I found this earlier today and thought I would share it here. The letter does raise some valid points.
[Only registered and activated users can see links. Click Here To Register...]
Printable View
I found this earlier today and thought I would share it here. The letter does raise some valid points.
[Only registered and activated users can see links. Click Here To Register...]
Since when is it legal to hunt humans?
[Only registered and activated users can see links. Click Here To Register...]
Since the dawn of man.Quote:
Originally Posted by Live2ride883 [Only registered and activated users can see links. Click Here To Register...]
Rooted: Tmo GS3: PacMan ROM : 4.2.2
You can't tell that nut job anything.
It was ok for her to get a ccw but not the rest of us. It's ok for the rich to have armed security but those thay can't afford it can rely on law enforcement becuase when seconds count the police are only minutes away.
Ask a liberal who's husband is getting those contracts for that high speed train to nowhere, you guesed it. Lining her pockets lime a common criminal. :beer:
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I747 using Android Central Forums
The average person doesn't need armed security. And while I don't agree with her on everything, she's far more reasonable than the nutcases on the right...Michelle Bachman I am looking at you! :)Quote:
Originally Posted by jusmebabe [Only registered and activated users can see links. Click Here To Register...]
The average school child should have armed security.
Sent from my wireless telephonic device.
Beause armed security is always sucessful? Ask Columbine how that worked out. Besides, who's paying for that? Schools can barely afford things as it is now.Quote:
Originally Posted by jova33 [Only registered and activated users can see links. Click Here To Register...]
We didn't need armed security when I was in school. So what's changed? That's what we need to figure out and fix. Putting security in schools is just a band aid and doesn't address the root cause.
Bingo.Quote:
Originally Posted by GadgetGator [Only registered and activated users can see links. Click Here To Register...]
I don't want to pay for bullets in schools, I want to pay for books. If we can't afford the latter, we don't need the former because there is no point in having the school in the first place.
[Only registered and activated users can see links. Click Here To Register...]
When seconds count, the police are minutes away.
What's changed? The media making these mass killers famous? The decline in affordable mental health care? People are just crazy?
I don't know what's changed. But I do know we guard our money with armed security. I know our upper class citizens and politicians have armed guards at their children's schools. I think the average citizen should be able to have that same protection for our children. Are the politicians children more important than yours?
And if my home is protected by a firearm, why shouldn't my children's school be as well?
Sent from my wireless telephonic device.
False equivalence. People in politics/on TV have different needs than the average joe out there in the world. People wanting to kidnap the President's kids, or a senator's kids are a very real possibility due to their high profile. You and me, not so much. Guarding money? An armored car maybe, because again the potential is high for robbery during movements of large sums of cash. I couldn't tell you when the last time I saw an armed guard inside a bank though. It's been MANY years.Quote:
Originally Posted by jova33 [Only registered and activated users can see links. Click Here To Register...]
As for schools..yeah you can put armed guards in schools, but that didn't prevent Colombine from happening. And I'll ask again: how are you paying for that? And then how are you protecting your children in between home and school? Armed guards on buses and field trips too? Guards in the parking lots? Armed crossing guards? Now you're talking about a whole lot more people and even greater expense.
So normal kids aren't at risk of being kidnapped?
I think a sick ******* that wants to kidnap or harm a child would more likely do it to "average Joe's" children than say, a child who has an armed guard.
And I have a concealed carry permit, so there's the protection on the way home.
And if Columbine didn't have armed security probably more people would've died.
And still, the average person has a right to defend themself, their property, and their family. Why should that security stop as soon as my sons go to school?
And the money is there, it's just being used for BS that doesn't matter.
Sent from my wireless telephonic device.
I have no respect for that gun nut Feinstein.Quote:
Originally Posted by Live2ride883 [Only registered and activated users can see links. Click Here To Register...]
She actually thinks an AR-15 is a military style weapon.
Just proves that the anti gun people don't know what they're talking about
Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2
I think it's a bad idea to think about gun control in the context of school shootings. Not only have we covered this in some 750 comments in a previous thread dedicated to that line, but it's also taken over a couple other threads not meant for that purpose. As was pointed out in each of those, of all of the people who die this year, trends from recent years indicate that approximately .5% will die following an intentional shooting. Of those, approximately 5% will be shot with a long gun (any type of rifle, "military assault weapon", musket, or shotgun, etc). Of those, approximately 10% will be in a school or other public place in a, "mass shooting" scenario.
Quick multiplication says that we're wasting a lot of words (and for some a lot of anger) on something that will impact .25% of all those who die; which is approximately 2.5 million people a year (out of approximately 330 million citizens), which is .7575...% of the population in a given year. Whether you look at it form an "odds of this happening to you" standpoint, (odds of dying in a mass shooting are 52,800:1 or .000189%) or, if you take it for granted that you're one of the .5% (400:1) of those who die that will die from a firearm related homicide, your odds are approximately 4% or 25:1 that you'll be shot with a rifle and .25% or 400:1 that it'll be in a mass shooting scenario.
Clearly, IF we take it for granted that violence with weapons should be a national priority, we should be ready to accept that mass shootings and long guns in general are not the crux of the problem. I'm not sure this should be a priority. Sure, it rips you apart inside every time someone's kid is on the news having being shot, but that same kid isn't on the news in most cases if it happened in a high crime area, if they fell off a slide or even when they die to child abuse at home. It's a much more honest debate if we focus on the other 99% of people killed by firearms and perhaps include all of the other weapons used in crimes in that conversation, instead of singling out something that causes death in less than 1% of all people who die per year.
