"What is wrong" was already asked....

And how long should they have to wait to obtain a gun? And what process and scrutiny should they have to go through? The NRA would say, none at all. Its their 2nd amendment right to go buy a gun. I think that is as much of a flaw as the school board's idiocy and potentially much more dangerous.

More Fake News here...

The NRA does not in any way even close to saying "none at all"

What the NRA does believe is that no person should have their inalienable (natural given by God or the universe at birth.) rights taken or delayed without due process of law.

The NRA believs Violent felons and adjudicated mentally incapacitated should not have guns.

Should the government just pull up and accuse you of something, then take your boat because they want to without constitutional due process? Your speech? Your papers?

MM
 
Well, now that the hysterical, delusional media fire is receding somewhat we are beginning to get some real news that offers some insight to the particular shooting in Florida.

My post of what in general went wrong is bolstered by reporting of a liberal feel good policy that goes all the way to the upper reaches of our government and its corruption. You can read it here, http://www.clubsearay.com/index.php?threads/what-is-wrong.86453/page-2

We are now learning of programs designed to have criminal issues handled in the school rather than by police. So not only are we aware of the, 39 is the commonly reported number, of out of school police interactions of the shooter but that he did the same type of things at school but they were not reported to police so the school could claim to be improving on crime in schools and get federal money.

http://sunshinestatenews.com/story/...led-students-and-excuse-dangerous-misbehavior

In another point to Creekwoods NRA accusation the NRA supports this shooter not having a gun. This is how, he should have been adjudicated a juvi felon and he could not have had guns at all.

"Here is a major failing of the system: Had Cruz been adjudicated even in juvenile court for a felony, he would have been prohibited from owning a firearm until he was 24 years of age. Even a misdemeanor hearing could have resulted in a court mandating mental health counseling, which could also force Cruz to give up his weapons. And obviously, if he was sitting in a prison cell, he would have been prevented from carrying out the deadly shooting at his former high school."

The school chasing federal money from an Obama administration program let this sicko fall through the system.

And yet the ONLY option fron the left is to infringe on the inalienable natural rights of law abiding citizens...

MM
 
I agree. Students walk out? Nope, you're not allowed back on campus except for your in-school detention that is equal in hours to the hours you missed classes.

Teachers walk out? Sorry, you're docked one day's pay.

In most of the jobs I had if I had walked out in support of some cause, I'd probably have been told to just keep on walking.
 
You hit the nail on the head sir. Gun Free Zones must end! Shooters choose these locations because there will be no resistance, no one shooting back. If there were, they would not go there. When was the last time anyone ever heard of a crazy gunman walking into a police station to shoot it up? How about a gun show? Never!

For some reason the anti-gunners just cannot seem to grasp this simple truth. Put another way, there is really no such thing as a "gun-free" zone. We're just dickering over who has the guns.

If we carry their logic to the extreme, if the solution is a law, then the problem has already been solved, for this entire country is already a vast murder-free zone.
 
Last edited:
For some reason the anti-gunners just cannot seem to grasp this simple truth. Put another way, there is really no such thing as a "gun-free" zone. We're just dickering over who has the guns.

If we carry their logic to the extreme, if the solution is a law, then the problem has already been solved, for this entire country is already a vast murder-free zone.

Correct! Gun Free Zone translates to - Law abiding citizens do NOT have guns here. Notice I didn't include criminals, or those who plan to become criminals. Criminals do not obey laws, therefore the sign means nothing.
 
Blueone, I live in an metro area comprised of 3 cities, total pop about 300,000. Many of our schools have "Resource" officers who, like your schools spend their entire day there.

As a retired cop I would do that job. I love working with kids and it just about kills me to read of these school shootings. I picture myself not as a hero, but more of a Lt. Col. Dave Grossman Sheep Dog sort of a guy.
http://www.mwkworks.com/onsheepwolvesandsheepdogs.html
In general the approach to this problem seems ass backwards to me. Most solution offered require more 'good guy' shooters inside the school.

The very thing we're trying to prevent is required to set the 'good guys' with guns into motion. The same instant those first shots ring out and the 'good guys' get moving there are dead kids falling to the floor. Isn't this an illustration of this pro-gun cliche....'when help is needed immediately, the police are only minutes away'.

Those school kids are calling for a proactive approach rather than reactive. Solutions that just reduce the number of casualties don't cut it.
 
Those school kids are calling for a proactive approach rather than reactive. Solutions that just reduce the number of casualties don't cut it.

There isn't one simple solution to this threat. It's going to be a long list and the list will comprise of both Reactive and Proactive things.

You can't dismiss reactive...it needs to be there if proactive fails
 
Last edited:
Them kids are the front line defense for spotting their pier wacko's that are posting on social media.

See something....say something
 
There isn't one simple solution to this threat. It's going to be a long list and the list will comprise of both Reactive and Proactive things.

You can't dismiss reactive...it needs to be there if proactive fails
I agree completely. Here's a good example of why I question the way I do. This is the Sandy Hook school entrance Adam Lanza went to. Their policy was to lock doors, someone wanting in had to be buzzed in. When Lanza got there he tried the door and it was locked, he simply shot out the window next to it and stepped in. That was a gruesome lesson he taught us, if we review our schools I wonder how well we learned.
AP850779899214.jpg
 
I supply parts to an OEM manufacturer. A number of years ago they had a disgruntled employee who was fired go back into the plant and shot his supervisor and a number of other associates.
Soon after that the company created a one point of entry (1 million square foot plant) Bullet proof glass entry (not unlike a gas station) for visitors. Metal detectors that you wouldn’t notice were there..... you basically walked in this facility and never knew the security existed and there were no lines. You also knew what was expected of you to enter the plant without delays and planned ahead.

