Protect Our Childen
 

I haven't posted on Twitter in a long time. (Maybe not ever?) But this last attack on our innocent children motivated me to do so. I posted this...verbatim...on #ProtectOurChildren...

I don't mean ban all guns. I don't mean arm all teachers. But sensible national gun laws, a reasonable armed security presence, and secured point-entry to our schools would be a good start. We have to work together! My way or the highway won't work.

Sensible, reasonable discussion please.

I agree

There is nothing stopping schools from doing all you say. The latest as well as all other shooters violated at least a dozen laws. More laws will not help. Gun free zones is the common denominator.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I totally agree.

The question though, is how do we counteract the money, power and influence the NRA wields with the politicians...since they are adamantly opposed to ANY new gun laws?

Sandy Hook should have initiated this conversation almost 6 years ago, but if the slaughter of 20 six and seven year olds couldn't move the needle...what in the he!! will? :mad: :mad:


Especially when you have people believing nutjobs like Alex Jones...in that Sandy Hook never even happened? :ohdear:

:agree:

I'm just curious. What new gun laws would you propose? I'm pretty sure if someone is willing to break the law against killing people, which is the most basic law of all, they're not likely to follow any new gun law that anyone can think up.

We need to figure out why kids feel the answer to their problems is killing other kids. In my opinion the guy that posted in the other thread about technology and the social disconnect of a good part of this generation is a leading contributor.

There have been guns around for as long as we have been a nation. It's just in modern times that we've seen the widespread mass killings. And this one wasn't even with an "assault" rifle. It was with weapons that are about as low tech as you can get.

We need to get to the root problem. Why do kids resort to mass killings as a form of conflict resolution?

Well, on what gun laws could help...let's start with a really easy one.

Are bumpstocks illegal on a federal level yet?

Why not?

I think we all know why.

It's for the exact same reason that someone talked big about... "others are afraid of the NRA, but I'm not."

That is until they had a lunch date with the NRA...then nothing but crickets. :oops:

And how about we start holding those parents who have made easy access to guns...accountable also?

As for one of the big reasons regarding "why" it has become more prevalent.. that was addressed in the other thread also.

Santa Fe High School student claims students and coaches '''emotionally bullied''' suspected shooter

But since bullying is condoned, little action taken, loud voices saying "you just need to put your big boy pants on and take it, since it never harmed me" and actually perpetuated by our national leaders...fat chance that will work either. :mad:

“We need to get to the root problem. Why do kids resort to mass killings as a form of conflict resolution?”

That makes sense to me, since most of the
shooters in the mass school shootings are either
students or former students.
What is happening (or not happening) in our society,
in recent years that affects some kids in very negative ways!

I have no problem outlawing bumpstocks. But do you really think that will stop kids or anyone else from committing these atrocities? Most people didn't even know what a bumpstock was until the Vegas killings?

I agree for the most part. A 17 year old shouldn't have unfettered access to firearms. But as stated in several threads by other posters, guns were a part of growing up for a good number of us. It was not unusual to have a rifle in a rack in your truck if you were going hunting after school. But times have changed. Kids have changed.

Parents NEED to be held accountable for securing weapons when not being used.

I also agree with this. Although school bullying has been a problem that a lot of schools and communities are trying to address. At least they recognize it as a problem. If in fact this kid was bullied, especially by staff members that certainly requires action.

As we all know, there is no simple answer. I just don't see how new laws will discourage would be murderers from carrying out the evil they are intent on committing.

Mike is correct. More laws aren't the answer as the majority, i.e. the law abiding citizens, are already following the laws. Instead of discussing additional gun laws that the criminals won't follow anyway, we should be questioning why the national background check database is not being kept current. Or how about the numerous system failures that have been documented such as "troubling" social media posts, or students notifying adults of their concerns about a fellow/former student? Or the failure by our criminal system? Add in the HIPPA issues that prevents identifying those patients who suffer from specific mental health issues that should preclude them from obtaining a firearm. If these system failures continue, the cycle will repeat itself no matter how many laws are on the books.

