Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Recommended Posts

On 1/29/2018 at 4:28 PM, fatguyinalittlecoat said:

Hey Stealthycat, I know you weren’t around here back in 2009, but if you want to read one of the all time greatest threads here at footballguys, take some time and read the “Stoner Claus” thread:

https://forums.footballguys.com/forum/topic/492591-woke-in-the-middle-of-the-night-to-find-a-stranger-in-my-apt/

I don’t want to spoil the thread for you so read the spoiler only after you read the thread or if you’re not gonna read the thread.

was I supposed to read it all ?

in the class I took, there were several stories of people awaken when people they knew (a son at of the house with a key, an inlaw that knew where the key was etc)  came into the home without them knowing it ........ If your life is in immediate danger - that's when you use your weapon. Don't kill someone first and ask later - that's a one way ticket to prison and murdering people is illegal whether you have a permit to carry a gun or a 10 time felon carrying a gun.

you don't know how to react in situations unless you've been in them - the guy could have easily pulled a knife, a bat, attacked in some way .... that happens all the time where gun owners fight back and win, stop rapes, assaults even murders. Its not someone else to decide my fate when there is a home intruder - that's me, my responsibility to my family, myself and I will not be a victim. 

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 22.7k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Stealthycat

    3808

  • KCitons

    2840

  • KarmaPolice

    1614

  • -fish-

    1078

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

It's TOTALLY the title of the thread.  Here's why:  Over the last year or so I finally figured out that we don't actually care about gun violence.  When I say "we" I mean everyone, generally.  But als

So I have never gotten too deep into gun conversations here, mostly because guns are as close to religion in the US as you can get. I'm decidedly pro 2nd Amendment, but I also recognize that was

I would love to see civil and criminal liability attached to gun owners as well as shooters. If your gun is used in the commission of a crime, you're responsible unless you can show that the gun was o

7 minutes ago, Hawkeye21 said:

I have no idea.  Is there any data to show the number of guns per person?  Shooting per population?  Type of guns?  What was the culture compared to now?  

I don’t think comparing anything from now to 100 years ago does any good.  Life is not even close to being the same. 

I don't think there is data no - and of course life was different but what wasn't is that many guns were in many homes - they were used in hunting and home defense. Kids knew not to touch them, play with them, they were tools and nothing more. Prison was harsh, they hung people for crimes. 

They didn't have kids killing kids in schools and accidents like they do today I'd bet not nearly as much. 

Point being - people have changed.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Stealthycat said:

I don't think there is data no - and of course life was different but what wasn't is that many guns were in many homes - they were used in hunting and home defense. Kids knew not to touch them, play with them, they were tools and nothing more. Prison was harsh, they hung people for crimes. 

They didn't have kids killing kids in schools and accidents like they do today I'd bet not nearly as much. 

Point being - people have changed.

You’re right people have changed and I don’t see a single person here arguing that with you. 

What you can’t seem to admit is that guns have changed as well. Just the fact that humans have changed should affect the availability of guns. That’s part of the problem and you don’t seem to be willing to admit it 

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Hawkeye21 said:

What you can’t seem to admit is that guns have changed as well. Just the fact that humans have changed should affect the availability of guns. That’s part of the problem and you don’t seem to be willing to admit it 

gun availability has increased - yes

I acknowledge the problem is the people - fix that problem absolutely

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Stealthycat said:

gun availability has increased - yes

I acknowledge the problem is the people - fix that problem absolutely

Once again, no one will argue that people are a problem. How can you ignorantly deny that the amount of guns or types of guns could even possibly be an issue?

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Hawkeye21 said:

How can you ignorantly deny that the amount of guns or types of guns could even possibly be an issue?

Is the number of automobiles an issue with DUI? is the number of prescription medications the issue with illegally used drugs and overdoses?  

Sure, I suppose you could only focus on that, but you could literally add 500 million guns into the American culture and if people wouldn't illegally or irresponsibly use them, there would be negative impacts.

Pointing once again to the problem of the people -  like auto owners and people using prescription medications and other analogies the vast vast majority of gun owners  are NOT the problem. 

