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.

factologist

Farmington, NM

#480 Feb 28, 2013
Marauder wrote:
<quoted text>
Violent crime in the United States, to include gun crime, has been goinbg down for the past 20 years...WITHOUT banning guns.
Banning guns and trying to confiscate them will only increase crime and bloodshed.
So, you're saying there is no problem. Novel thinking I suppose, but the legislative process to reduce gun violence is currently underway; I'm sure you know.

“Si vis pacem, para bellum !!”

Since: Dec 07

Southeast Virginia

#481 Feb 28, 2013
factologist wrote:
<quoted text>So, you're saying there is no problem. Novel thinking I suppose, but the legislative process to reduce gun violence is currently underway; I'm sure you know.
You mean the legislative process is currently underway under the guise of reducing violence.

“HUNTING RIGHTS ADVOCATE”

Since: Oct 08

Boggy Creek

#482 Feb 28, 2013
factologist wrote:
<quoted text>Damn you're long winded. But I did want to ask you about your last sentence.
Do you truly believe this is possible?
I mean, what/who do you think are in our prisons now, a bunch of Jesuses?
Our prisons are filled with criminals/psychos-duh-and we trying to find room for more every single day and we still have out of control gun violence. And to complicate matters, since you're so big on rights, the criminals/psychos have to be convicted of something before they can be put there. IOW, they have already killed or maimed someone. So, do you really believe your idea can be implemented?
So, let me see if I've got this right. You're saying that because there doesn't seem to be an easy solution (or one hasn't been devised yet) to the real problem........you'll go for measures that penalize all of society while leaving the source of the problem unaffected because it makes you feel like you tried?
Besara

Des Moines, IA

#483 Feb 28, 2013
Saint_ wrote:
<quoted text>
Well sure we will! People said, "You'll never get me to stop drinking and driving!" But when that killed too many innocent citizens, we all changed. You don't drink and drive, do you?
Now too many innocent citizens are dying from guns. They'll go away too.
Get used to it, it's the 21st century, the days of the Wild West are over. There are 300,000,000 million people in the U.S. Having them all armed is no longer either a necessity or a smart idea. It might have been when we needed a "militia" to protect us, but we have nuclear weapons now.
The "Wild West"? You watch too many movies.
factologist

Farmington, NM

#484 Feb 28, 2013
Armed Veteran wrote:
<quoted text>
You mean the legislative process is currently underway under the guise of reducing violence.
I said what I meant.
factologist

Farmington, NM

#485 Feb 28, 2013
Squach wrote:
<quoted text>So, let me see if I've got this right. You're saying that because there doesn't seem to be an easy solution (or one hasn't been devised yet) to the real problem........you'll go for measures that penalize all of society while leaving the source of the problem unaffected because it makes you feel like you tried?
No, I asked you a question. You just made this crap up.
FTR, I don't consider gun control an "easy solution". Feasible, yes, easy no.
Also, FTR, I don't consider controlling guns penalizing "all of society". Talk about embellishment, geeze!
Now do you truly believe your solution to get and keep the MAJORITY of criminals/psychos in jail before they do harm, plausible?
We can't even keep the ones in jail now AFTER they do harm and we sentence more every day.
Anyway, no matter what you think, we're going after the guns as best we can within the confines of the 2nd and continue to incarcerate as many as we can for as long as we can.
Now what's wrong with that? You get to keep your precious 2nd and legal guns and put the criminals/psychos away.
You win. Hooray!
Ghoster

Fort Smith, AR

#486 Feb 28, 2013
Saint_ wrote:
<quoted text>
Well sure we will! People said, "You'll never get me to stop drinking and driving!" But when that killed too many innocent citizens, we all changed. You don't drink and drive, do you?
Now too many innocent citizens are dying from guns. They'll go away too.
Get used to it, it's the 21st century, the days of the Wild West are over. There are 300,000,000 million people in the U.S. Having them all armed is no longer either a necessity or a smart idea. It might have been when we needed a "militia" to protect us, but we have nuclear weapons now.
You might want to look into that ... Drunk Drivers killed 20 times more people last year then guns.
And an large percent of the Drunk Drivers were repeat offenders driving illegally. So again it proves the criminals do not follow laws already in place.