My point is a lot of schools can learn from the private sector the lessons learned are there.
 
In general the approach to this problem seems ass backwards to me. Solutions that just reduce the number of casualties don't cut it.

More than one thing needs to change. A single Change that reduces the number of casualties is the answer, and I think the families of victim #16 and #17 would agree.

If changes are made in several areas, fortify the entrance, better sharing of mental health diagnosis, quicker response by properly trained and armed personnel, you would see a reduction in casualties and/or a prevention of the incident in the first place.
 
In general the approach to this problem seems ass backwards to me. Most solution offered require more 'good guy' shooters inside the school.

The very thing we're trying to prevent is required to set the 'good guys' with guns into motion. The same instant those first shots ring out and the 'good guys' get moving there are dead kids falling to the floor. Isn't this an illustration of this pro-gun cliche....'when help is needed immediately, the police are only minutes away'.

Those school kids are calling for a proactive approach rather than reactive. Solutions that just reduce the number of casualties don't cut it.

Blueone said:
My point is a lot of schools can learn from the private sector the lessons learned are there.

Woody, while I don't totally disagree with your statements, there are a couple of things wrong with yours and Blueone's comment. First of all, it would cost billions of dollars to make all the schools in the country inaccessible to these disgruntled teen shooters. While that is a noble goal, the money just is not there. We have teacher's unions screaming for more pay for the teachers and there just is not enough money to pay them more. This is especially true with schools that have multiple buildings with lots of access doors.

Blueone's comment about schools learning from the private sector is along the same line. Private companies can write off the cost of these enhancements on their taxes. That helps recover some of the cost. Schools don't pay taxes so when they spend money it's just gone.

A part of my suggestion to have armed people in the schools is that it does away with the "Gun Free Zone". I think if a potential shooter knew there was a chance he would encounter an armed guard inside he'd be less likely to try an assault on the school. These teen shooters are not dumb kids, they're just sorely misguided.

Schools could take a clue from what our local school districts have done in some of the schools. The entire school property, including playgrounds and athletic fields is fenced off and the gates are kept locked except for one near the main entrance. Anyone seen climbing the fence is sure to attract attention. Parking lots are outside the fence so people driving to the school need to enter the school grounds at the main entrance which is near the office and the police Resource Officer.

It's not foolproof, but it's a lot better than sitting on your hands and doing nothing.

BTW, thanks to everyone for the thoughtful discussion and for your suggestions, and for keeping this from becoming an insult tossing thread.
 
Woody, while I don't totally disagree with your statements, there are a couple of things wrong with yours and Blueone's comment. First of all, it would cost billions of dollars to make all the schools in the country inaccessible to these disgruntled teen shooters. While that is a noble goal, the money just is not there.

Blueone's comment about schools learning from the private sector is along the same line. Private companies can write off the cost of these enhancements on their taxes. That helps recover some of the cost. Schools don't pay taxes so when they spend money it's just gone

BTW, thanks to everyone for the thoughtful discussion and for your suggestions, and for keeping this from becoming an insult tossing thread.

The war in Iraq and Afghanistan combined as of the end of 2017 has cost us $2.4 Trillion including interest ...as it was borrowed money.

This country and its citizens should never have to say "we can't afford it" ... It's time to turn around foreign aid and point it towards us... Infrastructure, healthcare, security and education.

Its what I expected Trump to do... Instead we seem to be focused on illegals and Russia
 
More Fake News here...

The NRA does not in any way even close to saying "none at all"

What the NRA does believe is that no person should have their inalienable (natural given by God or the universe at birth.) rights taken or delayed without due process of law.

The NRA believs Violent felons and adjudicated mentally incapacitated should not have guns.

Should the government just pull up and accuse you of something, then take your boat because they want to without constitutional due process? Your speech? Your papers?

MM

I think we are about to see what the NRA disagrees with when they start to protest against any gun law reforms.

I also LOVE your definition of inalienable rights. (natural given by God or the universe at birth.). The 2nd amendment is neither.
 
I also LOVE your definition of inalienable rights. (natural given by God or the universe at birth.). The 2nd amendment is neither.

Self defense is an unalienable right. The Constitution does not grant that right, it prevents the government infringing it.
 
I think we are about to see what the NRA disagrees with when they start to protest against any gun law reforms.

I also LOVE your definition of inalienable rights. (natural given by God or the universe at birth.). The 2nd amendment is neither.

The NRA will certainly be fighting most infringements of the second amendment. It is real easy to know if something is unconstitutional. just apply the same logic of the infringement to the first amendment and see if that would be cool.

You either believe a human has the built in natural born right to defend themselves or you do not. I am in good company in my belief that mankind does have that right as it includes most of this countries founders.

MM
 
More to consider....the bad guy tries to shoot students, the teachers grab their piece and try to shoot the bad guys, then the cops show up and shoot everyone with a gun.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/he-disarmed-a-possible-church-shooter-—-then-the-police-arrived-and-shot-him/ar-BBJG5UD?li=BBnb7Kz

Looks like more than just a simple church attack may be going on here. Recent prison inmates involved in a church shooting. Hmm...

Get training folks!!! As soon as the threat is neutralized, put the gun down.

MM
 

Forum statistics

Threads
112,946
Messages
1,422,762
Members
60,929
Latest member
Henchman
Back
Top