Here’s how much republicans don’t care about kids

God help us when democrats and left wing minions talk about "mental health". Parks on the left coast are full of mental health issues but democrats think that shitting on the sidewalk is normal. Let your imagination be your guide when democrats get to determine mental health issues as they pertain to the 2nd Amendment. Critical of hairy men in dresses? Don't think about passing a democrat party mental health "red flag" to purchase a firearm.
 
Republicans vote against any gun control law. They then blame mental health for mass shootings but even then they block funding for mental health programs

Then this drag queen “scandal” happened with kids at a Texas bar. What do republicans do? They come up with legislation to try to prevent that from happening. Can’t have our kids exposed to that sort of sexualization!

But see, if republicans actually cared about what kids were exposed to, they would get in an uproar of the kids menu at Hooters. They would be outraged for all the sexualization kids get exposed to on TV like those old sexy Carl Junior ads. This just proves they don’t care about kids. They just think that drag queens are disgusting. They are fucking scumbag morons.

Provide evidence that republicans "block funding for mental health programs". From what I have read, both parties are disinterested in funding mental health programs. If I didn't know better, I would think you are deliberately distorting the facts to bash republicans.
 
Republicans vote against any gun control law. They then blame mental health for mass shootings but even then they block funding for mental health programs

Then this drag queen “scandal” happened with kids at a Texas bar. What do republicans do? They come up with legislation to try to prevent that from happening. Can’t have our kids exposed to that sort of sexualization!

But see, if republicans actually cared about what kids were exposed to, they would get in an uproar of the kids menu at Hooters. They would be outraged for all the sexualization kids get exposed to on TV like those old sexy Carl Junior ads. This just proves they don’t care about kids. They just think that drag queens are disgusting. They are fucking scumbag morons.

They just can't help themselves. Being members of the Trump Cult party explains their miserable racist existence.
 
The idea that teachers are always armed in Israel is false. It’s the guards that are armed. More importantly, they credit their lack of gun violence to their strict gun laws in the country.

“We told him that there's a perception in the U.S. that everyone in Israel has a gun.

"Very false," he replied. "Gun laws in America are much more loose than gun laws in Israel."

“In Israel it can take up to three months to get a gun. For starters, you have to be over 27, unless you've served in the military. Then you must prove that your job requires a gun, and get a doctor to sign off. Doctors like Omri Ben Ezra also check for mental illness. The final step is at the gun range.

But about 40 percent of school security guards fail and need to reapply. That's fine with principals like Stern.”

You are dissembling once again!

The issue here goes to instances of deranged or terroristic shooting sprees, which is what the Israelis stopped cold with the proper hardened security in their schools. We can easily do the same thing! In fact, we are already doing it in many public schools today.

What happened in Uvalde? Do you know? And what would have been stopped had protocol been followed?

You don't want to solve the problem. You want to grab guns.
 
Oh, so our children aren't worth the cost, right lefty? Do nothing, right lefty? Don't you care about the children?

You're a dissembling cretin and a liar.

In the meantime, we already know how to secure buildings against deranged spree shooters. We have successfully been doing it for decades in other public government buildings, and it can be done for all schools relatively inexpensively.
Simpler just to have strict gun control. Duh.
 
Internal polls show the groomer label is sticking and sticking good to democrats. In response, groomercrats send out their propagandist to try to levy the same distain on republicans.
 
You are dissembling once again!

The issue here goes to instances of deranged or terroristic shooting sprees, which is what the Israelis stopped cold with the proper hardened security in their schools. We can easily do the same thing! In fact, we are already doing it in many public schools today.

What happened in Uvalde? Do you know? And what would have been stopped had protocol been followed?

You don't want to solve the problem. You want to grab guns.
Nah, they have less mass shootings because of their very strict gun laws. Must be over
27. 3 month waiting period. Doctor has to clear you based on mental health. You also have to prove you are proficient at using it.
 
The idea that teachers are always armed in Israel is false. It’s the guards that are armed. More importantly, they credit their lack of gun violence to their strict gun laws in the country.

“We told him that there's a perception in the U.S. that everyone in Israel has a gun.

"Very false," he replied. "Gun laws in America are much more loose than gun laws in Israel."

“In Israel it can take up to three months to get a gun. For starters, you have to be over 27, unless you've served in the military. Then you must prove that your job requires a gun, and get a doctor to sign off. Doctors like Omri Ben Ezra also check for mental illness. The final step is at the gun range.

But about 40 percent of school security guards fail and need to reapply. That's fine with principals like Stern.”

