KLook wrote:I just thought it was a good read and thought I would share!
I am good with that! What did you take from it however?
NoSmoke wrote:It is more then just self protection...
For instance I am not into old cars, but just because the old cars do not have seat belts and have 427's in them, am I supposed to deny someone who enjoys those things the pleasure in enjoying their little hobby? I mean someone could use on and drive it into a hotel or something and kill lots of people...that is the mentality the ban-gun side makes for an argument. Are we supposed to ban old cars because they are not subjected to crumple-zones, crash testing and collapsible steering wheels...why they could go out of control and kill people on the highway. The argument is ludicrous when you apply the same mentality to everything.
Myself I am not into guns and hunting...I figure I am a farmer and just lazy, and rather then chase my meals, I like to coral them inside fences which saves a lot of walking. But in order to get by with my sheep farm, I have to thin the coyote population out. I do that by relying on people that do love guns,and thanks to a great community, they enjoy their hunting on a pretty big chunk of land, and I can have a viable farm since coyotes, porcupine and a host of other animals are reduced; with no money exchanging hands between me and the hunters.
In my opinion, they have a right to enjoy their hobby as much as I have a right to farm sheep, and when you infringe upon their rights; by dictating which type of guns they can have, what type of bullets, and inflate the cost of bullets, it ultimately affects a lot of things that you would not normally think of.
I have said this before; all government regulation began with a well meaning agenda, but there are far reaching consequences for it. I have never seen anything the Government has not got involved with that they have not royally screwed up. Gun control is no different...even if I m not a gun carrying member of the NRA.
SMITTY wrote:It's pretty clear that the people of NYC need to replace the bumbling Bloomberg with Chuck Woolery. That *censored* desperately needs some COMMON SENSE in it's leadership!
What is it with liberal cities being run by bumbling idiots???
grumpy wrote:What makes me mad is someone like Dianne Feinstein who wants to ban guns yet holds a concealed weapons license.
http://www.decodedscience.com/new-assau ... zure/22871
freetown fred wrote:Sen. Schumer up here, said publically--A trained law enforcement officer with a 9 ml. would be useless if somone with a semi/ full auto would approach his area--Soo my guess is he would put machine gun nests at all school entrances--Guys, I'm as pro gun as it gets but I get sick of hearing *censored* like Schumer making statements like that--it's ashame nobody ran against him in Nov--the man always has been & always will be a fkin idiot & is in no way helping the pro gun people
-the man always has been & always will be a fkin idiot & is in no way helping the pro gun people
KLook wrote:-the man always has been & always will be a fkin idiot & is in no way helping the pro gun people
The man has just stuck his finger into the political winds and decided it is to his political advantage to waffle a little to buy time and see where the people align before doing anything radical that he can be held accountable later on. His statement was undoubtedly generic so he can claim to have supported it no matter which way it goes.
These kinds of people are not going to go anyplace where they may be stopped before making their mark. That is part of their calculation.
My solution: Camera's at all access points. Automatic activation to the area when a breach occurs to identify the threat and response.
Most schools already have a system in place, upgrade it.
Depending on school size and taxpayer/school officials, at least 1 armed security guard. I would prefer a shotgun like the Kel-Tec in the video and a handgun with frangible ammo unless school walls are brick to stop errant shots. Accidentally killing anyone else is the least of your worries when an armed gunman is in the school.
Mace and Taser's and training for all school employees mandatory. School budget provides the mace and tasers. Personal choice for carrying them left to employee. Any employee that wishes can pursue advanced weapons training and vetting and carry approved weapons in school. Weapons would have to be carried in such a way to limit the ability of a student from taking them by simply grabbing them. The new holsters the police use or complete concealed carry would work. Handguns for the personnel could be purchased by school budgets or provided by employees that wish to be armed. Just the fact that any number of personnel are armed will have the deterrent affect anyways.
I predict that school shootings will effectively be reduced to ZERO, and the subject will be revisited within the next 30 years to review if it is necessary. People have short memories and are very prone, even in this forum, of saying that was then, this is now, we have come so far don't you think? Lets just get rid of the guns. Evolve for pete's sake. Blah blah blah.
How do we pay for it. I don't want the Feds doing it but they take the majority of the tax dollars. What to do? Reduce each states tax burden to the feds and take the money from the rathole of foreign aid. States decide how to fund each school based on school size and need. If we are going to waste money, waste it here.
Once implemented the system will evolve on its own to fill the needs of a given school. Some may decide not to have security at all. Rural areas for instance.
Just my .02 worth.
Obama could lay claim to "shovel ready" jobs.