bush_cheney2004 Posted December 22, 2012 Report Share Posted December 22, 2012 ...What about parents who have an arsenal of guns available to their children? Adam Lantz was not a child. Turns out that Connecticut state law only requires secure storage if children under the age of 16 are present in the home. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonam Posted December 22, 2012 Report Share Posted December 22, 2012 (edited) Like what? You can't think of ways to save more lives at a cost of less than $600 million per? Really? Or look at in another light, how much will you pay in terms of various levels of insurance over the course of your life, even if, you don’t ever need it? A lot less than $600 million. It may be a lot cheaper, safer, and more effective, to equip schools and other public buildings with automated nonlethal defense systems, containment solutions, and fast/secure evacuation routes. Edited December 22, 2012 by Bonam Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
punked Posted December 22, 2012 Report Share Posted December 22, 2012 Like what? I would also factor in what the Government is currently paying said unemployed, or under employed, military vets in terms of unemployment benefits, food stamps, welfare etc, and subtract it from the cost…….Also if said vets were employed, paying taxes and making a greater financial impact on the economy, that should be considered also………. Or look at in another light, how much will you pay in terms of various levels of insurance over the course of your life, even if, you don’t ever need it? Funny Obama has been saying this for a long long time. You know the whole helping vets getting jobs things, not the whole putting people who are trained to kill anything that moves into schools with guns things. Republicans think veterans instead shouldn't have any help. http://articles.latimes.com/2012/sep/19/news/la-pn-obama-veterans-jobs-corps-senate-20120919 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted December 22, 2012 Report Share Posted December 22, 2012 not the whole putting people who are trained to kill anything that moves into schools with guns things. You'd probably end up with more dead kids in the end, because of many 'misunderstandings'. You can't un-shoot a bullet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
punked Posted December 22, 2012 Report Share Posted December 22, 2012 (edited) You'd probably end up with more dead kids in the end, because of many 'misunderstandings'. You can't un-shoot a bullet. Its hard to undo the whole making it someones job to go into a school with a gun thing. What happens if that person is horrible at their job and needs to be fired? Let alone putting people who are not trained to deal with kids (who can suck from time to time) into a inner city school. It takes a special type of person to show up to that job it is not as simple as some on this board think it is. Just because an answer to complex problem seems simple doesn't make it right. In fact often it should make question the answer even more. Edited December 22, 2012 by punked Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted December 22, 2012 Report Share Posted December 22, 2012 Looks like Toronto wanted to go with "gun-sniffing" dogs too: A report on violence in Toronto schools says gun-sniffing dogs may be needed to combat a problem that is not restricted to troubled neighbourhoods in the northwest area of the city. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BubberMiley Posted December 22, 2012 Report Share Posted December 22, 2012 If only there was an armed security guard at Columbine, the whole incident could have been...d'oh! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted December 22, 2012 Report Share Posted December 22, 2012 What is drivel is arguing that such actions happen solely because there are guns laying around. Not solely, but it sure as hell does help. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Derek L Posted December 22, 2012 Report Share Posted December 22, 2012 You'd probably end up with more dead kids in the end, because of many 'misunderstandings'. You can't un-shoot a bullet. Why would that be the case if they’re trained to the same standard as law enforcement? Most Cops (in the States) are former military……….. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilber Posted December 22, 2012 Report Share Posted December 22, 2012 You'd probably end up with more dead kids in the end, because of many 'misunderstandings'. You can't un-shoot a bullet. The NRA has been instrumental in creating a monster and doesn't have a friggin clue what to do about it other than continue conforming to Einsteins definition of insanity. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BubberMiley Posted December 22, 2012 Report Share Posted December 22, 2012 Looks like Toronto wanted to go with "gun-sniffing" dogs too: Toronto? That's in Canada, isn't it? Excellent point! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted December 22, 2012 Report Share Posted December 22, 2012 The NRA has been instrumental in creating a monster and doesn't have a friggin clue what to do about it other than continue conforming to Einsteins definition of insanity. I guess the city of Toronto is a member of the NRA, placing armed security in 27 high schools after a single fatal shooting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jacee Posted December 22, 2012 Report Share Posted December 22, 2012 It's not drivel. It's a good attempt at trying to find a reason for such actions. Without a shred of truth. What is drivel is arguing that such actions happen solely because there are guns laying around. Really? What do you think Adam Lantz would have done that day if he didn't have access to guns? Would the idea ever have occurred to him if there weren't guns in his environment? