Arapahoe HS Shooting

[Crossbones]

Push for armed teachers in the schools. At the end of the day though, those are your kids we are talking about. It is your responsibility to protect them, not mine.

The funny thing about these argument seems to be the assumption that, because a person is in the right, they would be the better gunfighter. After all, the Nazis did pretty well in WWII for 3 years. So, I’m going to arm a teacher and expect that they be able to defend themselves against anyone with a gun. 60 year old Miss Crantree will pull out her glock and take down the bad guy. Is that really how we envision this happening?

 

[Cricket2]

Business X offers its employees a discount for items bought at its stores. I’m not an employee of Business X, have never been an employee, don’t ever plan to be an employee, haven’t even bothered to fill out the paperwork to apply for a job at Business X; but I do legally shop there on a regular basis. Does Business X owe me something it has reserved for its employees simply because I don’t break the law when shopping at its stores?

The legal status of a non-citizen has nothing to do with his/her right to vote. Citizenship does (and, this applies to citizens as well, age, mental capacity, and criminal record). A legal non-citizen has the same “right” to vote as an illegal non-citizen, underage citizen, mentally disabled citizen (I believe its based on a legal standard of mental capacity versus a medical standard), and a citizen who is a felon, namely no “right” to vote.

I think once a person has served their sentence in jail/prison they should be allowed to vote. After all they have been deemed as having paid for what they did wrong.
I also think that a person needs to be in the country legally. If you are here illegally you don’t have the right to vote. That is part of the constitution. If you want to vote become a citizen just like the rest of us who followed the law. (Legal Aliens do not have the right to vote.) As far a mental capacity, did you know that developmentally disabled adults can vote? Most of the individuals I worked with had no more than a two -five year old’s capacity to understand anything, but they can vote. Just try and stop them and you will find yourself dealing with their “Human Rights Board.”

 

[Geist]

The funny thing about these argument seems to be the assumption that, because a person is in the right, they would be the better gunfighter. After all, the Nazis did pretty well in WWII for 3 years. So, I’m going to arm a teacher and expect that they be able to defend themselves against anyone with a gun. 60 year old Miss Crantree will pull out her glock and take down the bad guy. Is that really how we envision this happening?

Shootout>massacre

 

[starshiptrooper]

The funny thing about these argument seems to be the assumption that, because a person is in the right, they would be the better gunfighter. After all, the Nazis did pretty well in WWII for 3 years. So, I’m going to arm a teacher and expect that they be able to defend themselves against anyone with a gun. 60 year old Miss Crantree will pull out her glock and take down the bad guy. Is that really how we envision this happening?

The only assumption here your claim that other people are assuming things.

I would much rather be in a situation where both the good guy and the bad guy have guns, even if the good guy is not especially proficient, as opposed to a situation where only the bad guy is armed.

 

[oldcatholicguy]

So, what the SC says is good to go? Well, I’ll stop wasting my time with Roe v. Wade then.

It has to do with rights being restricted, which is a large point of my argument and a counter to your “religious freedom” argument.

I don’t view gunowners as a threat; just with great freedom comes great responsibility. If you are going to have weapons that can kill 30 kids in a few minutes, call me crazy, but I think you should secure those weapons properly from your mentally ill child. If you can’t be counted on doing so, then it becomes necessary for the government to take precautions and those precautions cost money. I mean, you can say what you want about knifes, whatever, but Newtown doesn’t happen if that kid shows up with a butcher knife. Out of 12664 murders in the US in 2011, 8583 (or 67%) were with firearms.

Now, you can say, as you do below that I should pay for that, after all, I have kids. And that’s great. What I really appreciate is how quickly these arguments degenerate into why you should have all the rights and I should burden all the costs of your rights.

There are restrictions of rights and there are taxes that are targeted to pay for certain items. Let’s be clear; these were YOUR examples that I was addressing. You brought them up; I addressed them down and now you say that my examples are poor, when they are in fact your examples.

