 |
|
 |
 |
|
|
Forum
-> In the News
↑
gold21
↓
|
 Fri, May 27 2022, 3:15 pm
| exaustedmom wrote: | | In this scenario? Absolutely! |
Exactly lol.
Don't write off police altogether because of one rotten bunch of apples. Of course we need police, Imorethanamother. Why suggest otherwise?
But this crew in Texas totally messed up. They were pretty much useless. The kids may have been better off without the cops on the scene.
| |
|
| Back to top |
 0
 5
|
↑
gold21
↓
|
Fri, May 27 2022, 3:16 pm
| number wrote: | | This for me is the biggest piece of what happened. The neglect on the part of law enforcement is just staggering. |
I know.... Just terrible. 
| |
|
| Back to top |
0
4
|
LittleDucky
↓
|
Fri, May 27 2022, 3:23 pm
| gold21 wrote: | 1. The gunman also had a handgun, which he was not legally allowed to purchase until age 21. He obtained it illegally. This is the best argument for the idea that if not obtained legally, bad people who don't care about laws could obtain guns illegally, leaving those who do care about laws without defensive weapons.
2. Who evacuated the children in the classrooms that the shooter was not in? Who led classrooms full of terrified kids to safety? Not the cops. Nope. They were still standing outside "planning" an evacuation an hour after the fact. An off duty border patrol agent was at the barber enjoying a haircut when he heard that an active shooter was in his daughters school building. He borrowed a handgun from his barber, raced over to the building, and evacuated all classrooms other than the one that was barricaded by the gunman, leading all the terrified kids to safety (including his own daughter). This is the best argument for the right for citizens, such as random barbers, to bear arms. Leaving guns to gvmt personell and police personell, who were still in the "planning" stage when this father decided to jump into action, would not have allowed this man to do what he did.
3. Do you support the Luke & Alex School Safety Act? The Democrats in Congress have spoken out against it. This Act promotes the idea of armed guards protecting schools and lays out guidelines for how schools should train and respond in cases of an active shooter G-d Forbid. The Democrats do not like this Act, because they don't support having guns in school zones, as they claim that it creates an unhealthy environment. This is the best argument for the belief that neither side genuinely wants to solve this problem and are only looking for further their own agendas. The Democrats continue to demonize the Republican side while refusing to look at legislation that would tighten security at school buildings. That is so awful of them, to be honest. Do they care about kids? They secure their own homes presumably.
4. Yes, I agree we need to tighten gun laws. This is the best argument for the idea that many staunch conservatives such as myself absolutely do want to tighten gun laws. Access at 18 seems crazy to me. Raise the minimum age to 21, institute background checks, require a more detailed complicated registration process to acquire an AR-15 (the gun of choice that's almost always used in school shootings), etc. I agree with all this.
But tightening school security is just as important, if not more important, than tightening gun laws. And don't believe a word that Democrats say about wanting to save the world. They are just as agenda-driven on this issue as the Republicans are. And the right to bear arms saves lives. |
#4. So we could restart the draft, hand him a sniper rifle or even a fully automatic weapon (or detonate those bunker buster bombs they used in Afghanistan) and force him to fight for this country against his will, die for this country but he cant own a gun? Suddenly you trust them when in uniform but the day he comes home if still under 21 he is no longer safe?
That is why the age for voting was dropped from 21 to 18. Because they could die for this country but couldnt vote for the person who would send them off to war.
Alcohol was a totally different reason. People were upset about that one being raised to 21 too because we can ship them off to war against their will but cant let them have a drink the night before. (Feds forced the states to change to 21 because they withheld highway money).
But if you can force them to hold weapons and fight for this country, they are mature enough to own a gun.
Maybe everything from draft to alcohol to guns to voting to 21. Because it doesnt make sense for 1 things to be 18 and the others 21.
I also believe schools need armed security because no one is shooting up the courthouses... I had to go through security to get in the last time I had jury duty! We need to harden targets because shooters tend to go for the easiest targets...
| |
|
| Back to top |
1
5
|
↑
pause
↓
|
Fri, May 27 2022, 3:29 pm
| sushilover wrote: | No one is against screening and background checks. We already have those except in the most rare circumstances, like a family member borrowing a gun. Even then, it is illegal to sell out lend a gun to anyone who is a felon or you wouldn't trust. Those rare circumstances are not a risk to you.
Enforced training will not make you safer.
If you are anxious about me having a gun because we don't have enforced training, that is an illogical fear.
