[ddub47]

I hope they don't assign these trigger happy cops to guard a school somewhere.

[jjbrr]

ddub47, on 2013-February-09, 12:49, said:

I hope they don't assign these trigger happy cops to guard a school somewhere.

Don't be ridiculous. They've already been given paid leave (that's right, they're getting paid to enjoy time with their families).

These heroes will almost certainly be promoted by the end of the year.

[blackshoe]

Trinidad, on 2013-February-09, 10:35, said:

And, therefore, another example of a "bad guy with a gun" who used to be a "good guy with a gun".

Rik

What's your point? What does it have to do with whether Dorner's prior supervisors didn't recognize that he might go bad?

[onoway]

ddub47, on 2013-February-09, 12:49, said:

I hope they don't assign these trigger happy cops to guard a school somewhere.

If schools are absolutely determined to have armed guards, then why isn't anyone talking about tasers? They are not AS lethal as guns, and certainly incapacitate people.

Of course then it is a short stroll to using tasers on kids who misbehave which already sometimes happens inappropriately with kids outside schools who push authority. If the guards are already there and not doing anything, they may as well help with discipline issues... Police often don't think it's all that serious to taser someone, so that might lead to a host of other problems, including kids trying to find guns "to protect themselves".

It seems bizarre to me that there isn't any money to hire teachers, but there is money for this. They can't keep the classes small to provide the individual attention so many need, but apparently there IS money to hire full time Wyatt Earp wannabes to patrol the halls or whatever. Maybe if kids weren't treated like cans of peas in a factory because many teachers are too overwhelmed to do much else except try to keep pace, some of these kids would get noticed and helped before they grew up and got to the stage of shooting everyone they could. School is sounding more and more like the jail so many kids already feel it to be.

[blackshoe]

onoway, on 2013-February-09, 14:36, said:

full time Wyatt Earp wannabes

Way to be objective, Onoway. Not.

[onoway]

blackshoe, on 2013-February-09, 14:50, said:

Way to be objective, Onoway. Not.

I never claimed to be objective, I think the whole thing stinks. Tell me, who do you think is going to want to work at a job whose only point is to shoot to kill someone in the unlikely event they might conceivably come into a school with mayhem on their mind? It doesn't sound to me like the sort of job which would appeal to anyone I would want around my kids.

[PassedOut]

onoway, on 2013-February-09, 16:21, said:

I never claimed to be objective, I think the whole thing stinks. Tell me, who do you think is going to want to work at a job whose only point is to shoot to kill someone in the unlikely event they might conceivably come into a school with mayhem on their mind? It doesn't sound to me like the sort of job which would appeal to anyone I would want around my kids.

Of course it is foolish to suggest that all schools should have armed guards. However, I know of some large schools that employ armed officers who participate actively in the curriculum, teaching students about civics, and so on. That makes some sense to me.

[Trinidad]

blackshoe, on 2013-February-09, 14:15, said:

Trinidad, on 2013-February-09, 10:35, said:

And, therefore, another example of a "bad guy with a gun" who used to be a "good guy with a gun".

What's your point? What does it have to do with whether Dorner's prior supervisors didn't recognize that he might go bad?

The NRA wants to combat bad guys with guns with good guys with guns.

The point is that real life is not like a John Wayne movie with good guys and bad guys. Guys that used to be good are now bad and guys that used to be bad are now good.

You are working from a point of view that Dorner's supervisors didn't recognize that he might go bad. But there is very little to recognize. Surprise... You or I might one day go bad. If I turn bad, you don't want me to have a gun and if you turn bad, I don't want you to have a gun.

The fact that good guys can turn into bad guys, without prior recognizable warning, and the fact that a bad guy with a gun is a bad idea should be a strong argument against giving guns to good guys.

In Sandy Hook the gun was owned by a "good guy" (well ok, a good girl). Dorner used to be a good guy. Let's please stop giving guns to all these good guys. They are killing us... literally.

Rik

[blackshoe]

onoway, on 2013-February-09, 16:21, said:

I never claimed to be objective, I think the whole thing stinks. Tell me, who do you think is going to want to work at a job whose only point is to shoot to kill someone in the unlikely event they might conceivably come into a school with mayhem on their mind? It doesn't sound to me like the sort of job which would appeal to anyone I would want around my kids.

It certainly doesn't appeal to me. OTOH, the job description you posit is highly unlikely to be the one any school looking for armed guards will use.

I don't think armed guards roaming the schools will work, just like I didn't think banning guns within 1000 feet of a school would work. I'm not surprised I was right about the latter, and I won't be surprised when it turns out I'm right about the former. But I don't think demonizing those who are looking for a way, any way, to protect kids from this kind of insanity well help, either.

[billw55]

blackshoe, on 2013-February-09, 18:46, said:

It certainly doesn't appeal to me. OTOH, the job description you posit is highly unlikely to be the one any school looking for armed guards will use.

I don't think armed guards roaming the schools will work, just like I didn't think banning guns within 1000 feet of a school would work. I'm not surprised I was right about the latter, and I won't be surprised when it turns out I'm right about the former. But I don't think demonizing those who are looking for a way, any way, to protect kids from this kind of insanity well help, either.

I am curious. Is there a response that you think *will* work? Or is this sort of thing just the price of freedom?

[kenberg]

My own view about preventing the ghastly random crazy killings is that you cannot expect to totally eliminate them. Say you have guards in schools. Well, there are playgrounds. There are parks.

But that doesn't mean that it is hopeless. I go through life reasonably expecting that no one will come up and shoot me. I also don't expect the driver in the other lane to have a heart attack and crash into me. Could happen, probably won't.