Fine, let’s play your game. A lot of Americans don’t have children. Here is a small list you, being a parent, are selfishly making them pay for-
-our educational system from Pre-k all the way up to college
-child protective services
-court system- family court, juvenile court, child support cases, custody cases, crimes against minors (such as physical and sexual abuse)
-law enforcement, court actions, and imprisonment of juvenile offenders
-Child safety laws in regards to products
-Child safety laws in regards to child labor
-upgraded security at schools (no selfish adults demanding they have the right to have a family = no need for schools or increased security of them)

Married? Here’s some more-
-law enforcement and court actions concerning domestic disputes and divorce
-joint filling under our tax code and all the paperwork involved in creating the ability to fill jointly

Those are all off the top of my head. By your own argument concerning gun owners exercising their right to own fire arms, you must agree that those selfish people who exercise their right to have and raise children and get married should be the ones who are financially responsible. By your own logic its not “fair” that single and/or childless citizens should have to pay for the above since they aren’t the ones causing the need for them.

As someone pointed out earlier, your kids (you stated earlier you are a parent) are the reason we have to have schools. Needing increased security at the schools isn’t the fault of gun owners, but the fault of parents for placing the burden of needing schools on to society.

The icing on the cake, almost all these mass shootings you are so up in arms about were done by kids. Yet another reason we need to make people pay additional fees/taxes if they want to have children.

Bottom line- your argument isn’t very well thought out and is full of fatal flaws.

 

[oldcatholicguy]

I think once a person has served their sentence in jail/prison they should be allowed to vote. After all they have been deemed as having paid for what they did wrong.
I also think that a person needs to be in the country legally. If you are here illegally you don’t have the right to vote. That is part of the constitution. If you want to vote become a citizen just like the rest of us who followed the law. (Legal Aliens do not have the right to vote.) As far a mental capacity, did you know that developmentally disabled adults can vote? Most of the individuals I worked with had no more than a two -five year old’s capacity to understand anything, but they can vote. Just try and stop them and you will find yourself dealing with their “Human Rights Board.”

-Mental health- Yes I know most mentally disabled adults can vote. However there are some who can not vote because they have been deemed (usually by a court) as incompetent. My example was referring the latter (been deemed mentaly unfit by a court)not the former (the general populace of citizens with mental disabilities).

-The Constitution really doesn’t address the legal/illegal status of non-citizens. It does address the fact that the only people who have a right to vote (though it can be taken away or limited- see prior post) are citizens. When it comes to voting, legal non-citizens and illegal non-citizens both get the same answer- no.

 

[Djames581]

Its all negligence of Government who allow illegal arms some special people of this country. They are misusing their rights.

 

[tarboy]

So, what the SC says is good to go? Well, I’ll stop wasting my time with Roe v. Wade then.

What are you talking about? For all Intent and purpose Roe v. Wade was superseded by Casey v. Planned Parenthood.

It has to do with rights being restricted, which is a large point of my argument and a counter to your “religious freedom” argument.

Why would you tax legal gun owners extremely high fees when illegal owners are the problem children?

I don’t view gunowners as a threat; just with great freedom comes great responsibility. If you are going to have weapons that can kill 30 kids in a few minutes, call me crazy, but I think you should secure those weapons properly from your mentally ill child. If you can’t be counted on doing so, then it becomes necessary for the government to take precautions and those precautions cost money. I mean, you can say what you want about knifes, whatever, but Newtown doesn’t happen if that kid shows up with a butcher knife. Out of 12664 murders in the US in 2011, 8583 (or 67%) were with firearms.

• Using a car, or a can of gasoline one can easily kill 30 kids in a few minutes. It’s all about intent.
• Homicide is no longer in top 15 causes of death (let alone Homicide by gun). Your argument works better if you start at the top and work down. Targeting only one cause and not even proving causation is bigoted. Also, people committing murder are not acting rationally

The funny thing about these argument seems to be the assumption that, because a person is in the right, they would be the better gunfighter. After all, the Nazis did pretty well in WWII for 3 years. So, I’m going to arm a teacher and expect that they be able to defend themselves against anyone with a gun. 60 year old Miss Crantree will pull out her glock and take down the bad guy. Is that really how we envision this happening?

• Statistically you have a good chance bad guy will just commit suicide when challenged, so the odds swing towards the good guy, even if he/she can’t hit side of barn. They also distract shooter from continued killing, saving lives until backup arrives.
• Nobody has said every teacher should be armed, just that somebody who’s armed and trained can make a difference. Heck, even the general belief that some teachers might be armed will deter some attacks.

