B
Brendan
Guest
And why should he have stopped, just because a deluded lady was in the audience?
I suppose an expression of pity at the woman’s ignorance would have been appropriate, I guess.
- Status
I suppose an expression of pity at the woman’s ignorance would have been appropriate, I guess.
C
chero23
Guest
Whenever people have talked about their problem, those who hear say, if I was there I would of done this or I would of said that. This lady, as well as a man later on I might add stood up protesting. Look young lives were lost, ppl argue that bullets don’t kill that it’s humans who do. That is just an ignorant answer. Bullets are not some magic wand that cures ppl like it is with medicine. Bullets do two things, either kill or hurt.
What the lady and man did although you can say was deluded, somebody had to stand up and let these individuals know that guns are bad.
As I watched the press conference they passed the camera to the audience and you could see a lot of the ppl shaking their heads with the NRA statement.
The country really needs to come together and come to an agreement so that a similar tragedy does not occur
S
St_Francis
Guest
Guns are not bad–they are tools. They are frequently used for good, to protect people in times of danger. They frequently can protect even without being fired.
However, just as some misuse the internet to sell pornography or let people know how to make bombs, so some misuse guns. Should people who have to wait 20, 30, or mpre minuted for the police to show up be left at the mercy of those who misuse guns because some people think that it is the guns which are bad?
B
Brendan
Guest
The bolded is not Catholic teaching.
In Catholic Moral Theology, a material item is neither good nor evil. It is the nature of an action and the intent of the doer that determine evil or good.
Guns can, are are, used in defense, even by civilians. That, to Catholic teaching, is moral good. It is a fulfillment of the 5th Commandment. Thus, in those circumstances, the gun is part of a moral good.
When used with evil intent, the gun is part of a moral evil.
As far as the NRA statement, that really is the only practical solution if we want a rapid response to situations what happened in CT. Either an armed person is present with the training and tools ( guns) to oppose an attacker, or the armed response happens after the fact.
Again, in Catholic Moral thought, the initial opposition is perferred vs. allowing evil to run it’s course unhindered, at least for a time.
If you talk to any police officer, they will confirm that the VAST majority of bullets are used for putting little holes in pieces of paper, so by ;kill and hurt, were you referring to killing trees and hurting paper?
C
chero23
Guest
And you speak of the truth about scenarios were ppl can wait close to thirty mins for police. But if we have laws were anybody can go to a gun show and buy any gun w/o a background check of any sorts then we have problems. If you look at the past 3 major shootings, Newton, Aurora, Colorado and the Gifford shooting in Arizona, each individual had some sort of mental problem. If the right measures are taking to first fix the mental issues with dignity and compassion and for stricter gun laws to be set, I have no problem with guns being in ppls hands if it was done with a thorough investigation of the person buying the gun
S
St_Francis
Guest
As I understand it, gun shows in which buyers are not checked out are provate and only those who are already vetted can buy guns there. Gun shows which are open to the public are mandated to check the buyer out just as gun shops are.
Since people are vetted, then all that is left is to try to help those with mental health issuea. Unfortunately, sometimes the first indication of mental illness is an action which we want to avoid, as with schizophrenia which oftens appears in people without previous problems.
We will never, ever, ever be able to prevent all tragedies. Aside from those who suffer from a mental illness, there are those who have allowed themselves to fall into a sinful lifestyle, and when we plug up one outlet, they will find another.
K
kimmielittle
Guest
B
bellasbane
Guest
I voted “don’t know” because the NRA’s suggestion could work, but only if they are willing to pay for it. Our town can barely afford the police officers we have right now. We certainly can’t afford to hire five more to guard our schools.
We’ve already had student programs cut due to budget constraints - no more Latin at the high school.
I want my kids to be safe, but I want them to be well educated too. Making a parent choose between one or the other is just wrong.
So to everyone who voted “yes”, tell me … Where will the money come from?
We’ve already had student programs cut due to budget constraints - no more Latin at the high school.
I want my kids to be safe, but I want them to be well educated too. Making a parent choose between one or the other is just wrong.So to everyone who voted “yes”, tell me … Where will the money come from?
