If you love the kids, you’ll arm the teachers!

[Rightguide]

You're right, But:

Most, if not all school shootings were done with a family gun.

Many of these kids posted Hate posts or selfies with guns on Social media. Parents had no clue.

Or that Parkland School teen who was allowed by his gun nut parent to post selfies of himself with guns at a shooting range. Thus glamorizing gun macho-ism among teens.

Hollywood and the gaming industry do a pretty good job of desensitizing our children to violence, meanwhile the very same liberals who trade and profit from depicting violence and brutality are out there blaming it all on the friggin' NRA and law abiding American gun owners.

 

[beew]

That's a peculiarly composed sentence for an ESL immigrant, such as yourself.

Danke-fart.

 

[bestone4ever]

Words matter son, and I'm not clairvoyant, so learn how to communicate like an adult.

That's not where you made the mistake and I'm sure you're not clairvoyant or else you would be able to see how ridiculous you look.

 

[Rightguide]

That's not where you made the mistake and I'm sure you're not clairvoyant or else you would be able to see how ridiculous you look.

I didn't make a mistake in pointing out your garbled post, and if you didn't have a miniature empty walnut shell for a scrotum, you'd admit it, but negative testicle weight is so commonplace on the left.

 

[beew]

Hollywood and the gaming industry do a pretty good job of desensitizing our children to violence, meanwhile the very same liberals who trade and profit from depicting violence and brutality are out there blaming it all on the friggin' NRA and law abiding American gun owners.

No, I'm not saying take away guns from parents.
Far from it.
But I was thinking.

If they introduced more stringent laws re teens supervision,
maybe parents would become more vigilant with their kids,
and the rampant bullying as well as school shootings would decrease.



Like fines for cases of gun negligence with kids (ie a neighbor sees his 15 year old neighbor doing shooting practice, especially if alone -- 400 $ fine)

And the same with the hate crap posted by teens (mostly girls about girls like Amanda Todd) on social media.
Fine the parents.
Parents are unable to supervise their kids 24/ 24, but it surely would make parents more vigilant, and teenage bullies would realize how pissed off their parents would be if found out. So they'll tone down their bullying.

 

[Taint_mAnn]

No, I'm not saying take away guns from parents.
Far from it.
But I was thinking.

If they introduced more stringent laws re teens supervision,
maybe parents would become more vigilant with their kids,
and the rampant bullying as well as school shootings would decrease.



Like fines for cases of gun negligence with kids (ie a neighbor sees his 15 year old neighbor doing shooting practice, especially if alone -- 400 $ fine)

And the same with the hate crap posted by teens (mostly girls about girls like Amanda Todd) on social media.
Fine the parents.
Parents are unable to supervise their kids 24/ 24, but it surely would make parents more vigilant, and teenage bullies would realize how pissed off their parents would be if found out. So they'll tone down their bullying.

What does 24/24 mean? Is that some 3rd world lingo?

Save it for your goats!

 

[Rightguide]

No, I'm not saying take away guns from parents.
Far from it.
But I was thinking.

If they introduced more stringent laws re teens supervision,
maybe parents would become more vigilant with their kids,
and the rampant bullying as well as school shootings would decrease.



Like fines for cases of gun negligence with kids (ie a neighbor sees his 15 year old neighbor doing shooting practice, especially if alone -- 400 $ fine)

And the same with the hate crap posted by teens (mostly girls about girls like Amanda Todd) on social media.
Fine the parents.
Parents are unable to supervise their kids 24/ 24, but it surely would make parents more vigilant, and teenage bullies would realize how pissed off their parents would be if found out. So they'll tone down their bullying.

The root of the problem goes much deeper than a kid practicing marksmanship unsupervised. Kids from past generations did this all over the country without resorting to school shootings. We know what the difference is...morality, parental instilled values of right and wrong backed up by discipline.

 

[beew]

We know what the difference is...morality, parental instilled values of right and wrong backed up by discipline.