Focus laws on the criminals, not the legal law abiding people. Do that and gun owners will support it 100% I promise. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Stealthycat said:

Is the number of automobiles an issue with DUI? is the number of prescription medications the issue with illegally used drugs and overdoses?  

Sure, I suppose you could only focus on that, but you could literally add 500 million guns into the American culture and if people wouldn't illegally or irresponsibly use them, there would be negative impacts.

Pointing once again to the problem of the people -  like auto owners and people using prescription medications and other analogies the vast vast majority of gun owners  are NOT the problem. 

Focus laws on the criminals, not the legal law abiding people. Do that and gun owners will support it 100% I promise. 

If people were going out of their way to kill others with their vehicles then I bet we would see some changes made with the amount of vehicles on the road or how they are made available to people.  We don't have an issue with that though since the majority of deaths by vehicles are accidents.

Vehicles are not designed to kill people.  Prescription drugs are not designed to kill people.  Guns are designed to kill people.  That is the huge difference that you ignore.

Link to post
Share on other sites

These mass shootings are not the problem to focus on (IMO).  They account for less than 2% of the total gun deaths in the US-albeit they are about as conspicuous an event as possible for demanding that gun control efforts be ramped up.  I asked the question back on page 2 and I think I got one response, but I'll ask it again-what is the reason that so many are diametrically opposed to arming a security guard at schools?  All the schools in my area (Philadelphia and Suburbs) already have security guards, so we'd not be adding some insane cost.  Require that they are licensed and have gone through the proper training, etc.  I don't care that "its a shame we have to consider this".  Gun-Free zones are stupid.  They literally are magnets for bad people that want to do bad things.  Why can't we admit that this was a good-in-theory but bad-in-reality idea?  I know Columbine had an armed guard and that didn't stop them.  To use an old gun-control advocate go-to phrase, "so we should just do nothing?"  Having an armed good guy to face off with an armed bad guy will not always deter or stop a massacre, but it will stop more than doing nothing.

There are 33,000 gun deaths a year in the US and nearly 2/3rds of those are from suicide.  That is far more galling a statistic than anything else and if you want to really limit gun deaths, it is there that you should burn the most calories.  I'd propose that in order to own a gun you have to be registered (not necessarily register your guns as I know that's a big no-no to a lot of people).  Part of the registration would require that you go through a training course and get tested on basic knowledge and handling of firearms.  The other part is that you have to go through some minimal mental capacity test.  History of diagnosed depression, for instance, would be a non-starter.  This registration would be required to purchase any guns moving forward and would need to be renewed every five or ten years.  

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Hawkeye21 said:

If people were going out of their way to kill others with their vehicles then I bet we would see some changes made with the amount of vehicles on the road or how they are made available to people.  We don't have an issue with that though since the majority of deaths by vehicles are accidents.

Vehicles are not designed to kill people.  Prescription drugs are not designed to kill people.  Guns are designed to kill people.  That is the huge difference that you ignore.

I thought accidents with guns was a big deal people wanted to address? That's an issue right ?

And all the wrecks and DUIs ? Not accidents - people intentionally did the things that caused those wrecks. People intentionally took too many pills, mixed pills etc. Why are all those deaths not really important? The answer is- those tens of thousands killed isn't important enough that the 99% of the people driving right, taking drugs right etc need to be be seriously inconvenienced and shackled with new laws, rules and bans. Focusing on all the people doing it right is not the answer for the above problems and it aint with guns either.  

Yes, guns have a difference design and purpose than includes self defense, home safety, security - a point many ignore. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, unckeyherb said:

These mass shootings are not the problem to focus on (IMO).  They account for less than 2% of the total gun deaths in the US-albeit they are about as conspicuous an event as possible for demanding that gun control efforts be ramped up. 

this is true, but Democrats capitalize on every tragedy when it happens to push their anti-gun agenda

I asked the question back on page 2 and I think I got one response, but I'll ask it again-what is the reason that so many are diametrically opposed to arming a security guard at schools?  All the schools in my area (Philadelphia and Suburbs) already have security guards, so we'd not be adding some insane cost.  Require that they are licensed and have gone through the proper training, etc.  I don't care that "its a shame we have to consider this".  Gun-Free zones are stupid.  They literally are magnets for bad people that want to do bad things.  Why can't we admit that this was a good-in-theory but bad-in-reality idea?  I know Columbine had an armed guard and that didn't stop them.  To use an old gun-control advocate go-to phrase, "so we should just do nothing?"  Having an armed good guy to face off with an armed bad guy will not always deter or stop a massacre, but it will stop more than doing nothing.

its something absolutely that needs done ........ Federal building have armed people around them 24-7-365 .... how many federal building bombings since that started? Why are federal buildings more important than our kids? Did you know ...