Hardening the school system is an option that unfortunately should be explored, be it by adding police officers to the schools, enabling teachers who want to carry a gun to do so with the proper training, or perhaps engaging with our veterans and hiring them to help. Schools could lock down the doorways and have students enter and exit from one passageway, most likely with metal detectors utilized. Any option will have downstream impact that will also need to be addressed such as tax increases to pay for more police officers, students needing to be at school sooner in order to pass through a controlled checkpoint to enter the school, etc.

In order to make actual progress, inflammatory, inaccurate reporting (such as continually misrepresenting what an AR-15 rifle actually is, or claiming that no background checks are done at gun shows) must stop as it only fuels the fire. Let's also stop giving these criminals what they want, notoriety. Stop putting their names and pictures on the news 24/7 for weeks on end. In fact, don't show their photos or reveal their names at all if they have been apprehended. Why does the general public need to know who the criminal is or what they look like if they have already been arrested? What would we do with that information? I agree if the shooter is at large, then getting their name/photo out is important, but the tag-along information (such as is wanted for shooting xx number of people at xxxx) can be minimized. Merely indicate that this is a person of interest who is considered armed and dangerous and to call police if the person is spotted.

Well let's see, under current law

In addition to requiring firearm dealers, manufacturers, and importers to initiate a background check on any non-licensee to whom they intend to transfer a firearm, and prohibiting the possession of firearms by nine categories of prohibited persons under federal law. While a person may advertise a firearm on the internet:

Federal law prohibits transferring a firearm to anyone known or believed to be prohibited from possessing firearms. (18 USC992(d))
Federal law prohibits a non-licensee from acquiring a handgun outside his state of residence and prohibits a non-licensee from acquiring a rifle or shotgun from a non-licensee outside his state of residence. (18 USC 992(a)(3))
Federal law prohibits anyone from transferring a handgun to a non-licensee who resides in another state (with rare exceptions), and prohibits a non-licensee from transferring any firearm to a non-licensee who resides in another state. (18 USC 922(a)(5))
Federal law prohibits the acquisition of a firearm on behalf of a person who is prohibited from possessing firearms. (18 USC 922(h) and 922(a)(6))
Federal law prohibits anyone from providing a handgun to a juvenile (person under age 18), and prohibits juveniles from possessing handguns, with limited exceptions. (18 USC 922(x))
Federal law also prohibits dealers from selling rifles or shotguns to persons under age 18. (18 USC 922(b)(1))

Hmmmm......The President has called for a ban on bumpstocks as reported by CNN (link here)

The NRA has called on the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives to immediately review if these devices comply with federal law (linked here) and if additional regulation is needed.

Perhaps it is because as a nation of laws, it does take time. Perhaps if the legislation was written to cover bumpstocks specifically and not try to overreach by including other gun parts, types of guns, then the legislation might go through sooner. The more complex that a legislation is, the longer it will take to pass. And yes, there should be opposition to overreaching laws meant to "back door" their way around ANY constitutional amendment.

But I am not sure as to the why you are referencing, so please provide your facts and links.

Also, please explain how Chicago, with the most restrictive guns laws in the country, still has a high hand gun homicide rate. If it doesn't work in Chicago, how would more gun laws work anywhere else?

And you have specific knowledge of this? You know this for a fact?

Now this is an extremely valid point. Another active thread about cars being left unlocked and guns being stolen from those cars-those gun owners should also be held accountable.

Please, please provide a link to support your reference that the national leaders perpetuate the bullying. The most that I can find is a posting by Dan Zimmerman "Putting His Big Boy Pants On – Quote of the Day" in reference to David Hogg. Make sure that you read the actual open letter (link here) by Jack Kerwick to which Zimmerman is referencing before making any leaps there.

Good question.

It is as foolish to blame the NRA as it is to not see that it is HOW are children are raised now. We don't give them a gun, we give them computers that allow them to know the good and the evil of the planet and explore it without us. We turn them over wearing diapers to people that we would not allow to drive our cars. We think that they are only influenced when we pick them up after nine hours of being taught by people with totally different value systems. We think that the big house, the fine car, the great clothes and the delivered meals make up for not spending time with our babies during their six important formative years.

