Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
An action plan? How do you figure? He was simply stating that the children of the power elite and as an extension, the power elite have not been directly affected by these mass shootings. He further stated that in the event that it did happen then and only then would we see true action. These are valid and cogent points. Stop churchin it up...it is what it is.Honestly your op sounded like an action plan for accomplishing your stated goal. Don't do anything to make schools safer and hold out until the right people get killed and again try to capitalize on it.Off-Topic:
I'm responding to your post out of courtesy. What any political party has or has not proposed to enhance school safety isn't the thread's discussion topic because the temporal context of the thread topic is forward looking not backward looking.
Just so you are aware, the broad topic of the thread is how far or near we are to resolving the gun debate and what will or will not have to occur for a definitive resolution to come about. I expressed in the OP what I think it'll take to arrive at a resolution. If you have a similar or different idea of what will effect a resolution, then please do share it.
That is clearly not so:Let the record show libs have not proposed anything to improve safety of schools other than gun confiscation. If more happen look in the mirror for the guilty.
The examples above are but the "tip if of the iceberg." Of course, individuals whose eyes are directed "landward" won't observe even that.
- School Discipline Laws & Regulations by Category & State | Safe Supportive Learning
- School Safety and Security
- Democratic Party Platforms: 2000 Democratic Party Platform
- Students, Security, and Race
- Bullying Laws and Policies
- Groton School has plans to improve safety along Farmers Row
- DC Public Schools Student Safety
Your op pre-supposes inaction to make schools safer because of NRA so liberals clinging to their Hardline position is part of the discussion.
We won't reach that point if simple steps are taken now to protect the children. Do you see any desire by him to do that in any of his posts...I don't. Do you see any proposals from the left short of gun bans to protect them? I haven't. I have asked for them in multiple threads all you get is radio silence. What other conclusion can be drawn other than their desire is the path he laid out?An action plan? How do you figure? He was simply stating that the children of the power elite and as an extension, the power elite have not been directly affected by these mass shootings. He further stated that in the event that it did happen then and only then would we see true action. These are valid and cogent points. Stop churchin it up...it is what it is.Honestly your op sounded like an action plan for accomplishing your stated goal. Don't do anything to make schools safer and hold out until the right people get killed and again try to capitalize on it.Off-Topic:
I'm responding to your post out of courtesy. What any political party has or has not proposed to enhance school safety isn't the thread's discussion topic because the temporal context of the thread topic is forward looking not backward looking.
Just so you are aware, the broad topic of the thread is how far or near we are to resolving the gun debate and what will or will not have to occur for a definitive resolution to come about. I expressed in the OP what I think it'll take to arrive at a resolution. If you have a similar or different idea of what will effect a resolution, then please do share it.
That is clearly not so:Let the record show libs have not proposed anything to improve safety of schools other than gun confiscation. If more happen look in the mirror for the guilty.
The examples above are but the "tip if of the iceberg." Of course, individuals whose eyes are directed "landward" won't observe even that.
- School Discipline Laws & Regulations by Category & State | Safe Supportive Learning
- School Safety and Security
- Democratic Party Platforms: 2000 Democratic Party Platform
- Students, Security, and Race
- Bullying Laws and Policies
- Groton School has plans to improve safety along Farmers Row
- DC Public Schools Student Safety
Your op pre-supposes inaction to make schools safer because of NRA so liberals clinging to their Hardline position is part of the discussion.
