CDZ My child's right to a safe school versus your right to guns

[The Derp]

Absolutely. The dice are already rolling when it comes to mass and school shooters.

Yeah, because you made it easy for them to get weapons that they can use to kill so many people in such a short period of time. So you create the risk, then propose more risk to mitigate the risk that you created.

That's dumb. And circular.

The only question is whether we leave protection of the innocent to the helpless or someone trained and equipped to do so. When was the last time a teacher began randomly shooting school children? Ever?

Teachers aren't trained and equipped to provide security. They're trained and equipped to teach. So think bigger.

Well, a teacher randomly shot in the school yesterday in Georgia. So the example from 24 hours ago undercuts your argument entirely.

My children attended schools that had an armed police officer in attendance. They survived There is no reason an armed teacher couldn't or shouldn't be held to the same standards.

Parkland had an armed officer; didn't make a difference. Even when three more officers showed up, it didn't make a difference. The police were outgunned, and any "armed teachers" would be outgunned too.

"More guns" is the solution to gun violence like more drunk driving is the solution to drunk driving.

IT'S NOT A TEACHER'S JOB TO PROTECT CHILDREN. It's their job to educate them
BULLSPIT!!!! Total rancid slimey smelly hip deep Bullspit!!! And wrong on moral ethical legal and every other level!

If their job isn't to educate kids, then they wouldn't be called "teachers". Now kindly screw off, NRA shill.

 

[The Derp]

Not surprising that you wouldn't understand what pro freedom means.

"pro-freedom" is just something you say to make you feel better about yourself.

The phrase means nothing. It's just a platitude meant to reinforce posturing. That's what you are; a poseur.

 

[9thIDdoc]

Insurance companies exist for one-and only one-purpose: to make money for the insurance company.

Obviously you're still a child who hasn't yet reached adulthood to understand the concept of insurance.

Again bullspit. Thieves may or may not know or care if someone is home. More importantly some home intruders deliberately break in when someone is there because their purpose is rape and/or murder.

LOL! Of course a thief wants to break into a home when no one's there. Duh! Wow. What do you think "casing" means?

You're an idiot.

And you are a pro-crime sinple-minded thug and azzho.

 

[ChrisL]

Exactly the point. Teachers can go crazy the same as students and anyone else

So you'll roll the dice with everyone's safety, hoping that the armed teacher isn't like the one in GA who snapped yesterday, or isn't like the one in Utah who shot herself last week. Not a good strategy on your part.

You say we should arm teachers...an armed teacher goes nuts...and this doesn't make you second-guess your position? Why do you want blood in our schools?

If that happens who is going to effectively protect students and other teachers? The idea of requiring unarmed people to protect children from armed felons is-and has always been-idiotic.

IT'S NOT A TEACHER'S JOB TO PROTECT CHILDREN. It's their job to educate them.

"So you'll roll the dice with everyone's safety, hoping that the armed teacher isn't like the one in GA who snapped yesterday, or isn't like the one in Utah who shot herself last week"

Absolutely. The dice are already rolling when it comes to mass and school shooters. The only question is whether we leave protection of the innocent to the helpless or someone trained and equipped to do so. When was the last time a teacher began randomly shooting school children? Ever?
My children attended schools that had an armed police officer in attendance. They survived There is no reason an armed teacher couldn't or shouldn't be held to the same standards.

IT'S NOT A TEACHER'S JOB TO PROTECT CHILDREN. It's their job to educate them

BULLSPIT!!!! Total rancid slimey smelly hip deep Bullspit!!! And wrong on moral ethical legal and every other level!

The term in loco parentis, Latin for "in the place of a parent" refers to the legal responsibility of a person or organization to take on some of the functions and responsibilities of a parent. Originally derived from English common law, it is applied in two separate areas of the law.
In loco parentis - Wikipedia
In loco parentis - Wikipedia

Cops are just as likely to "snap" as anyone else anyways. All of the sudden these people want to put their lives and safety in the hands of the "racist" and "murdering pigs." Funny, isn't it?

What must they think of US if they would rather guns be in the hands of racist murderers than your average American citizen?

 

[ChrisL]

Not surprising that you wouldn't understand what pro freedom means.

"pro-freedom" is just something you say to make you feel better about yourself.

The phrase means nothing. It's just a platitude meant to reinforce posturing. That's what you are; a poseur.