We have choices as a people and a society. I don't condemn our lawmakers as much as I condemn those who look down on people who are moral and have values and who believe in God. Or don't believe in God but have morals and values and ethics. It isn't what we TELL our children, it is who they are WITH, that they will become. They are denied the redirection they need as toddlers not to bully others, or the sitting on the hearth or with their noses in the corners because who would allow someone else to punish their children for kicking another four year old, or taking their toys and laughing? We don't even KNOW when this happens and worse yet, we are no longer taught as adults that this time of their lives is important in their formation of character.

We don't even know. We give them away unprotected and expect them to figure this little big world out for themselves. We only start to worry about their mental health and values long after they are harmed or formed in early childhood. Worrying about teenagers is TOO LATE.

The hands that rock the cradles, or DON'T rock the cradles, rule the world.

This is for your previous post also, where you lied and tried to misdirect about..First of all, you're being disingenuous in saying "NO" background checks are done"...as that is NOT what is being said. Licensed dealers are still required to perform the checks at gun shows...and no one is saying otherwise.

You also know that because of the 'loophole' that only requires 'gun dealers' to perform background checks (NOT private sellers), even those at gun shows...you're simply trying to deflect.


LOL

"Called for" yet has done NOTHING since the NRA lunch...to push it along.

As for the NRA giving 'lip-service' to banning bumpstocks, here's the typical gun-nut site on that subject. Which people like yourself, are the ones demanding that the NRA virulently resist ANY new laws.

I encourage reasonable people to read the entire opinion screed (link below) and judge for yourself...from whence the opposition arises.
ATF Discovers a New Meaning of 'Automatic' to Regulate Bump-Stocks

BS!

The entire goal and sentiment by hardcore gun-lovers, as shown above in the link, is to drag out the process, twist the arms of politicians with the money & power the NRA wields...and wait for the next news cycle and hope people forget about it.


The favorite excuse to try and convince people...not to do ANYTHING. :oops:

I also suggest reasonable people read this article in its entirety.
Fact Check: Is Chicago Proof That Gun Laws Don't Work? : NPR



Oh wow, you didn't really go there...did you? :1rotfl:

I appreciate the opportunity to present facts though. :thumbup:

Trump appears to backpedal on gun control remarks after NRA meeting | The Independent



ARE YOU FREAKING SERIOUS?! :1rotfl:

In an effort to keep this thread from being shut down due to too much politics, the response to your hilarious question can be answered in three words (or 280 characters)... JUST READ TWITTER! :oops:

:wave:

This sad, but true, cartoon succinctly demonstrates yours and so many other...gun-lovers true position.

But sorry, too many children have died...for it to continue. :mad:

Amen Gracie, Amen.

They could try putting God back in school.

The leadership of the NRA needs to change. They seem to be hard liners with little respect nor knowledge of the Second Amendment.

How the NRA resurrected the Second Amendment - Vox

More wars have been fought for "GOD" than for any other motive.

The Golden Rule and the compassion it includes needs to be taught.

Not a single one of the proposed gun laws would have stopped any of the school shootings. However, the is one simple, easy to implement,
solution that would have stopped all of the shootings. That is controlled and monitored points of entry through metal detectors.
Done correctly, this shouldn't be that expensive or inconvenient.

So far, this has worked very well at airports and sporting venues. It is also used at court houses and all federal buildings.

No change in the law would of changed the above statement, the shooter never purchased those guns. Even if his father gave the shooter permission, the second he carried the guns onto school property he broke the law. Shooter's don't care about laws. It's irresponsible gun owners that are the problem. The boy's father either giving permission, or he's not keeping his weapons secured in the home was all the shooter needed to be prepared.

As far as a bumpstock, if I were a shooter I wouldn't want one. A 25 round magazine would be gone in 2 seconds. A semi-automatic that fires as quick as you pull the trigger would help 10 magazines go a lot further. Outlaw bumpstocks if you want, but I don't see how they make a difference. The shooters shoots 25 rounds so quickly, he's having to reload more often and his accuracy would be way down.

I never said that NO background checks are being done. Here is what I did say: In order to make actual progress, inflammatory, inaccurate reporting (such as continually misrepresenting what an AR-15 rifle actually is, or claiming that no background checks are done at gun shows) must stop as it only fuels the fire."

So who here is really being disingenuous? BTW, thank you for proving that statement correct, which was in my original post in response to the OP.

