Why Don't We Have Shooters In Congress, The Pentagon And The White House?

Is that really any different than the right pointing to the 5% of gun deaths that are actually from self defense and using that as paper thin propaganda to justify all guns?

I think both approaches are flawed and intellectually dishonest - but you are just throwing stones from your own glass house with your partisan rhetoric.

 

Name a single politician that every advocated, or even mentioned, a plan to deal with the issues stemming from gangs, drugs, and ghettos?

When you have a society that values personal growth, you have a society that does the things that lead to that growth. Thats pretty much the opposite of what the violent alt left advocate for. They demonize anyone that has achieved financial success.

 

We know that guns are pervasive in our society. We know that guns kill and injure people. We know that gun ownership is available to Americans.

I suspect that there are armed guards at all the places you mention above so they are not 100% gun free. Further, what percentage of people in these institutions have a conceal-carry permit? I hate the idea of anyone walking around with guns but I also realize that these people are there to protect me and others from people who have guns. In this thread I've used the example when I attend baseball games I take a ferry which has armed Homeland Security guard(s), and once in the ball stadium there are armed police...yes it's sad that society is like this now but until firearms can be removed from society (which is impossible) we will need someone with guns to combat this. And yes just because armed guards are around this does not guarantee people cannot be shot and killed. So it's a deterrent for some and perhaps can minimize the carnage...but this stuff will continue to happen...

 

Again...it's all in hindsight. The question is how to proactively qualify a critical mental illness then what steps can be taken? How do you qualify the difference between a mental illness and another person who has the 'potential' to inflict harm to others? Will you say that all veterans with PTSD have a mental illness or the potential to harm others? A human can have the perfect life and behavior then with a few horrific events move 180 degrees with potential to harm themselves and/or others. Once you start thinking about how to qualify everyone it quickly gets very complex!

 

No matter if they're local or federal governments...they are all politicians. I simply pointed out that politicians have no problem providing security for themselves so when they don't do so for our schools obviously it's not on their radar. Sorry buddy but this is not about me! It's not about what 'I' think should be done! School kids are being killed and injured, and these school kids are begging for something better, so something different from what we're doing today needs to be done. And whatever we do cannot be about funding...

 

It's a very complex issue...

 

You'll have to cite the specific claim as I have not read any such thing.
Please. Thank you.

 

But you've still not established which security measures school authorities want to implement that politicians have prevented them from doing so.

The whole "Something must be done! Think of the children!" line is a parody for a reason. It's perfectly legitimate to talk about improved security at schools and all the other ideas for preventing this kind of tragedy too but you can't just demand "something" is done or alleged that "something" could have been done but wasn't without at least giving some indication of what and how.

 

Yes. It’s called role play. And the currently accepted standard parental model eschews rough and tumble role play. There’s a zero tolerance policy for it in school. Recently a kid doing a math problem caused a panic because the square root symbol looked like a gun.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...oot-symbol-Louisiana-school-mistaken-gun.html

As a result kids have no experience at all with how to regulate their own violent tendencies. The result is a violent response that is either completely suppressed , or full blast.

Bologna. Bullying is not some fancy new development. What’s changed is society’s response to it. That change is producing these poorly adjusted, drugged, & depressed kids.

Helicopter parents produce kids that cannot properly assess risk as adults. They make impulsive and dangerous decisions because their parents where always there to shield them from the consequences of their behavior.

An emotional response is exactly the cause of the behavior that you’re concerned about. Cruz didn’t go shooting up a school because he thought it through rationally.

 

You’re arguing with someone who is, and I’m certainly not the only one.

The lines you are drawing are producing impulsive, heavily medicated, depressed, and poorly regulated children.

How do you expect your child to solve a problem if you’re always there to solve it for them?

Kids need to know which “solutions” make the problem worse. If you really think bulling is worse now, then why is it worse then when parents weren’t solving these problems for their kids? When I was in grammar school I would leave the house at 7 in the morning and I would roll back home when it got dark. Now if you let your 10 year old child walk a mile to the park someone’s going to call the cops.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...tigated-letting-children-walk-alone/25754193/

 

Yes people can demand that 'something' be done! We vote for our representatives and presidents and it is their job to do 'something'! Do we or do we not have a school shooting problem? Whatever the answer is determines 'what' needs to be done...

 

Do we or do we not have a school shooting problem? If your answer is yes please define what the problem is?

 

Preferring school kids to duke it out or role play in critical events, while ignoring proactive measures to provide safety and security to our schools and kids, is a do-nothing approach. I'm thinking those kids in Florida, and the kids in my town 3000 miles from Florida, who are also traumatized, expect more...

 

Taking responsibility to raise children to become well adjusted adults, and educating other parents to do the same is not a do nothing approach. Trying to pass the problem off on government is a do nothing approach.

 

we do, and the common thread to the increase in violence is not a gun. The common thread is a single parent household, a medicated depressed kid, and a negligent adult community support system.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_IHOP_shooting
And then you have this---Here a guy walks into an I-Hop & targets uniformed National Guards,a neighboring shop owner drew his gun, but couldn't shoot because of the rapid gunfire by the assailant--so,a good guy or good guy(s) with a gun(s)---any answers there?

 

Seems to me that sending all children to school in under supermax security conditions might be more detrimental to their collective developement than a few of them dying.

Also theres a cost associated with heightened security. We can have the debate of just how much we can raise taxes to protect kids, but at some point we reach 100% taxes and we'll still have the occasional tragedy. There is the point of diminishing returns to consider.

How much can we drop educational standards and healthy developemental environments in preference for heightened security?

At some point we have to logically recognize that 100% security is impossible and occasional tragedy is innevitable.

In the same way that we don't mandate helmets and climbing harnasses on the playground, we have to allow for some vulnerability of students to violent crime.

 

Judging how others raise their kids is not a solution?

 

You will never find a solution with your ideals because there are no solutions to single-parent households, depressed kids, and so-called negligent adult support systems. Whether you wish to admit it or not a gun is a common thread to 'school shootings'. We're not going to remove guns from people, and just because young kids can't buy a gun does not mean they cannot obtain a gun, so there's not much solution regarding guns. So what's left? How do we secure our public education venues?

 

There are, and they are opposed by the liberal left, who refuses to accept some behavior as "bad".

Active and passive defenses.

 

Wonder how those kids in Florida would respond to your comments here?

No one said 'supermax security'??

A secure public education environment you believe is 'more detrimental'?

Cost is not an issue? The US spends TRILLION$!

You believe increased school security will lower educational standards?

You think 100% security is impossible so what number can we achieve...20%-50%-80%?

Vulnerability to violent crime is a good thing? Why do we require seat belts in automobiles?

 

Your comments have little merit if you blame politics...

 

No, many retired veterans are volunteering to stand guard as a day job. Unfortunately, many live in very urban liberal areas that do not allow good people to carry firearms. The laws are in place so only the bad guys can shoot people without fear of being shot themselves.

 

Truth hurts, eh?
Reality says this is a political process. In a political process, there are political points of view. The statement that one side will never accept a certain point of view is a statement of fact.
If you refuse to accept reality, your presence in the conservation has little merit.