Quote

 

Malia and Sasha Obama not only benefit from around the clock Secret Service protection, the elite school they attend, Sidwell Friends, employs special police officers  trained in the appropriate use of deadly force. Are their lives and those of other millionaire children worth more than non-elites?

It's the same story with Meet the Press host David Gregory whose kids attend Sidwell.  And how about Michael Bloomberg? His daughters went to the exclusive, well secured all-girls Spence School in New York's Upper East Side.  Rahm Emanuel, Bill Ayers, Arne Duncan, the Obamas, Valerie Jarrett and a host of Chicago insiders have sent their little heirs to the exclusive University of Chicago Lab Schools which routinely hires armed police officers as part of its security plan.

Ivy League bound youngsters in private schools across the nation are the beneficiaries of top notch security systems which almost always include armed personnel. Yet ruling class pols like Obama and Bloomberg want to deny regular folks the same security their children enjoy. Obama, with his four-year "under the radar" push against our Second Amendment rights, has no problem suggesting the underclasses put their kids in harm's way.


 

 

There are 33,000 gun deaths a year in the US and nearly 2/3rds of those are from suicide.  That is far more galling a statistic than anything else and if you want to really limit gun deaths, it is there that you should burn the most calories.  I'd propose that in order to own a gun you have to be registered (not necessarily register your guns as I know that's a big no-no to a lot of people).  Part of the registration would require that you go through a training course and get tested on basic knowledge and handling of firearms.  The other part is that you have to go through some minimal mental capacity test.  History of diagnosed depression, for instance, would be a non-starter.  This registration would be required to purchase any guns moving forward and would need to be renewed every five or ten years.  

the problem is that you could set the limits to anything you want and keep everyone from owning a gun. 

right now, when you background check to buy a gun, there are supposed to be checks for mental illness .......... its only as good as the system is updated and information entered. That needs fixed - but I'm against any mental testing etc or registering. The Govt knowing I have a .22, a .420 and a rifle makes zero impact on crime. None

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Stealthycat said:

I thought accidents with guns was a big deal people wanted to address? That's an issue right ?

And all the wrecks and DUIs ? Not accidents - people intentionally did the things that caused those wrecks. People intentionally took too many pills, mixed pills etc. Why are all those deaths not really important? The answer is- those tens of thousands killed isn't important enough that the 99% of the people driving right, taking drugs right etc need to be be seriously inconvenienced and shackled with new laws, rules and bans. Focusing on all the people doing it right is not the answer for the above problems and it aint with guns either.  

Yes, guns have a difference design and purpose than includes self defense, home safety, security - a point many ignore. 

We have police everywhere monitoring our roads so there's something being done besides having big fines.  Many drugs require a prescription in order to avoid misuse.  There are rules and laws put in place already to keep incidents down and people do care about deaths from them.

What has been done with guns besides requiring an incredibly easy background check.  It's easier to buy a gun than it is a vehicle or get prescription drugs.

STOP COMPARING  It's not a smart argument and you're not helping yourself by using the same comparisons over and over again.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, unckeyherb said:

These mass shootings are not the problem to focus on (IMO).  They account for less than 2% of the total gun deaths in the US-albeit they are about as conspicuous an event as possible for demanding that gun control efforts be ramped up.  I asked the question back on page 2 and I think I got one response, but I'll ask it again-what is the reason that so many are diametrically opposed to arming a security guard at schools?  All the schools in my area (Philadelphia and Suburbs) already have security guards, so we'd not be adding some insane cost.  Require that they are licensed and have gone through the proper training, etc.  I don't care that "its a shame we have to consider this".  Gun-Free zones are stupid.  They literally are magnets for bad people that want to do bad things.  Why can't we admit that this was a good-in-theory but bad-in-reality idea?  I know Columbine had an armed guard and that didn't stop them.  To use an old gun-control advocate go-to phrase, "so we should just do nothing?"  Having an armed good guy to face off with an armed bad guy will not always deter or stop a massacre, but it will stop more than doing nothing.

