Gun Control Debate #3

flourish said:

Quite the assumptions involved in this post. Many don't believe that the immigration policy's actual purpose is "to prevent violence." It's not a straight comparison. So twisty! I'm not going to get more into it than that, as it's completely off topic.

Click to expand...

Agree. And if we're going to break it down like that the opposite would have to be true - people who calling for a stronger immigration policy to prevent violence are against gun safety measures to help prevent violence. Hmmmm.

It's off-topic but it's also not that simple.

http://wiki.c2.com/?FalseDichotomy

So here's another idea.

Let's get SERIOUS about REPEALING the Gun Free School Zones Act of 1990. Those signs on the door advertising "gun free zones" sadly have been revealed over and over to not have any "magic" at preventing school shootings, or even any significant deterrent effect.

The law is cumbersome, and overly broad, and thoroughly outdated legislation that has not done a single thing to stop, or even reduce, school shootings. It's an example of a solution in search of a problem; more "security theater".

There has never, IMO, been a school shooter who saw the ubiquitous "Gun Free School Zone" sign on a door, and thought, "Well, darn. I guess I can't kill a bunch of people with my gun today."

Those signs, and that law, are examples of "magical thinking." The signs and the law are both useless, as far as protecting our kids. But it's a great example of passing a law that both sides can "agree" on, for the sake of appearing to do something.

I think this law is ripe for a supreme court challenge.

As an example, people who are lawfully allowed to possess firearms, but their home is within 1000 feet of a school zone, can be prosecuted for having a firearm in their home. It has happened.

Those signs they hang on the school doors are not "magic". They don't shield kids, and they don't prevent shooters. They reassure a shooter.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun-Free_School_Zones_Act_of_1990

Individuals traveling on public sidewalks, roads, and highways within 1000 feet of defined schools are subject to the law's legal restrictions.[5][7][8] The First Circuit Court of Appeals sustained a GFSZA conviction in the 2007 case of United States v Nieves-Castaño for a firearm kept in a woman's apartment, which was part of a public housing project within 1000 feet of a school.[9] In 2012, ATF informed the town of Stratham, New Hampshire, that hunters would be violating GFSZA by hunting on locally approved public hunting land, a town forest, which fell within 1000 feet of a local school.[5][10]

Click to expand...

K_Z said:

So while many advocate for more restrictions and bans, intellectually honest people must ALSO advocate loudly and persistently to abolish these “no discipline, no police, no record” policies immediately. These dangerous policies, and the motivations and mindset that created them, have made schools vastly LESS SAFE from disgruntled and disaffected kids bent on planning and carrying out school shootings.

Click to expand...

rs/bbm

I agree, and I think a lot of people do as well, which is why I am so puzzled that there is so much more emphasis on the measures that would make the least dent in the problem, more restrictive gun laws... The protests, marches, rallies ect... are only focusing on gun legislation.

They have been discussing this at my child's school and I find it very unsettling that the staff is not even bringing up Cruz or his long trail of behavior that should have been more than enough to prevent this shooting entirely, rather than just forestall. ( It almost feels eerily like the guns, all by themselves, are the problem, and the offender is merely incidental!).

The teachers and administrators even have plans to join in the national walkout in March. I don't feel comfortable with them initiating that idea, and pitching it to the students, or even just nudging them in that direction... I just don't see how leaving the building for 17 minutes is gonna do a damn thing, and why is there no pubic outcry against the Promise program or any of the dizzying array of failures that enabled Cruz to waltz into that school like it was high noon at the Ok corral...

The stronger preventive measure are not getting top billing for sure.

bobcat said:

Well, maybe I'll have to go back and read through the thread again, or the older ones. The ones that stick in my mind are the ones that say take away all guns, and tax ammunition so that nobody can afford it. Those just aren't reasonable and go 100% against the 2nd amendment.

Click to expand...