Taking guns from citizens who follow the laws only gives more power to the criminals who would know that people could not defend them self from the attacker.
Ghoster

Fort Smith, AR

#487 Feb 28, 2013
Saint_ wrote:
<quoted text>
Well sure we will! People said, "You'll never get me to stop drinking and driving!" But when that killed too many innocent citizens, we all changed. You don't drink and drive, do you?
Now too many innocent citizens are dying from guns. They'll go away too.
Get used to it, it's the 21st century, the days of the Wild West are over. There are 300,000,000 million people in the U.S. Having them all armed is no longer either a necessity or a smart idea. It might have been when we needed a "militia" to protect us, but we have nuclear weapons now.
Also for the record ... the 2nd Amendment is in place to prevent oppression of a tyrannical government not just self defense in your home.(has nothing to do with hunting)
factologist

Farmington, NM

#488 Feb 28, 2013
Ghoster wrote:
<quoted text>
You might want to look into that ... Drunk Drivers killed 20 times more people last year then guns.
So does that mean murder with a gun is OK? We try- and with more success than you give credit-to keep the drunks from driving.Even at the expense of the people who never drink and drive. Shouldn't we try equally hard to keep the bad guys and psychos from getting guns?
And an large percent of the Drunk Drivers were repeat offenders driving illegally. So again it proves the criminals do not follow laws already in place.
That's why they're called criminals. DUH! But if we followed your logic, nothing would be against the law since someone will always violate the law.
Taking guns from citizens who follow the laws only gives more power to the criminals who would know that people could not defend them self from the attacker.
Can you cite any studies that bear you out? Cause the one's I see all say the more strict the gun laws are in a community, the less the gun violence.
factologist

Farmington, NM

#489 Feb 28, 2013
Ghoster wrote:
<quoted text>
Also for the record ... the 2nd Amendment is in place to prevent oppression of a tyrannical government not just self defense in your home.(has nothing to do with hunting)
That was certainly true when article 2 was written; but it seems to me, that if a "tyrannical government" were to take over our government, they would have to have the support of a very strong military. Don't you agree? Anyway, hard to imagine how the estimated 36% to 51% of US households,armed with small arms and ill organized/trained, could possible go up against any sort of even moderately equipped military.Better we should rely on our own NG/AS, our courts and ballot boxes to keep that from happening.
But, if that's your fantasy, you're entitled to it. Most of us see the 2nd being used to protect our guns for hunting, sport and home defense.
Marauder

Fairbanks, AK

#490 Feb 28, 2013
factologist wrote:
<quoted text>Damn you're long winded. But I did want to ask you about your last sentence.
Do you truly believe this is possible?
I mean, what/who do you think are in our prisons now, a bunch of Jesuses?
Our prisons are filled with criminals/psychos-duh-and we trying to find room for more every single day and we still have out of control gun violence. And to complicate matters, since you're so big on rights, the criminals/psychos have to be convicted of something before they can be put there. IOW, they have already killed or maimed someone. So, do you really believe your idea can be implemented?
"...we still have out of control gun violence."

Source...?

"In 2011, an estimated 1,203,564 violent crimes occurred nationwide, a decrease of 3.8 percent from the 2010 estimate."

"When considering 5- and 10-year trends, the 2011 estimated violent crime total was 15.4 percent below the 2007 level and 15.5 percent below the 2002 level."

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in...

"In 2011, an estimated 14,612 persons were murdered in the United States. This was a 0.7 percent decrease from the 2010 estimate, a 14.7 percent decline from the 2007 figure, and a 10.0 percent decrease from the 2002 estimate."

"There were 4.7 murders per 100,000 inhabitants, a 1.5 percent decrease from the 2010 rate. Compared with the 2007 rate, the murder rate declined 17.4 percent, and compared with the 2002 rate, the murder rate decreased 16.8 percent.(See Tables 1 and 1A.)"

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in...

