How do we protect kids in school?

How do we protect kids in school?

There are 6103 comments on the Ruidoso News story from Jan 8, 2013, titled How do we protect kids in school?. In it, Ruidoso News reports that:

During a newsroom discussion about guns about a decade ago, a woman piped up: "I don't understand what the big deal is.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Ruidoso News.

rondude

Pittsburgh, PA

#2300 May 5, 2013
youtube.com/watch... ÖÖ
Might be impossible
xando

United States

#2301 May 5, 2013
Wow. Your table graphically illustrates just how gun homicides drastically dwarf murders of all kinds. Unbelievable. But then, it's easy with the accessibility of so many guns.

What are the other types of firearms on the table where murders actually increased?

Here's another link:

http://www.nij.gov/topics/crime/gun-violence/
Armed Veteran wrote:
<quoted text>
And even with the huge increase in firearm ownership(especially over the last 5 years), the total number of murders by firearms has DECREASED every year going back even farther than that. How can that be if guns are the problem?
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in...
xando

United States

#2302 May 5, 2013
Squach wrote:
<quoted text>No Xandope, that means they know a ban would have no effect on the criminal element. People who ignore the law NOW aren't going to suddenly become pillars of society after you give them a new law to ignore.
Oh, is THAT what they meant? I can only imagine how much they enjoy the easy accessibility of firearms, especially assault types.

“HUNTING RIGHTS ADVOCATE”

Since: Oct 08

Boggy Creek

#2303 May 5, 2013
xando wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh, is THAT what they meant? I can only imagine how much they enjoy the easy accessibility of firearms, especially assault types.
Don't be a complete idiot all of your life. Of course they want to prevent firearms crime.....they just know that your stupid ban isn't the way to do it.
Get Out

Jacksonville, NC

#2304 May 5, 2013
Where Is My America wrote:
<quoted text>Why not train school staff to be firefighters and EMTs ?
Will the school teachers or staffs that are now trained firefighters or EMTís stop an active school shooter? Will they be armed as well? Could be a great working scenario too, after the school shooter is put down by the armed firefighters and EMTís they could treat his wounds so he could be found guilty and executed later. Good thinking WIMA.
factologist

Huntsville, AL

#2305 May 5, 2013
downhill246 wrote:
<quoted text>
Kind of like when there are more buffaloes, there will be more buffalo turd.
Police One Survey
March,2013
5. What effect do you think a federal ban on manufacture and sale of some semi-automatic firearms, termed by some as "assault weapons," would have on reducing violent crime?
Significant 1.6% 227
Moderate 6.0% 885
None 71.0% 10,397
Negative 20.5% 3,004
Unsure 0.9% 129
answered question 14,642
So 91% of law enforcement officers that responded said a ban on assault style weapons would have no effect or a negative effect on reducing violent crime.
And who do you think Policeone surveyed? Policeone members. And how do you think they were surveyed? Members who wanted to participate just called in.
xando

Scottsdale, AZ

#2306 May 5, 2013
Interesting.

From a membership of 400,000, 15,000 responded--that is not quite. 04% Out of the full membership, we might conclude that possibly only .03% would say a ban on assault weapons would not influence crime.

We could go ahead and calculate all those numbers extrapolating by the 400,000 membership. After all, there were VERY few respondents.
xando

Scottsdale, AZ

#2307 May 5, 2013
Squach wrote:
<quoted text>Don't be a complete idiot all of your life. Of course they want to prevent firearms crime.....they just know that your stupid ban isn't the way to do it.
Are you concluding that from the PoliceOne poll? LOL

So few members responded, does that mean that the 385,000 who did not respond think that a ban would be helpful? And not even ALL of the 15,000 who responded agreed a ban would have no impact.

I'm afraid you're gonna have to do better.
xando

Scottsdale, AZ

#2308 May 5, 2013
........actually, I'm being quite generous; only .0375 responded.

“HUNTING RIGHTS ADVOCATE”

Since: Oct 08

Boggy Creek

#2309 May 5, 2013
xando wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you concluding that from the PoliceOne poll? LOL
So few members responded, does that mean that the 385,000 who did not respond think that a ban would be helpful? And not even ALL of the 15,000 who responded agreed a ban would have no impact.
I'm afraid you're gonna have to do better.
Actually I was speaking of those who responded, you're the one who, with such wild abandon, extrapolates everything to be a universal world wide splatter. The fact remains that the majority of those who responded believe that a ban would have no effect or a negative effect on violent crime. Plain and simple.
xando

Scottsdale, AZ

#2310 May 5, 2013
Only 3.75% responded.

They were not randomly chosen; apparently, those who felt strongly responded. That does not account for many who probably have different opinions.

Neither scientific nor representative of the 400,000 site members, much less the nation's entire law enforcement.
Squach wrote:
<quoted text>Actually I was speaking of those who responded, you're the one who, with such wild abandon, extrapolates everything to be a universal world wide splatter. The fact remains that the majority of those who responded believe that a ban would have no effect or a negative effect on violent crime. Plain and simple.