No it means I support the freedoms that I have such as the right to defend myself with a gun if I deem it to be necessary and it being completely my decision to make and not me being left at the mercy of some sniveling fearful little liberal who has a poor understanding of our history, our rights and pretty much everything America was founded on.

 

[2aguy]

It depends on what?

If you left your car unlocked, the keys inside, or left it in an area known for car thefts. You could be liable due to your reckless behavior.

And FYI anytime anyone with insurance files a claim their premiums go up

Exactly.

Could be or would be?

If a gun owner should be held criminally liable if someone steals his guns than everyone who has any property stolen should be held criminally liable

If it is used in a crime, sure, and if the weapons were not properly stored and secured, sure.

Heller already ruled that mandatory gun locks and gun safes are unconstitutional.......

 

[2aguy]

Exactly the point. Teachers can go crazy the same as students and anyone else

So you'll roll the dice with everyone's safety, hoping that the armed teacher isn't like the one in GA who snapped yesterday, or isn't like the one in Utah who shot herself last week. Not a good strategy on your part.

You say we should arm teachers...an armed teacher goes nuts...and this doesn't make you second-guess your position? Why do you want blood in our schools?

If that happens who is going to effectively protect students and other teachers? The idea of requiring unarmed people to protect children from armed felons is-and has always been-idiotic.

IT'S NOT A TEACHER'S JOB TO PROTECT CHILDREN. It's their job to educate them.

Teachers can already bring guns to schools and shoot people....gun free school zone laws aren't stopping them. The only ones who won't bring guns to school are the law abiding teachers who don't want to be felons for bringing their legal guns onto school grounds......guns they won't use to hurt people.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Heller already ruled that mandatory gun locks and gun safes are unconstitutional.......

Heller already ruled that it can revisit and alter Heller as it wants.

 

[2aguy]

Insurance companies exist for one-and only one-purpose: to make money for the insurance company.

Obviously you're still a child who hasn't yet reached adulthood to understand the concept of insurance.

Again bullspit. Thieves may or may not know or care if someone is home. More importantly some home intruders deliberately break in when someone is there because their purpose is rape and/or murder.

LOL! Of course a thief wants to break into a home when no one's there. Duh! Wow. What do you think "casing" means?

You're an idiot.

Do you know that in Britain criminals don't care if people are home.......because people in Britain aren't armed. They spend more time here casing houses to make sure owners aren't home...because our people have guns and will shoot them....in Britain.....they take their time and torture the people in the home to find all of their valuables.....

Wealthy retired couple tortured by burglars who forced wife to walk on broken glass in £20,000 raid


wealthy couple were tortured by "Swat team" burglars who forced the wife to walk on broken glass before breaking one of her toes with a sledgehammer while stealing £20,000 of gold and jewels.

Professional burglars John McCarthy, 35, and Richard Leslie, 37, were branded "every householder's worst nightmare" after playing leading roles in the gang that terrorised the vulnerable pensioners for four hours during a night-time raid.

--------

During their ordeal, the couple, aged in their 70s, were bound with tape, beaten, threatened and locked in a utility room.

The burglars hit the 77-year-old man with a chair and forced his 75-year-old wife to walk barefoot on glass, having discarded her slippers.

One of the burglars threatened to cut off the wife's fingers and ear with a pair of shears if gold, cash and Rolex watches were not produced.

She also needed extensive dental treatment because of the beating to her face. Her husband was stuck with pins "many times" to extort more valuables, the court heard.

During the attack, one of the armed intruders boasted: "This is what we do for a living."

They made off with Chinese ornaments in 24 carat gold, jewellery, silver commemorative coins featuring Winston Churchill and Margaret Thatcher, gold bars, a custom-made Seiko watch as well as thousands of pounds and Hong Kong dollars in cash.
============

An Englishman's home is his dungeon

Various reassuring types, from police spokesmen to the Economist, described the stabbing of the Moncktons as a "burglary gone wrong". If only more burglaries could go right, they imply, this sort of thing wouldn't happen.

But the trouble is that this kind of burglary - the kind most likely to go "wrong" - is now the norm in Britain. In America, it's called a "hot" burglary - a burglary that takes place when the homeowners are present - or a "home invasion", which is a much more accurate term. Just over 10 per cent of US burglaries are "hot" burglaries, and in my part of the world it's statistically insignificant: there is virtually zero chance of a New Hampshire home being broken into while the family are present. But in England and Wales it's more than 50 per cent and climbing. Which is hardly surprising given the police's petty, well-publicised pursuit of those citizens who have the impertinence to resist criminals.