There are 33,000 gun deaths a year in the US and nearly 2/3rds of those are from suicide.  That is far more galling a statistic than anything else and if you want to really limit gun deaths, it is there that you should burn the most calories.  I'd propose that in order to own a gun you have to be registered (not necessarily register your guns as I know that's a big no-no to a lot of people).  Part of the registration would require that you go through a training course and get tested on basic knowledge and handling of firearms.  The other part is that you have to go through some minimal mental capacity test.  History of diagnosed depression, for instance, would be a non-starter.  This registration would be required to purchase any guns moving forward and would need to be renewed every five or ten years.  

 

How are all schools going to be able to afford to have a full time, armed guard at school?  I can't imagine there would be enough local support to have an armed guard at school.  Just the thought of a gun being on school grounds freaks people out.

Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Hawkeye21 said:

We have police everywhere monitoring our roads so there's something being done besides having big fines.  Many drugs require a prescription in order to avoid misuse.  There are rules and laws put in place already to keep incidents down and people do care about deaths from them.

What has been done with guns besides requiring an incredibly easy background check.  It's easier to buy a gun than it is a vehicle or get prescription drugs.

STOP COMPARING  It's not a smart argument and you're not helping yourself by using the same comparisons over and over again.

Many car makers are adding advanced safety features like automatic emergency braking and forward collision warning as well

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Yenrub said:

Many car makers are adding advanced safety features like automatic emergency braking and forward collision warning as well

Exactly.  Stealthy acts as if nothing has ever been done with vehicles to improve people's safety.  It's such a flawed argument but he keeps using it for some reason.  The only thing I've seen him admit is that background checks could be better.  Other than that he refuses to admit that guns could possibly be part of the problem.

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Hawkeye21 said:

How are all schools going to be able to afford to have a full time, armed guard at school?  I can't imagine there would be enough local support to have an armed guard at school.  Just the thought of a gun being on school grounds freaks people out.

Like I said, most schools already have security guards, so there would be almost no additional cost.  I think the thought of a gun being on school grounds thru someone who is there to protect your children probably produces a different feeling than one being there to cause harm.  Forget the cost and optics of it, which may be good or bad, I don't really know, but do you at least agree that having an armed guard could potentially sway shooters away from committing a heinous crime (at best) or provide some quick first response to a shooting that may save multiple lives (at least)?  

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, unckeyherb said:

Like I said, most schools already have security guards, so there would be almost no additional cost.  I think the thought of a gun being on school grounds thru someone who is there to protect your children probably produces a different feeling than one being there to cause harm.  Forget the cost and optics of it, which may be good or bad, I don't really know, but do you at least agree that having an armed guard could potentially sway shooters away from committing a heinous crime (at best) or provide some quick first response to a shooting that may save multiple lives (at least)?  

Having a child in 3rd grade right now I have mixed emotions about it.  I can see reasons for it helping but it's hard to get past the idea that there is a weapon there and an accident happening.  I know it's not likely but it's hard to get that out of the back of my mind.  I think a lot of parents are going to have a hard time accepting something like that.  I am not aware of any schools in my area that have an armed guard on duty all day.

Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Hawkeye21 said:

Having a child in 3rd grade right now I have mixed emotions about it.  I can see reasons for it helping but it's hard to get past the idea that there is a weapon there and an accident happening.  I know it's not likely but it's hard to get that out of the back of my mind.  I think a lot of parents are going to have a hard time accepting something like that.  I am not aware of any schools in my area that have an armed guard on duty all day.

They probably are not armed.  But I'm sure schools in your area have security guards.

And I disagree fundamentally with the accident waiting to happen or the concern I always hear that your going to have some idiot firing into a crowd.  The guard would be trained and understand how to operate and possess a gun.  He wouldn't be rootin' and tootin' and firing at everything he sees.

