OT: Tragic Shooting.

lazer wrote:

hyperlexis wrote:

RandyJ wrote:Nuclear arms don't bomb people, people bomb people. So we better not put any legal restrictions on owning nuclear arms.

Amen. It's always the NRA rednecks that give that line as an excuse for every massacre. Like it's on a bracelet you get with membership.

Yadda yadda yadda. Been there, heard that before.... Columbine, Gabrielle Giffords, the Batman movie massacre. Blah Blah Blow it out your a***.

Fortunately, like the past election proved, the base of those people is shrinking. The angry white man demanding ownership of a machine gun at all cost is fast becoming a minority.

Even George Will said this AM that the most recent court cases would still allow for severe cuts to access to certain weapons without violating any constitutional rights. Like outlawing assault weapons or large magazines. No where in the constitution does it allow access to military weapons -- other than muskets. Survivalist nutbags dont like to hear that but the courts themselves have said it.

When you lose George WIll, you've lost the argument. The NRA folks can keep repeating the mantra but it means nothing. Especially now, after what just happened.

I never considered myself a "Redneck".. Guess you learn something everyday... So let's see. The fact that I'm a member of the NRA and I'm white, makes me some whack-job myself all in itself

nanwilson wrote: Grow up kids

PST wrote:

avi123 wrote:

PST wrote:

avi123 wrote:When my American born wife moved with me to Israel in 1969 (till 1980), she took courses in managing M3 rifle and practiced shooting. As a matter of fact she and other American born women excelled in targeting. Later she, armed with a rifle, volunteered escorting our children classes on trips. Also, we took turns to guard the two gates in our children's schools fences. This was in addition to the special security force assigned to the schools which constantly patrolled the schools properties. If it can be done in prisons, here in the U. S., then why not in schools?

Is this something that was normal at the time in Israel as a whole, or were you living in one of the settlements on the West Bank? I have friends who visit often and/or have relatives living in Israel, but the picture of parents forming a daily armed patrol outside the gates of the schools doesn't correspond to anything I've ever heard about normal life there.

Reply,

It was "normal" after the 1974 Maalot School massacre. Apparently you are (were) not informed about it. Your above posted views about things in Israel show your sheer ignorance on what's going on there, now and in the past. Google: The Maalot school massacre, and also check this:

http://www.israelforum.com/board/showth ... l-massacre

Always glad to be corrected; that's how we learn. I have a question that I think is relevant to whether the Israeli response to organized terror attacks on schools in the 70s would be a good model, as you suggest, for protecting our schools in the U.S. from the armed and mentally ill today. Was the process you described sustained and national rather than temporary and regional? Ten years later, were moms across Israel still taking target practice so they could escort their children on field trips, and were dads still taking turns patrolling the gates to the schools? Because it wouldn't do much good if this turned out to be something that parents in Connecticut were willing to do for three months and then lose interest, while never even catching on farther from the scene. Frankly, I don't think willingness here to follow such a plan would get remotely as much popular support as armed defense in Israel after the Ma'alot attack. After all, that was a period of armed terrorism organized across the border in the camps in the south of Lebanon. In a nation of 300 million people, will the fact that every two years or so a young man with access to weapons goes crazy sustain the same level of vigilance? If armed parents aren't routinely still defending the schools in Israel, I doubt the plan has much of a future here.

For what it's worth, I have no trouble believing that American born women can learn to handle guns and excel in sharpshooting. After all, what was Nancy Lanza but a Connecticut housewife and mother who accumulated guns and learned to use them because she thought she needed them for defense? The potential for unexpected consequences from that kind of self-defense is chillingly clear now. Does a response against a determined and ruthless foe attacking from without provide us with a useful model of how we should react to the possibility that one of our children might go insane?

avi123 wrote:

PST wrote:

avi123 wrote:When my American born wife moved with me to Israel in 1969 (till 1980), she took courses in managing M3 rifle and practiced shooting. As a matter of fact she and other American born women excelled in targeting. Later she, armed with a rifle, volunteered escorting our children classes on trips. Also, we took turns to guard the two gates in our children's schools fences. This was in addition to the special security force assigned to the schools which constantly patrolled the schools properties. If it can be done in prisons, here in the U. S., then why not in schools?

Is this something that was normal at the time in Israel as a whole, or were you living in one of the settlements on the West Bank? I have friends who visit often and/or have relatives living in Israel, but the picture of parents forming a daily armed patrol outside the gates of the schools doesn't correspond to anything I've ever heard about normal life there.

Reply,

It was "normal" after the 1974 Maalot School massacre. Apparently you are (were) not informed about it. Your above posted views about things in Israel show your sheer ignorance on what's going on there, now and in the past. Google: The Maalot school massacre, and also check this:

http://www.israelforum.com/board/showth ... l-massacre

wrote:What America needs to do is arm the children so that they can shoot back.

You know, because everyone having guns is such a great idea.

RandyJ wrote:

NachtWürger wrote: Another way of saying it is, "Do the benefits of the proposal exceed the costs?"

Of course most of us would not like to see even one child every hundred years die tragically from any cause. But we know preventing all tragic deaths of children is not practical if even possible. So we continue to transport our children in cars on highways, allow them to bathe in bathtubs, swim in swimming pools and ride bicycles.

What are the benefits of living in a free society? What are the costs of any proposal that makes it less free?

What are the benefits of such proposals? Will they actually prevent any ideaths?

I suspect that if some sort of ban on semiautomatic weapons is reinstated you would see fewer deaths. If you can kill a large number of people in a few minutes with a semiautomatic weapon (due to the high number of bullets you can discharge in that time and not necessarily need good aim as you spray a group of people) vs being restricted to a weapon that you have to reload after discharging a few bullets... in a mass shooting situation you are killing fewer people per minute and the necessity to stop periodically might give others the opportunity to disarm you... without actually doing the math it certainly seems like the body count would be lower.