We can focus on gang crime, domestic violence, poverty, education issues.... bringing more guns into schools won't fix anything because it doesn't address the problem at all.
Molon labe!!!
It's a lot less than 2.5 million a year killed intentionally by firearms, at least in the United States. I'm too lazy to pull up the FBI website, but it's closer to 8,500, with 300 being rifles of any type.
Edit: and most of those deaths are drug and gang related.
And don't include suicides in those numbers. In Japan firearms are almost completely illegal, yet they have a higher suicide rate than the US. People will kill themselves whether or not a firearm is available.
[Only registered and activated users can see links. Click Here To Register...]
Edit: and another point I wanted to bring up, that 90% of Americans want stricter background checks was BS. I found the origin of the survey, Quinnipiac University. The question was, "Do you support background checks at gun shows?"
Well, I support that. I don't know anyone who would be against that. Who are the 10% that don't support that idea? The problem is, they already do background checks at all gun shows. Go to a gun show and try to purchase a gun without a background check. The only type of gun sales that don't require a background check are private sales. If I wanted to sell my buddy, Billy Bob, a gun, no background check is required. If Billy Bob is a felon, and I sell him a gun, then guess what, I'm going to jail. So even private sales that don't require a background check, usually people don't sell to someone they don't know. And the type of person who would knowingly sell a gun to a felon, do you think they are going to obey the law and perform a background check on the guy?
So that bill that got knocked down in the Senate had little to do with background checks. We already have those. And 90% of Americans did not support it.
Edit: You have a 0.0027% chance of being murdered with a firearm of any type in the US.
Sent from my wireless telephonic device.
That was 2.5 million people that are going to die per year in the US from anything, approximately 12,000 of which will die from intentional gunshot wounds.Quote:
Originally Posted by jova33 [Only registered and activated users can see links. Click Here To Register...]
8,583 homicides by firearms in 2011, the latest year that the data is available for.
I think the suicides by firearm are double that number. As I said before, even if you remove the gun, people are still going to kill themselves.
Sent from my wireless telephonic device.
Seriously? If you see no threat difference between a worldwide well-known leader of the free world and yourself whom no one knows then I can't help you. The two are not even remotely the same. You are not a political target.Quote:
Originally Posted by jova33 [Only registered and activated users can see links. Click Here To Register...]
And just what are these things that schools are spending their money on that you think would be better suited to militarizing our schools?
Militarizing our schools should be the least of our concerns. Considering we are 37th in the world for math and science, we should be focusing on improving that ranking instead lest we lose our superpower status because currently it's a joke what Americans learn in school for math and science.
Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk 2
If schools can't afford textbooks or teachers....
There are people in this very forum that are calling for no background checks. As for the notion that background checks are done on all sales at gun shows, that just isn't true. It's been proven in a number of stories, including a piece that CNN did, where it was QUITE easy for them to obtain a gun without any ID or background checks at all. Gun shows definitely need to be cracked down on. It's not a level playing field for the other dealers when they guy at the next table over isn't doing them.Quote:
Originally Posted by jova33 [Only registered and activated users can see links. Click Here To Register...]
Well levies are actually illegal. If it is a public school it is the states job to support that school, you shouldn't have to pass a levy to receive a fovernment handout. They treat our educational system like it's a damn competition or something.Quote:
Originally Posted by NothingIsTrue [Only registered and activated users can see links. Click Here To Register...]
Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk 2
Every piece I've seen they went in and legally purchased a firearm. I think it's actually illegal for felons to go to gun shows, but I'm not sure.Quote:
Originally Posted by GadgetGator [Only registered and activated users can see links. Click Here To Register...]
And if any FFL seller sells without doing a background check, they'll lose their license and probably be arrested.
Do you have a link to this story?
Sent from my wireless telephonic device.
Who's child is more likely to be kidnapped or harmed? Snoop Dogg's kid, who goes to a private school, and most likely has armed security, or your kid that goes to a public school with no protection and is a "GUN FREE ZONE"Quote:
Originally Posted by GadgetGator [Only registered and activated users can see links. Click Here To Register...]
I didn't say schools were spending the money on nonsense. But really they are. It costs about, let's say $2000 of your tax dollars to send you kid to school every year. In a classroom of 30 kids, that's $60,000 a year. Teachers get paid, what? $30,000 a year, and that's being generous. In a school with 30 teachers, that's $900,000 after paying the teachers. Where does all that money go? Teachers end up paying for classroom supplies out of their own paycheck.
But other than the scam of our county's education system, there's money elsewhere that the government could use to pay for guards. Like the 230 million our government gave to the Brotherhood of Islam, a known terrorist organization to most countries except ours, or the hundreds of millions of dollars our government is funneling into Syrian rebels with known links to Al Qaeda. The stockpile of thousands of tanks that continue to be built and aren't needed by our military and that are just collecting dust in the desert.
Sent from my wireless telephonic device.
Yup! [Only registered and activated users can see links. Click Here To Register...]Quote:
Originally Posted by jova33 [Only registered and activated users can see links. Click Here To Register...]
Ah okay...so you want to expand the federal government at a time when many people want to shrink it or eliminate the U.S. Dept. of Education entirely, and have that money from those other things you mentioned, diverted to fund local security efforts instead. Interesting.Quote:
Originally Posted by jova33 [Only registered and activated users can see links. Click Here To Register...]