I've got daughters in pre-k and 1st, so I hear ya.  But if there was a vote on getting rid of the gun free zone and implementing armed security at the school, I think I'd be in favor of it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, msommer said:

"We have a problem with people using guns on each other - What should we do?"

"I know! More guns!!!!!!!"

"Yeah!!!!!"

/goppers

 Pretty simplistic way to look at it. Of course there is not one catchall to deal with every issue. Clearly throwing more guns into a gang infested area is not the right answer. Introducing armed guards as a deterrent and first line of defense against school shooters may be an answer that will achieve the desired effect.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, unckeyherb said:

 Pretty simplistic way to look at it. Of course there is not one catchall to deal with every issue. Clearly throwing more guns into a gang infested area is not the right answer. Introducing armed guards as a deterrent and first line of defense against school shooters may be an answer that will achieve the desired effect.

So, more guns. Gotcha.

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, msommer said:

So, more guns. Gotcha.

 In defense of the currently defenseless, maybe? With regards to the host of other issues relating to guns, probably not. Like I said you want to take a simplistic view of it fine. What is your single, all encompassing policy prescription that will Address gun crime, school shootings, illegal purchases, Domestic shootings,  accidental shootings, suicide, etc.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, unckeyherb said:

These mass shootings are not the problem to focus on (IMO).  They account for less than 2% of the total gun deaths in the US-albeit they are about as conspicuous an event as possible for demanding that gun control efforts be ramped up.  I asked the question back on page 2 and I think I got one response, but I'll ask it again-what is the reason that so many are diametrically opposed to arming a security guard at schools?  All the schools in my area (Philadelphia and Suburbs) already have security guards, so we'd not be adding some insane cost.  Require that they are licensed and have gone through the proper training, etc.  I don't care that "its a shame we have to consider this".  Gun-Free zones are stupid.  They literally are magnets for bad people that want to do bad things.  Why can't we admit that this was a good-in-theory but bad-in-reality idea?  I know Columbine had an armed guard and that didn't stop them.  To use an old gun-control advocate go-to phrase, "so we should just do nothing?"  Having an armed good guy to face off with an armed bad guy will not always deter or stop a massacre, but it will stop more than doing nothing.

There are 33,000 gun deaths a year in the US and nearly 2/3rds of those are from suicide.  That is far more galling a statistic than anything else and if you want to really limit gun deaths, it is there that you should burn the most calories.  I'd propose that in order to own a gun you have to be registered (not necessarily register your guns as I know that's a big no-no to a lot of people).  Part of the registration would require that you go through a training course and get tested on basic knowledge and handling of firearms.  The other part is that you have to go through some minimal mental capacity test.  History of diagnosed depression, for instance, would be a non-starter.  This registration would be required to purchase any guns moving forward and would need to be renewed every five or ten years.  

 

The best solution to reducing suicides is to reduce the number of guns. You’re conveniently ignoring the solution.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, unckeyherb said:

These mass shootings are not the problem to focus on (IMO).  They account for less than 2% of the total gun deaths in the US-albeit they are about as conspicuous an event as possible for demanding that gun control efforts be ramped up.  I asked the question back on page 2 and I think I got one response, but I'll ask it again-what is the reason that so many are diametrically opposed to arming a security guard at schools?  All the schools in my area (Philadelphia and Suburbs) already have security guards, so we'd not be adding some insane cost.  Require that they are licensed and have gone through the proper training, etc.  I don't care that "its a shame we have to consider this".  Gun-Free zones are stupid.  They literally are magnets for bad people that want to do bad things.  Why can't we admit that this was a good-in-theory but bad-in-reality idea?  I know Columbine had an armed guard and that didn't stop them.  To use an old gun-control advocate go-to phrase, "so we should just do nothing?"  Having an armed good guy to face off with an armed bad guy will not always deter or stop a massacre, but it will stop more than doing nothing.

There are 33,000 gun deaths a year in the US and nearly 2/3rds of those are from suicide.  That is far more galling a statistic than anything else and if you want to really limit gun deaths, it is there that you should burn the most calories.  I'd propose that in order to own a gun you have to be registered (not necessarily register your guns as I know that's a big no-no to a lot of people).  Part of the registration would require that you go through a training course and get tested on basic knowledge and handling of firearms.  The other part is that you have to go through some minimal mental capacity test.  History of diagnosed depression, for instance, would be a non-starter.  This registration would be required to purchase any guns moving forward and would need to be renewed every five or ten years.  