These days, even as he or she is being clobbered, the more thoughtful British subject is usually keeping an eye (the one that hasn't been poked out) on potential liability. Four years ago, Shirley Best, proprietor of the Rolander Fashion emporium, whose clients include Zara Phillips, was ironing some clothes when the proverbial two youths showed up. They pressed the hot iron into her flesh, burning her badly, and then stole her watch. "I was frightened to defend myself," said Miss Best. "I thought if I did anything I would be arrested." There speaks the modern British crime victim.



Waterboarded by a gang of robbers in her £7m home: Masked intruders torture grandmother, 73, for three hours to make her open a safe | Daily Mail Online





That led to a terrifying three-hour ordeal in which the attackers used waterboarding – a form of torture in which the victim is made to feel they are about to be drowned.

The men took underwear from Mrs Jansen’s bedroom and forced it into her mouth before dragging her into the en-suite bathroom. They pulled her head back over the bath and covered her face with a towel they kept flooded with water from the shower head.

‘They did this to me three times but I just couldn’t open the safe,’ she said. ‘I kept telling them it was empty but they didn’t believe me.’

Mrs Jansen, who lives on a private estate in Weybridge, Surrey, told the Mail: ‘I was absolutely terrified, I thought they were going to kill me.

‘They asked me if I had any grandchildren, I told them I had ten and they said “We are going to kill you, do you think your grandchildren will miss you?”

‘I was consumed by fear. It was sheer hell and all I can remember is praying.’

Her six-bedroomed house had been broken into several weeks before the attack last Friday and Surrey Police believe the raiders had located the two safes at that point.

 

[ChrisL]

Exactly the point. Teachers can go crazy the same as students and anyone else

So you'll roll the dice with everyone's safety, hoping that the armed teacher isn't like the one in GA who snapped yesterday, or isn't like the one in Utah who shot herself last week. Not a good strategy on your part.

You say we should arm teachers...an armed teacher goes nuts...and this doesn't make you second-guess your position? Why do you want blood in our schools?

If that happens who is going to effectively protect students and other teachers? The idea of requiring unarmed people to protect children from armed felons is-and has always been-idiotic.

IT'S NOT A TEACHER'S JOB TO PROTECT CHILDREN. It's their job to educate them.

Teachers can already bring guns to schools and shoot people....gun free school zone laws aren't stopping them. The only ones who won't bring guns to school are the law abiding teachers who don't want to be felons for bringing their legal guns onto school grounds......guns they won't use to hurt people.

They don't seem to understand the simple concept that lunatic mass murderers don't obey ANY laws.

 

[2aguy]

Skull still mistakes a baseball bat as a category of degree instead of difference of kind. Oh, well.

bodecea, the general welfare clause covers safety in public schools.

debbiedowner fully understands that neglect to reckless and willfullness can be grounds for suit if you don’t lock up your weapons. Skull seems to think even if the car is locked, he can be sued. I don’t think so.

No...the General Welfare clause does not cover that...the General Welfare is defined in the Constitution....coining money, the common defense.....

 

[ChrisL]

All of the gun control laws only affect those who actually follow the laws. They don't affect criminals or murderers. THAT is what makes these people criminals and murderers to begin with.

 

[2aguy]

Heller already ruled that mandatory gun locks and gun safes are unconstitutional.......

Heller already ruled that it can revisit and alter Heller as it wants.

Nope...it was completely clear on mandatory gun locks and storage...

Heller...

3. The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment. The District’s total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of “arms” that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense.

 

[ChrisL]

Heller already ruled that mandatory gun locks and gun safes are unconstitutional.......

Heller already ruled that it can revisit and alter Heller as it wants.

Nope...it was completely clear on mandatory gun locks and storage...

Heller...

3. The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment. The District’s total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of “arms” that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense.

Starkey is a troll and a waste of time.

 

[2aguy]

Exactly the point. Teachers can go crazy the same as students and anyone else

So you'll roll the dice with everyone's safety, hoping that the armed teacher isn't like the one in GA who snapped yesterday, or isn't like the one in Utah who shot herself last week. Not a good strategy on your part.

