US Connecticut Shooting

[Eleven]

That is true. But if armed people work for protecting them, why wouldn't being armed work to protect someone else?

We could put armed guards at every school and every public building if we wanted to. It'd look (and feel) like East Germany before the wall fell. I'll pass on that idea.

 

[ledboots]

We could put armed guards at every school and every public building if we wanted to. It'd look (and feel) like East Germany before the wall fell. I'll pass on that idea.

The public high schools in my city have resource officers on campus, who are armed police officers. They talk to the kids, advise, watch for truants, etc. It does not feel like a police state, these officers are very friendly.

This parent was glad to know the officer was there when I received the school emails that the school with my children in it was on lockdown due to a bomb threat.

 

[mlp]

To be fair, Obama's kids are just a littlemore likely than your average kids to need armed guard protection. The crazies would come out of the woodwork otherwise, since that school is filled with children of the rich and famous.

Not to mention that President Obama and his family have set the record for the number of death threats made against any President ever. But it's interesting to see how many people are apparently eager to see those two girls set up as bait.

That is true. But if armed people work for protecting them, why wouldn't being armed work to protect someone else?

Cool. Let's dispense with teachers altogether, and just send kids into camps surrounded by guards to spend their days. Most schools are already so understaffed with teachers that there's not going to be a practical reason to maintain the pretence, once even more teachers are laid off to make room in already stretched budgets for armed guards.

Of course, as Eleven said, that's only going to make other targets more attractive, so we'll need armed guards at every store, in every office building, vet clinic, beauty salon, etc.

 

[mlp]

Frankly, I'm at the point where I think it would be nice to move all of those of you who think gun ownership is a cool and sacred thing into one part of the country, and those of us who think we do fine without guns, into another. Two completely separate countries. Then perhaps those of you who are pro gun can be the ones to actually live with the consequences.

 

[ledboots]

No one wants to see the President's children or anyone else's children set up as bait, for heaven's sake.

The entire point is that the Sidwell school has had these armed guards all along, not just because the President's children attend school there. The same people who scoff at the idea of an armed presence in schools send their own children to schools with a dozen armed guards! If the guns work to protect their children, why not mine, why not the kids at the DC public school down the street from Sidwell, in a much more dangerous neighborhood? So armed schools only for the 1%?

 

[das_nut]

Frankly, I'm at the point where I think it would be nice to move all of those of you who think gun ownership is a cool and sacred thing into one part of the country, and those of us who think we do fine without guns, into another. Two completely separate countries. Then perhaps those of you who are pro gun can be the ones to actually live with the consequences.

Well, that's about as realistic as your other solutions.

I also love how you describe us as those who "think gun ownership is a cool and sacred thing" because of:

1. I'm not really into weakening the Bill of Rights over the current panic.
2. I've observed the current prohibition against drugs, the current ban on illegal aliens, etc, and I understand that outlawing something and eliminating something are two entirely different problems.
3. With the above in mind, I'd rather base gun control on facts instead of gut feelings.

 

[mlp]

No one wants to see the President's children or anyone else's children set up as bait, for heaven's sake.

The entire point is that the Sidwell school has had these armed guards all along, not just because the President's children attend school there. The same people who scoff at the idea of an armed presence in schools send their own children to schools with a dozen armed guards! If the guns work to protect their children, why not mine, why not the kids at the DC public school down the street from Sidwell, in a much more dangerous neighborhood? So armed schools only for the 1%?

Well, it's nice to see that you're willing to up your taxes to pay for all of that. You are, aren't you - willing to pay for all of that, even though, if I remember correctly, you often object to paying for things like universal healthcare?

Well, that's about as realistic as your other solutions.

I also love how you describe us as those who "think gun ownership is a cool and sacred thing" because of:

1. I'm not really into weakening the Bill of Rights over the current panic.
2. I've observed the current prohibition against drugs, the current ban on illegal aliens, etc, and I understand that outlawing something and eliminating something are two entirely different problems.
3. With the above in mind, I'd rather base gun control on facts instead of gut feelings.

About on par with your and Ledboot's idea of armed guards here, there, and everywhere, I'd say, with the added benefit of those being shot in the crossfire being the people who support guns.