If we can't do more to assure the safety of our children when they are in the care of the State at school, I wouldn't want to have to be the one to face the Newtown CT parents and tell them that their child's life didn't matter enough.

Goofproof wrote: I'd rather be shot than beat to death with a baseball bat. Jim

Mankind will fine a way to do their will on others, matter what you ban.

avi123 wrote:Check this:

Israel - Sympathy, Advice for Newtown, Connecticut, US On Guns, School Security:


http://www.israelnewsagency.com/newtown ... 21512.html


Excerpt:

How do you make a school safe?

You hire at least two, armed security guards and place them at the entrance of the school. Forget the camera and buzzer. It does not work. If you doubt this, ask the parents of the murdered 20 children in Newtown.

You have the children and their bags go through metal detectors. This can be fast and effective. If you feel that this is inconvenient, then ask yourself what price would you pay for your child's safety? Airlines employ this measure, not just to save lives, but to save aircraft.


The use of video cameras both in and outside the school are needed to both prevent and document illegal activity.

Lockdown and evacuation procedures must be taught and drilled at every school. Panic buttons must be placed in every room.
Teachers must be prepared for almost any crisis that could materialize - either by nature or man made. School need safe rooms and safe procedures.

The use of a combination code rather than keys are suggested to secure outside doors and classrooms.

Off-duty soldiers or police must be hired to provide security during field trips and they do typically carry a weapon when performing these duties.

But perhaps the best line of defense are the parents. If you detect and or are knowledgeable about your child or other children who have mental health issues, report this immediately, in confidence, to the school principle and school psychologist. Preventing a massacre is preferable to attending a funeral.

Security guards, metal detectors, locked doors and windows do not make a prison. They make for a safe school facility where your children can learn, laugh and grow without the threat of being hit by bullets.

You need to ask yourself one question.
What price would you pay to keep your children safe?

TheUglyTruth wrote:

nanwilson wrote: Grow up kids

Could not resist a snip of your own?

Sheriff Buford wrote:

lazer wrote:

hyperlexis wrote:

RandyJ wrote:Nuclear arms don't bomb people, people bomb people. So we better not put any legal restrictions on owning nuclear arms.

Amen. It's always the NRA rednecks that give that line as an excuse for every massacre. Like it's on a bracelet you get with membership.

Yadda yadda yadda. Been there, heard that before.... Columbine, Gabrielle Giffords, the Batman movie massacre. Blah Blah Blow it out your a***.

Fortunately, like the past election proved, the base of those people is shrinking. The angry white man demanding ownership of a machine gun at all cost is fast becoming a minority.

Even George Will said this AM that the most recent court cases would still allow for severe cuts to access to certain weapons without violating any constitutional rights. Like outlawing assault weapons or large magazines. No where in the constitution does it allow access to military weapons -- other than muskets. Survivalist nutbags dont like to hear that but the courts themselves have said it.

When you lose George WIll, you've lost the argument. The NRA folks can keep repeating the mantra but it means nothing. Especially now, after what just happened.

I never considered myself a "Redneck".. Guess you learn something everyday... So let's see. The fact that I'm a member of the NRA and I'm white, makes me some whack-job myself all in itself

Laze: I'm a redneck... and proud of it. If you want, I will anoint you!! Sheriff

nanwilson wrote:I am in tears after reading this total thread. I read the original post the other day and posted my offer of prayers..........but I am so sad to see (read) the posts that have come after the original ones......people snipping (intended word) at each other and berating each other all because of a difference of opinion. This post (by Jabman) was intended to help the families and each other by offering our heart felt prayers and condolences. Yes, we feel outrage by what has happened, and definately a big YES because of the lost children........but I think you all need to think of why this thread was started..........and it was definately not started to get your political opinions nor your barbs at each other. Grow up kids...and take a look into your hearts and offer a prayer......if you don`t pray then I`m sure you can offer a condolence to these grieving families and those that knew these children. The children will never grow up to experience another Christmas or birthday, will never graduate from high school or university and will never get married and have children of their own.
Nan

lazer wrote:

Sheriff Buford wrote:

lazer wrote:

hyperlexis wrote:

RandyJ wrote:Nuclear arms don't bomb people, people bomb people. So we better not put any legal restrictions on owning nuclear arms.

Amen. It's always the NRA rednecks that give that line as an excuse for every massacre. Like it's on a bracelet you get with membership.

Yadda yadda yadda. Been there, heard that before.... Columbine, Gabrielle Giffords, the Batman movie massacre. Blah Blah Blow it out your a***.

Fortunately, like the past election proved, the base of those people is shrinking. The angry white man demanding ownership of a machine gun at all cost is fast becoming a minority.

Even George Will said this AM that the most recent court cases would still allow for severe cuts to access to certain weapons without violating any constitutional rights. Like outlawing assault weapons or large magazines. No where in the constitution does it allow access to military weapons -- other than muskets. Survivalist nutbags dont like to hear that but the courts themselves have said it.

When you lose George WIll, you've lost the argument. The NRA folks can keep repeating the mantra but it means nothing. Especially now, after what just happened.

I never considered myself a "Redneck".. Guess you learn something everyday... So let's see. The fact that I'm a member of the NRA and I'm white, makes me some whack-job myself all in itself

Laze: I'm a redneck... and proud of it. If you want, I will anoint you!! Sheriff

Thanks Sheriff. I was beginning to think I was some sort of "loner" on here and in the minority being a member of the NRA. I do feel some relief now.