No-one says tax ammo so nobody can afford it. Suggestions have been made that ammunition be made more expensive, not to make it so expensive no one can afford it. You mentioned hunting is your hobby earlier in the debate, and there are many hobbies that are expensive, for example I love motorcycles. However I can't afford to have a bike in Canada because I don't have the money to buy a bike, tax it etc. So I can't engage in my hobby at the moment. It doesn't stop me enjoying my life, because I understand that not just anyone should just get on a bike and ride it. People need to be licensed, bikes need to be registered etc. One day I'll have a bike again, but it's just a hobby and my life goes on without a bike.

Plus making ammo more expensive doesn't go against the 2nd amendment, you have the right to bear arms, not the right to cheap ammo. A gun needs just one bullet to shoot, not a magazine filled with 100 bullets.

I never said tax guns and ammo so that no one can afford it. I suggested taxing the hell out of it! Here in my state they have extra taxes on certain items. I think guns and ammo should be taxed high enough that a person would have to consider costs before buying.

If you want to know how to stop school shootings, ask the Secret Service

Two months after the Columbine tragedy in 1999, experts from the U.S. Department of Education and the U.S. Secret Service collaborated to study the “school shooter” phenomenon. They published the study on their findings in 2002. The study focused on examining the thinking, planning and other behaviors of students who carried out school attacks. Particular attention was given to identifying pre-attack behaviors and communications that might be detectable — or “knowable” — and could help prevent future attacks.

https://bangordailynews.com/2018/03...stop-school-shootings-ask-the-secret-service/



IMPLICATIONS FOR THE PREVENTION OF SCHOOL ATTACKS IN THE UNITED STATES

UNITED STATES SECRET SERVICE AND UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION


P. 41
Rather than trying to determine the "type" of student who may engage in targeted school violence, an inquiry should focus instead on a student’s behaviors and communications to determine if that student appears to be planning or preparing for an attack. Rather than asking whether a particular student "looks like" those who have launched school-based attacks before, it is more productive to ask whether the student is engaging in behaviors that suggest preparations for an attack, if so how fast the student is moving toward attack, and where intervention may be possible.

Key Finding 5

Most attackers engaged in some behavior, prior to the incident, that caused others concern or indicated a need for help.

https://www.secretservice.gov/data/protection/ntac/ssi_final_report.pdf

---
Food for thought from findings after Columbine. Since 2002, social media has developed so that just about everyone has a digital footprint.

As far as laws go to reduce the school to prison pipeline, it could definitely use a review to find out did it hamper LE, the FBI in pursuing a felony threat in the Parkland massacre? I can understand not throwing kids in jail for minimal marijuana possession, but do these laws prevent LE from arresting juveniles for assault & battery, drug possession, selling drugs, etc.?

Tragically when LE, the FBI were tipped off multiple times, when the shooters profile was practically handed to them... I don't know whether it is due to lack of coordination means, lack of IT power, but this is where the ball got dropped... This shooter was identified as a threat--his behavior profiles with the Columbine findings.

This piece is of equal or more importance than age limits, but cutting off easy access to the most dangerous guns through age limits would go a long way to support prohibiting a known threat. Not every child had an gun arsenal purchased by their mom, like Lanza.

Regarding the gun debate in general. I have a mix of liberal and conservative peeps in my family, in my friends. Of my liberal peeps, they are just as passionate about our bill of rights and many are gun owners themselves.

We have over 300 million citizens and the vast majority of gun owners are responsible and know the law, and take this right very seriously. Responsibility and accountability are more central to reform. And we'll get a lot further by targeting our solutions. What is helpful at the federal level, what is best left to the states? Imo

The Columbine findings are comprehensive and sometimes you have to go back, refocus, and move forward.

I would like to see a commission devoted to the solutions rather than some slap dash politicized anemic bill passed through a divided congress.

bobcat said:

First of all, and I think I said this before, but I couldn't care less about bumpstocks. I have no use for them and nobody I know would ever have a need for one. I never even heard of them until the Las Vegas massacre. Make them illegal, nobody really cares. Although I'll say it won't make any difference whatsoever in the gun violence problem. I've recently read that there are ways to make a semi-automatic fire faster in just the same way that a bump stock does, and that also someone with a lot of practice can shoot one just about as fast even without any modifications. However with that rate of faster fire comes inaccuracy, so it's really a matter of do you want to shoot faster and not hit anything your aiming at or do you want to shoot just a little bit slower and be much more accurate?