Yeah, it's pretty easy to take what you consider to be a disinterested view of things while others pay the price. That view BTW, isn't based "on facts" - it's based on what you pull out to support your own ingrained viewpoint, just like everyone else. Kind of like the guy who has never gone hungry and supports a completely free market while others starve - easy stuff, when you're not paying the price.

And now I'm out of this thread before I say what I really think.

 

[das_nut]

Yeah, it's pretty easy to take what you consider to be a disinterested view of things while others pay the price. That view BTW, isn't based "on facts" - it's based on what you pull out to support your own ingrained viewpoint, just like everyone else.

No, you're wrong. Most people don't even try to look for facts to support them. While I reject statistics when I think they are implausible.

Here's the sad thing - you probably think I'm some very conservative gun nut, while my real viewpoint is far closer to pragmatic moderate. Except for my fondness of the Bill of Rights (mostly the other amendments, I don't really use the 2nd. Or the 3rd.), I'm pretty mainstream.

 

[ledboots]

No, you're wrong. Most people don't even try to look for facts to support them. While I reject statistics when I think they are implausible.

Here's the sad thing - you probably think I'm some very conservative gun nut, while my real viewpoint is far closer to pragmatic moderate. Except for my fondness of the Bill of Rights (mostly the other amendments, I don't really use the 2nd. Or the 3rd.), I'm pretty mainstream.

Me too, Das Nut. I don't have a gun in my home; I have protested every war since I was a little kid in the Viet Nam era. I am more likely to put a flower in the end of a rifle than to shoot it.

But the erosion of our constititional rights in this country in the past, say, 20 years, is breathtaking. The right to privacy is a huge joke now, freedom of speech is under multiple attacks, etc.

And I guess you misunderstood my stand on Universal healthcare, mls. It is exactly what I *do* want, not what is in this horrible 1000+ page bill that was passed without anyone even reading it. It is a terrible compromise of business, health insurance companies, the government and the AARP. Seven good obstetricians I know personally are retiring early because of this bill. Medicaire payments to hospitals and doctors have been cut again. They will not be able to make it financially, and we will end up with fewer hospitals, doctors, and nurses. Hospitals will probably have to be "bailed out" in ten years or so, with more tax money borrowed from other countries, and the government will own the hospitals, too.

 

[mlp]

No, you're wrong. Most people don't even try to look for facts to support them. While I reject statistics when I think they are implausible.

Here's the sad thing - you probably think I'm some very conservative gun nut, while my real viewpoint is far closer to pragmatic moderate. Except for my fondness of the Bill of Rights (mostly the other amendments, I don't really use the 2nd. Or the 3rd.), I'm pretty mainstream.

You've said that before, that I probably think you're a gun nut, and as I've told you before, no, I don't think you are.

I think you have no personal interest in guns, but that makes you more dangerous than a gun nut - by your apparently reasonable support of guns, you provide the gun nuts and those who make fortunes off of them (Limbaugh and his ilk, the whole big, profitable gun and other arms businesses) a nice shiny veneer, and by doing so, you support the gun culture in its entirety. (And by gun culture, I don't mean just guns by themselves, but this deeply ingrained idea that they are the ultimate solution to what ails anyone.)

You may or may not think I shudder whenever I see a gun. I don't. I have shot guns in the past, I may well shoot a gun in the future. They arouse no emotion in me.

A gun by itself, without all of that emotion attached to it (everything from "I have a basic right to this gun, a right as important as life and liberty", to "this makes me macho, this makes me secure, with this I can teach them a lesson") is a mechanism. But you're promoting all of that emotion, whether or not you will ever touch a gun. You're much like a vegetarian who says, "I personally don't eat meat, but I think it is extremely important that anyone who wants to eat meat do so - it's their God given right. In fact, just to make sure that everyone has plenty of opportunity to do so, we should up production at factory farms by giving them tax incentives."

Me too, Das Nut. I don't have a gun in my home; I have protested every war since I was a little kid in the Viet Nam era. I am more likely to put a flower in the end of a rifle than to shoot it.

But the erosion of our constititional rights in this country in the past, say, 20 years, is breathtaking. The right to privacy is a huge joke now, freedom of speech is under multiple attacks, etc.