First, if a licensed dealer were to attempt to sell a gun as a private individual in order to duck a background check, we are now talking about someone breaking the law, aren't we? Exactly how many guns do you think are bought and sold through private individual to private individual sale at a gun show? There are numerous claims that 40% of guns are purchased without background checks. The link dispels that myth and quotes those who are using that number. Here is another fact checker link

My original point remains to the OPs query. Erroneously reporting data, and misleading purported truth is what keeps a healthy dialogue from moving forward.

So who is deflecting...again? You still haven't supported your "lunch date" statement.

I also find it curious that you resort to name calling and quickly claim "lip service" to the posted NRA position. They are publicly supporting the review, yet you still attack. Interesting.

<Sigh> The link brings one to an article that does discuss the function of a bumpstock. It also points to the process for changing legislation versus administratively making changes to the constitutional amendments. I have shown where the NRA is calling on the ATF to review bumpstocks in my earlier posting, but you have already dismissed that out of hand. Again, rhetoric is being used to circumvent the constitution. Please recognize that circumventing the constitution by administrative action should be abhorrent to anyone. There are "ultras" on both sides (OP: Can you see how your original post while well intended will just never work?)

Yep I did go there, but I am willing to acknowledge that my statement "strictest gun laws in the country" may be in error. However, Illinois does have the 8th toughest laws in the country (per your link), as well as Illinois concealed carry laws are also among the most stringent in the country.

Interestingly, the article points to the large number of gang shootings in Chicago as a result of gun acquisition from neighboring states, which may not have as stringent gun laws as Illinois. What is continually being overlooked is that we are talking criminal activity. I have already provided the federal laws that would prohibit the illegality of buying and transporting weapons across state lines, but will repost here to ensure that the citation is complete and not chopped:

Federal law prohibits a non-licensee from acquiring a handgun outside his state of residence and prohibits a non-licensee from acquiring a rifle or shotgun from a non-licensee outside his state of residence. (18 USC 992(a)(3))
Federal law prohibits anyone from transferring a handgun to a non-licensee who resides in another state (with rare exceptions), and prohibits a non-licensee from transferring any firearm to a non-licensee who resides in another state. (18 USC 922(a)(5))

So basically what we are seeing is that the gun laws that have been imposed, whether they are the strictest or not in terms of state rankings, actually don't work BECAUSE THE CRIMINALS DON'T CARE.

Perhaps the issue is not more gun laws, but actually tougher gun crime laws as indicated here in an article "Does Chicago Have The Strictest Gun Laws in the Country?" by Kelly Bauer. If you take the time to read the statistics presented, approximately 25% of the criminals arrested in Chicago from Jan. 1 to Sept. 30, 2015, had one or more prior gun arrests.

The president "appears" to be....

The article does not say that he is, just that he appears to be. In the second video on the same web page, he was supporting taking the guns first then doing due process. So by constitutional law, he would have to "back pedal". He was looking for an answer, had a discussion and indicated that he was open to discussion with the NRA as there is a common goal. But why acknowledge that? Hopefully people will read the whole article and listen to both videos.

Again, name calling and rhetoric aren't constructive. I say again, any attempt to circumvent the constitution by administrative controls and not an act of congress should be opposed and not rubber stamped. I don't care which amendment we are discussing, our founding fathers set up this system so that we don't have history repeat itself.

Really, posting a link to a tweet from a national leader to support your statement would make this too much about politics? I have already demonstrated a propensity to incompletely quote in order to make a statement fit an agenda. I would be remiss to actually believe someone who can't even quote me correctly.

Finally, a point I can completely agree on. Too many children have died.

Thank you Trayderjoe, very much for proving...everything I stated is correct. :thumbup:

I do get a kick out of your attempted parsing, but anyone can go back and read what you stated...particularly in regards to your false statement that "claiming that no background checks are done at gun shows."

I haven't heard anyone of consequence claim that NO checks are being made at gun shows (required by licensed dealers), but a gun show (by those not claiming to be dealers) and private sale loophole DOES exist...and no amount of parsing will change that fact. :oops:

And the doozy is your continued deflection/denial that the NRA didn't change you-know-who's mind on what he had stated publicly prior, AFTER that NRA meeting in which he quickly backpedaled (hope he didn't trip :D) from his broadcast statements ...that he "wasn't afraid of the NRA." :1rotfl:

Deep in your heart, do you REALLY believe his public backpedaling...had nothing to do with the closed door NRA meeting?

