Gun Control - What's the Problem?

[Rigby5]

[

But we can't let every Tom, Dick and Harry into schools with guns, because that's an open invitation to somebody that does want to commit a mass shooting in a school.

Why not? We did back when I was in school.

The mass shooter is going to be looking for a place that has no guns posted. It is safer for him. Meanwhile he will ignore the sign or the law.

A parent or grandparent with a concealed weapon should be allow to pick up a child from school without being arrested.

You can petition your school, councilman, or state for that. The cop is not in charge of making the laws. But you would get little if any public support on that idea.

This isn't the old days. Columbine started a long string of copy cat crimes. Waiting until after a school shooting takes place to do something is too late. That's why no guns are allowed in schools. We need to be as proactive as we can to prevent them.

No, making guns illegal in schools is what CAUSED school shootings.
The law could not possibly reduce school shootings because the shooter will either start by shooting those attempting to enforce the law, or by easily evading them.
But it WILL increase school shootings because the shooter intends to commit suicide, and deliberately is looking for the most controversial crime possible, in order to gain the most headlines, for their 15 minutes of fame.
The more you SAY something is illegal, without actually being able to stop it, the more it will actually happen.

It is NOT proactive to make guns in school illegal, it is inciting more school shootings.
If nothing else, it ensures there will be no armed resistance to the shooter, and in the past there always war armed staff.

 

[Rigby5]

No, you are NOT supposed to follow the law.
You are supposed to do what is right, and laws are supposed to help you do that.
But by understanding what the authority for law is, which is the defense of the rights of others, and by intent of the particular law, you can do what is right instead.
For example, speed limits are to make driving safer normally, but when you have a medical emergency, by understanding the arbitrary and general nature of speed limits, you can drive faster and possibly save a life.
About the only law which does not have circumstances when you should violate the law is the one against rape.
I can't imagine any circumstances when it would be better to commit rape than not.

Laws against firearms near or in schools make no sense at all.
Just like the tradition shotgun over the mantel, schools MUST be armed in order to protect the children they are responsible for.
And I also disagree that an extra magazine is suspicious.
Everyone I know carries an extra magazine at least.
The holsters provide for them because they are desired.

So if some maniac with a CCW walks into a school, kills students your daughter is going to school with, and if she happened to be a victim, you would still believe that it's stupid to disallow guns in school?

Better yet, how do you think the public would react to that? After all, most politicians have people to answer to. Because you can't take all these proactive measures to try and ensure there is no mass shooting by using security guards, metal detectors, locked doors, and then allow anybody with a gun into the building.

If someone wants to stop someone who looks suspicious and check them out, that is fine. But once they check out and there is no longer any reason to be suspicious, then it is wrong to press charges, and in fact the schools should be encouraging parents to volunteer time as armed security on school grounds. The FL school shooting shows you can not trust mercenaries, who can run from trouble when it actually happens. Armed parents would be much better and cheaper.

It will always be stupid to disallow guns in schools. The staff should always have been armed, as they used to be always someone who was armed. Where people got the bizarre notion that making it illegal for honest people to carry guns on school grounds could possibly make things safer, is hard to imagine. It is totally and completely irrational.

You ignored my questions on this:

What if some harm came to your child because the school allowed anybody with a gun to enter the building?

What do you think the media would do if something happened in a school that did allow guns in the building?

What do you think would happen to a police officer that decided not to arrest somebody he was supposed to?

I have no problem with somebody being armed in school. The school is made aware of it well ahead of time. The law permits it. They have the proper training to handle a mass shooting situation. No problem at all.

But we can't let every Tom, Dick and Harry into schools with guns, because that's an open invitation to somebody that does want to commit a mass shooting in a school.

If someone has a child in the school and a valid reason for being there, the school should not stop them.
If they don't have a valid reason, they should be stopped.
Metal detectors and searching everyone is impractical, illegal, and dangerous.
What the media says, I could care less about.

The law NEVER requires the police to ever arrest anyone.
The final discretion, as to things like intent, are entirely up to police.
They NEVER have to arrest anyone.

