Another School Shooting - This Time in Texas

Jump to Last Post 1-17 of 17 discussions (116 posts)
  1. Sychophantastic profile image86
    Sychophantasticposted 11 months ago

    Another day, another school shooting. This time it occurred in Santa Fe, Texas with up to 10 people dead.

    What's obvious is that these students could not defend themselves. Until all high school students are allowed to bring their own guns to school for self-defense purposes, none of them will ever be safe. We need to change gun free zones to self-defense zones.

    1. wilderness profile image97
      wildernessposted 11 months agoin reply to this

      Not sure I'm up to arming children that think the choking game, or huffing freon, is a great thing to do.

  2. Wesman Todd Shaw profile image97
    Wesman Todd Shawposted 11 months ago

    I like to believe you are being snarky. It is how I often am when discussing such things. Well, what is perfectly clear is that gun free zones work at least as well as drug free zones.

  3. Randy Godwin profile image92
    Randy Godwinposted 11 months ago

    Yes indeed, issue each child a miniature assault weapon--they probably make them right there in Texas as they do in Florida-- when they begin preschool and they'll be well acquainted with its use by the time they get to high school. They may come in handy with those pesky science teachers attempting to enlighten the students on the theory of evolution.  tongue

  4. Bills Place profile image88
    Bills Placeposted 11 months ago

    So, instead of the teachers having carry permits, your opinion is that fellow students should also be allowed to legally bring weapons to school too?

    My first thought, one student decides to shoot others, then all students pulling their weapon, bullets go zooming around the classroom, the active shooter is killed, but how many of the 'defenders' may accidentally shoot each other in the process?

    I can see the teachers being screened and provided the right to carry, but not students.

    1. Sychophantastic profile image86
      Sychophantasticposted 11 months agoin reply to this

      If we educate each student by having classes about the proper use of the weapons, then there will be relatively few problems and they will also be extremely safe. Education is the key. If some of their day is spent learning about the proper use of weapons and the other part is spent studying the Bible, as it should, then they will have the appropriate education to protect themselves and understand the value of human life.

      1. wilderness profile image97
        wildernessposted 11 months agoin reply to this

        You mean like educating them as to safe driving speeds, use of illegal drugs and safe sex?  We've done a great job teaching them be "extremely safe" there, haven't we?

        1. Sychophantastic profile image86
          Sychophantasticposted 11 months agoin reply to this

          Well, a car can be a very effective weapon for killing people, as we have seen. Since teenagers already have access to cars, it makes sense to allow them to carry guns to protect themselves. It will make schools safer.

  5. RTalloni profile image92
    RTalloniposted 11 months ago

    Welp...this is likely to get interesting. Here's something for the mix...

    Perhaps we should undo the entire educational system. A blonde girl (young woman, actually) in tears was interviewed this morning. She said that she didn't want to go back and that no one should go back.  I couldn't help but think how right she was.  Could it be that age-segregation has made students more vulnerable than any one wants to admit?

    What if it all changed. All the teachers complaining about the issues with their jobs could find different jobs. Students could homeschool, get jobs/internships, be mentored by parents, grandparents, bosses, and have many more opportunities in class-type settings with those who are at their same educational levels rather than at their same age levels. Where ideas like these are reality we find students doing quite well, learning to be grownups rather than digging in with attitudes about not wanting to grow up.

    Changing the education system to what it ought to be would change society, which would change the attitudes we face in medical systems, business world, and general workforce, and change them for the better. Teaching students that they have a right to have safety provided to them is to lie to them because this world has never and will never be able to provide safety no matter what anyone says.  Teaching them wisdom and knowledge and skills, however, is to provide them with the ability to confidently try to keep themselves safe and help others to be safe.

    1. MizBejabbers profile image92
      MizBejabbersposted 11 months agoin reply to this

      Kids being taught by their parents? God forbid. We've seen the results of that already.

  6. Randy Godwin profile image92
    Randy Godwinposted 11 months ago

    My previous post was satire, of course!  tongue

  7. profile image0
    ahorsebackposted 11 months ago

    This is NOT a time to arm high school students , Where is you people's common sense ?   There are enough  retired cops , military vets   ,  ordinary citizens , armed teachers and maintenance men   The middle school near me in a small new england town must have three dozen retired or semi-retired  adults within a quarter of a mile of the school .   Arming students would begin a cultural  war similar to WWIII , For God's sake , they don't even have developed minds yet !

    And you all know already that one more law no matter how generally inclusive will not EVER end a certain illegal act .  Did it or does it work for drugs   , burglaries , rape or assaults ?   This  will continue into eternity until adults get very serious about their own lack of child raising skills .  Fact !