You make the logical mistake of assuming intent based on no stated course of action (solution). He was simply positing an idea that MANY people have considered. There was a post on this very site shortly after the shooting questioning the fact that there have been zero mass shooting in private schools. Additionally, accusations of this type should not be flung around willy nilly. This is a forum where free ideas are encouraged. I suggest that unless you have serious proof of anyone's actions you should stop with the 'thought police' angle.We won't reach that point if simple steps are taken now to protect the children. Do you see any desire by him to do that in any of his posts...I don't. Do you see any proposals from the left short of gun bans to protect them? I haven't. I have asked for them in multiple threads all you get is radio silence. What other conclusion can be drawn other than their desire is the path he laid out?An action plan? How do you figure? He was simply stating that the children of the power elite and as an extension, the power elite have not been directly affected by these mass shootings. He further stated that in the event that it did happen then and only then would we see true action. These are valid and cogent points. Stop churchin it up...it is what it is.Honestly your op sounded like an action plan for accomplishing your stated goal. Don't do anything to make schools safer and hold out until the right people get killed and again try to capitalize on it.Off-Topic:
I'm responding to your post out of courtesy. What any political party has or has not proposed to enhance school safety isn't the thread's discussion topic because the temporal context of the thread topic is forward looking not backward looking.
Just so you are aware, the broad topic of the thread is how far or near we are to resolving the gun debate and what will or will not have to occur for a definitive resolution to come about. I expressed in the OP what I think it'll take to arrive at a resolution. If you have a similar or different idea of what will effect a resolution, then please do share it.
That is clearly not so:Let the record show libs have not proposed anything to improve safety of schools other than gun confiscation. If more happen look in the mirror for the guilty.
The examples above are but the "tip if of the iceberg." Of course, individuals whose eyes are directed "landward" won't observe even that.
- School Discipline Laws & Regulations by Category & State | Safe Supportive Learning
- School Safety and Security
- Democratic Party Platforms: 2000 Democratic Party Platform
- Students, Security, and Race
- Bullying Laws and Policies
- Groton School has plans to improve safety along Farmers Row
- DC Public Schools Student Safety
Your op pre-supposes inaction to make schools safer because of NRA so liberals clinging to their Hardline position is part of the discussion.
What law of the GUN FREE ZONE would of helped the children in the Broward County Public School not be shot? Total confiscation of all legal weapons? Would a criminal not get an illegal gun to shoot up that FREE TO KILL ZONE?Maybe, just maybe, people are uninterested in new and improved gun control laws because they have been well and truly proven to do nothing but disarm the good guy/gals and empower the bad guys/gals. Maybe any further dialog should be about finding a solution that actually addresses the problem. "Gun free" areas were supposed to be the answer but have only served to attract crazies and terrorists.And yet you'd have us -- solely on the basis of your say-so, no less -- take the remainder of your assertions and speculations as both plausible and probable....new and improved gun control laws because they have been well and truly proven to....
It clearly escapes you that, by definition, that which is new has not at all been proven. That is part and parcel to the very substance of the meaning of the word "new."
Apparently sarcasm-as well as current events for the last 4--5 decades-escapes you. And my assertions and speculations are most certainly more plausible and probable than your OP. Why do you think I would bother with supporting evidence when you ignored it when I did present it to you in your OP in the "I don't understand..." thread and disproved some of your assertions in the doing. If you actually wanted a discussion as you have claimed, why don't you discuss instead of running away???? It was clear to me then and it remains clear that you didn't understand (1) the rhetorical point of the OP in that thread and (2) what the hell I requested; consequently, you provided content that answers a question that wasn't being asked. You could have provided literally all the supporting evidence in the world and it still would not have addressed the actual question I posed. I ignored most of what you had to say because you're 70 years-old and didn't address the central question of that thread.Why do you think I would bother with supporting evidence when you ignored it when I did present it to you in your OP in the "I don't understand..."
As I made clear to another member, the point of the OP in that thread is this:
To avoid the formal and precise language of economics, I, in that thread's OP, I expressed the central question in layman's terms and as a statement, thinking that readers could from that statement derive what must necessarily be the question the thread entreats them to answer.I'm in [the "I do not understand"] thread seeking credible input on what motivates the elasticity and substitution conclusions consumers obtain when demanding (effective and latent) semi-automatic rifles.
The entirety of the remainder of that OP is nothing other than my sharing broadly the nature of what I'd observed in seeking the answer to my question.I'm baffled at the existential fascination gun enthusiasts have with semi-automatic rifles.
