[Trayderjoe]

Originally Posted by billethkid

If the politics of today were in play when the 2nd amendment (as well as all the others) there would be no such document for signing.

Somehow the politics of mine or nothing have replaced representing the people.

The so called representatives have become self appointed/annointed representatives of the party and forgotten the people.

It all gets back to the silent majority. That could easily demand change back to doing what is right for we the people.....not the party.

This is why there can be no progress or satisfaction when it comes to doing what is right for the safety of children in schools. The representatives are too caught up in the bidding of the party making them unable to serve the needs of the safety of the children.

The issue of guns is nothing more than an ONGOING, convenient distraction. The representatives do not have anything invested in the safety of the children....they have none in school....they have not suffered any loss....
until we demand other wise.....NOTHING WILL CHANGE!

Great points billethkid. I hadn't even considered from that angle. Too bad we can't have term limits for our Congress just as we have for the President.

[Bonnevie]

Originally Posted by tophcfa

How come people don't start a band all cars movement every time some wack job uses one to purposely run over a bunch of innocent people?

because cars were developed as a means of transportation and are used in those instances inappropriately. guns were developed to kill, that is their only purpose.

no one wants to take away people's guns or the right to own them. and the Texas case is different from Parkland but still an underage teenager was able to procure guns. and nothing would prevent him from buying guns from a private source.

[Dmbluk]

Gun control starts behind your front door. Gun safety starts behind your front door. Growing up I was taught at a very early age when and where a gun was to be used. As far back as I can remember their where always 3 guns behind the headboard of my parents bed and we knew they were off limits unless we were supervised using them. My parents took the time to teach us the difference between right and wrong. And they did this while they both worked full time jobs and my dad worked 2 jobs. These people who think having the government control guns is the correct why to handle mass killings need to wake up . Sometime when you have a minute sit down in front of your computer and google How to make a pipe bomb or How to make a steam pot bomb. Then they will see how easy it is for children to find other ways to make weapons of mass killings. Gun control starts behind your front door. Gun safety starts behind your front door.

[Fredster]

Originally Posted by rivaridger1

Is insisting gun owners act responsibly and secure their guns " gun control ?

No, securing the firearms you may own is
just common sense.
Which the vast majotity of gun owners posess!

[Miles42]

This is just beating a dead horses

[ColdNoMore]

Originally Posted by Miles42

This is just beating a dead horses

Of courses.

[ColdNoMore]

Originally Posted by Fredster

No, securing the firearms you may own is
just common sense.
Which the vast majotity of gun owners posess!

Gun Violence: Facts and Statistics | Violence Prevention Initiative

-In 2014, 2,549 children (age 0 to 19 years) died by gunshot and an additional 13,576 were injured.

-An emergency department visit for non-fatal assault injury places a youth at 40 percent higher risk for subsequent firearm injury.

-Those people that die from accidental shooting were more than three times as likely to have had a firearm in their home as those in the control group.

-Among children, the majority (89%) of unintentional shooting deaths occur in the home. Most of these deaths occur when children are playing with a loaded gun in their parent’s absence.

-People who report “firearm access” are at twice the risk of homicide and more than three times the risk of suicide compared to those who do not own or have access to firearms.

States rejecting bills intended to keep guns away from kids

In state after state, proposals that would create or toughen laws intended to keep kids from getting ahold of unsecured guns have stalled — caught up in a debate over whether they are effective prevention measures or just government overreach.

Child access prevention laws allow prosecutors to bring charges against adults who fail to safely store their loaded guns, especially when they are obtained by minors and used to harm.

Public health experts say the laws could significantly reduce unintentional shootings that kill and injure hundreds of children every year, particularly if they allow for felonies against violators and are paired with educational campaigns to raise awareness.

But legislative efforts in dozens of states have run into opposition from lawmakers aligned with the National Rifle Association.

Critics say the laws trample on the rights of gun owners who should be able to store their firearms however they want, and unfairly single out guns.

[bob47]

There are those who believe more guns in more hands, hardened facilities, and armed guards in abundance is the appropriate future. Some folks believe fewer guns and open facilities is what you would expect of an advanced society and can actually be found in some advanced countries. These two groups will never agree on a path forward.

Personally, I find it a pretty dismal future to comtemplate, that access to a lot of facilities is actually like entering a prison. But let me ask a few questions of those who advocate hardening public facilities.

What do you do with a place like the University of Massachusetts which has about 24,000 students and hundreds of buildings on over 1400 acres? And all the other universities like it?

What do you do about a place like Saint Mary-of-the-Woods college, a small catholic womens' college in Indiana with about 700 students on 67 acres? And all the literally thousands of small colleges in this country?