    1. Sychophantastic profile image86
      Sychophantasticposted 11 months agoin reply to this

      Why not arm them? Don't they have a right to protect themselves? And what's the difference between an 18-year-old with a gun and a 17-year-old with a gun? My God, you sound just like a liberal.

      Perhaps if all students wore bullet-proof vests to school, that would reduce deaths. So I'm supportive of protection as well.

      1. profile image0
        ahorsebackposted 11 months agoin reply to this

        That doesn't surprise me ; You want to see kids with guns ?    Just take a trip to inner city Chicago ,  Phoenix ,  Detroit ,  L.A. Someone like yourself willing to arm school kids  ?     Gee , I hope you never have any ...... I won't say what I really think of your remarks , I'll get banned .

        Suffice to say , you know not of what you speak !

        1. Sychophantastic profile image86
          Sychophantasticposted 11 months agoin reply to this

          More liberal speak from you. Obviously, you're not a true supporter of the 2nd amendment. It's pretty simple: a good guy with a gun will stop a bad guy with a gun. If a kid can drive a car at 16, surely a kid can operate a gun safely. And there are many more law-abiding, good kids then there are bad ones. Teach them to safely use a gun and they would have prevented most of these tragedies. In fact, most of these tragedies would have never occurred because the shooters would have been too afraid to step inside the school.

  8. Bills Place profile image88
    Bills Placeposted 11 months ago

    'Safe sex' is a topic that has been 'taught' for years, but shows like'16 and Pregnant' and 'Teen Mom' still exist. If proper condom application cannot be followed, how can we expect proper gun safety to be followed?

    Additionally, if being taught the bible in addition to sex education classes, logically there would be no pregnant women until after marriage, right?

    As Forest Gump would say, "and that's all I have to say about that."

  9. Credence2 profile image80
    Credence2posted 11 months ago

    My, my, another one? This is beginning to become quite routine. Did not seem that we were dealing with this sort of routine carnage prior to a generation ago. Where is all of this coming from now? I know, it is the liberals, isn't it

    It is fitting that it occurs in Texas, a gun fanatic state. I am watching for their official responses and explanations.

    As I said in other threads, arming teachers is a dumb idea and arming students is even dumber.

    The parents of this minor should have to some bear some criminal responsibility for the crime of negligence regarding his or her charge. That is just another risk that gun owners need to be aware of and take full responsibility for, the things that your kids do with your weapons that are supposed to be under your control at all times.

    1. GA Anderson profile image91
      GA Andersonposted 11 months agoin reply to this

      Geesh Cred. I hope you took your sock off first.

      Considering the gist of what we know so far, the kid had no real history of "red flags" to portend this event. The guns used were not semi-automatics or dreaded assault weapons,  And I haven't heard anything yet about how he got his father's guns. For all we know they may have been securely locked up - and the kid defeated the locks or connived his dad out of the keys or combinations.

      Yet your first thoughts are that "it's fitting that it occurs"  in a gun-crazy state, (what a crappy and telling thought that is), and the parents should be held criminally responsible. What do you know that the rest of us don't?

      That is quite a gamble. You look smugly righteous if it turns out the dad got those weapons in some legal way that could only happen in a gun-crazy state like Texas, and that the dad just left the guns laying loose around the house. Otherwise...

      GA

      1. Credence2 profile image80
        Credence2posted 11 months agoin reply to this

        GA, it was not nice, as I don't like Texas, so your point here is well taken.

        No, we don't know, but the risk of being a gun owner, should make you responsible as an accessory if a minor gets access to guns that are under your control. I have noted that conservatives always look to the aberration in the individual as an excuse to get a neighbor to call authorities on any odd duck, civil liberties be damned. But, now I am asking a bit much to say that parents should have that sort of intimate knowledge of a minor child in their care. Either that or you had better find an even more foolproof way of securing your weapons. I won't let the Right have it both ways.

        Tell me you wouldn't find it odd for a kid to going around school in a black trench coat all the time in Houston's hot muggy climate? While there was no criminal records, discerning parents would find aspects of of this boy's behavior as suspicious. But, no, I going to hear the same kinds of excuses for parents being asleep at the switch that I heard from the parents of Klebold and Harris.

        Parents lose by default, either get control of the guns or your kids....

        1. wilderness profile image97
          wildernessposted 11 months agoin reply to this

          Are you an accessory if someone steals your car and crashes it into someone else?  What if it's their kid that steals it - are the parents criminally negligent?