You say we should arm teachers...an armed teacher goes nuts...and this doesn't make you second-guess your position? Why do you want blood in our schools?

If that happens who is going to effectively protect students and other teachers? The idea of requiring unarmed people to protect children from armed felons is-and has always been-idiotic.

IT'S NOT A TEACHER'S JOB TO PROTECT CHILDREN. It's their job to educate them.

Teachers can already bring guns to schools and shoot people....gun free school zone laws aren't stopping them. The only ones who won't bring guns to school are the law abiding teachers who don't want to be felons for bringing their legal guns onto school grounds......guns they won't use to hurt people.

They don't seem to understand the simple concept that lunatic mass murderers don't obey ANY laws.

They know, they don't care...they just know that more law abiding citizens have guns than criminals do.....and that drives them freaking crazy, since they can't get at the guns of the law abiding gun owners....since they commit no crimes with them....that is why they keep creating new laws, and regulations, to set up legal traps for gun owners.....to discourage new gun owners and to trap current gun owners breaking process laws, so they can strip them of their guns......and ruin their lives for the sin of owning guns in the first place.

 

[saveliberty]

Your kid doesn't have a right to an education. Go ahead show me the Constitutional amendment.

 

[ChrisL]

Exactly the point. Teachers can go crazy the same as students and anyone else

So you'll roll the dice with everyone's safety, hoping that the armed teacher isn't like the one in GA who snapped yesterday, or isn't like the one in Utah who shot herself last week. Not a good strategy on your part.

You say we should arm teachers...an armed teacher goes nuts...and this doesn't make you second-guess your position? Why do you want blood in our schools?

If that happens who is going to effectively protect students and other teachers? The idea of requiring unarmed people to protect children from armed felons is-and has always been-idiotic.

IT'S NOT A TEACHER'S JOB TO PROTECT CHILDREN. It's their job to educate them.

Teachers can already bring guns to schools and shoot people....gun free school zone laws aren't stopping them. The only ones who won't bring guns to school are the law abiding teachers who don't want to be felons for bringing their legal guns onto school grounds......guns they won't use to hurt people.

They don't seem to understand the simple concept that lunatic mass murderers don't obey ANY laws.

They know, they don't care...they just know that more law abiding citizens have guns than criminals do.....and that drives them freaking crazy, since they can't get at the guns of the law abiding gun owners....since they commit no crimes with them....that is why they keep creating new laws, and regulations, to set up legal traps for gun owners.....to discourage new gun owners and to trap current gun owners breaking process laws, so they can strip them of their guns......and ruin their lives for the sin of owning guns in the first place.

That's why I call them the anti rights party. They aren't capable of critical thinking skills either, apparently. "Gun gone - crime gone." Stupidly simplistic minds would think such a thing.

 

[ChrisL]

Everything that has been banned is available. All you have to do is look.

 

[saveliberty]

For a liberal, it is always easier to blame others than accept they screwed up another person.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Depends on what?

For the fifth time: ON THE DEGREE OF NEGLIGENCE.

Why are you so determined to have a circular discussion? Or is it that you're so old and senile, you can't remember what is said post-to-post?

and if my guns get stolen my homeowners insurance will go up but you are saying that people should be held criminally liable if their property gets stolen and is used in a crime

Not property, just guns.

So I'll ask againIf a person parked his car and locked it is he or is he not criminally liable if some piece of shit steals that car and uses in in a crime ?

IT DEPENDS ON THE DEGREE OF NEGLIGENCE, like I've said each fucking time you ask this question. Are you illiterate? Do you just not understand the words that appear on your screen?

f you think gun owners should be held criminally liable if someone breaks into their homes and steals guns why not be consistent and hold everyone to the same standard for all property that is stolen?

If guns are not going to be insured by mandate, then there must be accountability and responsibility for the owners. Criminal negligence is the only thing that can act as a substitute for accountability and responsibility. Unless you're now saying that you don't think gun owners should be responsible or accountable for their guns. Is that what you're now saying?

FYI if you own guns they are covered under a homeowner's policy just like any other property.

But at least now you are aware of your ridiculous bias against people who own guns.

You don't give a shit if a baseball bat is stolen and used to cave some poor bastard's skull in or if a car is stolen and used to run someone over because YOU probably own those things and you are obviously of the opinion that you are far more responsible than anyone else in the fucking world it's also where you get the idea that you have the right to tell other people how they should live their lives