A lot of people won't like it, and I get why, but public schools need more intensive security personnel. I don't mean teachers with guns. I mean legit, trained, armed officers that are there to address exactly these kinds of situations. This is done in Israel, though the size and expense of such and undertaking is obviously less financially demanding than one would be in the US.
I'm not numb to it, but I feel like this is our reality on the US. Kids are going to die for no reason at school. All ages of kids. Nobody is changing gun laws. People aren't changing for the better in terms of mental health. Some people cope with mental illness and adversity by buying ARs and shooting second graders. There are more people like this out there.
I'd put military reservists and cops on duty at every school in the nation. Have people profiling high-risk behavior in students. Take things that seem out of place seriously. It should be something that taxpayers would be willing to fund. Keep gun rights, but schools become fortresses with dodgeball.
There's no more strange feeling to me than the one I get when I pull up to my son's elementary school and I can't get in the door to pick him up. I feel like he's in jail and I can't get him out because someone else says so. I totally get why people would have a problem with this. I don't like it. I do feel that it's needed, though.
Is that enough, or do you need any more of the myriad examples that are found with an easy Google search? As an American I can acknowledge the shortcomings of my nation and where we need to improve. Kindly extend that same perception to your own as the fact that I needed to even answer this question from you is literally mind boggling.
(05-25-2022, 09:46 PM)Nately120 Wrote: Still, you have to admit it's a bit bitterly amusing that the "gun laws don't stop gun violence" party was eager to pass a law against armed protesting outside of supreme court justice's houses.
Are you referring to the law from the 50's cited in regard to the recent protests outside SCOTUS justice's homes? There's a very good reason for such a law, as intimidating the justice system, especially the judiciary, is one of the, if not the most important, objectives of a criminal class seeking to subvert the rule of law. I'd say that's far less about "gun violence", which no one is in favor of btw, and much more about preserving the integrity of our criminal justice system.
Yes, pedophiles, nazis, terrorist apologists ...
Who needs them ?
You shocked by that ? And made thread about protests in front of judge's houses to be illegal ?
Where is the logic ?
I thought you were talking about political views like this Beto dude getting expelled during NRA's folks thinking and praying at their press conference.
And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.
(05-25-2022, 10:10 PM)Arturo Bandini Wrote: Yes, pedophiles, nazis, terrorist apologists ...
Who needs them ?
You shocked by that ? And made thread about protests in front of judge's houses to be illegal ?
Where is the logic ?
Wow, move the goalposts much? I stated that people are jailed in Europe for voicing their opinion. You then asked, "Like who?" I then post several examples, and your response is; oh yeah, those guys, "who needs them?"
In the United States we don't consider opinions illegal, we consider actions illegal. If you Europeans want to label thoughts and speech criminal, that's your prerogative, but don't pretend it's anything other than policing thought crime. I've defended you from uncalled for attacks in the past, but you've got your head way up your own posterior on this one. You guys criminalize opinions, which is anathema to Americans. Own your shit.
(05-25-2022, 10:21 PM)Arturo Bandini Wrote: You cited nazis, pedophiles and terrorist apologists.
It literally doesn't matter who I cited, it's why they were cited that matters.
Quote:I just read your articles.
I didn't write any of them, but that's immaterial, the content of them is.
Quote:I didn't post them.
Also immaterial. You're way off the rails on this one.
You edited your comment after I quoted it, so please allow me to respond to what you added.
Quote:But if you better stand besides people like that as you said, it's a choice.
Here you really step in it. I'm not standing with or defending any opinion by anyone I cited in my response to your request for examples. Finding the idea of jailing someone for having an opinion abhorrent has absolutely nothing to do with agreeing with their stated opinion. Apparently you're very comfortable equating defending a person's right to speak with a full throated acceptance of everything they subsequently voice. Nothing could be further from the truth. The mere fact that you'd even voice such an odious position doesn't exactly speak well for the system you are trying to defend.
(05-25-2022, 10:07 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Are you referring to the law from the 50's cited in regard to the recent protests outside SCOTUS justice's homes? There's a very good reason for such a law, as intimidating the justice system, especially the judiciary, is one of the, if not the most important, objectives of a criminal class seeking to subvert the rule of law. I'd say that's far less about "gun violence", which no one is in favor of btw, and much more about preserving the integrity of our criminal justice system.
Ok how about conservatives simultaneously arguing that public school teachers are sexually and psychologically grooming children but also need to be issued firearms?