When you make the above statement, if that's truly the way you think, then to me you're a person who would want ALL guns banned, because just about ALL guns will do just that, with the exception of perhaps small caliber handguns up to 22 rimfire rifles. So if that's the criteria to be used for which guns to be banned, we'll be left with only guns that can be used to shoot holes in paper targets. Nothing else. Nothing for self defense, nothing for hunting. If you don't care about those things, then I understand why you wouldn't care about a ban on MOST guns.

And yes, people under 21 DO need to own rifles and shotguns, at the very least so they can hunt. So take away their ability to purchase them, fine. I'm not exactly sure how they would need to write the law so that possession of those firearms would remain legal for the 18-20 year olds, but you can't simply make possession illegal. I imagine that would be unconstitutional anyway.

Now, if you were talking only "assault riflles," I think people would be much more willing to listen.

Click to expand...

I have a disclosure. I am not a trauma surgeon so I can only go by what this one says. According to him, all guns are not the same.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politic...land-should-change-the-debate-on-guns/553937/

In a typical handgun injury, which I diagnose almost daily, a bullet leaves a laceration through an organ such as the liver. To a radiologist, it appears as a linear, thin, gray bullet track through the organ. There may be bleeding and some bullet fragments.

I was looking at a CT scan of one of the mass-shooting victims from Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, who had been brought to the trauma center during my call shift. The organ looked like an overripe melon smashed by a sledgehammer, and was bleeding extensively. How could a gunshot wound have caused this much damage?

The reaction in the emergency room was the same. One of the trauma surgeons opened a young victim in the operating room, and found only shreds of the organ that had been hit by a bullet from an AR-15, a semiautomatic rifle that delivers a devastatingly lethal, high-velocity bullet to the victim. Nothing was left to repair—and utterly, devastatingly, nothing could be done to fix the problem. The injury was fatal.

A year ago, when a gunman opened fire at the Fort Lauderdale airport with a 9 mm semiautomatic handgun, hitting 11 people in 90 seconds, I was also on call. It was not until I had diagnosed the third of the six victims who were transported to the trauma center that I realized something out of the ordinary must have happened. The gunshot wounds were the same low-velocity handgun injuries that I diagnose every day; only their rapid succession set them apart. And all six of the victims who arrived at the hospital that day survived.

Haha, nope. I heartily disagree, and can't imagine that being repealed. A back-doneywards state like Oklahoma might try to pass a law that works around it, but it would likely be challenged and fail.

And appropriate, LICENSED individuals are exempt from this law, anyway. They can carry.

The gun-free zone law also protects the 1,000-foot non-private area around schools.

I know from personal experience unrelated to school shootings, but related to law and self-protection, this added "zone" gives law enforcement — and anyone similar (qualified teacher, etc.) — added protection. Otherwise, their rights to use firepower essentially end at the front door, so to speak.

This law also adds an additional layer of punishment and enforcement to keep schools safe. Added charges if a baddie breaks the law.

It can't be repealed. IMO

K_Z said:

So here's another idea.

Let's get SERIOUS about REPEALING the Gun Free School Zones Act of 1990. Those signs on the door advertising "gun free zones" sadly have been revealed over and over to not have any "magic" at preventing school shootings, or even any significant deterrent effect.

The law is cumbersome, and overly broad, and thoroughly outdated legislation that has not done a single thing to stop, or even reduce, school shootings. It's an example of a solution in search of a problem; more "security theater".

There has never, IMO, been a school shooter who saw the ubiquitous "Gun Free School Zone" sign on a door, and thought, "Well, darn. I guess I can't kill a bunch of people with my gun today."

Those signs, and that law, are examples of "magical thinking." The signs and the law are both useless, as far as protecting our kids. But it's a great example of passing a law that both sides can "agree" on, for the sake of appearing to do something.