There are things inherently wrong that no one should ever do, like rape.
But there are also things that normally are right and bizarre laws have made illegal illogically.
Such as the case of NYC laws prohibiting the transportation of a home defense firearm from primary residence to a second home.
Police arresting when the law is not based on an obvious need to protect others, is ILLEGAL, not by statute, but by the basic definition of what CAN be legislated.
Police must be taught that statutes are NOT law.
Law is a higher abstraction that legislation is supposed to try to implement.
But police are supposed to be taught to understand the higher abstraction, and to fix the flaws in legislation on the fly, when the legislation is flawed. And that discretion should always be in favor of leniency, not more strict.

Then you really have no understanding of police work. Few cops wanted to have body cams on them, but were forced to because that's what their city wanted. Cops are not the boss, their supervisors and politicians are. You do the job the way they tell you to do it right or wrong. If you don't want to do the job, then get out of that line of work and somebody else that listens to orders will do the job instead.

You can have your politics anytime in this country, but you can't practice your politics on the job, especially when you're a police officer. I'd be willing to bet that this officer had to arrest the guy because that's what he was instructed to do. If he didn't, he'd be out of a job today.

So then let the cop get fired and get a different job.
Doing what the boss says, even though it is illegal, is no excuse.
It did not work for the Germans charged with war crimes at Nuremberg trials, and is never a valid excuse.
That is the fatal flaw with all mercenary police, and is why the founders would never have allowed them, just as they were against a standing military.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Buildings tend to not be wood any more, and have built in sprinkler systems.
But recently several people were killed at a 4th of July celebration when some kids set off little fireworks, the crowd thought it was a gang shooting, and they all panicked, ran, and trampled people to death. So similar concepts are always going to be valid.

Throwing fireworks is nowhere near the same as yelling fire.

Apparently, it was. The whole problem with shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater was that it would cause a panicked stampede and endanger people.

You really think shouting fire in a crowded theater will cause a stampede?

And here's the thing Justice Holmes made that remark regarding a case that was overturned 40 years ago.

It's Time to Stop Using the 'Fire in a Crowded Theater' Quote

I think causing any sort of panic in a crowded place can and does, and I think obsessing over a narrow focus on specific wording just reveals that you know you're wrong on the broader issue, and you're trying to avoid that fact.

You think incorrectly


Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

Oh, since you stated, without evidence, that disagreeing with you is "incorrect", I guess that makes it true.

At least, in does in Lazy Idiot Land. Here in the real world, you just made me that much more convinced.

 

[BS Filter]

Ted Cruz, Alyssa Milano trade barbs on Bible, 'God-given' gun rights

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

So if some maniac with a CCW walks into a school, kills students your daughter is going to school with, and if she happened to be a victim, you would still believe that it's stupid to disallow guns in school?

Better yet, how do you think the public would react to that? After all, most politicians have people to answer to. Because you can't take all these proactive measures to try and ensure there is no mass shooting by using security guards, metal detectors, locked doors, and then allow anybody with a gun into the building.

If someone wants to stop someone who looks suspicious and check them out, that is fine. But once they check out and there is no longer any reason to be suspicious, then it is wrong to press charges, and in fact the schools should be encouraging parents to volunteer time as armed security on school grounds. The FL school shooting shows you can not trust mercenaries, who can run from trouble when it actually happens. Armed parents would be much better and cheaper.

It will always be stupid to disallow guns in schools. The staff should always have been armed, as they used to be always someone who was armed. Where people got the bizarre notion that making it illegal for honest people to carry guns on school grounds could possibly make things safer, is hard to imagine. It is totally and completely irrational.

You ignored my questions on this:

What if some harm came to your child because the school allowed anybody with a gun to enter the building?

What do you think the media would do if something happened in a school that did allow guns in the building?

What do you think would happen to a police officer that decided not to arrest somebody he was supposed to?

I have no problem with somebody being armed in school. The school is made aware of it well ahead of time. The law permits it. They have the proper training to handle a mass shooting situation. No problem at all.

But we can't let every Tom, Dick and Harry into schools with guns, because that's an open invitation to somebody that does want to commit a mass shooting in a school.

If someone has a child in the school and a valid reason for being there, the school should not stop them.
If they don't have a valid reason, they should be stopped.
Metal detectors and searching everyone is impractical, illegal, and dangerous.
What the media says, I could care less about.

The law NEVER requires the police to ever arrest anyone.
The final discretion, as to things like intent, are entirely up to police.
They NEVER have to arrest anyone.