O
oldcelt
Guest
I voted no on pure logistics. Many schools are huge…an attacker could hit and one end and do a ton of damage before the one officer could arrive. …and what if the attacker is in full body armor and outguns the officer?I voted “don’t know” because the NRA’s suggestion could work, but only if they are willing to pay for it. Our town can barely afford the police officers we have right now. We certainly can’t afford to hire five more to guard our schools.
We’ve already had student programs cut due to budget constraints - no more Latin at the high school.
So to everyone who voted “yes”, tell me … Where will the money come from?
I personally believe that this is more of a mental health issue, but the NRAs suggestion is inadequate and IMHO unworkable.
John
H
HansTrappist
Guest
Where will the money come from?I voted “don’t know” because the NRA’s suggestion could work, but only if they are willing to pay for it. Our town can barely afford the police officers we have right now. We certainly can’t afford to hire five more to guard our schools.
We’ve already had student programs cut due to budget constraints - no more Latin at the high school.
So to everyone who voted “yes”, tell me … Where will the money come from?
Let’s brainstorm:
- Obama could immediately reverse his recent decision to fully back the terrorist “rebels” in Syria, and take the financial support we are providing them and use it to fund Mr. LaPierre’s program. Not only would this make our children safer, but by disarming some of the most dangerous, violent men in the world in Syria, Obama would show us that he is in fact serious about domestic gun control.
- Obama could immediately begin calling for an end to the wasteful and abusive Department of Homeland “Security” and transfer those funds to Mr. LaPierre’s program.
- Obama immediately end all Foreign Aid (especially to the Middle East) and use those funds to protect our most valuable national asset - our children.
- Obama could immediately withdraw our National Gaurd units that have been deployed overeas (in violation of the Constitution) and use them to supplement Mr. LaPierre’s program
Predictably, Mr. Obama and his followers are obsessively fixated on disarming the law abiding, peaceful citizens of this Country. He thinks that that is the solution. How sad and what a waste of time.
C
colmywaykurtz
Guest
We could also tax the one percent.
P
ProVobis
Guest
Not true.
K
kelvinf
Guest
We are discussing guns here and the fundamental question is whether a ban on certain kinds of guns–military-style weapons with high-capacity magazines (what the heck are civilians doing with all these?)–would prevent such mass shootings. Yes of course. Without such kinds of weapons and ammunitions, killings with such weapons wouldn’t be possible and hence more lives (that would have been lost via such guns) would be saved!
This is a step in the right direction. Nobody is saying that it’s going to stop all killings but it’s definitely going to prevent killings involving such weapons. And of course, there has to be further discussions regarding other gun crimes.
I still don’t get the comparison with car accidents. So because people die as a result of accidents means that we shouldn’t try to control crime or what’s the point?
People die daily because of disease; does that mean we shouldn’t take steps to control crimes because people would still die as a result of illness. I find this kind of thinking very absurd.
We can discuss preventing deaths as a result of accidents (cars, planes, fire etc), illness, natural disasters each on a separate thread. Trying to argue against controlling guns because there are other causes of death is bizarre to say the least.
And to argue about the effectiveness of a law is another thing. It’s one thing not to have a law and it’s another thing to have a law and violations. There are tax evaders for instance. But does that mean there shouldn’t be tax laws simply because some would still try to evade taxes???
The first thing is to have a law and the next is to enforce it. There is no need hoping or anticipating that a law doesn’t or wouldn’t work. We could discuss law enforcement when it comes to that.
And if certain guns are banned, collecting all these kinds of guns out there could be as easy as buying the guns. Those who violate the law would have to be dealt with accordingly. In this case, it would be a matter of law enforcement. But first the law before law enforcement.
H
hsmomforlife
Guest
Thank you for your service and your protection.As a cop who teaches police officers to respond to this kind of violence, this is an excellant solution, however, there are not nearly enough police officers to pull this off.
There’s also another problem: the schools. We’ve had SRO (School Resource Officer) possitions eliminated in my jurisdiction because the SCHOOL didn’t want armed officers in their school. The department was not willing to unarm their officer - which is a good thing - and the School eliminated the possition from their funding.