Illogical fears can be discussed. They should not be the basis for our laws. |
Right. So why was this 18 year old meshugene able to legally buy a gun? Because his screening and background check were rigorous and thorough and he passed muster?
| |
|
| Back to top |
0
1
|
↑
gold21
↓
|
Fri, May 27 2022, 3:30 pm
| LittleDucky wrote: | #4. So we could restart the draft, hand him a sniper rifle or even a fully automatic weapon (or detonate those bunker buster bombs they used in Afghanistan) and force him to fight for this country against his will, die for this country but he cant own a gun? Suddenly you trust them when in uniform but the day he comes home if still under 21 he is no longer safe?
That is why the age for voting was dropped from 21 to 18. Because they could die for this country but couldnt vote for the person who would send them off to war.
Alcohol was a totally different reason. People were upset about that one being raised to 21 too because we can ship them off to war against their will but cant let them have a drink the night before. (Feds forced the states to change to 21 because they withheld highway money).
But if you can force them to hold weapons and fight for this country, they are mature enough to own a gun.
Maybe everything from draft to alcohol to guns to voting to 21. Because it doesnt make sense for 1 things to be 18 and the others 21.
I also believe schools need armed security because no one is shooting up the courthouses... I had to go through security to get in the last time I had jury duty! We need to harden targets because shooters tend to go for the easiest targets... |
I hear you. But isn't there a broader screening process for military service? Would this gunman have gotten accepted into the military? I don't claim to have these answers. Just asking questions.
| |
|
| Back to top |
0
3
|
Congresswoman
|
Fri, May 27 2022, 3:40 pm
| number wrote: | | This for me is the biggest piece of what happened. The neglect on the part of law enforcement is just staggering. |
Though I agree it seems the police may have done a sloppy job, I hate that every tragedy gets misdirected and a scapegoat is found. Usually the rescuers.
Who remembers when everyone rushed to bash the Israeli police for the meron crush?
While it is devastating that the police hadn’t been efficient, they are not your bad guy here. It irks me when the rescuers get turned into the monsters.
Perhaps it is due to human beings looking for a party to throw their anger to, but since the perpetrator is dead, the police are the next best thing.
Still not right.
| |
|
| Back to top |
0
3
|
↑
#BestBubby
↓
|
Fri, May 27 2022, 3:46 pm
The Police did not rescue anybody - and tazed and handcuffed parents who wanted to rescue their kids.
Police did not do their job - and heads should roll!
| |
|
| Back to top |
1
4
|
JoyInTheMorning
↓
|
Fri, May 27 2022, 3:47 pm
| #BestBubby wrote: | Do you know that 100 Million people were MURDERED by their Government
after they agreed to give up their guns????
WHY on earth do you think disarming and letting only Government own guns is safe??? |
What in the world are you referring to?
| |
|
| Back to top |
0
1
|
↑
number
↓
|
Fri, May 27 2022, 3:50 pm
| Congresswoman wrote: | | Though I agree it seems the police may have done a sloppy job, I hate that every tragedy gets misdirected and a scapegoat is found. Usually the rescuers. | You obviously didn’t read through the thread. I said multiple times that it was a combination of factors, including a door being propped open and the armed security guard being on the road instead of on campus. But I also said the negligence of law enforcement is the biggest piece of what went wrong, and I will stand by it. That they refused to do their jobs is one thing. It seems there may be legal grounds for them to argue that they didn’t need to put themselves in harm’s way. Preventing parents from stepping in to save their own children is something else.
| |
|
| Back to top |
0
3
|
↑
#BestBubby
↓
|
Fri, May 27 2022, 3:53 pm
| JoyInTheMorning wrote: | | What in the world are you referring to? |
In the last 100 years, a few countries passed laws banning private people from
owning guns - only government could own guns. Then the government murdered
millions of citizens. Here are some of the countries:
Soviet Union, China, Cambodia, Turkey, Nazi Germany, North Korea
| |
|
| Back to top |
1
4
|
↑
sushilover
↓
|
Fri, May 27 2022, 4:09 pm
| pause wrote: | | Right. So why was this 18 year old meshugene able to legally buy a gun? Because his screening and background check were rigorous and thorough and he passed muster? |
It's too early to know, but we do know that in virtually all the famous cases in the last few years, major laws were broken or the government failed to do its job and give the information to the background check agency.