And I guess you misunderstood my stand on Universal healthcare, mls. It is exactly what I *do* want, not what is in this horrible 1000+ page bill that was passed without anyone even reading it. It is a terrible compromise of business, health insurance companies, the government and the AARP. Seven good obstetricians I know personally are retiring early because of this bill. Medicaire payments to hospitals and doctors have been cut again. They will not be able to make it financially, and we will end up with fewer hospitals, doctors, and nurses. Hospitals will probably have to be "bailed out" in ten years or so, with more tax money borrowed from other countries, and the government will own the hospitals, too.

Ledboots, you parrot right wing talking points on a pretty consistent basis (I could cite you a couple from this post alone). It's hard for me to figure out what you believe, because you parrot these talking points, and then when you're questioned on them, you either refuse to engage or just whip out your flower child credentials. Maybe it's because you've led a sheltered life or maybe you're just one of those people who are oblivious to much of what goes on around you. (For instance, it is amazing to me that someone of your age (which I think is similar to mine) could work in healthcare and still be astonished at the prevalence of child sexual abuse, as you were not long ago.)

With respect to the healthcare bill, yes, it's imperfect, but it's the only thing that could get passed, and then just by the skin of its teeth. One has to hope that, as with any other major legislation, the implementation will force the necessary changes to be made.


As for gun control, you can both take comfort in the knowledge that you are almost certainly on the *winning* side. I have no expectation of anything meaningful happening - the money is there in support of the gun industry, which has its many willing dupes. So, as the preventable deaths continue on their daily basis, you can shed easy tears for the victims and continue to tell yourselves that you were absolutely right - these deaths weren't preventable, and in any case are a small price to pay for your interpretation of the Second Amendment.

 

[ledboots]

Sorry that I don't have opinions that fit into your preconceived shoebox. I have taken care of hundreds of children while I worked pediatrics. That is one reason I was surprised (in another thread) at the prevalence of child sexual abuse discussed in that thread. It was one of the factors we screened and checked for, and any findings were extremely rare.

As far as my being sheltered, well, I guess that is all relative. I'm an RN in an urban hospital who has worked ER and ICU, PICU, among others. Our ER nicknamed itself The Knife And Gun Club. I have also had babies die in my arms in the NICU, seen a mother bleed to death after childbirth while her sobbing husband held their newborn swaddled in a blanket. I have also had my share of personal tragedy, including the severe and lifechanging brain injury of my husband of 26 years while we were in our twenties. Since I have lived 54 years, I'm sure you understand that there are many other personal tragedies I could put out there.

I will leave this thread so you guys can talk about gun control, though. I originally came to talk about Newtown and the tragedy anyway, not guns. I know that dissenting opinions aren't welcome here, I just felt as if someone needed to give another side once in awhile. I'm not a good arguer or debater, though, so I will just let it go.

 

[mlp]

Sorry that I don't have opinions that fit into your preconceived shoebox. I have taken care of hundreds of children while I worked pediatrics. That is one reason I was surprised (in another thread) at the prevalence of child sexual abuse discussed in that thread. It was one of the factors we screened and checked for, and any findings were extremely rare.

Quite to the contrary - your opinions do fit within one of my preconceived shoeboxes.

As to the screening for sexual abuse - that's one of the things I find difficult to comprehend, the failure to realize that children will very, very rarely admit to a stranger that they have been/are being abused. It's even more difficult for them to admit to sexual abuse. There are many reasons for this, varying from fear of being removed from the only home they have ever known, to shame. Even in adulthood, it's extremely difficult for someone to talk about it.

 

[ledboots]

Quite to the contrary - your opinions do fit within one of my preconceived shoeboxes.

As to the screening for sexual abuse - that's one of the things I find difficult to comprehend, the failure to realize that children will very, very rarely admit to a stranger that they have been/are being abused. It's even more difficult for them to admit to sexual abuse. There are many reasons for this, varying from fear of being removed from the only home they have ever known, to shame. Even in adulthood, it's extremely difficult for someone to talk about it.

Of course we nurses realize children often don't tell about sexual abuse. It is a difficult thing to screen for, and we have guidelines to follow and child play therapists and social workers to call in if we suspect abuse.