Really? :ohdear:

I would however like to take the opportunity to sincerely thank you for your detailed work & effort (very few ever spend the effort to link to even an opinion piece, to try and bolster their argument).

What you have accomplished however, albeit unintentionally I'm sure...is to so aptly demonstrate WHY nothing has been done. :ho:


:wave:

Too many hypocrites!!!!!!!!!!!

The easy target (pun intended!) is of course guns. It is the politically correct position. It is the partisan position. It is the position of those who have no idea what they are talking about. It is the position of the media slanted which the lemmings parrot....and so on.

As has been said too many times to count.
It is not the guns.

Why is there no rage/anger/hostility toward the ongoing teaching of our youth and young adults how to maim/rape/torture/dis-member/disrespect/et al?
All one has to do is review the video games, the television shows, the movies, the attitudes toward right and wrong.

Day in and day out the preponderance of violence is a steady presentation in the lives of our daily lives.

Once upon a time parents would be selective about what the "kids" watch. Almost a non-existent practice.

The language and attitude and disrespect of far too high a percent of our youth is unacceptable.

Add to the above (and much more like it) the easy going, permissive, don't upset anybody culture.....the formula for only more violence is cast.

Why do we not hear about these things. Because it affects the parents and the administrators, the so called adults of the day are too involved in the same crap. And they sure are not going to want to deny themselves the enjoyment that is poisoning our youth our culture.

Nope!!
It is much easier to pick a subject to blame that most of them DO NOT PARTICIPATE in like guns to blame. Zero impact on their enjoys.

Until the root cause is addressed we the people can go on wringing their hands and waving their arms and talking from the prepared talking points, with no progress (what ever that means).

The innocents will continue to be ALLOWED to be slaughtered until such time as America wakes up and restores it's disciplined roots, culture and values.

Shame on we the people to allow such a deterioration to continue. As the last 20 years have shown.....IT CAN AND WILL ONLY CONTINUE!!

It ain't the guns.

"Consider the following seven factors, not diagnostically, not as a “profile,” and certainly never as the basis for punitive action, but as points for consideration in a quest to reduce school violence:

1. So far, all school shooters have been male and the vast majority (over 90 percent) were active or recent students at the school.

2. If there is one predominant theme in school shootings, it is anger and revenge.

a. 75% of school shooters felt bullied or harassed by other students
b. Sometimes shooters felt unfairly treated by teachers
c. They seldom have specific targets, but kill randomly in order to inflict the most harm

3. School shooters tended to be socially awkward and avoidant, and often isolate themselves with few if any friends.

a. They were sometimes described as “strange”
b. They seemed to have a penchant for” retreat into fantasy,” especially when under stress
c. Shooters exhibited an obsessive quality that often led to detailed planning, but ironically they seemed to lack an understanding of the consequences of their behavior and thus may have a history of adverse encounters with law enforcement
d. The same obsessive quality drives the shooter to focus upon interpersonal rejection, unfair treatment, and elaborate plans for revenge
e. They expressed fascination with violence, morbid media, death
f. If the shooter does associate with others, it is likely to be with those who share preoccupations with the macabre
g Shooters may have a history of cruelty to animals (this is a low probability factor, but a significant one when present)
h. There is often a sense of hopelessness that predicts their own death by the end of the incident

4. The media contagion effect (copycat killings) may serve as an especially powerful motivator for those who already feel anger, frustration or loss.
5. Shooters tend to have experienced dysfunctional family situations or experience a lack of effective adult supervision, mentoring, or oversight.
6. 68% of shooters obtained weapons from their home or the home of a relative. (Yes, ease of availability to firearms does matter.)
7. Shooters tend to express their frustrations and anger using art and/or social media posts, thus monitoring of such media becomes an important tool in early identification of individuals at risk for committing violence.

This model is not a “profile.” It is simply the accumulation and integration of recurring themes that warrant consideration, not only by law enforcement, but educators and mental health clinicians dedicated to primary prevention and school safety.