Increasing the thoroughness of background checks won't solve the problem of the states and even the FBI failing to give critical information to the background checking agencies. And making more laws won't solvr the problem of the government failing to enforce and prosecute the gun laws we have. These are huge problem that no one wants to talk about. And solving these would help (not solve) all gun violence, not only the mass shooting.
| |
|
| Back to top |
0
4
|
↑
JoyInTheMorning
|
Fri, May 27 2022, 4:11 pm
| #BestBubby wrote: | In the last 100 years, a few countries passed laws banning private people from
owning guns - only government could own guns. Then the government murdered
millions of citizens. Here are some of the countries:
Soviet Union, China, Cambodia, Turkey, Nazi Germany, North Korea |
1. What kind of murdering millions of citizens are you talking about? How many in each country? Are you just picking a big number out of a hat? Or perhaps copying from something you read without analyzing the data?
2. Stalin, through his policies, did indeed cause a famine in the USSR that caused millions of people to die of hunger. But what does gun ownership have to do with that? Is there a causal connection between citizens not being allowed to own guns and their deaths? I’m not following what you are trying to say.
3. There are many, many countries where citizens have very restricted gun and bullet ownership rights, including Japan, the UK, Israel, and many countries in Western Europe. But you’re not making the claim that the governments of these countries are killing millions of their citizens. So you’re essentially cherry picking in your argument, pointing to dictatorships with restrictive gun ownership laws rather than democracies with restrictive gun ownership laws.
In fact, that’s the point. What protects citizens’ lives is the form of government rather than their access to guns.
| |
|
| Back to top |
0
3
|
↑
sky
|
Fri, May 27 2022, 4:25 pm
| JoyInTheMorning wrote: |
In fact, that’s the point. What protects citizens’ lives is the form of government rather than their access to guns. |
You have to trust the government won’t fall and will always have your best interest in mind forever.
Wouldn’t Venezuela be an example?
Having firearms prevent the citizens from a rogue government.
| |
|
| Back to top |
0
7
|
↑
#BestBubby
↓
|
Fri, May 27 2022, 4:42 pm
| JoyInTheMorning wrote: | 1. What kind of murdering millions of citizens are you talking about? How many in each country? Are you just picking a big number out of a hat? Or perhaps copying from something you read without analyzing the data?
2. Stalin, through his policies, did indeed cause a famine in the USSR that caused millions of people to die of hunger. But what does gun ownership have to do with that? Is there a causal connection between citizens not being allowed to own guns and their deaths? I’m not following what you are trying to say.
3. There are many, many countries where citizens have very restricted gun and bullet ownership rights, including Japan, the UK, Israel, and many countries in Western Europe. But you’re not making the claim that the governments of these countries are killing millions of their citizens. So you’re essentially cherry picking in your argument, pointing to dictatorships with restrictive gun ownership laws rather than democracies with restrictive gun ownership laws.
In fact, that’s the point. What protects citizens’ lives is the form of government rather than their access to guns. |
What about the Tyranny in Australia?
They are a Democratic Government who imprisoned the people AFTER they gave
up their guns - after a mass shooting!
| |
|
| Back to top |
2
3
|
↑
exaustedmom
|
Fri, May 27 2022, 4:46 pm
| Congresswoman wrote: | Though I agree it seems the police may have done a sloppy job, I hate that every tragedy gets misdirected and a scapegoat is found. Usually the rescuers.
Who remembers when everyone rushed to bash the Israeli police for the meron crush?
While it is devastating that the police hadn’t been efficient, they are not your bad guy here. It irks me when the rescuers get turned into the monsters.
Perhaps it is due to human beings looking for a party to throw their anger to, but since the perpetrator is dead, the police are the next best thing.
Still not right. |
The lack of action by police led to 21 dead including 19 children. Police in this case did not do their job and prevented parents from rescuing their children. So, yes, we can blame the police.
| |
|
| Back to top |
0
6
|
↑
pause
↓
|
Fri, May 27 2022, 6:27 pm
| sushilover wrote: | It's too early to know, but we do know that in virtually all the famous cases in the last few years, major laws were broken or the government failed to do its job and give the information to the background check agency.
Increasing the thoroughness of background checks won't solve the problem of the states and even the FBI failing to give critical information to the background checking agencies. And making more laws won't solvr the problem of the government failing to enforce and prosecute the gun laws we have. These are huge problem that no one wants to talk about. And solving these would help (not solve) all gun violence, not only the mass shooting. |
So who cares about laws, whether more restrictive or more lenient, if they anyway don't get followed? When we talk about gun control, shouldn't the baseline point of conversation be what are the current laws and are they being enforced? Because if they're not, what's this discussion about?
| |
|
| Back to top |
0
4
|
↑
LittleDucky
|
Fri, May 27 2022, 6:43 pm
| pause wrote: | | It goes the other way. Assuming that potential gun owners would need to pass rigorous screening and training, the murderer in Texas wouldn't have owned a gun in the first place. |
Um, he had an illegal gun as well.