There are things inherently wrong that no one should ever do, like rape.
But there are also things that normally are right and bizarre laws have made illegal illogically.
Such as the case of NYC laws prohibiting the transportation of a home defense firearm from primary residence to a second home.
Police arresting when the law is not based on an obvious need to protect others, is ILLEGAL, not by statute, but by the basic definition of what CAN be legislated.
Police must be taught that statutes are NOT law.
Law is a higher abstraction that legislation is supposed to try to implement.
But police are supposed to be taught to understand the higher abstraction, and to fix the flaws in legislation on the fly, when the legislation is flawed. And that discretion should always be in favor of leniency, not more strict.

Then you really have no understanding of police work. Few cops wanted to have body cams on them, but were forced to because that's what their city wanted. Cops are not the boss, their supervisors and politicians are. You do the job the way they tell you to do it right or wrong. If you don't want to do the job, then get out of that line of work and somebody else that listens to orders will do the job instead.

You can have your politics anytime in this country, but you can't practice your politics on the job, especially when you're a police officer. I'd be willing to bet that this officer had to arrest the guy because that's what he was instructed to do. If he didn't, he'd be out of a job today.

So then let the cop get fired and get a different job.
Doing what the boss says, even though it is illegal, is no excuse.
It did not work for the Germans charged with war crimes at Nuremberg trials, and is never a valid excuse.
That is the fatal flaw with all mercenary police, and is why the founders would never have allowed them, just as they were against a standing military.

They were against a national military because going to war was a one day call. Everybody grabbed their guns and went wherever.

You can't do that today, especially with the technology part of it. We have to have a military today because if we just grabbed our guns and hid behind trees, the enemy would laugh as they picked us off one by one, or group by group.

The laws are not decided by a police officers political ideology. Laws are made, and it's the job of a police officer to enforce those laws. If you think the laws are wrong, then you need to take it to court, not blame the police officer.

Nobody wants to be fired from any job. As I stated earlier, I can point to a bunch of things wrong with my company, but I only do what I'm told which is drive the truck. Police officers are the same way. If you resent the laws, then you have no business taking a job that enforces those laws. Go into politics instead.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Ted Cruz, Alyssa Milano trade barbs on Bible, 'God-given' gun rights

Alyssa Milano should be paying tuition for the schooling Ted Cruz gave her.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

[

But we can't let every Tom, Dick and Harry into schools with guns, because that's an open invitation to somebody that does want to commit a mass shooting in a school.

Why not? We did back when I was in school.

The mass shooter is going to be looking for a place that has no guns posted. It is safer for him. Meanwhile he will ignore the sign or the law.

A parent or grandparent with a concealed weapon should be allow to pick up a child from school without being arrested.

You can petition your school, councilman, or state for that. The cop is not in charge of making the laws. But you would get little if any public support on that idea.

This isn't the old days. Columbine started a long string of copy cat crimes. Waiting until after a school shooting takes place to do something is too late. That's why no guns are allowed in schools. We need to be as proactive as we can to prevent them.

No, making guns illegal in schools is what CAUSED school shootings.
The law could not possibly reduce school shootings because the shooter will either start by shooting those attempting to enforce the law, or by easily evading them.
But it WILL increase school shootings because the shooter intends to commit suicide, and deliberately is looking for the most controversial crime possible, in order to gain the most headlines, for their 15 minutes of fame.
The more you SAY something is illegal, without actually being able to stop it, the more it will actually happen.

It is NOT proactive to make guns in school illegal, it is inciting more school shootings.
If nothing else, it ensures there will be no armed resistance to the shooter, and in the past there always war armed staff.

Again, I have no problem with armed security in a school. I do have a problem with just anybody walking into a school with a gun.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

You don't have a right to drive

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

But even though driving is not a right, the police to not have the authority to steal your time without probable cause.

It's more than time. After all, I get paid by the hour. What they do is check out your entire truck and trailer. They look inside of it to see what you're carrying. Then they look at the accompanying paperwork for the load. One time I even had one have me open up the hood of the truck so he could check out the engine compartment. What he was looking for, I have no idea.

Of course, they take your license and copy that. They demand to see your medical card so you have to surrender that to them as well.

Point is, imagine what would happen if they started to do this with any motorist. It would be wall to wall news coverage. Politicians would start getting involved. The ACLU would be at least looking into the matter, and possibly represent some motorist in a lawsuit against the government.

But because it's only truck drivers, nobody really cares.