What you did was share different observations and challenge the ones I shared. That's all well and good, but that those observations can and do exist -- yours or mine -- does not answer the central question:
If one doesn't have an answer to the question, well, one just doesn't. I don't have an answer to it, so I'm not going to ridicule someone else for not having an answer to it. If one wants to post and say "I don't know the answer to your question," that's fine too. But don't sit there feeling dejected because I didn't respond to your remarks that don't answer the thread question. Yes, the question was tacitly posed, but still, you're 70 year-old; it shouldn't have overtaxed your abilities to get from a statement to a question.
- In layman's terms: "Why are folks so fascinated with semi-automatic rifles?"
- In economic terms: "What motivates the elasticity and substitution conclusions consumers obtain when demanding (effective and latent) semi-automatic rifles?"
Hell, in your first post in that thread, you deigned to tell me with what consumer sub-groups certain firearms are popular. Why you did so is beyond me, for my OP made it clear that I already knew that semi-automatic rifles are popular. With whom they are popular is irrelevant to that thread's central question unless one/you show (credibly, not just your say-so) that the specific people or consumer sub-groups with whom they are popular are the people driving demand for item under consideration (in that thread's case, semi-automatic rifles).
"Semiautomatic" is a term used to describe a firing mechanism in which a single round is fired for each pull of the trigger and may describe rifles pistols or shotguns. They are popular with the military police hunters and competition shooters and have been for quite a long time. They are especially popular in handguns used by military police and defensive civilian carry weapons. They are popular shotguns for hunting rabbits waterfowl and upland birds and in rifles for hunting varmints squirrels hogs and deer.
Absent providing input that explains why folks are so fascinated with semi-automatic rifles, one might also have shown that the premise of the question -- that folks are fascinated with semi-automatic rifles -- is not true. Such a tack would be very difficult to credibly take, but it's an option and effectively showing the inaccuracy of the question's implicit premise does directly address the question.
Lastly, your notion of providing credible support for things and mine are clearly very different. I can sit here and attest to being an expert in the fields in which I am; however, insofar as I don't care to yield the freedom from professional controversy I here enjoy on account of my anonymity, I am not going to identify myself and point folks to my publications and achievements. Because I'm not going to offer anyone here a means for verifying my status as an expert in a few disciplines, when I'm assert something about a matter for which I am an expert, I nonetheless provide links to credible references rather than bidding readers to rely on my say-so. I do that because as an expert, it's no trouble at all for me to do so -- 30 seconds to a minute is all it takes because I know exactly what I'm looking for, the names of authors (researchers) who've written about the matter, etc. Truly, the majority of those few seconds is spent finding a document that's available in the public domain and that doesn't require one to purchase it.
Contrast that with what you did. You undertook to tell me about all your experience with guns and bid me to take your word for it.
Quite simply, I cannot verify any of that. But I'm not insisting that you provide the means for me to do so. Documentary support published by other experts and that I can read will do just fine. Indeed, that approach, when well executed, can obviate the need for you (or anyone) to be a widely acknowledged expert. But here's the key: experts on "whatever" don't generally misconstrue what be the central question being asked and, in turn, answer a question that's not been asked. There is, however, one genre of sometimes-experts who do that: politicians.I am about to be 70 y/o. I have hunted since the age of 12 And taken game with pretty much all types of weapons including bow and arrow,spear, flintlock and percussion muzzleloaders, single-shot, bolt action, pump, multi-barrel, and semiautomatic rifles, shotguns, and handguns. In the Army I qualified as expert with the M-16 rifle and also with the 1911A1 .45ACP pistol and as sharpshooter with the M-14 rifle. In Vietnam I carried the M-16A1 and .45 pistol into combat and survived. Later on I acted as training Sgt., range safety NCO, company armorer, and capt. of the rifle/pistol team Later as a civilian at various times I engaged in (low level) competition with archery equipment, muzzle loaders, smallbore and military rifle, and handguns..I have to think that I have a fairly well informed opinion concerning most subjects related to firearms and their use.
