Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
Even as a supporter of gun rights, the NRA response was atrocious. Shifting the blame because New Media Are Evil is just kind of... sad. They went silent for days, and that's about the best that they could come up with?
Epic Face Palm.
Shifting the blame to something else satellite to the person who committed the act is not how we should approach the problem.
Glove and Boots is good for Blog!@Thorn: Sure, but why's everyone upset about them suggesting it? I mean, people called this "revolting," "very haunting and very disturbing," and "outrageous and wrong." That's a major overreaction to something that's actually a sort of good idea when the NRA has actually said stuff that has deserved that sort of response.
@Joe: Totally.
@Thorn: People. Through taxes. Like the rest of the police force is paid for.
@Kostaya: Why would the school pay for police? Wouldn't the police pay for it?
Joesolo: Yeah but most districts have three or more schools. Mine has six. There are also costs associated with retirement benefits, equipment, etc. Police stations and tax payers are getting strained as is and if we're going to hire police I'd prefer they go out and stop actual criminals.
deathpigeon: It doesn't matter who pays for it since both groups are getting squeezed. I'm guessing it will be the school's responsibility though since most politicians probably care more about the police department than the school.
To be fair it's a better solution than arming the teachers but I still doubt it will solve a damn thing. It will also be a lot more expensive than doing the simple thing which is banning assault weapons and requiring mandatory lessons for potential gun owners.
edited 21st Dec '12 4:18:29 PM by Kostya
@Joe: heres why that wont work.
Take my town for example. we have 6 school buildings. And a local political "group" named No-Mo Taxes (gert it, its Mo for missouri, haha), who's leader has made comments justifying not raising taxes to pay for school shit on various things.
The most famous being the time schools wanted to levy a tax so we could pay the contract with the company that runs the local school buses. His reply? "everyone should have to walk to school. it'll fix childhood obesity"
![]()
I really hate insane Libertarians.
And they say MSNBC is a liberal shill network.
Yeah, that will work out real well. Because every teacher is a marksman and is willing to shoot someone!
edit: Relevant.
edited 21st Dec '12 4:26:50 PM by Kostya
@Thorn: Well, we should be raising that anyway. I'm not saying that it's a solution that can happen. I'm saying it's one that should happen.
Also, this isn't solving the problem of guns with more guns. This is solving the problem of guns with trained professionals. There's a difference.
@Kostaya: Well, we should be giving both more funding anyway.
![]()
![]()
Watch the same people that say we should follow their example scream bloody murder when the government tries to raise taxes to pay for it.
edit: It would be entirely free to ban assault weapons and require proper safety classes to own guns.
Per certain number of students? There are millions of students in the nation. That shit will get expensive fast.
edited 21st Dec '12 4:38:47 PM by Kostya
The only good thing about that MSNBC bit was that the interviewer was clearly taken aback and asked what would happen if the teacher didn't want to be armed. The guy responded he didn't want his kid being taught by them. Jesus, that's insane.
Republicans just won't raise taxes even when they want to spend money on something. It's fucking ridiculous.
@Deathpigeon: People are getting appalled because of the basic idea that schools aren't supposed to need that kind of defense. And also because it's damned costly and a solution that the people suggesting it aren't going to want to pay for. It's also a non solution due to the fact that it's treating a symptom rather than the cause. Which is culture, things like magazines allowing fifty bullets or however many are in those things, and lack of mental health care. Putting a bandage over a continually bleeding wound just covers it up without healing it, and that's what putting a policeman in every school basically does.
I seriously don't get why people want to cut funding to schools. "Let's hurt the children and hurt their development, thus hurting their ability to take care of us in our old age. Why should I give money to something I don't directly take part in?"
Everyone is so short-sighted that it's insane.
edited 21st Dec '12 4:54:25 PM by Zendervai
@Kostya: The question here is "like what?"
Background checks already cover psychological background and criminal background.
Safe storage laws already exist.
Carry laws already exist.
Glove and Boots is good for Blog!@Ace: First, could you please not capitalize my name?
Anyway, have we not learned from the numerous school shootings that they do need some sort of defense? Also, I think we should also improve mental healthcare, put restrictions on guns, and promote a culture where guns and gun violence isn't seen as being ok. Just because there are underlying causes does not mean we shouldn't fix the symptoms in addition.
The assumption is that gun violence is seen as okay, this is only because of the prevalence in movies and video games and the presentation of the media. Out of a hundred million gun owners, only a very small fraction of this growing number is related to gun violence or crime.
There have long been no Hollywood style shootouts. And to say that there is is just plain problematic.
It is seen as one step before another. Owning a gun is the last line of defense, when every other option has failed or been expended. Get rid of crime and violence, there will be less of a need for them.
People keep saying "more restrictions" without saying exactly how to do this without causing more harm than good? More psychological checks?
The idea that has been presented is to have mandatory psychological checks and prevent people from exercising their rights based on what they MIGHT do, rather than what they have done. Regardless of what is happening in the NDAA, we still have a process called Due Process.
edited 21st Dec '12 5:12:44 PM by DevilTakeMe
Glove and Boots is good for Blog!Devil: Ban assault weapons, limit magazine capacities, require background checks on every person that buys them, make them wait three months before they are given the gun, make it mandatory for them to present a psychiatric evaluation from a qualified source, have police inspect the homes of those that buy guns to make sure they have a proper place to store it, require 40 hours of training in safe usage and target practice to obtain a license to own a gun, and probably a few more things I can't think of off the top of my head. Apply all this to gun shows and any outlet that sells guns.
Failure to do this will result in a fine and jail time for any parties that don't comply.
Also I may be overly draconian but I don't fucking care. The second amendment has the phrase well-regulated in it and it's harder to get a car than it is to get a gun. This would be that regulation.
When you are asking to be entrusted with a deadly weapon you are going to be scrutinized and probed to hell and back. I fail to see how this is unreasonable when it could potentially save lives and will make it harder for nuts to get guns.
edited 21st Dec '12 5:17:52 PM by Kostya
That's stupid.
There's well regulated, and then there's over regulated. If your going to require all that, than most people will just start buying guns illegally.
And you could probably stop most nut jobs with the 3 month waiting period alone.
edited 21st Dec '12 5:26:54 PM by DeviantBraeburn
Everything is Possible. But some things are more Probable than others. JEBAGEDDON 2016

Seriously the money has to come from somewhere. Meanwhile banning assault rifles wouldn't cost a thing.
edited 21st Dec '12 4:07:27 PM by Kostya