I think this law is ripe for a supreme court challenge.

As an example, people who are lawfully allowed to possess firearms, but their home is within 1000 feet of a school zone, can be prosecuted for having a firearm in their home. It has happened.

Those signs they hang on the school doors are not "magic". They don't shield kids, and they don't prevent shooters. They reassure a shooter.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun-Free_School_Zones_Act_of_1990

Click to expand...

ETA: Clarified first and second sentence.

bobcat said:

The previous link that talked about internal damage, I believe was referring to the damage caused by the AR-15 versus what a typical handgun wound would look like. The difference is simply because of the higher velocity of the rifle versus the handgun. Any rifle would do the same, if not more damage, than the AR-15, which like I posted previously, is actually a very small caliber.

The problem in defining "assault weapon" is that there are many guns that are semi-automatic with a detachable magazine, but they don't all look the same. Like the pistol grip that's mentioned in the Wikipedia info, that's typical of AR-15's and such, but it doesn't make it any more deadly. A standard wood stocked semi-automatic rifle, that doesn't look anything like your typical assault rifle will shoot just as fast and if it uses detachable magazines, there's often magazines available that might hold 20, 30, 50, or even 100 cartridges, even if the rifle only comes from the factory with a 5 or 10 round magazine.

Click to expand...

My husband’s 22 rifle which was decades old was made fully automatic. Yes, it is illegal but it was a test done by my hubby and son. They are totally against unregulated weapons and semi automatic weapoms so they wanted to see if they could make his 22 automatic. It took less than an hour. They like to have facts when they speak.

My son is an engineer and my husband has physics as a natural part of thinking so they may be more competent than others.

His 22 already was capaable of having clips with multiple bullets.

As a father and grandfather, with my husband growing up in a hunting family with nine uncles, he is a rabid anti uncontrolled gun person for the last 40 some years.

He sees no reason for anyone including police to have semi automatic weapons. Call them what anyone wants.

The discussion always descends into people pulling coup on what an assault rifle is. I have memes on that very topic.

No one needs guns that shoot multiple bullets at a rapid rate. If someone needs them for hunting, they do not belong in the woods. They are a danger to themselves and others as can be testified by the gun deaths seen in Minnesota every hunting season, Some people should not be out there.

If people want to target shoot, they can join a club.

I used to live in the country in MN and I had to give up walking during hunting season. There are laws that people cannot shoot within so many yards of any structure including a shed. Apparently some cannot read.

My husband was fixing shingles on a roof of the house. A bullet whizzed over his head. Bullets can travel for some miles. Is it two or three? These types of weapons do not belong in the woods.

K_Z said:

This is an investigative journalism article that I think is important for anyone interested in school safety and security to read. It contains links to actual policies and official agreements between school systems (Broward) and the police department (Broward).

This approach (no discipline, no police, no record) is proliferating all over the country, as a result of policies pursued during the previous presidential administration, via the Justice Department, and the Department of Education. Schools actually are threatened with loss of funding streams, if they don’t officially adopt policies to stop involving police in crimes that occur on school property, by students. I don’t’ care what your political leanings are, these kind of astoundingly misguided policies make ALL students LESS safe at school. And they ENABLE troubled kids to escalate their violence.

This investigative journalism piece for Real Clear Investigations (a mainstream site that is part of Real Clear Politics, and about a dozen other RC topics) is written by Paul Sperry, who is a regular author for NY Post, IBD, WSJ, Fox, and other conservative, but mainstream publications.



