- Status
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
I’m not going to offer solutions to every problem. I was commenting on gun free zone designations.
M
MonteRCMS
Guest
Or … other signs could be posted … “Beware of the gun carrying occupants of this building”.
Last edited:
M
MonteRCMS
Guest
The key is the signs … the signs:
Use appropriately worded signs.
Use appropriately worded signs.
Last edited:
S
steve-b
Guest
cars and trucks have also been used by fanatics to murder people in mass slaughters, and we already have vehicle control measures to prevent the unstable from getting a drivers license. But what about people who fall inbetween the cracks? How about a private citizen selling their personal vehicle to another person? Are they responsible for doing a thorough background check on that person to see if they can even sell the vehicle to them … or else any damage they do with that vehicle they bought, falls back on the person who sold them the car?
Where does this go and how far does it go?
Last edited:
T
Theo520
Guest
The ‘right’ as I read it does not suggest anyone be allowed to carry in these historical gun free zones.
A k-12 school might allow a trained teacher to conceal carry, not students. Bars would still have the right to restrict concealed carry.
E
Ender
Guest
Regarding the USCCB and their opinions on gun control, they really add nothing to the conversation beyond implying that their positions are somehow more moral than the opposing ones. For a less stale look at the problem, however, we might consider this as an alternative:
Though we seem to be plunging ever deeper into a dark night, researchers now have a far clearer view of a key factor in the violence. A long-standing theory has matured into a body of evidence that can no longer be dismissed: The level of attention paid to mass shootings is central to why they keep happening.
The idea that some crimes might be self-spreading, like a disease, was proposed as early as 1890, when the French sociologist Gabriel Tarde labeled murders copying Jack the Ripper “suggesto-imitative assaults.” For mass shootings, the effect was well known among researchers by the early 2000s, when a wealth of information allowed forensic psychiatrist Paul E. Mullen to conclude, “These massacres are acts of mimesis, and their perpetrators are imitators.” (Essay by Ari Schulman, Wall Street Journal 11/18/17)
Perhaps instead of trying to control those who are not contributing to the problem we should find ways of dealing with those who are.
Though we seem to be plunging ever deeper into a dark night, researchers now have a far clearer view of a key factor in the violence. A long-standing theory has matured into a body of evidence that can no longer be dismissed: The level of attention paid to mass shootings is central to why they keep happening.
The idea that some crimes might be self-spreading, like a disease, was proposed as early as 1890, when the French sociologist Gabriel Tarde labeled murders copying Jack the Ripper “suggesto-imitative assaults.” For mass shootings, the effect was well known among researchers by the early 2000s, when a wealth of information allowed forensic psychiatrist Paul E. Mullen to conclude, “These massacres are acts of mimesis, and their perpetrators are imitators.” (Essay by Ari Schulman, Wall Street Journal 11/18/17)
Perhaps instead of trying to control those who are not contributing to the problem we should find ways of dealing with those who are.
Last edited:
Except that there has been no hypocrisy or inconsistency shown on the individual rights side position.
Last edited:
If your point was a rhetorical comment with no facts behind it, I can understand why you’d think that.
A blessed Thanksgiving to you, as well
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
I guess there is hope for this forum yet.
Yes, dispite the new format.
A blessed Thanksgiving to you, Leaf
P
pnewton
Guest
I always ignore those who use the word “implying.” Almost all the time it is used as an excuse to twist another’s words and rephrase what was said into what was not said to suit the agenda at hand. If what is said cannot be rationally discussed, speaking of what was implied is just sound and fury.
A
abucs
Guest
God, as a teacher I would not want students carrying guns at school. Then again there are times as a teacher when it is probably not such a good idea for me to have one either. 
Last edited:
T
Theo520
Guest
I speculate if a school allowed staff to carry, it would reside in a lock box, perhaps in their desk. Not on their hip.God, as a teacher I would not want students carrying guns at school. Then again there are times as a teacher when it is probably not such a good idea for me to have one either.
A
abucs
Guest
That would make sense. I think though that I would probably prefer not to be the one responsible for minding a gun. That being said, in the unlikely event of a tragedy happening, I would probably regret not having it. It is a complicated issue.
lol. you certainly don’t want to do something that will look bad on your resume :grinning_face_with_smiling_eyes:God, as a teacher I would not want students carrying guns at school. Then again there are times as a teacher when it is probably not such a good idea for me to have one either.
A
abucs
Guest
hahaha Tell me abucs, what are your class management skills like. ummmm, well…
I love Kindergarten Cop myself.
E
Ender
Guest
You really need to make distinctions between political issues with and without moral content. If there is a moral question involved, such as all the issues you mentioned, then comments from the bishops are justified. Where their comments are (generally) inappropriate are when the issues do not involve moral decisions, such as gun control.
- Status