Perhaps you're right.
I'd add to that the sense of uprootedness that many kids from many countries (not just America) have nowadays. And a society that classifies people into winners and losers, and scorns 'losers' (and emasculates or villifies male boys).

The root of the problem goes much deeper than a kid practicing marksmanship unsupervised. Kids from past generations did this all over the country without resorting to school shootings.

But how do you target the parents who are negligent around their kids' access to firearms, or radicalization?

And in this day and age, with the epidemy of school shootings, do you think that it's still advisable to trust all teens with guns?

I'd say that America has changed and become more violent, thus habits must change. Keep your guns, but don't allow kids under 18 near one. At least unless supervised by an adult.

 

[bestone4ever]

I didn't make a mistake in pointing out your garbled post, and if you didn't have a miniature empty walnut shell for a scrotum, you'd admit it, but negative testicle weight is so commonplace on the left.

No, your mistake was on the first post of mine that you quoted. I'm sure the rest of what you typed was supposed to be funny.

 

[beew]

Hollywood and the gaming industry do a pretty good job of desensitizing our children to violence,

meanwhile the very same liberals who trade and profit from depicting violence and brutality are out there blaming it all on the friggin' NRA and law abiding American gun owners.

I re-read it -- Good points.

Also: The Leftist SJWers (you often see it in political forums) have replaced the "turn the other cheek" with a militant "an eye for an eye".
Their doctrine is: attack and punish harshly the wrongdoers, otherwise Evil won't go away.

I wonder how it is for the kids who see this cult of revenge and retribution around them.

 

[Rightguide]

Perhaps you're right.
I'd add to that the sense of uprootedness that many kids from many countries (not just America) have nowadays. And a society that classifies people into winners and losers, and scorns 'losers' (and emasculates or villifies male boys).



But how do you target the parents who are negligent around their kids' access to firearms, or radicalization?

And in this day and age, with the epidemy of school shootings, do you think that it's still advisable to trust all teens with guns?

I'd say that America has changed and become more violent, thus habits must change. Keep your guns, but don't allow kids under 18 near one. At least unless supervised by an adult.

No unsocialized (uncivilized, undisciplined) kid should be allowed to handle guns. My dad's generation had BB guns at 7 or eight, .22s and .410 shotguns in their early teens, and deer rifles and larger shotguns in high school, no shootings back then. Course the biggest fear a boy had in those days was the rath of his father if he did something he was forbidden to do. Today they put fathers in jail for spanking their kids, and many boys have no father figure to look up to, so we have what we have, uncivilized youth.

 

[Rightguide]

No, your mistake was on the first post of mine that you quoted. I'm sure the rest of what you typed was supposed to be funny.

We're done here, come back to me when you find a pair.

 

[beew]

Words matter son, and I'm not clairvoyant, so learn how to communicate like an adult.

Hey, bestone4ever's benign trolling style seemed oddly familiar, so I checked some of their posts.

So they started a while back by implying that they are female ("I just posted My bits, My face")
and yesterday they said that they posted pictures of "their girl" on the GB

 

[bestone4ever]

We're done here, come back to me when you find a pair.

If you dislike being proved wrong so much you should just stop typing.

 

[ronmcc2448]

My solution to the problem is as follows: We have a issue with Veterans in the US. You hire Veterans who want to become federal employees and place them as security 1 per every 250 students per school in the US.

Relieves the School Resources Officers which are usually Police Departments. Gives the Veterans a Job and Purpose who are qualified.

You hire the Navy Seals, Rangers, Military Police Combat Veterans that can pass a stringent background and still have clearance etc.

For those who bitch about cost. Police are more expensive and One Child's life is to expensive.

 

[ronmcc2448]

Teachers have no business being armed when they are trying to evacuate anywhere from 300-3000 kids in chaos.

There is way to much going on and adrenaline is pumping way to hard emotions are off the chart for the children and the teachers.

I have two teachers in my family. One of them had a threat of a shooting at there school. The minute, the writing was found, it changed everything for the teachers the students. The students were on edge, extremely nervous , agitated , no attention span. My cousin tried to re assure the students they were safe. They let students go home who needed to go home.