“HUNTING RIGHTS ADVOCATE”

Since: Oct 08

Boggy Creek

#2311 May 5, 2013
xando wrote:
Only 3.75% responded.
They were not randomly chosen; apparently, those who felt strongly responded. That does not account for many who probably have different opinions.
Neither scientific nor representative of the 400,000 site members, much less the nation's entire law enforcement.
<quoted text>
I didn't say they were, I simply commented on the stats as posted. Once again, you're the one trying to apply those stats to the whole world, not me. You can question the percentage that the poll represents but the fact STILL remains that the majority of those who responded believe that a ban would have no effect or a negative effect on violent crime. Plain and simple.
xando

Scottsdale, AZ

#2312 May 5, 2013
Oh. Ok. So if 10 responded, and 8 agreed with your opinion, you would think you found something significant?

It appears you realize the low number is rather meaningless, so..........what's your point?
Squach wrote:
<quoted text>I didn't say they were, I simply commented on the stats as posted. Once again, you're the one trying to apply those stats to the whole world, not me. You can question the percentage that the poll represents but the fact STILL remains that the majority of those who responded believe that a ban would have no effect or a negative effect on violent crime. Plain and simple.

“HUNTING RIGHTS ADVOCATE”

Since: Oct 08

Boggy Creek

#2313 May 5, 2013
xando wrote:
Oh. Ok. So if 10 responded, and 8 agreed with your opinion, you would think you found something significant?
It appears you realize the low number is rather meaningless, so..........what's your point?
<quoted text>
You stated something like those who responded must enjoy the criminals having access to guns and I responded to that comment saying that they simply realized that a ban would not have a significant impact on the criminal element. My point is that the majority of those who responded to this poll felt that a ban would have no effect or a negative effect on violent crime because they know criminals and psychos will ignore it. What part of that didn't you understand.
xando

Scottsdale, AZ

#2314 May 5, 2013
So now you're changing course. I thought it was about me inferring you broadly applied the results of that (meaningless) poll, but you corrected my assumption, saying you were simply reporting what the respondents' reactions were.

From the PoliceOne membership of 400,000, only 15,000 (or 3.75%) responded. That's rather meaningless, and I think even you see the insignificance of it.

Quit blubbering.
Squach wrote:
<quoted text>You stated something like those who responded must enjoy the criminals having access to guns and I responded to that comment saying that they simply realized that a ban would not have a significant impact on the criminal element. My point is that the majority of those who responded to this poll felt that a ban would have no effect or a negative effect on violent crime because they know criminals and psychos will ignore it. What part of that didn't you understand.
downhill246

Delray Beach, FL

#2315 May 5, 2013
xando wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, that's nice that law enforcement has an OPINION. I wonder if that means they would like to see more people having assault weapons. I'm sure they would.
I would go with the LEO opinion rather than some old lady's opinion whose knowledge of firearms is based on the Lone Ranger tv series way back when.
LEOs probably wouldn't mind more law abiding citizens having assault style weapons since very few assault style weapons are ever used in crime and if those LEOs were in a situation where they were totally outgunned, an armed citizen with an AR 15 might be a welcomed addition to make the odds better for them.

"Since assault weapons are not a major contributor to U.S. gun homicide and the existing stock of guns is large, an assault weapons ban is unlikely to have an impact on gun violence."
Deputy director of the National Institute for Justice--DOJ's research and evaluation agency Jan 4,2013
downhill246

Delray Beach, FL

#2316 May 5, 2013
factologist wrote:
<quoted text>And who do you think Policeone surveyed? Policeone members. And how do you think they were surveyed? Members who wanted to participate just called in.
Rather irrelevant. Wouldn't that include call-in participation by LEOs that also wanted stricter gun laws?
xando

Scottsdale, AZ

#2317 May 5, 2013
downhill246 wrote:
<quoted text>
Rather irrelevant. Wouldn't that include call-in participation by LEOs that also wanted stricter gun laws?
Pay attention.
downhill246

Delray Beach, FL

#2318 May 5, 2013
xando wrote:
Interesting.
From a membership of 400,000, 15,000 responded--that is not quite. 04% Out of the full membership, we might conclude that possibly only .03% would say a ban on assault weapons would not influence crime.
We could go ahead and calculate all those numbers extrapolating by the 400,000 membership. After all, there were VERY few respondents.
A

A political poll of 1000 voters out of 100 million voters is what percent? In addition,you seem to be playing loose with the math.It is almost 4% and the percent of LEO for assault weapons is over 3%(.03) not .03%.
.03% is three one hundreds of one percent(.0003) or 120 of 400,000.
downhill246

Delray Beach, FL

#2319 May 5, 2013
xando wrote:
<quoted text>
Pay attention.
Which obviously you didn't do in your math class.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Guns Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Reader Reaction Forum: Will concealed carry mak... (Jun '11) Wed Hendo 45
Safe carry Jan 16 javawhey 21
News Secret sting operation by the GAO blows away th... Jan 12 Say What 3
News Malloy: Bump stocks should be banned in Connect... Jan 12 Say What 3
News NJ's new governor could sue feds over concealed... Jan 5 jimwildrickjr 2
News ATF Seeking Public Comment on Proposed Bump Sto... Jan 5 Say What 4
News Military must meet FBI database requirements Jan 4 Watchdog 4
More from around the web