(05-25-2022, 10:32 PM)Nately120 Wrote: Ok how about conservatives simultaneously arguing that public school teachers are sexually and psychologically grooming children but also need to be issued firearms?
Contradictory to be sure, you'll get no argument from me in that regard.
(05-25-2022, 09:21 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I have no doubt. Much like we look at other Western democracies and are aghast that they imprison people for voicing the wrong opinion or being "offensive." Is it worse or better? I suppose that's for the individual to decide.
I have a question, not meant to be controversial or stirring up anything, just for comprehension. If someone were to say or post "I want to shoot up lots of people at my school" (or that it would be good if that happened or something similar), what is the appropriate reaction by law enforcement?
(05-25-2022, 11:30 PM)hollodero Wrote: I have a question, not meant to be controversial or stirring up anything, just for comprehension. If someone were to say or post "I want to shoot up lots of people at my school" (or that it would be good if that happened or something similar), what is the appropriate reaction by law enforcement?
I guess it's free speech.
Sounds like putting a gallow and yelling 'Hang Mike Pence' is free speech too.
Difference of culture.
And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.
(05-25-2022, 10:02 PM)samhain Wrote: A lot of people won't like it, and I get why, but public schools need more intensive security personnel. I don't mean teachers with guns. I mean legit, trained, armed officers that are there to address exactly these kinds of situations. This is done in Israel, though the size and expense of such and undertaking is obviously less financially demanding than one would be in the US.
I'm not numb to it, but I feel like this is our reality on the US. Kids are going to die for no reason at school. All ages of kids. Nobody is changing gun laws. People aren't changing for the better in terms of mental health. Some people cope with mental illness and adversity by buying ARs and shooting second graders. There are more people like this out there.
I'd put military reservists and cops on duty at every school in the nation. Have people profiling high-risk behavior in students. Take things that seem out of place seriously. It should be something that taxpayers would be willing to fund. Keep gun rights, but schools become fortresses with dodgeball.
There's no more strange feeling to me than the one I get when I pull up to my son's elementary school and I can't get in the door to pick him up. I feel like he's in jail and I can't get him out because someone else says so. I totally get why people would have a problem with this. I don't like it. I do feel that it's needed, though.
What we really need is an effort to improve mental health care. We need to reduce the coverage these events have and stop making these shooters famous. We need to work on reducing our country's infatuation with violence that is due in part to the stranglehold the military industrial complex has on us.
What you propose solves nothing. It is just as bad as people clamoring for gun control in the wake of these shootings as it doesn't focus on the actual problems. The problem isn't security, the problem isn't access to firearms. The problem is that we have people that feel disconnected to society, feel they have nowhere else to turn, and feel like this is a valid solution to those feelings.
Since this shooting I have had a lot of folks my age talking about coming of age during the era of Columbine and the years following. How school shootings have increased in those years. They have, it isn't just the result of media coverage blowing it out of proportion or anything. But connect it to other things in this country. We talk about our political divisions. Also social groups have been on a huge decline since then. Our society is becoming disconnected from each other.
We all know I am involved in the Boy Scouts of America. I'm also a member of the Sons of the American Revolution and am currently working on joining the local Freemasons. I also chat with a lot of BPOE members as we use the local Elks lodge for Scout meetings. All of these organizations are dying because people don't value that in-person connection anymore. Houses of worship are in the same boat. Volunteerism is way down. All of these things are connected. We are losing a sense of community and that is increasing a mental health crisis because people feel more isolated. People in that situation are more likely to do this sort of thing. They don't have that sense of community. Would it stop them altogether? No, we had these before the decline of our communities. But they certainly weren't as frequent.
Anyway, I'll get off my soapbox.
"A great democracy has got to be progressive, or it will soon cease to be either great or a democracy..." - TR
"The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little." - FDR
(05-25-2022, 11:30 PM)hollodero Wrote: I have a question, not meant to be controversial or stirring up anything, just for comprehension. If someone were to say or post "I want to shoot up lots of people at my school" (or that it would be good if that happened or something similar), what is the appropriate reaction by law enforcement?
That would likely be considered a threat and thus not protected by the first amendment.
The problem is the police aren't screening every Facebook profile at all times, so that would probably have to be filtered to the police through Facebook's reporting system. And that's if anyone even sees or notices it (shooters have a tendency to be loners or socially awkward people, so there's a good chance they wouldn't be at the top of many people's feeds). I'm not sure how long before Facebook notifies the local police (if they even have a specific idea of exactly who the local police for any given profile is) or if they'd have to go straight to the FBI, which then leads to another processing lag time and, who knows, by then the murder may have already taken place.