And what do you do about all the shopping malls and transportation terminals and nursing homes and hospitals and performing arts centers?

And how do you ensure that somebody who today has been screened and deemed safe to own a weapon of tremendous destructive capability doesn't go off the rails at some time in the future and use that weapon to wreak havoc?

It seems to me that one component of the answer is to limit the destructive capability that individuals can own. Certainly there are social issues that need to be addressed as well. But some people believe that there are already too many guns out there and control is now impossible. Unfortunately, especially for lack of will, I fear that is true.

Let us, however, remember an incident that occurred a few years ago at night in Spanish Springs. There was an armed robbery at a restaurant and some folks had money and who knows what else stolen. I don't know if the perpetrators were captured or if the folks got their money back. But there were no shots fired. Nobody was hurt. No innocent bystanders were killed. If somebody had pulled out a gun to shoot it out with the robbers, isn't it just possible that one of the victims or somebody at the Rialto theater or on the square would have wound up dead? Just some food for thought.

[8notes]

Originally Posted by ColdNoMore

NRA's Chris Cox falsely says Dianne Feinstein wanted to take 'all of your guns' | PolitiFact


What, the NRA...again?!


Facts Matter

Thank you. So much false information out there, and people just lap it up without doing any fact checking. I think it might have originally come from Breibart news, no surprise.

[Bowtorc]

Bobby Rush is undoubtedly another example of people running the state that can't even provide gas to get a witness to court for a trial. Never so glad to get out of Illinois.

[retiredguy123]

Originally Posted by bob47

Let us, however, remember an incident that occurred a few years ago at night in Spanish Springs. There was an armed robbery at a restaurant and some folks had money and who knows what else stolen. I don't know if the perpetrators were captured or if the folks got their money back. But there were no shots fired. Nobody was hurt. No innocent bystanders were killed. If somebody had pulled out a gun to shoot it out with the robbers, isn't it just possible that one of the victims or somebody at the Rialto theater or on the square would have wound up dead? Just some food for thought.

Yes, but it is also possible that, if all law abiding people gave up their guns, there would be a lot more robberies because the criminals would have no fear about commiting crimes at will.

[l2ridehd]

Originally Posted by redwitch

Try Australia, Denmark, Sweden for a start.

I think Oz may actually have a similar culture to ours regarding the wild, Wild West attitude and adulation (why I don’t think gun laws would work here) but they’ve managed to ban guns except for farmers. Their last mass killing by gun was a murder-suicide on a farm this year. There have been a few stranger killings between 1996 and today (a car plowed into a crowd, a university shooting and a hostage situation — all I can remember at the top of my head). John Howard, the PM in 1996, flat out said he didn’t want Australia following in America’s footsteps. So, not a perfect record but a heck of a lot better than ours. Their children are not being murdered on a regular basis.

Actually those don't work. Look at their population and number of incidents (and include all incidents using guns, knives, cars, etc, violent crimes) and they are not that much different. OZ has less then 1/20th of our population and as a % of population is over 80% of our incidents with strict gun control.

You can take away all weapons but until you fix the people issues you will still have problems. People have to know there will be severe consequences to their behavior and in this country the lawyers have ruined that possibility.

[Taltarzac725]

Originally Posted by l2ridehd

Actually those don't work. Look at their population and number of incidents (and include all incidents using guns, knives, cars, etc, violent crimes) and they are not that much different. OZ has less then 1/20th of our population and as a % of population is over 80% of our incidents with strict gun control.

You can take away all weapons but until you fix the people issues you will still have problems. People have to know there will be severe consequences to their behavior and in this country the lawyers have ruined that possibility.

The lawyers though only seem to work that way for very high profile cases like OJ Simpson and the rich/famous but not so much for ordinary people. That goes more to the luck of the draw with picking jurors and getting the right judge and avoiding cliques in court houses or local communities which can lead to unfair outcomes. Death of Caylee Anthony - Wikipedia

What we need is communities working to solve local problems with the resources in those communities or those available via the Internet. It takes a Village....

[billethkid]

Eventually the distraction of gun control will give way to those who would venture to address the needed school safety and protection of the children in attendance there.

The other lark some take pleasure in commenting on is gun owners in the USA giving up their guns. There will be a snowball sale in hell long before that EVER happens.
Just think about it for a nano second. Nobody knows where the guns are or who has them and how many. Just another gun control uninformed anecdotal seizure....

Back to the real subject.....safety in the school and protection of the children!

[leftyf]

Originally Posted by retiredguy123

Yes, but it is also possible that, if all law abiding people gave up their guns, there would be a lot more robberies because the criminals would have no fear about commiting crimes at will.

You must take them from the criminals first.