So can we tell who will be next to kill? Probably not. But we can facilitate direct supportive outreach and intervention with those who may be at high risk for committing school violence or to their families, or both."

"Profiling" School Shooters
Can we tell who will be the next to kill?
Posted Mar 29, 2018

So this was written prior to the last shooting and since there has been 1 shooting per week it would be interesting how it would apply to those as well.

I said this in another similar thread. We have 1 counselor per 500 students and mostly they need to spend their day doing paper work not having heart to heart talks. You need a 24 hour hotline for troubled kids that need someone to talk to and whistle bowers. Experienced teachers can tell you who needs extra attention. They can also tell you what coaches and other teachers are applying unhealthy pressure.

What about suicide?
"The Shocking Numbers
Suicides among girls ages 15 to 19 doubled from 2007 to 2015, when it reached its highest point in 40 years.

The suicide rate for boys ages 15 to 19 grew by 30 percent from 2007 to 2015.

Twice as many young men, ages 20-24, commit suicide, compared with young women. In teens, ages 17-19, the ratio is even more skewed, with suicide claiming nearly five times the number of young men.
Additional risk factors include traumatic or stressful life events; a prior suicide attempt; a sense of isolation and lack of support; impulsivity issues; substance abuse issues; poor coping skills; and access to a suicide method.
Young men are four times more likely to die from suicide than young women. However, in the same age range, females are more likely than males to attempt suicide. "

In other words they disagree with your interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, but not the Supreme Court's.

And linking an article from Vox is almost as bad as linking one from Salon.

The left loves to bash the NRA. But remember, the NRA has over 5,000,000 members. Those members are voters just like you and me.

If you really want to counter the NRA you can get onboard with Michael Bloomberg and his $50,000,000 and contribute to his Everytown For Gun Safety.

There's also plenty of other lobbying groups you can support such as the Brady Campaign, Mom's Demand Action, The Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, etc. There are plenty of groups you could join to counter the NRA.

So it is not the guns. It is the NRA?!?!

And please explain how or why "fixing", eliminating, changing, emasculating, etc the NRA affects what is going on in the schools and by who.......

The get the NRA folks right next to the anti gun folks.....programmed.....directed......

Used to be amusing. Now it has become frightening!!

Haven't you heard, the NRA is the Boogie Man.. :boxing2:

Ok. Apparently I give more credit than where credit is due. The sentence is written, and I have not denied writing it: "In order to make actual progress, inflammatory, inaccurate reporting (such as continually misrepresenting what an AR-15 rifle actually is, or claiming that no background checks are done at gun shows) must stop as it only fuels the fire. " I am calling out people who CLAIM that no background checks are done at gun shows, but are using emotion to set an agenda . Kind of like people who claim that there are leaders who are encouraging bullying by telling people to "pull up their big boy pants", but can't prove it. The actual use of the "pull up your big boy pants" was in reference to David Hogg choosing to bully companies and people. Don't get me wrong, I will absolutely defend David Hogg's right to free speech (I needed to include that so I am not accused of denying free speech-is that clear enough?). The call out to David was that if he was going to enter the arena, then yes, he will be challenged and he should be prepared for a discourse with which he may not agree (sound familiar?)

So because you "haven't heard anyone of consequence claim that NO checks are being made at gun shows", then it must not be happening? Really? And again, you either cannot or will not produce any links to substantiate you rhetoric regarding those tweets.

Ok, again I gave more credit than was due.

I wrote: "The article does not say that he is, just that he appears to be. In the second video on the same web page, he was supporting taking the guns first then doing due process. So by constitutional law, he would have to "back pedal". He was looking for an answer, had a discussion and indicated that he was open to discussion with the NRA as there is a common goal. But why acknowledge that? Hopefully people will read the whole article and listen to both videos.

Could this "backpedaling" have come from a discussion with the NRA? Yes, if they pointed out the constitutional issues he would face with administratively eliminating due process. As neither you or I were in the room, what happened is mere speculation. You just choose to inflame and infer to match your agenda. Re-read the highlighted line once more..."So by constitutional law, he would have to back pedal". Of course you flippantly ignore the second video in which he talks about taking the guns first then due process. Do you even understand what due process is and how important it is?