BBM.

https://www.realclearinvestigations...cipline_policy_and_the_parkland_shooting.html

Who is the author, Paul Sperry?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Sperry


https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2018/03/02/broward_timeline.html

Press Release from the FL Dept of Juvenile Justice:

http://www.djj.state.fl.us/news/pre.../04/29/zero-tolerance-bill-passes-full-senate

Collaborative Agreement on School Discipline:

https://www.browardprevention.org/w...10/Fully-Executed-Collaborative-Agreement.pdf

210 page document on strategies to "eliminate the school to prison pipeline" Broward County:

https://www.browardprevention.org/w...10/Fully-Executed-Collaborative-Agreement.pdf

*If* we can begin to agree that we ALL care deeply about school safety and preventing school shootings, regardless of our political leanings, then PART of our righteous outrage should be channeled at these kind of “soft on discipline” official policies. These policies, and the misguided mindset behind them, ENABLE very troubled kids, of ALL races, to avoid (over and over, in most cases) ANY official responsibility and accountability for their criminal and violent actions at school. That leads to young adults with “no record”, who can then have unfettered access to dangerous weapons.

Raising the age to buy guns, and banning accessories like bump stocks, won’t make a dent in this problem, although these things are largely agreeable to those on both sides of the issue. IMO, they will pass both into laws, and I'm fine with that. But these measures will not save a single life, IMO. But it will make a lot of people and politicians feel like they "did" something, so there's that. It's a strategy of the incremental effort to ever more restrict lawful gun ownership-- much like the far right pushes to enact ever more incremental restrictions on abortion, with the goal of eliminating legal abortion.

So while many advocate for more restrictions and bans, intellectually honest people must ALSO advocate loudly and persistently to abolish these “no discipline, no police, no record” policies immediately. These dangerous policies, and the motivations and mindset that created them, have made schools vastly LESS SAFE from disgruntled and disaffected kids bent on planning and carrying out school shootings.

Click to expand...

Juvenile records are already sealed and have been for decades. Any crime that is serious may be adjudicated as adult. We see that all of the time.

ACEs, Adverse Childhood experiences are being dealt with at the state and federal level. I will look for the info and post. It involves doctors, social services, etc. A comprehensive approach to deal with issues.

Punishment is not working, We cannot afford the massive incarceration . And most of all the lost lives that keep creating nightmares

I see no correlation between the two "groups" you mention.

Respectfully, Safeguard, immigration doesn't correlate with gun violence. Data shows it. Gun reform isn't a left-right issue. It isn't an immigration issue. To make it one is scapegoating, imo, and detracts from the issue we're here to discuss.

It isn't relevant to the gun reform conversation and doesn't belong here, imo, but your mileage may vary.

Suggested reading:

Fact check: Immigration doesn’t bring crime into U.S., data say
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/fact-check-immigration-doesnt-bring-crime-u-s-data-say

Voices: How violent are undocumented immigrants?
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...igrant-crime-san-francisco-shooting/30159479/

Contrary to Trump’s Claims, Immigrants Are Less Likely to Commit Crimes
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/26/us/trump-illegal-immigrants-crime.html

Gun Homicide and Violent Crime
http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2013/05/07/gun-crime/

National Institute of Justice Gun Violence data, reports and resources
https://www.nij.gov/topics/crime/gun-violence/Pages/welcome.aspx

Violent crime in the U.S. - statistics & facts
https://www.statista.com/topics/1750/violent-crime-in-the-us/

Terrorism and Immigration: A Risk Analysis
https://www.cato.org/publications/policy-analysis/terrorism-immigration-risk-analysis

White American men are a bigger domestic terrorist threat than Muslim foreigners
Since Trump took office, more Americans have been killed by white American men with no connection to Islam than by Muslim terrorists or foreigners.
https://www.vox.com/world/2017/10/2/16396612/las-vegas-mass-shooting-terrorism-islam

Safeguard said:

I do want to say, that I find it interesting that when Trump called for stronger immigration policy (extreme vetting), to prevent violence, the very same demographic that was against it, are for controlling gun access to prevent violence now... Hmmmm...

Click to expand...

ETA:

National Bureau of Economic Research study (downloadable pdf)
http://www.nber.org/papers/w13229.pdf

Immigration and Crime – What the Research Says
https://www.cato.org/blog/immigration-crime-what-research-says

Census data and American Immigration Council research — The Criminalization of Immigration in the United States
https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/research/criminalization-immigration-united-states

Understanding the Potential Impact of Executive Action on Immigration Enforcement
https://www.migrationpolicy.org/res...pact-executive-action-immigration-enforcement

Thank you, human! Great point. (rbbm)

Agreed.

