Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Jim DePaulo on February 2, 2013 at 4:12pm

A mandatory background check of all transfers of firearms, sold or gifted, and curtailing multiple gun purchases by straw dealers (no sane person buys 20 AR 15's or AK 47's for their personal use) would go a long way in preventing unstable or criminal individual's access to firearms. A restriction on a clip's capacity, while, it wouldn't prevent lunatics on a killing spree, it would prevent the huge number of deaths that high capacity clips allow.
If one truly believes they need to protect their home and family from the “marauding killers”, a semi-automatic, high clip capacity weapon is not the most effective deterrent. A 6 shell capacity shotgun, cut down to the legal limit, loaded with number 2 shot shells will completely incapacitate , but not necessarily kill, any human threat – even a lousy marksman can be effective. Further, possible collateral damage to the innocent will be greatly reduced.
I'm a gun owner ( two rifles and one shotgun) and have hunted most of my life so I'm not anti-gun.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Tom Sarbeck on February 4, 2013 at 6:32pm

LaPierre's remedy--putting armed guards in every school, in numbers commensurate with the number of doors from the grounds into classrooms--is irresponsible in the extreme.

He can deny INTENDING to boost gun sales.

He can deny INTENDING to get more unemployed people into jobs--as guards, their trainers, their managers and support staff.

He can deny INTENDING to drive already strapped school districts into bankruptcy.

He cannot believably deny those and other EFFECTS.

So how do we avoid requiring teachers and students to make flight-or-fight decisions?

Saying we should simply keep people with guns out of public schools has at least two flaws:

1. It's not a simple task, and

2. People who don't have to propose remedies can say "We should....", while people who propose remedies ask "How do we...?"

In short, the use in this context of the words "should" or "simply" is immature.

A widely-known former speaker of the California Assembly, upon retiring, said his position required child care training and skills.

That training and those skills (including the ability to set aside emotional responses) are required of people who would remedy  America's problem with guns, which is a large part of America's problem with violence.

We know Americans want universal background checks, yet our elected problem solvers fear taking the required action.

They fear they might lose when they next run for re-election.

In about half of the 50 states, registered voters can propose legislation and enact it.

If they bite off too large a part of the problem they will fail.

It's time for voters to act.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Asa Watcher on February 5, 2013 at 11:11am

responding to Tom;

"LaPierre's remedy--putting armed guards in every school, in numbers commensurate with the number of doors from the grounds into classrooms--is irresponsible in the extreme."

Oh forget LaPierre.

Your premiss that an armed guard has to be stationed at every door is a false premiss. Doors can be locked.  Doors can be secured.  There is no reason why more than one entrance to the school needs to be provided while children are in attendance.

"He can deny INTENDING to boost gun sales."

I am not privy to LaPierre’s intentions, and couldn't care less about them.

"He can deny INTENDING to get more unemployed people into jobs--as guards, their trainers, their managers and support staff."

When did jobs creation become a bad thing?

"He can deny INTENDING to drive already strapped school districts into bankruptcy."

There is no reason that schools should foot the bill to counter a social problem not created by the school.  What makes you think that only  schools should pay for armed guards?

"He cannot believably deny those and other EFFECTS."

O.K.  Again, who cares what LaPierre believes?

"So how do we avoid requiring teachers and students to make flight-or-fight decisions?

Saying we should simply keep people with guns out of public schools has at least two flaws:

1. It's not a simple task," 

But it IS simple, as simple as it is keeping people with guns off airplanes and out of other government buildings like we are doing now.  How is it any less simple??

"and

2. People who don't have to propose remedies can say "We should....", while people who propose remedies ask "How do we...?"

In short, the use in this context of the words "should" or "simply" is immature."

I don’t understand your obsession with accusing other people of being “immature” any more than I understand your above sentence.  Please explain how a proposed remedy is asking “How do we...?” and not “Here is how...”

The rest of your post still lacks a solution to the immediate problem of armed individuals accessing our schools.

The way voters vote is a separate issue, and is only one of the reasons we have the continuing problem of gun violence.  There’s money and influence, political pressures, and campaign laws (Citizens United) to say nothing of the entrenched gun culture that has evolved along with the portability of the tools of slaughter.

But “right voting” won’t solve the problem we have right now. 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Scott Cook on February 8, 2013 at 2:14pm

I'm a teacher (University) myself and, although there are strict regulations regarding the carry of concealed weapons on school campuses,... I carry. My students are under my care when they're in my classroom.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Tom Sarbeck on February 21, 2013 at 1:11pm

Fact-Checking the NRA's Wayne LaPierre (in an email from Politi-Fact, a project of the St. Petersburg, Florida, Times):

"After a quiet period following the shootings in Newtown, Conn., the National Rifle Association has been making a case for armed guards at schools and other measures rather than restrictions on guns.

"We've fact-checked many claims about gun control -- you can find them on our guns subject page -- and this week checked three that Wayne LaPierre, the group's executive vice president, made in an op-ed in the Daily Caller:

"To make the case that major cities were unsafe, LaPierre made a claim we've checked many times, that Phoenix "is already one of the kidnapping capitals of the world." We rated that False.

"He said President Barack Obama " flagrantly defies the 2006 federal law ordering the construction of a secure border fence along the entire Mexican border." We rated that Mostly False.

"LaPierre claimed that after Hurricane Sandy, New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg "refused to allow the National Guard into the city to restore civil order because Guardsmen carry guns!" That earned a Mostly False."

(I'm one of the NRA's members who say LaPierre doesn't speak for me, and what he's been saying bothers me a lot.)

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• Next ›
• Page