I will even take your backhanded acknowledgement as I (and others reading this thread) recognize that this will be the best that will happen.

I do actually have to give you the credit for showing why progress is slow. It takes time to have a reasonable discussion. What I have written, and others see, is that I have tried to stick to the facts (do you even remember my acknowledging that my understanding of the Chicago gun law severity was incorrect once I followed the link and read the information?), but what I read is continued rhetoric and still no evidence that many claims being made are indeed factual.

I would add the following question that you did not list....

WHY does our country not address those from outside the country whose mission it is to inflict unrest and strife on issues like this ?

Why pretend that does not exist, constantly and to my knowledge with no plans to address it ?

It is totally ignored in all these discussions and it seems it is just getting worse. What point in ignoring it as if it were not real ?

"Russia-linked bots have particularly distorted the gun control debate. Revelations that thousands of bot posts had claimed Parkland survivors were paid actors prompted Facebook and YouTube to promise to crackdown on trolls. But the falsehoods continue to proliferate. Meanwhile, in April, YouTube headquarters in Silicon Valley itself became the site of a mass shooting."



What Mass Shootings and Big Data Have in Common | The New Republic

The minute we have any kind of mass shooting they appear on Facebook, although not restricted to simply that site and begin the proliferation of phoney and false stories.

And between the shootings, we allow them to incorporate plain out lies and false truths to our children, and again.....we have no plan to fight this.

We continue to do "as ordered"....fight with each other over and over again.

No, seriously, it's definitely my bad...for giving too much credit.

For that...you have my apology. :ho:


Puhleeze, you're straining credulity...of even the most naive of people.

If you can't see the bullying in the Tweets...then THAT'S the real problem. :ohdear:



You're doing it again! :oops:

While solely concentrating on the admittedly embarrassingly stupid statement of "confiscation, then due process" (which I agree was beyond ignorant, for a person at that level), you are purposely avoiding the issue of bumpstocks...WHICH WAS ALSO DISCUSSED in the publicly broadcast meeting.

And yes, THAT was also backpedaled on after the NRA PRIVATE meeting...which has so far resulted in crickets.

Nice try though. :thumbup:


I've given all the evidence a reasonable person needs, which will always fall woefully short with those who actually depend on EMOTIONS...and their love of guns over the love/safety of children. :ohdear:

ROFL.. I'm sure your definition of a reasonable person differs from others.

To blame an inanimate object for these killings instead of the people committing them is pure EMOTION..

And to say people love their guns more than children or their safety is pure EMOTIONAL BS. Even if you banned guns altogether it likely wouldn't stop mass killings.

An original thought from you? Um, no. Although it is amusing that you are now plagiarizing my thoughts.

Look you can rant and rave, call people names and use all of the emoticons that you want, but you continue to duck. Why can't you produce the work product that you are citing? I should have no need to go and look for the origin of your work product. I have provided you my research time and again.

So, YOU put a link to a video in which the president is discussing what you call "backpedaling", you name call, you ignore (and not give credit where he is discussing taking guns before due process) and now you are trying to tie that into me avoiding the bumpstock issue? Why do you continue to muddle the discussion? Perhaps so that you don't have to back up your statements?

I also call out that YOU continue to duck my questions. I answer each of yours, and provide links as appropriate. I still have not seen evidence of your claims, but we are supposed to trust you.

YOU attempted to manipulate the "big boy discussion" by IMPLYING that the leaders condone bullying. It is time for you to muddle the waters once again:

Those were YOUR words. SHOW all of us where you got this information from-don't tell us to go do your work for you.

You still have not identified if you even understand "due process" and how important it is.

You haven't given "all the evidence", what you have done is provide rhetoric and opinion which you are attempting to make fact.

This thread discusses an important topic. Unfortunately, some posters have ceased discussing the topic and are directing their posts at other members and therefore not advancing the discussion. To disagree with a poster’s comment is fine. To resort to name calling or other directed comments is not. Disagree without being disagreeable or your comments will be deleted and/or the thread will be closed.