I would really prefer not to talk with someone who has already put me in a shoebox and criticizes my life's work, so I won't be replying to your posts anymore. I have tried in the past not to address posts I felt were particularly insulting, but I apparently failed. I may for the first time in my life make use of the block feature.

 

[mlp]

Of course we nurses realize children often don't tell about sexual abuse. It is a difficult thing to screen for, and we have guidelines to follow and child play therapists and social workers to call in if we suspect abuse.

I would really prefer not to talk with someone who has already put me in a shoebox and criticizes my life's work, so I won't be replying to your posts anymore. I have tried in the past not to address posts I felt were particularly insulting, but I apparently failed. I may for the first time in my life make use of the block feature.

Feel free to do so. It's particularly effective when one makes a point of announcing that one is blocking posts.

BTW, I haven't criticized nurses, nor have I criticized your work as a nurse - for all I know, you're an outstanding nurse.

 

[das_nut]

It is exactly what I *do* want, not what is in this horrible 1000+ page bill that was passed without anyone even reading it. It is a terrible compromise of business, health insurance companies, the government and the AARP.

Agreed. Healthcare interests are a big part of why Americans pay far more for medical care than most nations.

Single payer is probably the best solution, but we'd have to divorce healthcare interests from our politicians to get an effective bill.

I think you have no personal interest in guns, but that makes you more dangerous than a gun nut - by your apparently reasonable support of guns, you provide the gun nuts and those who make fortunes off of them (Limbaugh and his ilk, the whole big, profitable gun and other arms businesses) a nice shiny veneer, and by doing so, you support the gun culture in its entirety.

I'm not the one running around pretending that "assault weapons" are exceptionally dangerous guns.

A gun by itself, without all of that emotion attached to it (everything from "I have a basic right to this gun, a right as important as life and liberty", to "this makes me macho, this makes me secure, with this I can teach them a lesson") is a mechanism. But you're promoting all of that emotion, whether or not you will ever touch a gun.

I'm promoting the idea that guns makes a person macho? ORLY? How?

I do promote the idea that an attack on one part of the constitution is very likely to become an attack on other parts of our constitution.

As for gun control, you can both take comfort in the knowledge that you are almost certainly on the *winning* side. I have no expectation of anything meaningful happening - the money is there in support of the gun industry, which has its many willing dupes. So, as the preventable deaths continue on their daily basis, you can shed easy tears for the victims and continue to tell yourselves that you were absolutely right - these deaths weren't preventable

ORLY? I don't know whose posts you've been reading, but I've stated before that cultural, economic and political changes will reduce gun deaths. I'm just skeptical of the idea that banning scary looking guns will do much. The effects of the first AWB backs me up on this.

 

[Wolfie]

That is true. But if armed people work for protecting them, why wouldn't being armed work to protect someone else?

It would work. But at a school the president's kids attend (or any school known for educating the kids of the rich and famous), it's pretty much a necessity. We can't really compare what's done for his kids to what's done for the average American kid. Thankfully most average American kids will remain safe at school without armed guards.

 

[das_nut]

It would work. But at a school the president's kids attend (or any school known for educating the kids of the rich and famous), it's pretty much a necessity. We can't really compare what's done for his kids to what's done for the average American kid. Thankfully most average American kids will remain safe at school without armed guards.

While the president is an exception, I suspect most of the children of the rich and famous don't face the likelyhood of violence that children of the not-rich-or-famous rich.

 

[Wolfie]

http://news.yahoo.com/claim-seeks-100-million-child-survivor-connecticut-school-003646074.html

Unbelievable some parents are trying to get rich off this.

 

[Wolfie]

Frankly, I'm at the point where I think it would be nice to move all of those of you who think gun ownership is a cool and sacred thing into one part of the country, and those of us who think we do fine without guns, into another. Two completely separate countries. Then perhaps those of you who are pro gun can be the ones to actually live with the consequences.

How are you going to keep the criminals, who don't care about gun bans, out of your side?

 

[Wolfie]

While the president is an exception, I suspect most of the children of the rich and famous don't face the likelyhood of violence that children of the not-rich-or-famous rich.

I never really looked into it but I would suspect they would be more at risk for kidnap for ransom, for one thing. I bet a lot of them go to schools with armed guards or have body guards.