Look. You've been informed of what the thread topic is. It is not gun-free zones or any measure of gun control. Please address the topic or don't post; your choice.What law of the GUN FREE ZONE would of helped the children in the Broward County Public School not be shot? Total confiscation of all legal weapons? Would a criminal not get an illegal gun to shoot up that FREE TO KILL ZONE?Maybe, just maybe, people are uninterested in new and improved gun control laws because they have been well and truly proven to do nothing but disarm the good guy/gals and empower the bad guys/gals. Maybe any further dialog should be about finding a solution that actually addresses the problem. "Gun free" areas were supposed to be the answer but have only served to attract crazies and terrorists.And yet you'd have us -- solely on the basis of your say-so, no less -- take the remainder of your assertions and speculations as both plausible and probable....new and improved gun control laws because they have been well and truly proven to....
It clearly escapes you that, by definition, that which is new has not at all been proven. That is part and parcel to the very substance of the meaning of the word "new."
Apparently sarcasm-as well as current events for the last 4--5 decades-escapes you. And my assertions and speculations are most certainly more plausible and probable than your OP. Why do you think I would bother with supporting evidence when you ignored it when I did present it to you in your OP in the "I don't understand..." thread and disproved some of your assertions in the doing. If you actually wanted a discussion as you have claimed, why don't you discuss instead of running away???? It was clear to me then and it remains clear that you didn't understand (1) the rhetorical point of the OP in that thread and (2) what the hell I requested; consequently, you provided content that answers a question that wasn't being asked. You could have provided literally all the supporting evidence in the world and it still would not have addressed the actual question I posed. I ignored most of what you had to say because you're 70 years-old and didn't address the central question of that thread.Why do you think I would bother with supporting evidence when you ignored it when I did present it to you in your OP in the "I don't understand..."
As I made clear to another member, the point of the OP in that thread is this:
To avoid the formal and precise language of economics, I, in that thread's OP, I expressed the central question in layman's terms and as a statement, thinking that readers could from that statement derive what must necessarily be the question the thread entreats them to answer.I'm in [the "I do not understand"] thread seeking credible input on what motivates the elasticity and substitution conclusions consumers obtain when demanding (effective and latent) semi-automatic rifles.
The entirety of the remainder of that OP is nothing other than my sharing broadly the nature of what I'd observed in seeking the answer to my question.I'm baffled at the existential fascination gun enthusiasts have with semi-automatic rifles.
What you did was share different observations and challenge the ones I shared. That's all well and good, but that those observations can and do exist -- yours or mine -- does not answer the central question:
If one doesn't have an answer to the question, well, one just doesn't. I don't have an answer to it, so I'm not going to ridicule someone else for not having an answer to it. If one wants to post and say "I don't know the answer to your question," that's fine too. But don't sit there feeling dejected because I didn't respond to your remarks that don't answer the thread question. Yes, the question was tacitly posed, but still, you're 70 year-old; it shouldn't have overtaxed your abilities to get from a statement to a question.
- In layman's terms: "Why are folks so fascinated with semi-automatic rifles?"
- In economic terms: "What motivates the elasticity and substitution conclusions consumers obtain when demanding (effective and latent) semi-automatic rifles?"
Hell, in your first post in that thread, you deigned to tell me with what consumer sub-groups certain firearms are popular. Why you did so is beyond me, for my OP made it clear that I already knew that semi-automatic rifles are popular. With whom they are popular is irrelevant to that thread's central question unless one/you show (credibly, not just your say-so) that the specific people or consumer sub-groups with whom they are popular are the people driving demand for item under consideration (in that thread's case, semi-automatic rifles).
"Semiautomatic" is a term used to describe a firing mechanism in which a single round is fired for each pull of the trigger and may describe rifles pistols or shotguns. They are popular with the military police hunters and competition shooters and have been for quite a long time. They are especially popular in handguns used by military police and defensive civilian carry weapons. They are popular shotguns for hunting rabbits waterfowl and upland birds and in rifles for hunting varmints squirrels hogs and deer.