 

[Crossbones]

Fine, let’s play your game. A lot of Americans don’t have children. Here is a small list you, being a parent, are selfishly making them pay for-
-our educational system from Pre-k all the way up to college
-child protective services
-court system- family court, juvenile court, child support cases, custody cases, crimes against minors (such as physical and sexual abuse)
-law enforcement, court actions, and imprisonment of juvenile offenders
-Child safety laws in regards to products
-Child safety laws in regards to child labor
-upgraded security at schools (no selfish adults demanding they have the right to have a family = no need for schools or increased security of them)

Married? Here’s some more-
-law enforcement and court actions concerning domestic disputes and divorce
-joint filling under our tax code and all the paperwork involved in creating the ability to fill jointly

Those are all off the top of my head. By your own argument concerning gun owners exercising their right to own fire arms, you must agree that those selfish people who exercise their right to have and raise children and get married should be the ones who are financially responsible. By your own logic its not “fair” that single and/or childless citizens should have to pay for the above since they aren’t the ones causing the need for them.

As someone pointed out earlier, your kids (you stated earlier you are a parent) are the reason we have to have schools. Needing increased security at the schools isn’t the fault of gun owners, but the fault of parents for placing the burden of needing schools on to society.

The icing on the cake, almost all these mass shootings you are so up in arms about were done by kids. Yet another reason we need to make people pay additional fees/taxes if they want to have children.

Bottom line- your argument isn’t very well thought out and is full of fatal flaws.

No, I don’t agree. Government has determined that certain costs associate with children benefit all of society and hence the costs associated by them should be burdened by all society. If you disagree, then say so, but I expect your argument is not your belief, but an attempt to make me see your point of view.

The right to own a gun doesn’t benefit all society, but the individual owning the weapon. I’m not safer because you own a gun, no matter what you think. Hence, the costs of such a right should be burdened by those who exercise the right, as I’ve already pointed out that the government has created limitations to rights and targeted taxes associated with such rights if they violate other rights (like the right to life).

 

[Crossbones]

Why would you tax legal gun owners extremely high fees when illegal owners are the problem children?

• Using a car, or a can of gasoline one can easily kill 30 kids in a few minutes. It’s all about intent.
• Homicide is no longer in top 15 causes of death (let alone Homicide by gun). Your argument works better if you start at the top and work down. Targeting only one cause and not even proving causation is bigoted. Also, people committing murder are not acting rationally
• Statistically you have a good chance bad guy will just commit suicide when challenged, so the odds swing towards the good guy, even if he/she can’t hit side of barn. They also distract shooter from continued killing, saving lives until backup arrives.
• Nobody has said every teacher should be armed, just that somebody who’s armed and trained can make a difference. Heck, even the general belief that some teachers might be armed will deter some attacks.

It is interesting to me that you would post without reading all the background behind it to understand how we reached this point in the discussion. For example, OldCatholicGuy says that most violent crimes aren’t committed by guns, I point out that 2/3rd of murders are committed by guns and you say that I’m picking on one type of death, like somehow in a discussion of a school shooting, I shouldn’t be bringing up deaths by firearms.

 

[Geist]

No one else seems to have brought this up:

bearingarms.com/good-guy-with-a-gun-armed-school-officer-stopped-arapahoe/

Armed school resource officer ended this in 80 seconds.

Police arrived 14 minutes after shots first fired.

The rampage might have resulted in many more casualties had it not been for the quick response of a deputy sheriff who was working as a school resource officer at the school, Robinson said.

Once he learned of the threat, he ran — accompanied by an unarmed school security officer and two administrators — from the cafeteria to the library, Robinson said. “It’s a fairly long hallway, but the deputy sheriff got there very quickly.”
The deputy was yelling for people to get down and identified himself as a county deputy sheriff, Robinson said. “We know for a fact that the shooter knew that the deputy was in the immediate area and, while the deputy was containing the shooter, the shooter took his own life.”

He praised the deputy’s response as “a critical element to the shooter’s decision” to kill himself, and lauded his response to hearing gunshots. “He went to the thunder,” he said. “He heard the noise of gunshot and, when many would run away from it, he ran toward it to make other people safe.”

 

[Gricken]

Ok, I’ll assume that your list is valid. But how many of those in that list got their guns legally? This is a relevant question to ask since stricter gun laws only prevent gun crimes of the people who acquire their guns legally before deciding to commit a crime with it. And there are a lot of people who acquire a gun legally but who never commit a crime with it. Can you explain why urban cities like Chicago and Washington D.C. typically have the highest gun crime rates despite having some of the strictest gun control laws in the country?

