[MartinSE]

///

[Number 10 GI]

Originally Posted by MartinSE

Pretty much agree with you, but most mass shootings are not by criminals… I don’t think, the one in Texas obviously wasn’t.

Doesn't change the fact that if someone needs a gun to commit an act of violence and can't get it legally, they will be able to get from an illegal source.

We have a higher rate of gun deaths vs other industrialized countries, but we also have a higher rate of deaths by other means. Why is that? As I have stated numerous times on these threads about guns, we have a violence problem and it doesn't take a rocket scientist or even the IQ of a stupid chimpanzee to see that. Yet this country won't address that fact or make any attempt to fix the problem.

[Number 10 GI]

Originally Posted by MartinSE

This has been debunked many times. There is NO pure democracy, had

Then why are you using the term "Democracy"? The definition is pretty well defined by dictionaries and other sources as to what that form of government entails.

[MartinSE]

[QUOTE=MartinSE;2102335]

Originally Posted by Number 10 GI

No it isn't.

Citizensfb.com

"Key Takeaways: Republic vs. Democracy
Republics and democracies both provide a political system in which citizens are represented by elected officials who are sworn to protect their interests.
In a pure democracy, laws are made directly by the voting majority leaving the rights of the minority largely unprotected.
In a republic, laws are made by representatives chosen by the people and must comply with a constitution that specifically protects the rights of the minority from the will of the majority.
The United States, while basically a republic, is best described as a “representative democracy.”[/QUOTE

Your own reference says it is a democracy, a representative democracy. The are many form of democracy, one one pure and there never has been a pure, except maybe Greece.

This idea if the US being a republic and not a democracy is recent and intended to support restricting peoples right to vote. You can research that yourself, my posts are always too long. But, check any clas on forms of government and you will find representative republic is a FORM of democracy, or as your own reply says a representative democracy.

Did you know that not all forms of democracy allow voting? Demarchcy is a form of democracy with representative chosen by sortition.the same way we pick jurors today, by random lottery.

[MartinSE]

///

[MartinSE]

Originally Posted by Number 10 GI

Doesn't change the fact that if someone needs a gun to commit an act of violence and can't get it legally, they will be able to get from an illegal source.

I agree completely, but this thread is about mass murders and school shootings. Few if any of those obtain the guns illegally. Some, but few.

[MartinSE]

Originally Posted by Number 10 GI

Then why are you using the term "Democracy"? The definition is pretty well defined by dictionaries and other sources as to what that form of government entails.

Democracy is a category, there are many forms, we are one.

For instance I could say I drive a compact, I could say I drive a car, I could say I drive a compact car.

All mean the say, unless we are in a discussion with academics about specific forms of governments,

And we are in a discussion of mass shootings and murdering children in class while you want to debate the precise usage of a form of government.

That is a sad commentary, and explains a lot about why we have not been about to solve this problem in over 20 years…

[MartinSE]

Originally Posted by Number 10 GI

Then why are you using the term "Democracy"? The definition is pretty well defined by dictionaries and other sources as to what that form of government entails.

Sorry. The forum has issues today, you will see if you look back that I deleted that post, which I started, it saved it, and decided it was too off topic and confrontational. So, I deleted it.

I apologize for it getting posted before I finished it.

[Woodbear]

An oldie but a goodie.........

[Papa_lecki]

Originally Posted by MartinSE

I agree completely, but this thread is about mass murders and school shootings. Few if any of those obtain the guns illegally. Some, but few.

Don’t school shooting ALWAYS occur in a “GUN FREE ZONE”?
And murder is illegal.

So, without talking about illegally obtaining the weapon or prohibited possessors, the shooter already commits two felonies, but they will follow new gun laws?
Totally makes sense.

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

Originally Posted by Papa_lecki

Don’t school shooting ALWAYS occur in a “GUN FREE ZONE”?
And murder is illegal.

So, without talking about illegally obtaining the weapon or prohibited possessors, the shooter already commits two felonies, but they will follow new gun laws?
Totally makes sense.

Using that logic, we should remove stop lights at intersections, and speed limits on interstates. And let's get rid of property lines, all they do is dare people to trespass.

Legalize (not just decriminalize) all drugs. No more prescriptions needed. If you want antibiotics, go ahead and buy some. If you want opioids, they're yours for the taking.

Minimal government right? That's the American way. So let's do this. Or are y'all just pretending because you have your mind set on one specific thing and can't let go? Have you doubled down SO hard, that your ego won't allow you to say "y'know what - maybe it's time for a change since the way it's been happening for the past 20 years isn't working all that great afterall?"