Absent providing input that explains why folks are so fascinated with semi-automatic rifles, one might also have shown that the premise of the question -- that folks are fascinated with semi-automatic rifles -- is not true. Such a tack would be very difficult to credibly take, but it's an option and effectively showing the inaccuracy of the question's implicit premise does directly address the question.
Lastly, your notion of providing credible support for things and mine are clearly very different. I can sit here and attest to being an expert in the fields in which I am; however, insofar as I don't care to yield the freedom from professional controversy I here enjoy on account of my anonymity, I am not going to identify myself and point folks to my publications and achievements. Because I'm not going to offer anyone here a means for verifying my status as an expert in a few disciplines, when I'm assert something about a matter for which I am an expert, I nonetheless provide links to credible references rather than bidding readers to rely on my say-so. I do that because as an expert, it's no trouble at all for me to do so -- 30 seconds to a minute is all it takes because I know exactly what I'm looking for, the names of authors (researchers) who've written about the matter, etc. Truly, the majority of those few seconds is spent finding a document that's available in the public domain and that doesn't require one to purchase it.
Contrast that with what you did. You undertook to tell me about all your experience with guns and bid me to take your word for it.
Quite simply, I cannot verify any of that. But I'm not insisting that you provide the means for me to do so. Documentary support published by other experts and that I can read will do just fine. Indeed, that approach, when well executed, can obviate the need for you (or anyone) to be a widely acknowledged expert. But here's the key: experts on "whatever" don't generally misconstrue what be the central question being asked and, in turn, answer a question that's not been asked. There is, however, one genre of sometimes-experts who do that: politicians.I am about to be 70 y/o. I have hunted since the age of 12 And taken game with pretty much all types of weapons including bow and arrow,spear, flintlock and percussion muzzleloaders, single-shot, bolt action, pump, multi-barrel, and semiautomatic rifles, shotguns, and handguns. In the Army I qualified as expert with the M-16 rifle and also with the 1911A1 .45ACP pistol and as sharpshooter with the M-14 rifle. In Vietnam I carried the M-16A1 and .45 pistol into combat and survived. Later on I acted as training Sgt., range safety NCO, company armorer, and capt. of the rifle/pistol team Later as a civilian at various times I engaged in (low level) competition with archery equipment, muzzle loaders, smallbore and military rifle, and handguns..I have to think that I have a fairly well informed opinion concerning most subjects related to firearms and their use.
Damn man pull your head out of your ass, or one day you will wake up with like this.
View attachment 179262
Thought police has nothing to do with it.......you disagree fine......merely telling you my first impression when I read it...what's his solution again?You make the logical mistake of assuming intent based on no stated course of action (solution). He was simply positing an idea that MANY people have considered. There was a post on this very site shortly after the shooting questioning the fact that there have been zero mass shooting in private schools. Additionally, accusations of this type should not be flung around willy nilly. This is a forum where free ideas are encouraged. I suggest that unless you have serious proof of anyone's actions you should stop with the 'thought police' angle.We won't reach that point if simple steps are taken now to protect the children. Do you see any desire by him to do that in any of his posts...I don't. Do you see any proposals from the left short of gun bans to protect them? I haven't. I have asked for them in multiple threads all you get is radio silence. What other conclusion can be drawn other than their desire is the path he laid out?An action plan? How do you figure? He was simply stating that the children of the power elite and as an extension, the power elite have not been directly affected by these mass shootings. He further stated that in the event that it did happen then and only then would we see true action. These are valid and cogent points. Stop churchin it up...it is what it is.Honestly your op sounded like an action plan for accomplishing your stated goal. Don't do anything to make schools safer and hold out until the right people get killed and again try to capitalize on it.Off-Topic:
I'm responding to your post out of courtesy. What any political party has or has not proposed to enhance school safety isn't the thread's discussion topic because the temporal context of the thread topic is forward looking not backward looking.