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moonlight Graham Posted December 22, 2012 Report Share Posted December 22, 2012 Complex problem to solve. Just arming a guard or 2 isn't going to prevent somebody from going into a school with a concealed weapon. You would need security systems like metal detectors, locked doors or door guards or some kind of system to keep unauthorized people out of schools. But even then, a person could just come on to the schoolyard during recess and start shooting without entering the school at all. Arming people in schools doesn't solve a lot. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BubberMiley Posted December 22, 2012 Report Share Posted December 22, 2012 After watching that press conference I had to wonder if the NRA received PR training from Mitt Romney. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilber Posted December 22, 2012 Report Share Posted December 22, 2012 I guess the city of Toronto is a member of the NRA, placing armed security in 27 high schools after a single fatal shooting. Ya BC, 27 problem schools, not every damn school in the country. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonam Posted December 22, 2012 Report Share Posted December 22, 2012 Why would that be the case if they’re trained to the same standard as law enforcement? Most Cops (in the States) are former military……….. Even cops kill/injure people erroneously sometimes. There are about 300 erroneous/accidental/unjustified killings by cops every year in the US, about 15 times higher than the average number of people killed in mass shootings every year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted December 22, 2012 Report Share Posted December 22, 2012 Even cops kill/injure people erroneously sometimes. There are about 300 erroneous/accidental/unjustified killings by cops every year in the US, about 15 times higher than the average number of people killed in mass shootings every year. Yes...the 250 or so daily shootings in the US often include police and other law enforcement. "Mass Shootings" are a very small percentage of gun fatalities in the U.S., but media attention distorts their significance in body and injury count. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Derek L Posted December 22, 2012 Report Share Posted December 22, 2012 Even cops kill/injure people erroneously sometimes. There are about 300 erroneous/accidental/unjustified killings by cops every year in the US, about 15 times higher than the average number of people killed in mass shootings every year. But let’s compare apples to apples: How many erroneous shooting by police of a suspected mass shooter? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted December 22, 2012 Report Share Posted December 22, 2012 (edited) Ya BC, 27 problem schools, not every damn school in the country. Ya, Wilber, after one fatal shooting. Without any prompting from the "NRA". Edited December 22, 2012 by bush_cheney2004 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 22, 2012 Report Share Posted December 22, 2012 Without a shred of truth. Really? What do you think Adam Lantz would have done that day if he didn't have access to guns? Would the idea ever have occurred to him if there weren't guns in his environment? So let me get this straight. You have the answer. Ban the sale of all guns from now on, and remove all those that people already own. Dammit, why didn't I think of that. It's all so simple. (I bet you think green energy plans can solve climate change too) This might seem like be a strange question to you, but given all those guns were lying around, why did he take some of them and shoot up a school? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilber Posted December 22, 2012 Report Share Posted December 22, 2012 Ya, Wilber, after one fatal shooting. Without any prompting from the "NRA". Perhaps it's because we are not so desensitized to kids getting shot as you are. I hope we can keep it that way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted December 22, 2012 Report Share Posted December 22, 2012 Perhaps it's because we are not so desensitized to kids getting shot as you are. I hope we can keep it that way. Good, then it is clear that you agree with the idea to post armed security in schools, just as the NRA suggested. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilber Posted December 22, 2012 Report Share Posted December 22, 2012 (edited) Good, then it is clear that you agree with the idea to post armed security in schools, just as the NRA suggested. I agree that there are some schools where it might be necessary but if that means you have to put them in all your schools, you're screwed and if that is all you are willing to do about the problem, you deserve to be. Edited December 22, 2012 by Wilber Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted December 22, 2012 Report Share Posted December 22, 2012 I agree that there are some schools where it might be necessary but if that means you have to put them in all your schools, you're screwed and if that is all you are willing to do about the problem, you deserve to be. Thank you for agreeing with the NRA. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.