I am a firm believer that if children today were allowed to have the ruler across the knuckles for talking in class like the Nuns did (gasp) yes i have a scar. Parents could spank there kids yes I got one that's all i needed. Instead of being threatened with calling the Police,CPS etc.

Parents believe it is easier to stick there child in front of the newest and greatest electronic device. When Leagues cant fill out basic rosters that tell you a lot about today's society.

 

[phrodeau]

Hollywood and the gaming industry do a pretty good job of desensitizing our children to violence, meanwhile the very same liberals who trade and profit from depicting violence and brutality are out there blaming it all on the friggin' NRA and law abiding American gun owners.

Military and police actions do a better job of desensitizing children, and they aren't age-restricted.

 

[KimGordon67]

Family Annihilators? Pathologically, yes. It's the same sort of Motive. (assumed by profilers, because they don't generally get to interview the killer.)

Actually, a bit of research suggested the definition is variable - sometimes family massacres are included, other times not.

 

[KimGordon67]

I included it in the discussion because that particular chart is a glaring example of the failure of the Australian model that everyone touts as the perfect success of gun control.

You want to talk about variables? Ok. Answer this; WHY do all of the studies about GUN DEATHS also include suicides/killings/death from other means?

Take suicides, why are non-gun suicides even included? Could it be because gun suicides are such a small fraction of the total that it's an insignificant statistic comparatively? If so, why not break the category out, all suicides, gun suicides and percentage of suicide deaths by gun? No one does because no one compiles the data that way. WHY?

I believe that the answer is that the numbers don't support the gun control concept without the extraneous "variables' in the category. Those "variables" are being used to cover that up. Except I can't prove it because I can't get to data that doesn't already include the non-gun statistics.

And from there, it's one thing for us to talk about the chart I included in my previous post, but unless you actually go read the linked article then you don't see that the OTHER CHARTS in it are also as blatantly misrepresented.

So, what you're trying to do is have a conversation about something you haven't researched and then trying to pick apart my argument because you don't like the way I presented it due to the limited space in the forum rather than because the argument is incorrect.

Go read the article. LOOK at the data from multiple sources. DO NOT take someone else's word for what the data shows, analyze it yourself. Doing this takes time. A lot of time. But, you'll be surprised at what you discover if you do that and think about what you've read. You may still believe that guns are bad and should be banned or regulated, but you won't say that gun control works based on the studies that have been done. The data doesn't support that conclusion.

To address your points in order ... the Australian legislation wasn't designed to address suicide. I don't even know why suicide stats were included in the article you cited. And see the point made above - as long as you're look at data that include gun and non-gun suicides, you're not making any point about guns at all. (Neither is the article, but I'm not arguing with them.)

Re: your question about why suicides are included in the stats - I don't know why. I never look at stats that include suicide - I only ever seek out intentional homicide stats, because I'm only interested in the effects of gun control on intentional suicides.

I did look at the whole article, and I did see that the homicide stats reflected the same pattern - hence my comment regarding the spike. But you posted the suicide stats, and didn't say 'other charts reflect the same pattern', so I was responding to your actual post, not things you 'might' have said if you'd had more time.

I have done research. It's in another post just below the one to which you're responding.

 

[KimGordon67]

So your reply is that I'm looking at the data wrong but the researchers aren't?

That's not much of a rebuttal.

You are looking at the data wrong. You're not a trained researcher - researchers are trained researchers. Contrary to popular belief, actual 'research' isn't something just any dude in the street can do - you need to learn some shit to get it right. Even then, you don't always get it right, but less often than the untrained dude in the street.

 

[KimGordon67]

Actually I can deny the claims.

First of all you should actually GO READ the data, not just the conclusions. If you do that you start to see something startling.

The data is being manipulated to reach the conclusions.

What? How can that be?

It's easy. For instance, you can just deny the data and then make sweeping general statements. Like, for example, that gun deaths in Austrailia WENT DOWN after the passage of the NFA in 1996.