Moderator

I have tried to figure out why these mass school shootings continue to happen. Of course, the individual is not mentally stable, no person in their right mind would do something like that, but there have been mentally unstable people going to school forever. Why so many of these shootings now?
Reading this thread there are many people that have ideas as to why or what we may do to stop it. The OP started the thread by addressing gun laws. It would be nice if it was that easy and all we had to do was ban this or that and the criminals would actually obey that law.
Another person thought it may be because of too much video games and such that are putting ideas in their heads. I'm not sure I can completely agree with that either. When I was a child we used to get toy guns for Christmas and played cops and robbers shooting each other. All the shows we watched showed people getting shot or stabbed. We knew it wasn't real.
One person had a pretty good idea about metal detectors but the only problem with that is if there is no one there to stop them it wouldn't matter. The shooter could have pulled the gun out ten feet before he went through the door. If there is no one there to stop him he's coming in.
Someone brought up bullying. Although this is a problem in schools, when hasn't it been, it's still not a reason to kill a bunch of people. What was it that the kid in Florida said was his problem? Oh yeah, his girlfriend broke up with him. None of it makes any sense. I would be willing to bet that 95% or more people reading this have been bullied at some point or another and who hasn't had a break up with a girlfriend.
So what's the cause? This has been touched on by a couple of people but I believe that the main reason that school shootings continue to happen is because of the media. Getting back to what I said to start with...the person that does this has got to be mentally disturbed. I believe that seeing these kids picture and giving their names and telling their sad little stories is what is causing this to continue. In their sick minds, they see these shooters as some kind of heroes or something, championing their cause if you will. They want to be like them (famous). If they would quit showing their face and giving their names this would eventually stop. Even a sick minded person would have to know they are giving their life up as well.

Food for thought and well presented.

I would like to elaborate on the mention of we used to have play guns and pretend etc..
But in movies or in theatres and even early television violence/vulgarity was absent.

In recent years it is common entertainment for rape/murder/dismemberment/beheading with squirting blood scenes/disrespect for others/others property/disrespect of the law and the enforcers.
When one is exposed to this type behavior they become calloused to the real severity of the reaction. They become accustomed to and unaffected by the violence. It becomes accepted/expected.

We have allowed our society to make it acceptable to do/view this violence daily. A very much different person evolves from such exposure.......and we are continuing to allow it at an earlier and earlier age.

Condition reflex!!!! It is real. School shootings are a perfect example.

I agree as I proposed in my original response on this thread to stop the publicity. It is a very complex issue and clearly there are options to trying to stop the event, unfortunately most of them are a little too far "down the road". By that I mean that if we focus on stopping the shooter entering the school, the shooter will most likely re-direct their anger at another venue, such as a shopping mall. We in effect fix one problem, but create another while still not fixing the root problem. There have been posts pointing out that we really should look at root causes. Hopefully the powers that be will sit in a room and "white paper" any causes they think of (you don't evaluate relevance here, it is done during the build of the root cause chain). No proposed cause should be dismissed without discussion. A proper root cause investigation will ask hard questions and remove emotion. You start with the most recent event and work backwards and keep asking "why?" until you can't go any further. For each "why" question, there is supposed to be a cause and an effect identified that leads to that question, and then we ask why to each cause and effect. The investigation actually removes emotion and sticks to facts. Given the complexity of the topic, there might be multiple root cause investigation off shoots from the original investigation.

What do you tell a child that is afraid to go to school? Duck and Cover? like we did when we thought a nuclear war might happen--and being under a desk would protect us

If these crimes are being committed due to isolation what happens when more kids start being home schooled?
I heard on TV that someone is suggesting we close down the schools until we have a solution. I guess they don't have kids.

You will notice a lot of scared kids if you listen to them around stores and the like. SOMETHING needs to be done.

Some FOX News woman broadcaster put out the idea to the Texas AG that kids need to have a place to give information about other kids where they will not have to fear reprisals.

And churches was mentioned. They do need to step up their game in many communities. Get out there with outreach.

That was also my suggestion. You need multiple 24 hour hotlines where you can talk to someone and get some comfort or blow a whistle. Where I taught we lost someone who everybody loved, suicide. We brought in extra grief counselors. That pales greatly in comparison.

Tomwed why aren’t the big guys listening to people like you who were on the front lines so to speak. Mind Boggling that this hasn’t been solved.