Police have always been out of control to some degree, but they need to be reigned in.
Truckers need to publicize this more.
People would sympathize.
The police do not have authority to examine cargo without a warrant.
Having a CDL should not mean the stricter standards when not driving a dangerous vehicle.
There is a reality of what is right and wrong, and the police are acting wrong.

The police aren't, the politicians are. The police are only doing the job they were hired for.

Over here they train our state troopers in Department of Transportation inspections. Before they just used to have DOT guys stopping trucks. The problem was they were not authorized to write tickets, and had to call for a trooper to come along and do that. So now they just have the troopers puling over trucks. There are still a few DOT guys around, but not nearly as many.

Like anything else, they have a quota to meet. So they will write you up on the stupidest things.

The last time I was pulled over, the trooper wrote me up for a marker light on the back of the trailer. I told him the light was just fine, it's just that you can't see it in the sun. There was no shade for me to pull the trailer into to show him the light was working. He didn't care. He still wrote me up on it stating he has to be able to see those lights in day or night.

I took the trailer back to Penske the next morning, and the mechanic asked me WTF was wrong with the lights? They work just fine! I explained the situation to him. He was so pissed off he went to complain to his supervisor about it. So he had to remove the light bulb sockets and replace them with LED sockets and bulbs. We got to talking about what the cops do to us and the dumbest things we get written up for.

There essentially were no police until around 1900, and likely that is the way it should still be.
Police are always going to be inherently corrupt.
There is no way to fix that or prevent police from eventually requiring a violent revolution.
When you hire mercenaries, they do what those who sign their paycheck want, not what the laws says.
It can never work.
Paid police just are inherently wrong.
When people see a violation, then let them send in a dashcam video.
With trucks, just have a monthly inspections by the company.
There really is no need for police.
Never has been.
Police have never done any good, except to reduce lynchings.
And I doubt that is a problem any more.

If you want to live in an uncivilized society, that's on you. In a civilized society, we do have police. In the ghetto where the gangs run ramped, one kills a member of an opposition gang. In retaliation, the gang of the member who was killed goes out and kills a member of the gang that attacked their member. Then it goes on virtually lawlessly for months and even years. I don't want to live in such a society.

When my HUD neighbors make noise at night, I call the police. I'm not about to go out there and start a fight with them. If they want to fight with the cops, God love them, but I'm not doing it. I pay people to do that for me.

 

[WTH_Progs?]

Since when do criminals adhere to laws to obtain guns?

 

[Blues Man]

Throwing fireworks is nowhere near the same as yelling fire.

Apparently, it was. The whole problem with shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater was that it would cause a panicked stampede and endanger people.

You really think shouting fire in a crowded theater will cause a stampede?

And here's the thing Justice Holmes made that remark regarding a case that was overturned 40 years ago.

It's Time to Stop Using the 'Fire in a Crowded Theater' Quote

I think causing any sort of panic in a crowded place can and does, and I think obsessing over a narrow focus on specific wording just reveals that you know you're wrong on the broader issue, and you're trying to avoid that fact.

You think incorrectly


Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

Oh, since you stated, without evidence, that disagreeing with you is "incorrect", I guess that makes it true.

At least, in does in Lazy Idiot Land. Here in the real world, you just made me that much more convinced.

No you tried to tell me what I know

And whenever you try to tell anyone else what they know you are incorrect.

 

[Rigby5]

But even though driving is not a right, the police to not have the authority to steal your time without probable cause.

It's more than time. After all, I get paid by the hour. What they do is check out your entire truck and trailer. They look inside of it to see what you're carrying. Then they look at the accompanying paperwork for the load. One time I even had one have me open up the hood of the truck so he could check out the engine compartment. What he was looking for, I have no idea.

Of course, they take your license and copy that. They demand to see your medical card so you have to surrender that to them as well.

Point is, imagine what would happen if they started to do this with any motorist. It would be wall to wall news coverage. Politicians would start getting involved. The ACLU would be at least looking into the matter, and possibly represent some motorist in a lawsuit against the government.

But because it's only truck drivers, nobody really cares.

Police have always been out of control to some degree, but they need to be reigned in.
Truckers need to publicize this more.
People would sympathize.
The police do not have authority to examine cargo without a warrant.
Having a CDL should not mean the stricter standards when not driving a dangerous vehicle.
There is a reality of what is right and wrong, and the police are acting wrong.

The police aren't, the politicians are. The police are only doing the job they were hired for.

