest, I'm rarely wrong ;~) In the years you have been here, I have only known you to be wrong once WW.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 28, 2018 11:41:46 GMT -6
So, now what'll we fight about?
|
|
|
Post by hawg on Mar 28, 2018 15:42:08 GMT -6
So, now what'll we fight about? Well, elections are coming up.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 28, 2018 19:12:59 GMT -6
Hawg, are you new to this site or just under a new name? Your arguing style seems familiar.
|
|
|
Post by hawg on Mar 28, 2018 21:47:41 GMT -6
Hawg, are you new to this site or just under a new name? Your arguing style seems familiar. I used to be LTDC. Retired and no longer had a computer, cause I hate them, until recently.
|
|