Any School with out an armed guard, these days, should be sued for not preparing for what, statistically, will be many times more likely to hurt or kill your children in school than anything else: violence.
As I’ve said on several other threads now: We spend MILLIONS of dollars on schools for what is considered ‘overlapping, multi-layered, redunant safety systems’ when it comes to school fire. The floor tiles, the carpet, the chairs, the doors, the paint the wall boards, the desks, the ceiling tiles have only one requirement for your school: That they are FIRE resistant / fire proof.
How many kids have been killed or injured in a school fire in the US in the last 50+ years? NONE ZERO ZILCH NADA. Yet we still have sprinkler systems, fire drills, fire safety awareness…
And howmany children killed or injured in school violence each year? At the time 1999 was an All time record with 35 killed and A QUARTER OF A MILLION INJURED IN SCHOOL VIOLENCE. How many killed / injured in School fire that year? Zero
But wasn’t that the year of Columbine? Yes. So the stastic is skewed? Negative Ghost Rider. 2004 was a new record: 48 killed and still HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS INJURED in SCHOOL VIOLENCE. How many killed / injured in school fire that year? Zero
I could go on and on but I’ll leave it to the experts. Here’s two articles that detail our DENIAL and a soultion: ret. Lt. Col. Dave Grossman is the world’s leading expert in the phychology of human to human agression, i.e. Combat, which is EXACTLY what is happening in our schools: war.
policeone.com/active-shooter/articles/2058168-Active-shooters-in-schools-The-enemy-is-denial/
policeone.com/active-shooter/articles/6067353-Newtown-shooting-Why-Minutemen-can-protect-against-active-shooters/
GOD HELP US ALL!
Thank you for solidifying my resolve to continue to home school my children…in a place where what happens in their school is learning and not war.
This world has gone crazy :frighten:
P
ProVobis
Guest
Brendan, to be fair, it’s more than the gun that would save you from a real would-be killer. It’s the ability to outdraw or outmaneuver him as well. If you can’t outdraw him, then all you’ve done is to provoke him into combat with both of you at risk. From the examples shown so far about lives being saved, I have to wonder whether the gunman had genuine intentions of killing or not. OTOH, those on the “defensive” can be quickly goaded into being aggressors with actual intent to kill. But then I haven’t investigated every single on of these 1.5 million defensive uses. We still have over 500,000,000 guns so it seems 1,500,000 is a reasonable number to “prove” whatever you wish.
Incidentally, Nate Silver’s book is to be recommended. Best book I’ve read since “How to Lie with Statistics” by Howard Ruff.
B
Bigman
Guest
Australia implemented gun restrictions and a buyback system.
The criminals didn’t bring their guns in.
It did not affect firearm homicide rates.
Everyone still calls it a success.
The criminals didn’t bring their guns in.
It did not affect firearm homicide rates.
Everyone still calls it a success.
P
ProVobis
Guest
Exactly. With U.S. reportedly having very weak reading, math, and science talents compared with the rest of the world, perhaps the whole education structure needs to be re-evaluated. Maybe we can take this whole massacre thing as more than a wakeup call to protect against gun violence in what we call schools.I voted “don’t know” because the NRA’s suggestion could work, but only if they are willing to pay for it. Our town can barely afford the police officers we have right now. We certainly can’t afford to hire five more to guard our schools.
We’ve already had student programs cut due to budget constraints - no more Latin at the high school.
So to everyone who voted “yes”, tell me … Where will the money come from?
A
_Abyssinia
Guest
Armed guard in Columbine did help
edition.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2000/columbine.cd/Pages/DEPUTIES_TEXT.htm
P
ProVobis
Guest
Simple. “Tax” all the weapons and ammunitions. Let the NRA put its money where its mouth is.
Already done - the Pittman-Robertson Wildlife Restoration Act.
As I said earlier, while I agree with La Pierre’s thought that schools shouldn’t be gun-free-except-for-bad-guy-zones, he’s simply wrong that ther central government should do it. There’s no constitutional mandate for that. I’m actually surprised that a guy (La Pierre) who gets the intention of the founders right on the 2nd amendment would suggest something so contrary to the law of the land.
Jon
- Status