Over here they train our state troopers in Department of Transportation inspections. Before they just used to have DOT guys stopping trucks. The problem was they were not authorized to write tickets, and had to call for a trooper to come along and do that. So now they just have the troopers puling over trucks. There are still a few DOT guys around, but not nearly as many.

Like anything else, they have a quota to meet. So they will write you up on the stupidest things.

The last time I was pulled over, the trooper wrote me up for a marker light on the back of the trailer. I told him the light was just fine, it's just that you can't see it in the sun. There was no shade for me to pull the trailer into to show him the light was working. He didn't care. He still wrote me up on it stating he has to be able to see those lights in day or night.

I took the trailer back to Penske the next morning, and the mechanic asked me WTF was wrong with the lights? They work just fine! I explained the situation to him. He was so pissed off he went to complain to his supervisor about it. So he had to remove the light bulb sockets and replace them with LED sockets and bulbs. We got to talking about what the cops do to us and the dumbest things we get written up for.

There essentially were no police until around 1900, and likely that is the way it should still be.
Police are always going to be inherently corrupt.
There is no way to fix that or prevent police from eventually requiring a violent revolution.
When you hire mercenaries, they do what those who sign their paycheck want, not what the laws says.
It can never work.
Paid police just are inherently wrong.
When people see a violation, then let them send in a dashcam video.
With trucks, just have a monthly inspections by the company.
There really is no need for police.
Never has been.
Police have never done any good, except to reduce lynchings.
And I doubt that is a problem any more.

If you want to live in an uncivilized society, that's on you. In a civilized society, we do have police. In the ghetto where the gangs run ramped, one kills a member of an opposition gang. In retaliation, the gang of the member who was killed goes out and kills a member of the gang that attacked their member. Then it goes on virtually lawlessly for months and even years. I don't want to live in such a society.

When my HUD neighbors make noise at night, I call the police. I'm not about to go out there and start a fight with them. If they want to fight with the cops, God love them, but I'm not doing it. I pay people to do that for me.

Wrong.
In a civilized society, you do not need police.
But even in an uncivilized society, all people in society taking part in preventing crimes is vastly superior to mercenary police.
Police can never work well, and are inherently corrupt.
We did not have police in the US in any amount until near WW1, and it was no improvement.
In ghettos where gangs run rampant, that is entirely the fault of police.
That is because of the War on Drug is much too powerful of incentive to break the law because of the high profits involved. Combined with the inability to use checks, credit cards, or anything but cash, it is the police who indirectly are responsible with causing over 90% of the murders in the US.
When the neighbors are too loud late at night, it is wrong to call the police.
They just want to write tickets and make money.
It costs them nothing if you just call them instead.
They just likely do not realize how loud they are.

 

[Rigby5]

[

But we can't let every Tom, Dick and Harry into schools with guns, because that's an open invitation to somebody that does want to commit a mass shooting in a school.

Why not? We did back when I was in school.

The mass shooter is going to be looking for a place that has no guns posted. It is safer for him. Meanwhile he will ignore the sign or the law.

A parent or grandparent with a concealed weapon should be allow to pick up a child from school without being arrested.

You can petition your school, councilman, or state for that. The cop is not in charge of making the laws. But you would get little if any public support on that idea.

This isn't the old days. Columbine started a long string of copy cat crimes. Waiting until after a school shooting takes place to do something is too late. That's why no guns are allowed in schools. We need to be as proactive as we can to prevent them.

No, making guns illegal in schools is what CAUSED school shootings.
The law could not possibly reduce school shootings because the shooter will either start by shooting those attempting to enforce the law, or by easily evading them.
But it WILL increase school shootings because the shooter intends to commit suicide, and deliberately is looking for the most controversial crime possible, in order to gain the most headlines, for their 15 minutes of fame.
The more you SAY something is illegal, without actually being able to stop it, the more it will actually happen.

It is NOT proactive to make guns in school illegal, it is inciting more school shootings.
If nothing else, it ensures there will be no armed resistance to the shooter, and in the past there always war armed staff.

Again, I have no problem with armed security in a school. I do have a problem with just anybody walking into a school with a gun.

Of course guns should only be deliberately brought into schools with the knowledge and permission of the school. But that does not mean every gun brought in was with criminal intent, that requires prosecution.
The way you can tell if it was an accident instead of with criminal intent, is whether the person has children in the school, and whether they had already entered the school and had not caused any harm.