Just so you are aware, the broad topic of the thread is how far or near we are to resolving the gun debate and what will or will not have to occur for a definitive resolution to come about. I expressed in the OP what I think it'll take to arrive at a resolution. If you have a similar or different idea of what will effect a resolution, then please do share it.
That is clearly not so:Let the record show libs have not proposed anything to improve safety of schools other than gun confiscation. If more happen look in the mirror for the guilty.
The examples above are but the "tip if of the iceberg." Of course, individuals whose eyes are directed "landward" won't observe even that.
- School Discipline Laws & Regulations by Category & State | Safe Supportive Learning
- School Safety and Security
- Democratic Party Platforms: 2000 Democratic Party Platform
- Students, Security, and Race
- Bullying Laws and Policies
- Groton School has plans to improve safety along Farmers Row
- DC Public Schools Student Safety
Your op pre-supposes inaction to make schools safer because of NRA so liberals clinging to their Hardline position is part of the discussion.
Look. You've been informed of what the thread topic is. It is not gun-free zones or any measure of gun control. Please address the topic or don't post; your choice.
There will be MORE not less school shootings until the schools solve their SECURITY DEFICIENCIES.It doesn't take much to see what's driving the massive increase in the nation's appetite for tighter gun control measures.
Quite simply, the Parkland shooting made it undeniably clear that the relative insulation from a host of social ills, gun violence among them, that upper-middle class and entry-level wealthy families and neighborhoods enjoy is not enough to protect them from gun violence. The Parkman shooter went into a school populated with a subset of some the nation's most fortunate kids and today, those kids are every bit as dead as whatever provincial or urban ne'er do well, and those "white picket fence" families no less aggrieved. Nonetheless, it seems that Congressional Republicans cleave to the will of the NRA, showing a profound lack of will to endure a non-A rating from the NRA.
- Poll: Support for gun control hits record high
- CNN Poll: Seven in 10 favor tighter gun laws in wake of Parkland shooting - CNNPolitics
But M. Stoneman Douglas is a public school, and though it's students/families are well-off, mostly, they aren't in the same social cohort as are the kids/families at the nation's posh day-hop schools, or worse one of the elite boarding schools nestled in the bucolic solitude of America's countrysides and having students hailing from posh families around the world. The minute, God forbid, a gunman shoots a kid(s) at any one of those schools, the gun debate will come to a screeching halt because people paying $50K+/year in tuition, nevermind room, board and activity fees and cost, will demand and receive, as with everything else, precisely the action they want to receive. The instant that happens, the blinders and gossamer veil that allows the 1% of the 1% to forbear what in their hearts they know is the spurious "guns aren't the problem."
There're "woke" folks in the donor class; there's no question about that. As yet, however, they and their "un-woke" peers have been essentially untouched by random gun violence. The donor class isn't immune to one-off shootings and other violence -- Menendez brothers, the Kalorama shooting, and so on -- but as yet elite bastions of safety and solitude have yet to have their denizens become targets of gun violence. Poor and middle class have endured gun violence of all sorts for decades; the country's economic elites have not really not, and even considering their exposure to non-random events (e.g., Arlington shooting) and special circumstances (e.g., POTUSes and the occasional political assassination mostly) not anything like an Aurora, Columbine, Parkland, etc.
I absolutely hope that nobody else will have to suffer shootings of any sort. If/when I ever hear of another mass shooting, it'll be too soon. That said, I do fear the only other thing, besides what I've described above, that will move Congress members irrevocably out of the political quagmire into which they've set themselves is the 2018 plebiscite outcome sending a clear message that a material share of the citizenry's GOP has abandoned the NRA.