 

That's between 15-20% of the American adult population each year.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, ChopMeat said:

The best solution to reducing suicides is to reduce the number of guns. You’re conveniently ignoring the solution.

There's 300,000,000 guns in this country.  I'm not ignoring anything.  Are you proposing a gun buy back?  Make guns illegal?  What?

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you think ever having been diagnosed with depression should keep you from owning a gun, you should be supporting a ban on guns with the right to apply for a license to get one if you have a sterling background and health check.  It would be easier and less cumbersome for society.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Henry Ford said:

That's between 15-20% of the American adult population each year.

Ok.  Not sure what that has to do with anything.  Unless you are saying that mental capacity shouldn't be a determining factor?  Then don't change anything. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, unckeyherb said:

Ok.  Not sure what that has to do with anything.  Unless you are saying that mental capacity shouldn't be a determining factor?  Then don't change anything. 

History of having been diagnosed with depression has nothing to do with mental capacity.  Except, I guess, that people with high mental capacity are more likely to have been diagnosed with depression at some point in their lives.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Henry Ford said:

There's also a massive difference between having ever been diagnosed with depression and being a manic depressive, or having chronic major depression, or related issues. 

Agreed.  Maybe that was too far reaching.  My point is in order to own a gun you need 1. to be registered.  Figure out what aptitude tests you need to take.  2. Renew your registration after some number of years.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, unckeyherb said:

Agreed.  Maybe that was too far reaching.  My point is in order to own a gun you need 1. to be registered.  Figure out what aptitude tests you need to take.  2. Renew your registration after some number of years.

You'll never get the Republicans to agree to this.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Henry Ford said:

If you think ever having been diagnosed with depression should keep you from owning a gun, you should be supporting a ban on guns with the right to apply for a license to get one if you have a sterling background and health check.  It would be easier and less cumbersome for society.

How is that really any different than what I'm proposing?  You're using the term ban, but they wouldn't be banned.  If you applied for a license and were registered to own guns, you could get a gun.  Ok.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, unckeyherb said:

How is that really any different than what I'm proposing?  You're using the term ban, but they wouldn't be banned.  If you applied for a license and were registered to own guns, you could get a gun.  Ok.

It's the same, and it's a non-starter for Republicans to make people get a license to own a gun.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Henry Ford said:

You'll never get the Republicans to agree to this.

That's not really the point.  You'll never get republicans to agree to a gun buy back.  You'll never get dems to consider allowing armed guards at a school.  

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

And, its not even the actual shootings that is becoming a problem - the day after the Marshall County shootings, my daughter learns of it during the school announcements, and that gets her anxiety up - only for the school to be dismissed early for a bomb threat (fake) later that day.  She was a proverbial basket case, and I am having to tell her its safe just to go to school.  And, reported guns in school, even with no violence, is going up.

 

I am certain that we are close to a breaking point, but I have no idea how to get to a place where this is not the new normal. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, msommer said:

"Would never have happened if everyone was armed"

/Gopper

I wonder if there were metal detectors and armed security guards if this would have happened?  To be clear, no one is suggesting that "everyone is armed".  

Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Sinn Fein said:

And, its not even the actual shootings that is becoming a problem - the day after the Marshall County shootings, my daughter learns of it during the school announcements, and that gets her anxiety up - only for the school to be dismissed early for a bomb threat (fake) later that day.  She was a proverbial basket case, and I am having to tell her its safe just to go to school.  And, reported guns in school, even with no violence, is going up.

 

I am certain that we are close to a breaking point, but I have no idea how to get to a place where this is not the new normal. 

"If only there were more good guys with guns no one would have to be worried"

/Gopper

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

what changes were made to school security since the last school shootings ? nothing ?

hmmmmm 

I also notice in almost every shooting, people with guns stop the crazies and the evil they're doing. Guns save the day .... damn shame they're not already there to prevent these things from happening

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...