And I'd also include the tens of thousands (or more) surviving victims and the ongoing, ripple effects gun violence has on all these communities.

human said:

Juvenile records are already sealed and have been for decades. Any crime that is serious may be adjudicated as adult. We see that all of the time.

ACEs, Adverse Childhood experiences are being dealt with at the state and federal level. I will look for the info and post. It involves doctors, social services, etc. A comprehensive approach to deal with issues.

Punishment is not working, We cannot afford the massive incarceration . And most of all the lost lives that keep creating nightmares

Click to expand...

Better gun laws could save thousands of lives, major non-partisan US study finds

Passing an assault weapons ban might prevent 170 mass shooting deaths a year in the US, experts who support gun control estimate. Passing a universal background check law could prevent 1,100 gun homicides each year. Raising the age limit for buying firearms could prevent 1,600 homicides and suicides.

Click to expand...

The Rand review also found “moderate evidence” that “stand your ground” laws, which allow Americans to use guns to defend themselves without first attempting to retreat from a confrontation, may increase state homicide rates.

Click to expand...

How Gun Policies Affect Outcomes, What The Evidence Shows Us:


Link to larger version of image:
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...dy-rand-corporation-assault-weapons-ban#img-5

Oh, and jumping off this post, I'm linking to another Gun Free School Zones Act; the one passed in 1994.

To clarify, neither the 1990 nor 1994 laws are just about signage. IMO, that's a gross, misinformed minimization of the law(s).

For starters:

"The Gun-Free Schools Act of 1994 requires each state receiving federal funds to have a state law in effect requiring local educational agencies to expel, for at least one year, any student who is determined to have brought a weapon to school.

The one-year expulsion is mandatory, except when a chief administering officer of such local education agency may modify it on a case-by-case basis.

In addition, schools are directed to develop policies requiring referral to the criminal justice or juvenile delinquency system for any student who brings a firearm or weapon to school."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun-Free_Schools_Act_of_1994

K_Z said:

So here's another idea.

Let's get SERIOUS about REPEALING the Gun Free School Zones Act of 1990. Those signs on the door advertising "gun free zones" sadly have been revealed over and over to not have any "magic" at preventing school shootings, or even any significant deterrent effect.

The law is cumbersome, and overly broad, and thoroughly outdated legislation that has not done a single thing to stop, or even reduce, school shootings. It's an example of a solution in search of a problem; more "security theater".

There has never, IMO, been a school shooter who saw the ubiquitous "Gun Free School Zone" sign on a door, and thought, "Well, darn. I guess I can't kill a bunch of people with my gun today."

Those signs, and that law, are examples of "magical thinking." The signs and the law are both useless, as far as protecting our kids. But it's a great example of passing a law that both sides can "agree" on, for the sake of appearing to do something.

I think this law is ripe for a supreme court challenge.

As an example, people who are lawfully allowed to possess firearms, but their home is within 1000 feet of a school zone, can be prosecuted for having a firearm in their home. It has happened.

Those signs they hang on the school doors are not "magic". They don't shield kids, and they don't prevent shooters. They reassure a shooter.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun-Free_School_Zones_Act_of_1990

Click to expand...

ETA:

More info on the 1990 bill: (from K_Z's link)

(rbbm)

"The Gun-Free School Zones Act (GFSZA) is an act of the U.S. Congress prohibiting any unauthorized individual from knowingly possessing a loaded or unsecured firearm at a place that the individual knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, is a school zone as defined by 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(25).

The law applies to public, private, and parochial elementary schools and high schools, and to non-private property within 1000 feet of them. It provides that the states and their political subdivisions may issue licenses that exempt the licensed individuals from the prohibition.

"It was first introduced in the U.S. Senate in February 1990 as S. 2070[1] by Senator Herb Kohl of Wisconsin and then was incorporated into the Crime Control Act of 1990 that was signed into law by President George H.W. Bush."