In all honesty this sounds like moving the goalposts.

 

[Lost_Sheep]

No need for smarty pants replies. People have the right to own guns and I support that right, however, we have let things get out of control. People are getting their hands on guns that I believe belong only in the hands of the military or police. And anyone wanting to buy a gun should have a background check and be required to wait at least 30 days to buy it if they want.

So you are saying that if a women is being threatened by her ex-husband that she has to wait 30 days before she is allowed to defend herself?

 

[Lost_Sheep]

So the shooter was a liberal Democrat.

Actually, his beliefs were more like that of a socialist.

denverpost.com/news/ci_24721367/arapahoe-high-gunman-held-strong-political-beliefs-classmates

 

[Geist]

Actually, his beliefs were more like that of a socialist.

denverpost.com/news/ci_24721367/arapahoe-high-gunman-held-strong-political-beliefs-classmates

Liberal Democrats/“progressives” are socialists.

 

[Lost_Sheep]

When the Boston Marathon massacre happened earlier this year, everyone blamed the bombers; not the bombs. No one proposed a ban on pressure cookers.

So why is it that whenever there is a shooting everyone wants to blame the gun instead of the shooter, and start asking for a gun ban?

 

[oldcatholicguy]

No, I don’t agree. Government has determined that certain costs associate with children benefit all of society and hence the costs associated by them should be burdened by all society. If you disagree, then say so, but I expect your argument is not your belief, but an attempt to make me see your point of view.

The right to own a gun doesn’t benefit all society, but the individual owning the weapon. I’m not safer because you own a gun, no matter what you think. Hence, the costs of such a right should be burdened by those who exercise the right, as I’ve already pointed out that the government has created limitations to rights and targeted taxes associated with such rights if they violate other rights (like the right to life).

-Would you like me to go back and quote your past comments which mention nothing about how gun owners need to have an additional burden placed upon them for the benefit of society, but because you feel that as a non-gun owner you shouldn’t have your “right” to property limited in order to make schools safer? Up to this point, your entire argument has been about how it’s unfair you should have to pay for your kids’ schools to be safer because of rare (yes, gun violence at schools is actually rare) attacks on schools.

-If you wish to now argue its a benefit to society thing, you’ll need to first prove a) the government has determined that children are a benefit, b) the government has determined gun ownership isn’t, and c) our rights as codified in the Constitution are dependent on them being a benefit to society and not because they are inherent rights the government can’t take away (good luck proving this).

-Government limitations on rights are specifically for those who have done something illegal or violated said rights. The government can’t limit the rights or place an unreasonable burden on someone who hasn’t done anything wrong. Felons can’t have firearms and can’t vote, ordinary Joe Citizen who has done nothing wrong can’t have his rights to own a firearm or vote removed. Last I checked, owning a firearm isn’t a crime.

-The government can regulate rights- hence background checks, requirement for a permit, conditions on how the weapon is carried in public, no automatic weapons without a lot of checks, registration, and control.

-But, the government can’t place an unreasonable burden on someone through regulation or penalize someone for exercising their right. Your idea of making gun owners pay for security upgrades to schools is a)unreasonable given the already existing need for security at schools (or are you going to argue everything was Mayberry security wise before these recent gun attacks?) and b) its a penalty in line with people having to pay in order to exercise their right to vote.

 

[oldcatholicguy]

When the Boston Marathon massacre happened earlier this year, everyone blamed the bombers; not the bombs. No one proposed a ban on pressure cookers.

So why is it that whenever there is a shooting everyone wants to blame the gun instead of the shooter, and start asking for a gun ban?

Because its easier to blame the guns and take them away then to admit our society is messed up and needs to be fixed.