[PugMom]

Originally Posted by dewilson58

[Tvflguy]

Would YOU put a sign on your front door. “Gun/free Zone”. Hmm.

[jimjamuser]

Originally Posted by ThirdOfFive

I think the problem is that media is being used for social engineering purposes, which is flat-out wrong. Kids being shot and killed in school, insofar as overall gun deaths go, aren't even a blip on the radar. America averages something like 33,000 gun deaths each year from all causes. This year 24 kids have been killed by gunfire at school and this year is a sad exception--numbers year by year since the late 1990's are usually far lower, often in the single digits. It is a fact that a school kid is statistically in more danger of being killed by lightning than killed at school. By far the greatest number of gun deaths, 58% on average per year, is suicide. Homicides are at 37.2% per year (numbers provided by Brittanica ProCon) and it is a safe bet to assume that the overwhelming number of those are criminal-related, drug and gang disputes mainly. Legal intervention and unintentional deaths come in at 1.2% and 1.3%.

Every student killed is a tragedy. I get that. But what we are seeing is shameless. It is my belief (borne out by several studies) that media overhype is the primary cause of copycat killings, and it is anyone's guess just how many of these dead kids would still be alive if it wasn't for what media is doing.

Let's be honest. This is about GUNS, not kids. We have elected senators and representatives who represent us. Using media to try to force an issue via over-the-top emotion instead of the legislative system is doing no one any favors, least of all our kids.

What can be done? Nothing, until we can be honest with ourselves. The gun "debate" solves nothing: people are entrenched on one side or the other and no statistic, or argument, is going to change that. On a personal level I try to avoid media that pushes the emotional hyperbole but that is nearly impossible: we are saturated with it. The irony is that school deaths by gunfire are actually DOWN since the 1990s, but you'd never know that from what we see, hear and read today.

We can all start by being honest, with ourselves at least. Far too few of us are.

Let's say that it is correct that a small % of children are KILLED at school (or going to school) by GUNS. That % does NOT mean that the problem of shootings in schools is insignificant. People need to think about these shootings as DOMESTIC TERRORISM. Today about 100% of all school children have been traumatized by what they saw happen at Robb Elementary. And parents and ALL US citizens will shudder and feel UNSAFE as they just drive past schools for a long time - the TERRORISM perpetrated within that classroom is a SCAR on the psyche of ALL American citizens.
..........What happened at the Robb Elementary calls into QUESTION the ability of the Government and local Police EVERYWHERE to protect the US population from MASS MURDERERS wielding specialized high capacity weapons of war. The outright TERROR PROJECTS beyond a small Texas town, beyond Texas, and ultimately throughout the whole US. Children and parents from Pittsburgh to Portland now know that as far as GUNS go the US still has a frontier mentality - solve your problems with a GUN.
..........And the shooting in Tulsa has proven that no one is safe from the GUN culture anywhere! There was NOT even a WAITING PERIOD for that shooter to possibly come to his senses!

[jimjamuser]

Originally Posted by OrangeBlossomBaby

Teachers are not being paid to shoot intruders. It's not their job. If you want them to serve as bodyguards to their students then you need to pay them accordingly. Your taxes will go up, also accordingly. Maybe even enough that the state will need to impose a state income tax. Which of course will mean janitors and nurses and other non-teacher employees in those schools will also need a raise, because now some of their income is being sucked into taxes.

Giving teachers guns and requiring that they teach less, protect more, is not the answer.

The answer is not simple. But the solution would be to reduce the risk. To reduce the risk of a teacher ever having to decide whether or not to draw their gun on someone. A teacher shouldn't ever be held responsible for that. So how about reducing the risk that they would be.

The police, trained to do their jobs and protect the public, weren't able to prevent these shootings. Teachers should not be responsible to do what the police weren't able to do.

That last sentence was very good at summing up the probably, majority opinion on teachers carrying GUNS in the classroom. I agree, but ONLY in an IDEAL world. I am sure that in Australia and other G-7 countries that there is no NEED for teachers to have GUNS. Unfortunately, the US is an OUTLIER in this respect (and NOT in a good way).
.........The US is saturated with too many GUNS. It IS a desperate situation that requires a DESPERATE answer. So, until US society changes to be more like the other 1st world countries, perhaps it will be necessary for the Principal and other volunteer teachers to ARM themselves. Schools should perhaps exaggerate how many teachers have volunteered to carry. Not the greatest solution, but maybe one that is necessary until people in the US evolve to a point where they refuse to try to solve their problems with GUNS.