Tons of provisions and legals challenges, etc., are in the provided link.

K_Z said:

And I'll add that it makes no sense to argue that we need more armed police on our school campuses, but simultaneously have official policies that they can't be involved in investigating, arresting, and juvenile justice.

Every time I read the "no armed teachers; lots more armed police on campus" arguments I'm astonished at the hypocrisy, in light of these "no discipline, no police, no record" policies.

What exactly are the armed police supposed to DO while they are on the school property?? Are they supposed to just stand there, or patrol the halls, UNTIL some killer gets in and starts shooting??

Is that what we REALLY want? Because that is the very definition of a war zone. Do we want that for our kids?

Are they just "rent-a-cops" to man the metal detectors?

Should they have rifles, or only handguns? Helmets? Body armor? Body cameras? What exactly is what we want these increased numbers of police to look like? What do we want them to DO? One in each classroom? One in each hall? One in each administrator's office?

Do we want them in full riot gear patrolling the lunchrooms with rifles? Armored vehicles in the school parking lots?

More "security theater"? Or more ACTUAL police involvement with security and policing?

Those with liberal/ progressive leanings have a love/ hate relationship with police, and even the IDEA of actual policing.

It can't be both ways-- bemoaning the lack of police presence and involvement, and in the same breath disparaging the role, functions, and presence of police. And there can't be official policies that discourage police presence and action, and then criticize lack of involvement.

I can't wrap my head around that level of hypocrisy.

The world has changed. Every day that passes, we make it MORE okay for violent crime with our squishy policies and ivory tower ideologies.

So now we are reaping what has been sown. Soft on violent crime = more violent crime.

Lack of serious legal and social consequences emboldens criminals, whether it's school violence, or community violence.

Click to expand...

Police understand, as teachers do, that it is all about relationship building.

All jobs should be about relationship building. I imagine they have that kind of approach in the medical field as well.

You cannot beat a person and expect to get good results.

I remember in the olden days when we had a constable where we lived out in the country. He knew everyone. He knew how to talk to the kids and he knew the parents. He was respected because he treated everyone with respect.

It works

Safeguard said:

rs/bbm

I agree, and I think a lot of people do as well, which is why I am so puzzled that there is so much more emphasis on the measures that would make the least dent in the problem, more restrictive gun laws... The protests, marches, rallies ect... are only focusing on gun legislation.

They have been discussing this at my child's school and I find it very unsettling that the staff is not even bringing up Cruz or his long trail of behavior that should have been more than enough to prevent this shooting entirely, rather than just forestall. ( It almost feels eerily like the guns, all by themselves, are the problem, and the offender is merely incidental!).

The teachers and administrators even have plans to join in the national walkout in March. I don't feel comfortable with them initiating that idea, and pitching it to the students, or even just nudging them in that direction... I just don't see how leaving the building for 17 minutes is gonna do a damn thing, and why is there no pubic outcry against the Promise program or any of the dizzying array of failures that enabled Cruz to waltz into that school like it was high noon at the Ok corral...

The stronger preventive measure are not getting top billing for sure.

Click to expand...

I am so,proud of my grandchildren and children and their friends and colleagues who are participating to show that people are sick of having people die.

I think the energy will snowball. Who knows what this type of energy will produce, Many of these kids will vote.

Old guys and women are out. Dead wood.

Here is a Federal Approach but there are states that have adopted ideas such as this.

http://www.socialjusticesolutions.o...n-introduced-u-s-senate-house-address-trauma/

There is much more on the citation I have listed. There is also much more on the web re this topic of dealing with the root cuses of violence.

I feel it is beyond excellent.