Another question is whether GOP (would-be) elected office holders will pull on the NRA the same "lip service"/bait and switch stunt it pulls with the general electorate. How might they do so? Simply toe the line until it's too late for incumbents to be "primaried" in advance of the 2018 general election. That is, after all, the only thing GOP incumbents have to fear from the NRA. After that, they can quickly pass whatever gun control they can come up with and watch for two years as the NRA tries to convince people that whatever got passed should be repealed. That's two years to put the NRA on the defensive, two years to watch the NRA challenge the legislation in the SCOTUS (a really risky gambit, especially if it comes before 2020, because Dems and Progressive Indies have a material headcount advantage), etc.
It doesn't take much to see what's driving the massive increase in the nation's appetite for tighter gun control measures.
You make the logical mistake of assuming intent based on no stated course of action (solution). He was simply positing an idea that MANY people have considered. There was a post on this very site shortly after the shooting questioning the fact that there have been zero mass shooting in private schools. Additionally, accusations of this type should not be flung around willy nilly. This is a forum where free ideas are encouraged. I suggest that unless you have serious proof of anyone's actions you should stop with the 'thought police' angle.
No doubt. A private school education often indicates more about a student's parent s than just the ability to shoulder cost.It's an interesting point, about private schools, but I'm not impressed that this is anything but a statistical quirk: there are so many more students in public schools. And more troubled, a lot of them.
Oh, no doubt. However, those assaults were extra student body as well as committed by entities who did not acquire their weapons legally. If they did, they were members of terrorist organizations. Not as if many of those wait on a 72 hour background check.nd certainly private schools in other countries have been hit --- Jewish day centers, and of course that Indian military school that was pretty much wiped entirely out. And Boko Haram regularly harvests all the girls from Nigerian private schools for sex slaves. Even in this country there are terrible things that happen in private schools ---- many, many pedophilia crimes, and there was that rape culture thing going on for years at St. Paul's that was exposed a couple years ago.
Oh, I can. Watch the media the next time a wealthy child goes missing or is kidnapped or raped. Wealth protects wealth and things seem to just 'get done' when the ultra wealthy are involved. This is not a knock on the wealthy mind you. This just is the case.It will happen, but I can't see such an event having an effect on the gun control issue, except maybe to make the private school set more eager to have their own guns. The whole thing is a security issue. If government really cannot cope, and clearly they cannot, the people do sort of need to deal with security ourselves.
You make the logical mistake of assuming intent based on no stated course of action (solution). He was simply positing an idea that MANY people have considered. There was a post on this very site shortly after the shooting questioning the fact that there have been zero mass shooting in private schools. Additionally, accusations of this type should not be flung around willy nilly. This is a forum where free ideas are encouraged. I suggest that unless you have serious proof of anyone's actions you should stop with the 'thought police' angle.
It's an interesting point, about private schools, but I'm not impressed that this is anything but a statistical quirk: there are so many more students in public schools. And more troubled, a lot of them.
And certainly private schools in other countries have been hit --- Jewish day centers, and of course that Indian military school that was pretty much wiped entirely out. And Boko Haram regularly harvests all the girls from Nigerian private schools for sex slaves. Even in this country there are terrible things that happen in private schools ---- many, many pedophilia crimes, and there was that rape culture thing going on for years at St. Paul's that was exposed a couple years ago.
It will happen, but I can't see such an event having an effect on the gun control issue, except maybe to make the private school set more eager to have their own guns. The whole thing is a security issue. If government really cannot cope, and clearly they cannot, the people do sort of need to deal with security ourselves.
It's an interesting point, about private schools, but I'm not impressed that this is anything but a statistical quirk: there are so many more students in public schools....certainly private schools in other countries have been hit ....
The minute, God forbid, a gunman shoots a kid(s) at any one of those schools, the gun debate will come to a screeching halt because people paying $50K+/year in tuition, nevermind room, board and activity fees and cost, will demand and receive, as with everything else, precisely the action they want to receive. The instant that happens, the blinders and gossamer veil that allows the 1% of the 1% to forbear what in their hearts they know is the spurious "guns aren't the problem."
Good post and you make a very valid point. Nothing changes until it directly affects the elite.
He was simply stating that the children of the power elite and as an extension, the power elite have not been directly affected by these mass shootings. He further stated that in the event that it did happen then and only then would we see true action.