That ISN'T what the data shows. Look at this chart:

Source for chart:
Source article

The center vertical dotted line is when the Australian NFA was passed. Notice how the data shows an upswing immediately after the NFA was passed? Notice how it ALSO only declined to PRE-NFA levels (or a bit below)?

What's your conclusion based on that data? Not what the "experts" tell you, YOUR conclusion.

I sincerely believe that the data is being manipulated. It's obvious when you look at the data rather than the summations because the data itself doesn't show what the "experts" want it to show. So they disregard the obvious and make conclusory statements to support their intended result.

They say "suicides including those where a gun was used dropped". Yes it did. After it went up and then it dropped from it's all-time high. What they AREN'T saying is that the level of suicides didn't go below the statistical normal fluctuation. This means that suicide went down to the level it was at before the NFA was passed and not below that (or not by much).

What they also aren't telling you is that the current overall suicide / homicide rate is THE SAME as it was before they passed the NFA. To do that, the "experts' only show data from 1996 to date. This covers up the fact that prior to the spike that started in about 1985 the homicide rate was the same as it is today except there are NO GUNS today.

Notice too that the current trend is an upswing and trending BACK to the levels they were at prior to the passage of the NFA? How do you account for that?

The DATA shows the same basic results in ALL of the categories except 1. Gun homicides. And that only because there are no guns. Instead, the victims are being killed by other methods, not that the killing has stopped.

My opinion is that the NFA didn't do what the "experts" are claiming it did. Instead, it altered the method of killing rather than eliminating it. The NFA was a complete failure in this regard.

Thus, the "Australian gun control model" is as much of a sham as it isn't a success. The DATA shows that if you look at the data and not the report summary. GO READ the source article for the chart I showed. LOOK at the DATA. You're being lied to.

OK, I thought I'd written another post in respond to this, but I think I was half way through it and then had to look at a house I'm thinking of buying ... anyway, the chart which shows total deaths (gun and non-gun) pre and post the NFA includes suicides, so I wouldn't normally refer to it, but since you (apparently) are ... it's pretty clear that for the decade prior to the NFA the average sits at around 15. After the NFA it drops, and for the last decade or has sat around 12. (I'm doing very rough maths here based on eye-balling, because I don't have time to hunt out more definitive numbers.)

The spike after 1997 that all the gun nuts like to cite as 'proof' that the NFA failed is clearly due to the the fact buying back the weapons takes time - it didn't all happen on the same day as the NFA. So you're using a context that is basically the same as before the NFA to complain about the effectiveness of the NFA. I can't explain the actual spike without further research - may something weird happened in 98/99 to increase the figures. As a corollary, the nutbar in Norway caused a massive spike in Norwegian mass shooting stats, so there was a spike that year - spike are usually caused by anomalies. I don't have time to research the potential anomaly in 98/99 in Australia.

A drop from 15 to 12 is significant, both statistically and generally. Sorry, but based on the data you're looking at, the NFA was successful both in its intention of mitigating mass shootings, and in a more general sense of addressing homicide (and maybe suicide).

 

[bestone4ever]

In countries where there is a very small amount of gun violence, do they arm their teachers?

 

[Bray123]

There are many logical and well-thought out arguments by some people. I like the one 'there's no point in restricting access to firearms because the perpetrators will just kill people with trucks, planes, or ball point pens'.

So disaffected youths will drive trucks or fly planes into their school. Or they will stab 50 of their fellow pupils with a Biro before being stabbed back again by a teacher wielding a Howitzer or something.

I learned a long time ago that it was pointless locking my car and house. Thieves will simply force entry by throwing bricks through a window or burgle a neighbour instead. I should sacrifice my property to protect my neighbours.

 

[Rightguide]

If you dislike being proved wrong so much you should just stop typing.

You'll never prove me wrong on anything. I stop talking when I run into a coward with a hopelessly diminished intellect.

 

[bestone4ever]

I stop talking when I run into a coward with a hopelessly diminished intellect.

OIC

So by your own impecable logic and by answering me you admit that I'm not a coward with a hopelessly diminished intellect.