It's almost as if there's a concerted effort to let those persons and schools who fail to do their duty, who fail to follow proper protocol, who fail to do that which is known to work, off the hook. A teacher had left a door propped open in Uvalde, for example, and then failed to make sure that it closed and locked properly. That's how the shooter got in. Actually doing everything below and installing a centrality monitored camera-parameter-system with armed personnel ready to man points of entry would stop these kinds of shootings in schools.
The school district in Uvalde, Texas, had an extensive safety plan in place when nineteen children were killed. The killer accessed an open door and killed children and teachers for about 74 minutes while police officers allegedly refused to enter the barricaded room where the slaughter was taking place. . . .
. . . The district adopted an array of security measures that included its own police force, threat assessment teams at each school, a threat reporting system, social media monitoring software, fences around schools and a requirement that teachers lock their classroom doors, according to the security plan posted on the district’s website. Texas police are now saying that the armed school officer who was first reported to have engaged the gunman in a firefight was not on campus when the shooting started.
The difference with School Marshals is that they are embedded as regular employees working as specially trained school staff, faculty, administrative and support personnel such as maintenance and kitchen workers. Uvalde probably did not have armed personnel working as regular non-uniformed employees, trained to protect with deadly force. Regular employees such as faculty & staff can be trained to carry concealed and protect everyone in a school or church while working in non-security roles.
Think of the outcry when the Air Marshal program was first proposed after the attacks on the World Trade Center. How many commercial jetliner hijackings have occurred since that program was inaugurated many years ago? Cabins would depressurize from accidental discharges and all kinds of other catastrophes could occur from arming plain clothes federal agents to be embedded on random flights disguised as regular passengers.​
With proposals to arm pilots who chose to be armed, more cries ensued that jetliners would fall out of the sky. The fact that such Chicken-Little mentality has now been proven to be totally without any basis in reality raises the issue of whether the naysayers were just afraid that successful programs like the Air Marshal program might demonstrate that armed citizens can be trained to handle firearms; i.e., to be part of the solution and therefore undermine their message that guns are the real problem.
Texas has two such programs. One is called the School Marshal program. The other is the Guardian program. Both involve training that meets specific criteria and certification. It looks like Uvalde chose uniformed officers instead. It takes about 56 hours to certify pilots to carry in the cockpit. They train with live-fire and simunitions in a mock-up of a commercial jetliner. The Texas School Marshals get similar specialized training designed for classrooms and other school facilities. Most the scenarios in both the Texas School Marshal program and the federal Air Marshal training is that both anticipate the potential for large numbers of students or passengers to obstruct lines of sight and get caught in the crossfire.
The State of Texas provided the Uvalde School District with a huge budget. Most the money probably went to salaries for a large contingent of SROs. The two programs, Texas Guardian program and School Marshal program, cost only a fraction of what school resource officers cost! That is because “embedded” personnel already receive a salary for performing other necessary duties, like teaching or maintaining the school.
School districts that can afford to deploy SROs or pay for additional full-time campus police protection should still consider arming other school personnel. Killers will identify and target uniformed personnel. There is also now a history of SROs and other law enforcement failing to act. Parkland was another debacle where uniformed officers serving as full-time guardians of a school failed to act. When LEOs and/or SROs do intervene, they risk being killed because they are easy to identify and can be taken by surprise.​
An armed janitor or teacher can surprise the killer by simply remaining with the students and waiting for the right opportunity. The Texas Guardians are not trained, nor are they encouraged, to apprehend or seek out the active killer. Training to take cover, shoot proficiently and to be safely armed and hide or lead students to safety is the best way to prepare the average person who is not called to be a commissioned police officer. Limited law enforcement commissions might be appropriate. What is most needed, however, is a recognized training program, with certification, and laws that limit personal liability and provide immunity to school districts that choose to empower school personnel to take on a School Marshal role.​
One advantage of uniform legislation is that insurance premiums for Districts deploying School Marshals will become more affordable. Additionally, provider firms offering School Marshal training to school personnel from all fifty states will create economies of scale, national competition and professional standards that will improve rapidly with state and federal oversight.
 
Republicans vote against any gun control law. They then blame mental health for mass shootings but even then they block funding for mental health programs

Then this drag queen “scandal” happened with kids at a Texas bar. What do republicans do? They come up with legislation to try to prevent that from happening. Can’t have our kids exposed to that sort of sexualization!