——————-

Elizabeth Prewitt
Elizabeth Prewitt

Aces Too High

web
Comprehensive legislation introduced in U.S. Senate and House to address trauma Elizabeth Prewitt April 4, 2017


Sen. Heitkamp, Sen. Durbin, Christinia Bethel & Joe Barnhart (Left to right)

Senators Heidi Heitkamp (D-ND) and Dick Durbin (D-IL) at the Dec. 1, 2016 congressional briefing on addressing childhood trauma
The “Trauma-Informed Care for Children and Families Act” (S. 774, H.R. 1757) was introduced on March 29 in the Senate by Sen. Heidi Heitkamp (D-ND) with co-sponsors Dick Durbin (D-IL), Al Franken (D-MN), and Cory Booker (D-NJ), and, for the first time in the House of Representatives, by Chicago Rep. Danny K. Davis (D-IL7).

A version of the bill was introduced in the Senate in the final days of the last Congress. The bill’s sponsors were not successful in their efforts to gain bipartisan support in advance of its introduction.

The lawmakers who developed the comprehensive provisions of the bill to address trauma represent widely different constituencies. Sen. Heitkamp cites the importance of addressing trauma especially among children and families in Native communities in the rural state of North Dakota while Sen. Durbin and Rep. Davis are motivated by a desire to support children traumatized by community violence in urban neighborhoods.

The legislation creates a high-level multi-agency task force led by the assistant secretary for mental health and substance use (a position created in the mental health provisions of the 21st Century CURES Act) to recommend a set of best practices to promote “coordinate efforts and establish best practices for identifying and supporting children that have experienced trauma.”
Other provisions—summarized in a fact sheet provided by the bill sponsors—include:

Disseminate Best Practices. Provides more teachers, doctors, social service providers, and first responders with the tools to help children who have experienced trauma by creating an eligible use of funding for several federal grant programs to be used for this training;
Train Key Stakeholders. Creates law enforcement and Native American coordinating centers that will share information, improve awareness, and enhance training on trauma’s impact;
Test New Models. Increases funding for the National Child Traumatic Stress Initiative to evaluate new strategies for improving trauma-informed prevention and care;
Improve Understanding of Trauma. Requires the CDC to improve data collection on trauma prevalence, and directs CDC and GAO to conduct studies to identify barriers to coordination;
Expand Treatment Capacity. Pilots a Medicaid demonstration program to text expanded coverage of child trauma services, and expands mental health care in schools;
Support Workforce Development. Expands loan repayment programs for clinicians who serve in high-need communities; develops training guidelines for non-clinical providers in trauma care; and improves graduate school and pre-service training for teachers and clinicians;
Foster Community Coordination. Creates a grant program to bring together stakeholders to identify needs, collect data, and target efforts. Additionally, builds on the Performance Partnership Pilot to pool federal grants from multiple agencies and focus the funding on increasing trauma services for children and families.

I found this to be an interesting bit of info:

[FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot]FIREARMS[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot]OFF DUTY OFFICERS AND FIREARMS[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot]Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act (LEOSA)[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot]Under LEOSA: Limitations on Types of Firearms[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot]LEOSA allows qualifying officers to carry concealed firearms, but, at the same time, limits what qualifies as a firearm. The act’s definition of firearms does not include machine guns, silencers, or explosive or destructive devices.45[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot]https://leb.fbi.gov/articles/legal-digest/legal-digest-off-duty-officers-and-firearms[/FONT][/FONT]

smeck said:

I never said tax guns and ammo so that no one can afford it. I suggested taxing the hell out of it! Here in my state they have extra taxes on certain items. I think guns and ammo should be taxed high enough that a person would have to consider costs before buying.

Click to expand...

I don't know that taxes are the answer. Something equivalent to a 'sin tax' would unfairly punish law abiding gun owners. A lot of people rely on hunting to feed their families and many of those aren't living off the government. Why should they be taxed extra.

imo

BayouBelle_LA said:

I don't know that taxes are the answer. Something equivalent to a 'sin tax' would unfairly punish law abiding gun owners. A lot of people rely on hunting to feed their families and many of those aren't living off the government. Why should they be taxed extra.

imo

Click to expand...

How many bullets do people need? Do they need high capacity clips?

And everyone lives off of the govt, They use roads, I assume as well as the multitude of services govt provides.