People who want illegal weapons wont be stopped by the law.
People who want to kill others and whose end plan is suicide (or suicide by cop) doesnt care about the potential criminal penalties because they wont be alive for it.
| |
|
| Back to top |
1
4
|
↑
sushilover
↓
|
Fri, May 27 2022, 7:58 pm
| pause wrote: | | So who cares about laws, whether more restrictive or more lenient, if they anyway don't get followed? When we talk about gun control, shouldn't the baseline point of conversation be what are the current laws and are they being enforced? Because if they're not, what's this discussion about? |
I agree.
Imagine there is a town with a lot of speeding accidents. The speed limit is 40 mph, but it's rarely enforced. The town splits into 2 factions. The first group doesn't really like cars in the first place. They think they are an unnecessary danger used by machos who are trying to be cool. They support "car control". Every time someone is tragically hurt or killed because of a speeder, they demand that the speed limit be lowered .
The second group thinks that cars are important to a strong society. These are "car rights" people. They think that more lives are saved by responsible car owners than by criminal speeders. They do demand that the speeding limit be enforced. The speed limit can be lowered to 10 miles an hour, but if the law isn't enforced, the only ones who will be driving at a crawl are the law abiding car drivers. Meanwhile, the criminals will continue to kill people. They also don't trust the first group to lower the speed limit to a reasonable rate when they clearly distrust all cars and car owners and think it's a disgrace that their town has so many cars.
What do you think the first response should be after the next tragic speeding homicide? Keep lowering the speed limit or demand that the government enforce they laws they already have?
| |
|
| Back to top |
2
8
|
↑
#BestBubby
↓
|
Sat, May 28 2022, 11:42 pm
|
Excellent analogy SushiLover.
| |
|
| Back to top |
1
3
|
↑
pause
↓
|
Sat, May 28 2022, 11:56 pm
| sushilover wrote: | I agree.
Imagine there is a town with a lot of speeding accidents. The speed limit is 40 mph, but it's rarely enforced. The town splits into 2 factions. The first group doesn't really like cars in the first place. They think they are an unnecessary danger used by machos who are trying to be cool. They support "car control". Every time someone is tragically hurt or killed because of a speeder, they demand that the speed limit be lowered .
The second group thinks that cars are important to a strong society. These are "car rights" people. They think that more lives are saved by responsible car owners than by criminal speeders. They do demand that the speeding limit be enforced. The speed limit can be lowered to 10 miles an hour, but if the law isn't enforced, the only ones who will be driving at a crawl are the law abiding car drivers. Meanwhile, the criminals will continue to kill people. They also don't trust the first group to lower the speed limit to a reasonable rate when they clearly distrust all cars and car owners and think it's a disgrace that their town has so many cars.
What do you think the first response should be after the next tragic speeding homicide? Keep lowering the speed limit or demand that the government enforce they laws they already have? |
I like your analogy, and you're absolutely right that current laws need enforcement before new laws are put in place. But IMO to make the analogy work for current events, I'd liken it to the current universal speed limit being at 75 mph. That's a safe limit for a rural freeway but not quite for a busy city street.
"Car control" are advocating for a lowering of the universal speed limit plus additional restrictions depending on the circumstances. OTOH, the "car rights" people are advocating for everyone to always be allowed to drive without taking into account that for most situations there is no need to be allowed to drive at 75 mph and that 55 will be just fine too. They are just terrified that the "car control" people will take away their cars altogether so they fight the sensible reduction of the speed limit.
| |
|
| Back to top |
0
3
|
| Related Topics |
Replies |
Last Post |
|
|
New sheital may have been cut wrong-wwyd?
|
2 |
Mon, Dec 30 2024, 7:17 pm  |
|
|
Am I wrong here? Noise in hallway
|
18 |
Tue, Nov 26 2024, 10:42 pm |
|
|
Anything wrong with using jar marinara sauce to make meatbal
|
59 |
Tue, Nov 26 2024, 2:13 pm |
|
|
[ Poll ] Where did I go wrong- none of my 11yr boys want to shower
|
27 |
Thu, Nov 21 2024, 11:42 am |
|
|
Texas Torah Institute
|
1 |
Tue, Nov 19 2024, 11:04 am |
|
|
Imamother may earn commission when you use our links to make a purchase.
© 2025 Imamother.com - All rights reserved
|  |
 |
|
 |
|
|