But see, if republicans actually cared about what kids were exposed to, they would get in an uproar of the kids menu at Hooters. They would be outraged for all the sexualization kids get exposed to on TV like those old sexy Carl Junior ads. This just proves they don’t care about kids. They just think that drag queens are disgusting. They are fucking scumbag morons.


1654900501056.png


Considering you want to condone the sexualization of children means you're mentally ill.

Have they taken your firearms away yet groomer?

*****SMILE*****



:)
 
Anecdotes are not real evidence. Statistical evidence is.

“A 2021 JAMA Network Open study examined the presence of armed officers on the scene and the occurrence and severity of mass school shootings from 1980 to 2019. The data suggested “no association between having an armed officer and deterrence of violence in these cases” and no significant reduction in rates of injury.”

Another 2021 study by RAND Corporation, a nonprofit think tank, and University at Albany used national school-level data from 2014 to 2018 to evaluate the impact of school resource officers. It found officers reduce “some forms of violence in schools,” such as physical attacks and fights, but “do not prevent school shootings or gun-related incidents.”




It would help if you read your own citations.

According to federal data, about half of schools had a SRO on school grounds at least once a week during the 2017-2018 school year

Simply having an officer occasionally on the grounds is in no way the same as actually having armed officers or faculty/staff actually in the building.
 
The idea that teachers are always armed in Israel is false. It’s the guards that are armed. More importantly, they credit their lack of gun violence to their strict gun laws in the country.

“We told him that there's a perception in the U.S. that everyone in Israel has a gun.

"Very false," he replied. "Gun laws in America are much more loose than gun laws in Israel."

“In Israel it can take up to three months to get a gun. For starters, you have to be over 27, unless you've served in the military. Then you must prove that your job requires a gun, and get a doctor to sign off. Doctors like Omri Ben Ezra also check for mental illness. The final step is at the gun range.

But about 40 percent of school security guards fail and need to reapply. That's fine with principals like Stern.”

They have both armed teachers and armed security and they have actually relaxes their gun laws in recent years to allow more civilians to keep and carry.

 
It would help if you read your own citations.



Simply having an officer occasionally on the grounds is in no way the same as actually having armed officers or faculty/staff actually in the building.
Okay so you’re going to single out 1 year of time with the SRO being there at least half the time. Hmm okay. Given the overall data from both studies, why would that undo the findings? I mean perhaps if the data said “the findings suggest a SLIGHT improvement on curbing gun violence” you’d have a point. Except it doesn’t say that. They found no correlation at all. One year and the officer was there half the time? No way. That’s useless info.

Also I love how you provide just an anecdote earlier as evidence of something but bring up this lol
 
Okay so you’re going to single out 1 year of time with the SRO being there at least half the time. Hmm okay. Given the overall data from both studies, why would that undo the findings? I mean perhaps if the data said “the findings suggest a SLIGHT improvement on curbing gun violence” you’d have a point. Except it doesn’t say that. They found no correlation at all. One year and the officer was there half the time? No way. That’s useless info.
I'm quoting from your citation. They included campuses with as much as a single SRO on the GROUNDS once a week.

That has absolutely nothing to do with having armed security or staff/faculty in the building every damned day.
 
They have both armed teachers and armed security and they have actually relaxes their gun laws in recent years to allow more civilians to keep and carry.

Lol nice try. My other source already acknowledged this fact. It basically means jack shit since it’s such a small part of the population. It doesn’t actually change the law for anyone else.
 
I'm quoting from your citation. They included campuses with as much as a single SRO on the GROUNDS once a week.

That has absolutely nothing to do with having armed security or staff/faculty in the building every damned day.
How many campuses once a week? Did you mean to leave that out? If they were there every day, how would it be enough to change the findings in a significant way?
 
How many campuses once a week? Did you mean to leave that out? If they were there every day, how would it be enough to change the findings in a significant way?
They don't say which shows their "data" isn't worth crap.

If we're not talking about secure schools with full time armed responders on campus every day we're not talking apples to apples, we're not even talking apples to oranges, more like Apples to door knobs.
 
They don't say which shows their "data" isn't worth crap.

If we're not talking about secure schools with full time armed responders on campus every day we're not talking apples to apples, we're not even talking apples to oranges, more like Apples to door knobs.
But if it doesn’t say why would that be the automatic conclusion it is crap? Also can I point how stupid it is you arguing this AFTER you initially posted an anecdotal case and tried to pass it off as evidence? We wouldn’t be even having this nuanced discussion if it weren’t for me.

How about this? You find your own empirical data that disputes mine? If my study is “crap” surely you can find statistical evidence that disputes it.
 

Forum List

Back
Top