It appears the FBI doesn't agree with your comment. Do you have a source...?
Marauder

Fairbanks, AK

#491 Feb 28, 2013
factologist wrote:
<quoted text>That was certainly true when article 2 was written; but it seems to me, that if a "tyrannical government" were to take over our government, they would have to have the support of a very strong military. Don't you agree? Anyway, hard to imagine how the estimated 36% to 51% of US households,armed with small arms and ill organized/trained, could possible go up against any sort of even moderately equipped military.Better we should rely on our own NG/AS, our courts and ballot boxes to keep that from happening.
But, if that's your fantasy, you're entitled to it. Most of us see the 2nd being used to protect our guns for hunting, sport and home defense.
"hard to imagine how the estimated 36% to 51% of US households,armed with small arms and ill organized/trained, could possible go up against any sort of even moderately equipped military."

That's probably what King George was thinking also. Who do you think fought against the British when they tried to insitute "gun control" on the colonies...?

"Most of us see the 2nd being used to protect our guns for hunting, sport and home defense."

DC vs Heller...USSC reiterated part of the Miller decision that stated this:

"United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes."

How do you interrpret "type of weapon...used by the militia"...?
Marauder

Fairbanks, AK

#492 Feb 28, 2013
factologist wrote:
<quoted text>So, you're saying there is no problem. Novel thinking I suppose, but the legislative process to reduce gun violence is currently underway; I'm sure you know.
What's so "novel" about it when even the FBI Uniform Crime Reports say that violent crime has been going down...?

Is it only "novel" because your political leaders aren't saying it or because it does't fit in with you agenda...?
don russell

Oklahoma City, OK

#493 Feb 28, 2013
over 100,000 schools. google for that info. they have kids there for MUCH longer than a 40 hour week, too, guards get sick, etc. so you'd spend 50k per year x 2-3 guards per year.. and when you NEED one, the gutless punk would just RUN, like the armed guard did at Columbine (never heard about THAT have you?) ok, 100k EACH year, x 100,000 schools means. 10 BILLION $ a year, spent on worth less guards. or do it MY way,

PAY, authorize and MANDATE that 3-4 TEACHERS at each school be put thru the SAME training as local cops, pay for their guns, holsters, ammo, and re-training-qualifications (same as the cops). that would be say, 3k per armedteacher, ONCE, and then maybe 1k each for their continued qualifications and their expenses to do such.

THEN you will have somebody who is MUCH more likely to be INVESTED in the kids, and to STAY when trouble hits, and you'll get VOLUNTEERS who will be gun oriented, already skilled-equipped people, quite often, too, and you need not WASTE 50K A YEAR on each one. they are ALREADY BEING PAID to be at the school. I just saved the country 90 billion $ a year AND gave the US a LOT better protection for the kids, too.
factologist

Farmington, NM

#494 Feb 28, 2013
Marauder wrote:
<quoted text>
"...we still have out of control gun violence."
Source...?
"In 2011, an estimated 1,203,564 violent crimes occurred nationwide, a decrease of 3.8 percent from the 2010 estimate."
"When considering 5- and 10-year trends, the 2011 estimated violent crime total was 15.4 percent below the 2007 level and 15.5 percent below the 2002 level."
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in...
"In 2011, an estimated 14,612 persons were murdered in the United States. This was a 0.7 percent decrease from the 2010 estimate, a 14.7 percent decline from the 2007 figure, and a 10.0 percent decrease from the 2002 estimate."
"There were 4.7 murders per 100,000 inhabitants, a 1.5 percent decrease from the 2010 rate. Compared with the 2007 rate, the murder rate declined 17.4 percent, and compared with the 2002 rate, the murder rate decreased 16.8 percent.(See Tables 1 and 1A.)"
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in...
It appears the FBI doesn't agree with your comment. Do you have a source...?
Google it, over 61,000,000 hits.It's a subjective term, of course. Apparently you think gun violence is in control. Amazing!
But I missed the link where the FBI reported that gun violence is "in control". Can you re-send that link please?

This is an interesting cite to peruse if you so choose.
http://smartgunlaws.org/gun-law-statistics-an...

Here's a excerpt:
The United States experiences epidemic levels of gun violence, claiming over 30,000 lives annually, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. For every person who dies from a gunshot wound, two others are wounded. Every year, approximately 100,000 Americans are victims of gun violence. In addition to those who are killed or injured, there are countless others whose lives are forever changed by the deaths of and injuries to their loved ones.