Where I live it would be rampant paranoia for me to spend any significant portion of my time or energy preparing for a home invasion. Mostly, that is how life has been for me from the beginning. Society must come to view such life as the natural way, and put serious effort into correcting it where it is not the case. I think that this can be done, at least to a large extent. But then we must also insist that no protection is perfect. Someone reads about someone being killed somewhere. Omg, got to go out and buy a gun. Rarely is this so. Get locks. Get alarms. Get, well, I have not had the need to become familiar with it all, but I am thinking that in almost all paces, including some less than totally safe palces I have lived. there are almost always quite a number of more effective responses than going out and buying a gun.

A gun can give a feeling of security but I think it is often a very false sense of security and it can give a person a totally unjustified feeling of control. I've known cops all my life. Growing up, the guy across the street and up one house was a cop. The guy next door down the street was in the military. These guys are trained, and even they make mistakes and most of them would much prefer to settle matters without guns. Things can go wrong. Most of us are much better off without relying on guns, and society will be better off if this becomes the norm.

Having said all of that, I saw Viva Zapata on TCM last night. An early Brando move that I saw around the time it came out in 1952. A good movie with some really strong arguments for the need for guns. But it was written by John Steinbeck and starred Marlon Brando. I wouldn't want to base my life's decisions on such a movie. But it was one of those movies I enjoyed when I was young and was pleased to find that I still enjoyed. Same with The Wild One. Also not a blueprint for living.

[blackshoe]

I don't have an answer, but I think looking at the causes of what seems to be an increase in, for want of a better term, stress disorder (and I'm not talking about soldiers, here, it seems to be infecting everybody, including kids) might be a start.

It is certainly true that part of the price of freedom is that you can't wrap people in a cocoon - the world is not safe. People need to deal with that, not hide from it.

[jjbrr]

lol LAPD opened fire on a white guy this time. i guess we're lucky they're both retarded and terrible marksmen i suppose.

[blackshoe]

mike777, on 2013-February-09, 00:27, said:

I certainly hope there will be a thorough and objective investigation into both shootings, but I doubt that much will come of either.


you start something but you should follow through with your point and logic.


You basically start out saying something is rotten in Denmark but dont really say what......

My point was that I hope there will be a thorough and objective investigation into the shootings. I'm not saying anything is rotten anywhere.

The fact that this is a gun control thread in the Water Cooler should not lead one to see conspiracy theories in every post.

[Winstonm]

In my view the wrong tact is being used to address gun control. The SC has decided that the 2nd Amendment applies to individual ownership rights. At the same time, the right to regulate commerce is a power granted to Congress. It seems to me the clear answer is to regulate the sales and manufacturing processes, conceding the right to own arms but not any right to purchase arms. In other words, one must manufacture his own gun in order to own a gun. If one wishes to own a weapon that is not self-made, then considerable regulations apply.

Who can argue with that?

[kenberg]

Winstonm, on 2013-February-15, 15:31, said:

Who can argue with that?

More or less everyone.But everyone is arguing now, so it will fit right in.

Perhaps along the same lines: One could argue that "arms" refers to arms as they were in 1787. People are allowed to bear arms that were manufactured during that period. This would be "original intent".

I doubt this will fly either.

[blackshoe]

Maybe we should just change the subject. Is there a right to arm bears?

[mike777]

This irony....this is where I grew up Pullman/Roseland part of Chicago.

It seems ironic they can arrest so many guns in such short period of time in just a small part of Chicago.....but little to no mention of humans arrested....


Police sources said last week that the Cook County state's attorney's "felony review" process has made it difficult to bring charges against shooters. According to DNAinfo.com Chicago's analysis, gunmen who shot and wounded someone got away without criminal charges 94 percent of the time.

Read more: http://www.dnainfo.c...e#ixzz2L1jZmRgr


Cops on 9 Weekend Murders: It 'Could Have Been a Lot Worse' Updated January 29, 2013 11:25am

January 28, 2013 3:06pm | By Darryl Holliday, DNAinfo Reporter/Producer



http://www.dnainfo.c...-been-lot-worse



PULLMAN — Despite a weekend that left nine people dead citywide, top brass from the Chicago Police Department insisted the violence "could have been a lot worse" if not for its gang-fighting strategy and crackdown on firearms.

Standing next to a table of confiscated guns at the Calumet District police station in Pullman, the officials reported that 574 guns had been recovered by police since Jan. 1, including 100 in the last week.


Read more: http://www.dnainfo.c...e#ixzz2L1hT2Pv5

[Cthulhu D]

The security guards in schools thing is dumb. Didn't Columbine have a security guard? I see that was super effective in preventing the massacre.

[onoway]

Winstonm, on 2013-February-15, 15:31, said:

In my view the wrong tact is being used to address gun control. The SC has decided that the 2nd Amendment applies to individual ownership rights. At the same time, the right to regulate commerce is a power granted to Congress. It seems to me the clear answer is to regulate the sales and manufacturing processes, conceding the right to own arms but not any right to purchase arms. In other words, one must manufacture his own gun in order to own a gun. If one wishes to own a weapon that is not self-made, then considerable regulations apply.

Who can argue with that?

I like it. Come to think of it, people who didn't make their own guns way back when probably DID make much of their own ammunition. Some people still do. If the gun advocates are so gung ho on having guns, let them have anything they can have now but they have to make all of their own ammo. That would thin the ranks considerably. Why does this remind me of The Merchant Of Venice?