I think the news report said that this Uvalde shooter posted something 30 minutes before he killed his grandmother? Just going off of memory from the news report, but it would be nearly impossible to respond to those Facebook messages in time to prevent the shooting in many cases.
(05-25-2022, 11:30 PM)hollodero Wrote: I have a question, not meant to be controversial or stirring up anything, just for comprehension. If someone were to say or post "I want to shoot up lots of people at my school" (or that it would be good if that happened or something similar), what is the appropriate reaction by law enforcement?
(05-26-2022, 08:43 AM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: That would likely be considered a threat and thus not protected by the first amendment.
Not necessarily. Threats need to be more specific than that wording in order to fall under criminal law. What that sort of statement should trigger is a conversation. Something to see how the individual is doing. What made them feel that way. Etc.
"A great democracy has got to be progressive, or it will soon cease to be either great or a democracy..." - TR
"The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little." - FDR
(05-26-2022, 06:11 AM)Arturo Bandini Wrote: I guess it's free speech.
Sounds like putting a gallow and yelling 'Hang Mike Pence' is free speech too.
Difference of culture.
It is very much American culture that needs to change. And it involves a lot. It involves the US's relationship with mental health. It involves the US's relationship with guns and gun culture. It involves the US's relationship with the glorification of violence. Perhaps most of all it involves the US as a whole recognizing its errors, something that the US has traditionally been exceptionally bad at.
(05-26-2022, 09:39 AM)CKwi88 Wrote: It is very much American culture that needs to change. And it involves a lot. It involves the US's relationship with mental health. It involves the US's relationship with guns and gun culture. It involves the US's relationship with the glorification of violence. Perhaps most of all it involves the US as a whole recognizing its errors, something that the US has traditionally been exceptionally bad at.
Our culture fosters this mental illness. My cousin is married to a legit diagnosed crazy woman. She owns zero guns. But her mom and brothers own many guns and believe that democrats eat babies and MC Donalds food is made of dead people. Do you think they are at risk of having their guns seized?
One of the dudes has a wife who even shot off part of her hand by supposed accident.
We've normalized certain developed delusions and it seems like those people are also the target market for excessive gun purchases. Believing Q stuff sounds like mental illness, but there is no legal recourse to disarm them, is there?
It just seems like wishful thinking to assume these shooters have some good old fashioned diagnosed mental illness and they aren't being organically groomed into it.
But who diagnoses mental illness? Do we even listen to doctors?
(05-25-2022, 11:30 PM)hollodero Wrote: I have a question, not meant to be controversial or stirring up anything, just for comprehension. If someone were to say or post "I want to shoot up lots of people at my school" (or that it would be good if that happened or something similar), what is the appropriate reaction by law enforcement?
It depends on the city, county and state. If reported it would be investigated and if the kid had parents that actually parent they would enable steps to keep firearms out of the hands of their kid. But it's not illegal to say and law enforcements options are very limited.
You want to be upset, let me tell you a story that took place in the liberal hotbed of Los Angeles city. One of my officers is alerted by a school official he has a relationship with that a kid at their school is acting and speaking in a way that was causing them great concern. This kid was on formal probation for bringing two stolen and loaded handguns to school on two separate occasions. Both handguns were stolen from homes that his mother cleaned, another good reason to be careful about who you let into your home btw. The kid had the search and seizure condition so we could search him and any area of his residence that he has common access to without a warrant. I should also note this was only a week or so after the Parkland shooting.
So we conduct the search and didn't find anything, good news all around right? About two days later my boss gets a call from his boss in which they completely go off about how we "invaded that family's privacy" and treated them like criminals. It was explained to them why the search was conducted and why we thought it was absolutely worth the precaution to avoid a school shooting, to which their response was "and you didn't find anything did you?" So, essentially, the fact that we didn't find a gun meant we had made a bad decision. Remember that story the next time a shooting happens and law enforcement had prior contact with the person. Law enforcement becomes very political at the highest ranks and those people very often hinder the rank and file in doing their jobs properly and most of the reason for that is political.
(05-26-2022, 08:54 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: Not necessarily. Threats need to be more specific than that wording in order to fall under criminal law. What that sort of statement should trigger is a conversation. Something to see how the individual is doing. What made them feel that way. Etc.
![[Image: 4CV0TeR.png]](https://i.imgur.com/4CV0TeR.png)
![[Image: oN5QAdY.png]](https://i.imgur.com/oN5QAdY.png)