NOTE: The 30K estimates includes ALL gun deaths. Not just homicides.

“Si vis pacem, para bellum !!”

Since: Dec 07

Southeast Virginia

#495 Feb 28, 2013
factologist wrote:
<quoted text>I said what I meant.
And you would be incorrect. The current administration has already admitted that banning AR-15's would not have stopped Lanza. These executive orders and new legislation by Obummer and Cuomo are nothing more than feel-good attempts to make it LOOK like they are doing something. These new regs and exec orders will not do a damn thing to reduce gun violence. In order for anything to work to reduce gun violence, you have to control the VIOLATORS, not their tools.
don russell

Oklahoma City, OK

#496 Feb 28, 2013
that 30,000 includes suicides, felons resisting arrest, attackers shot down by good folks in self defense, and pos's shot by other pos's in gang fights, etc. good riddance to 90+% of them and I wish that the number was 100x as high.

“Si vis pacem, para bellum !!”

Since: Dec 07

Southeast Virginia

#497 Feb 28, 2013
factologist wrote:
<quoted text>So does that mean murder with a gun is OK? We try- and with more success than you give credit-to keep the drunks from driving.Even at the expense of the people who never drink and drive. Shouldn't we try equally hard to keep the bad guys and psychos from getting guns?
<quoted text>That's why they're called criminals. DUH! But if we followed your logic, nothing would be against the law since someone will always violate the law.
<quoted text>Can you cite any studies that bear you out? Cause the one's I see all say the more strict the gun laws are in a community, the less the gun violence.
BULLSHIT! We have not done a damn thing to keep drunks from driving. Anyone can go into a bar and get as loaded as they want and get behind the wheel. What we have done is upped the penalties for it as more of a deterrent to drunk driving (and I personally think they should be much harsher still). So answer this, how do we make murder more illegal? How do we make aggrivated rape more illegal? Chicago has some of the most strict gun control laws on the books, and they still had over 500 murders last year. Those gun control laws work pretty well, huh??/sarcasm alert/

“Si vis pacem, para bellum !!”

Since: Dec 07

Southeast Virginia

#498 Feb 28, 2013
factologist wrote:
<quoted text>That was certainly true when article 2 was written; but it seems to me, that if a "tyrannical government" were to take over our government, they would have to have the support of a very strong military. Don't you agree? Anyway, hard to imagine how the estimated 36% to 51% of US households,armed with small arms and ill organized/trained, could possible go up against any sort of even moderately equipped military.Better we should rely on our own NG/AS, our courts and ballot boxes to keep that from happening.
But, if that's your fantasy, you're entitled to it. Most of us see the 2nd being used to protect our guns for hunting, sport and home defense.
Because MILLIONS of those civilians are ex/retired military. Military training is not something that you soon forget just because you are no longer active duty.
factologist

Farmington, NM

#499 Feb 28, 2013
Armed Veteran wrote:
<quoted text>
And you would be incorrect. The current administration has already admitted that banning AR-15's would not have stopped Lanza. These executive orders and new legislation by Obummer and Cuomo are nothing more than feel-good attempts to make it LOOK like they are doing something. These new regs and exec orders will not do a damn thing to reduce gun violence. In order for anything to work to reduce gun violence, you have to control the VIOLATORS, not their tools.
There you go, showing your right wing arse again. Some kind of legislation is probably going to happen. You won't like it, of course. And it may not do a damn bit of good; who knows. Not you for sure.
In the mean time, why not settle down and calmly discuss it?

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 No wedding for Bristol Palin 14 hr General 39
News On lowering the flag 18 hr Ronald 5
News Local Jews upset by Holocaust references in cam... (Jun '12) 22 hr Ecossais 121
News Lowering the Confederate flag Jun 27 Get Out 16
News Federal court to rehear concealed weapons cases Jun 27 Truth and Facts 9
News Why are assault weapon sales jumping? Because t... Jun 27 payme 46
News Why assault rifle sales are booming Jun 27 payme 91
More from around the web