 

[Cricket2]

Fine, let’s play your game. A lot of Americans don’t have children. Here is a small list you, being a parent, are selfishly making them pay for-
-our educational system from Pre-k all the way up to college
-child protective services
-court system- family court, juvenile court, child support cases, custody cases, crimes against minors (such as physical and sexual abuse)
-law enforcement, court actions, and imprisonment of juvenile offenders
-Child safety laws in regards to products
-Child safety laws in regards to child labor
-upgraded security at schools (no selfish adults demanding they have the right to have a family = no need for schools or increased security of them)

Married? Here’s some more-
-law enforcement and court actions concerning domestic disputes and divorce
-joint filling under our tax code and all the paperwork involved in creating the ability to fill jointly

Those are all off the top of my head. By your own argument concerning gun owners exercising their right to own fire arms, you must agree that those selfish people who exercise their right to have and raise children and get married should be the ones who are financially responsible. By your own logic its not “fair” that single and/or childless citizens should have to pay for the above since they aren’t the ones causing the need for them.

As someone pointed out earlier, your kids (you stated earlier you are a parent) are the reason we have to have schools. Needing increased security at the schools isn’t the fault of gun owners, but the fault of parents for placing the burden of needing schools on to society.

The icing on the cake, almost all these mass shootings you are so up in arms about were done by kids. Yet another reason we need to make people pay additional fees/taxes if they want to have children.

Bottom line- your argument isn’t very well thought out and is full of fatal flaws.

We all need to pay taxes to cover the basic needs of running a country such as repairing and developing our infrastructure (long neglected), schools and education, law enforcement etc. The problem is not about paying taxes for something I or someone else does not specifically use or agree with. Taxes are necessary and too many people groan about them. I do think we need to insist they are put to the intended use however.

As for guns, I don’t like them, don’t want one, but I do defend people’s right to own them. But they have to be responsible for them and if they are proven not to be they should lose them and never have one again. If that takes more taxes to have the needed authorities to do that, fine. As for mother that let her obviously disturbed son use guns well shame on her. She is as responsible for the death of the Sandhook children as her son, even more so. She is responsible for her own death.

People have got to start using some common sense in this country, which is sadly missing in a lot of cases anymore. No one needs to own guns designed for war zones, not even hunters. If you are a hunter keep your guns out of the reach of children and care for them properly. If you are a private citizen with guns, same thing. And as far as I am concerned minors should never have a gun, unless they are with an adult and supervised for training purposes (like they are learning to hunt).

When my dad was young a lot of kids had BB Guns, and they hunted for a lot of their own food. They respected that gun or got their fanny whipped and the gun taken away. Now no one even wants to discipline a kid, tell them no or teach them right from wrong. Take that away and they sure don’t need a gun, ever.

 

[oldcatholicguy]

We all need to pay taxes to cover the basic needs of running a country such as repairing and developing our infrastructure (long neglected), schools and education, law enforcement etc. The problem is not about paying taxes for something I or someone else does not specifically use or agree with. Taxes are necessary and too many people groan about them. I do think we need to insist they are put to the intended use however.

As for guns, I don’t like them, don’t want one, but I do defend people’s right to own them. But they have to be responsible for them and if they are proven not to be they should lose them and never have one again. If that takes more taxes to have the needed authorities to do that, fine. As for mother that let her obviously disturbed son use guns well shame on her. She is as responsible for the death of the Sandhook children as her son, even more so. She is responsible for her own death.

People have got to start using some common sense in this country, which is sadly missing in a lot of cases anymore. No one needs to own guns designed for war zones, not even hunters. If you are a hunter keep your guns out of the reach of children and care for them properly. If you are a private citizen with guns, same thing. And as far as I am concerned minors should never have a gun, unless they are with an adult and supervised for training purposes (like they are learning to hunt).

When my dad was young a lot of kids had BB Guns, and they hunted for a lot of their own food. They respected that gun or got their fanny whipped and the gun taken away. Now no one even wants to discipline a kid, tell them no or teach them right from wrong. Take that away and they sure don’t need a gun, ever.

-“no one needs to own guns designed for war zones” pretty much eliminates every handgun, shotgun, and most rifles from the picture. I can walk into a gun store and buy the very same sidearm (pistol) I was issued by the US Army (though I’d be smarter to buy a civilian model as the pistols we use the in military aren’t that great when compared to what civilians can go out and buy).

-I have no issue paying taxes for things I don’t or never will use or take advantage of (as long as said things are moral). I do have issue with people getting the idea that we should place a special burden on people who’s only fault is the desire to legally exercise a protected right. Wanting gun owners to pay a special fee in order to exercise their right to own a firearm is no different then wanting non-White non-males to pay a special fee in order to exercise their right to vote or receive equal protection.