The rhetorical purpose of the polls inclusion is that whatever their margin of error, they illustrate that the nation's appetite for gun control has increased dramatically and despite that being so, there remains no substantive and definitive action that has been taken, be it gun control or otherwise -- "[super-elite folks] will demand and receive, as with everything else, precisely the action they want to receive -- because the most influential folks in the country have, as a segment of society, continued to be unaffected personally and specifically by the violence that "regular" folks have had to endure.My goodness, is there someone still here who believes in polls?
Israel once had a problem like ours only they called their crazed murders Muslims. The second time these Muslims shot up a school Israel trained and armed their teachers. Since that time there have been two more schoolings ending with two deaths, both the Muslims trying to pull it off. But talk about stupid our answer is gun free zones which help as much as gun free town, gun free cities, and gun free states.It doesn't take much to see what's driving the massive increase in the nation's appetite for tighter gun control measures.
Quite simply, the Parkland shooting made it undeniably clear that the relative insulation from a host of social ills, gun violence among them, that upper-middle class and entry-level wealthy families and neighborhoods enjoy is not enough to protect them from gun violence. The Parkman shooter went into a school populated with a subset of some the nation's most fortunate kids and today, those kids are every bit as dead as whatever provincial or urban ne'er do well, and those "white picket fence" families no less aggrieved. Nonetheless, it seems that Congressional Republicans cleave to the will of the NRA, showing a profound lack of will to endure a non-A rating from the NRA.
- Poll: Support for gun control hits record high
- CNN Poll: Seven in 10 favor tighter gun laws in wake of Parkland shooting - CNNPolitics
But M. Stoneman Douglas is a public school, and though it's students/families are well-off, mostly, they aren't in the same social cohort as are the kids/families at the nation's posh day-hop schools, or worse one of the elite boarding schools nestled in the bucolic solitude of America's countrysides and having students hailing from posh families around the world. The minute, God forbid, a gunman shoots a kid(s) at any one of those schools, the gun debate will come to a screeching halt because people paying $50K+/year in tuition, nevermind room, board and activity fees and cost, will demand and receive, as with everything else, precisely the action they want to receive. The instant that happens, the blinders and gossamer veil that allows the 1% of the 1% to forbear what in their hearts they know is the spurious "guns aren't the problem."
There're "woke" folks in the donor class; there's no question about that. As yet, however, they and their "un-woke" peers have been essentially untouched by random gun violence. The donor class isn't immune to one-off shootings and other violence -- Menendez brothers, the Kalorama shooting, and so on -- but as yet elite bastions of safety and solitude have yet to have their denizens become targets of gun violence. Poor and middle class have endured gun violence of all sorts for decades; the country's economic elites have not really not, and even considering their exposure to non-random events (e.g., Arlington shooting) and special circumstances (e.g., POTUSes and the occasional political assassination mostly) not anything like an Aurora, Columbine, Parkland, etc.
I absolutely hope that nobody else will have to suffer shootings of any sort. If/when I ever hear of another mass shooting, it'll be too soon. That said, I do fear the only other thing, besides what I've described above, that will move Congress members irrevocably out of the political quagmire into which they've set themselves is the 2018 plebiscite outcome sending a clear message that a material share of the citizenry's GOP has abandoned the NRA.
Another question is whether GOP (would-be) elected office holders will pull on the NRA the same "lip service"/bait and switch stunt it pulls with the general electorate. How might they do so? Simply toe the line until it's too late for incumbents to be "primaried" in advance of the 2018 general election. That is, after all, the only thing GOP incumbents have to fear from the NRA. After that, they can quickly pass whatever gun control they can come up with and watch for two years as the NRA tries to convince people that whatever got passed should be repealed. That's two years to put the NRA on the defensive, two years to watch the NRA challenge the legislation in the SCOTUS (a really risky gambit, especially if it comes before 2020, because Dems and Progressive Indies have a material headcount advantage), etc.