          1. Credence2 profile image80
            Credence2posted 11 months agoin reply to this

            "Are you an accessory if someone steals your car and crashes it into someone else?  What if it's their kid that steals it - are the parents criminally negligent?"
            ----------------
            I not responsible for the behavior of an adult or a child that is not my own.

            https://www.nytimes.com/2001/04/20/us/2 … suits.html

            On the other hand even if the parents get off without criminal charge in this latest carnage, under civil court lawsuits they will be forced to pay damages as they will richly deserve. And like the financial penalty paid by the Klebold and Harris families this family will "pay" as well. So, is there anyway that the parents or legal guardian of a minor child who is found committing crimes on a heinous scale can really expect to get off of the hook?

            So, as I say to parents, you own a gun in the house and your minor child uses it to kill or maim, there is no escaping being held culpable in some way.  Be sure, it will prove quite costly. You keep your gun, but there is going to be a price paid if it is misused by you or someone is your household that you are the legal guardian for regardless of whether and it is your fault or not you remain responsible.

        2. profile image0
          ahorsebackposted 11 months agoin reply to this

          Credence  I missed the first part of your  crass and cruel response , "....fitting that it happened in texas ....an  gun fanatic state .........."  That's simply the way liberals look at all crimes isn't it ? As long as it's  NIMBY or my kids ,  or my gun , my car , my school , in my neighborhood ..............AND as long as it's not my problem . How telling of you to respond that way .   

          Electronic triggers ?  Do you mean like electronic responses in forum  posts?   Detached like the above of any conscientious cost or consequence ? I guess this is exactly how one can live in the middle of the city of crime , a society crumbling around them and remain sane ?  Electronic triggers ? There is not an object in the world that cannot be programmed or reprogrammed to the perpetrators desires .  A gun   a gun safe , a truck , pressure cooker or a rag and a jar of gasoline .............

          A cure ?    Never , as long as the responses to crimes like the shooting in Texas is received like the irresponsible  post above  . It's pretty obvious that "............I don't like Texas ......"in your response is just how you'd cure these shootings .

          1. Credence2 profile image80
            Credence2posted 11 months agoin reply to this

            OK, Ahorseback, you can spare me "the drama". I apologized for diminishing the magnitude of this crime. Unfortunately, I have the same attitude in regards to Texas that you have for, say, California. That arrogant, in your face, rightwinger persona that characterizes the state is just as grating as a piece of chalk on a blackboard.



            I am talking about a thumbprint on the wood or fiberglass part of the stock unique to the owner of the gun that can be verified by electronic means similar to a password on a computer to allow or not allow the safety on a weapon to be disengaged. Yes, anything can be disengaged, but that takes time and resources. People involved in hastily set up massacres and related carnage usually are pressed for time. Any roadblock is better than nothing.

            One helpful solution is making negligent parents and legal guardians pay a price for their poor judgement.

            1. MizBejabbers profile image92
              MizBejabbersposted 11 months agoin reply to this

              Do you two not realize that kids in Texas are sent out on the ranch for chores and carry guns in their pickup trucks in case they encounter a den of snakes or a rabid coyote? Seriously, I'm not making that up. City people have no idea of rural life. Maybe Texas should outlaw giving kids chores.

              1. profile image0
                ahorsebackposted 11 months agoin reply to this

                Not only do "city people " have no idea about rural kids and law abiding  gun owners ,  but apparently they have no idea about how to enforce the existing  gun laws already in place . Chicago comes to mind , Baltimore , Detroit , Camden NJ. ...........where gunabusers and  recidivist criminals are apparently rewarded !

                1. Credence2 profile image80
                  Credence2posted 11 months agoin reply to this

                  Obviously you are making a racial distinction. Well I don't, any minor doing mayhem with a firearm will subject their parents or legal guardian to a ship load of hassle. That applies to the gangbanger in Detroit as well as the Okie from Muscogee.

                  1. GA Anderson profile image91
                    GA Andersonposted 11 months agoin reply to this

                    Where was the "racial" distinction, I missed it? (surely not just the cities named? I mean, gee, what would that say in itself?)

                    GA

                  2. profile image0
                    ahorsebackposted 11 months agoin reply to this

                    No , I always leave the racial undertones  to you Credence ,  my point is to have you look at the intricacies of inner city violence , the culture of violence , a fad of violence if you will ,where the majority of gun crime originates  , that goes for drug crimes , violent crime etc.........If you wish to inject race into the mix all I can say is  " there you go again "   , It isn't racism  to inject the blame for the  higher statistics of crime where it belongs ,  in the per square mile population , obviously  the more people the more crime .

                    If  pointing out that one regional culture , or city group of a particular political leadership  has higher statistics of recidivism , youth crime , violent crime , gangs and such then why is it that you defend that obvious bump in reality by screaming "racism" ?   By doing so all you are doing is proving you have a bias keeping you from really delving into the intricacies of youth violence and youth crime problems.

                    You and many here  are simply ignoring and over simplifying that the cause of violent crime in youth culture runs deeper than a one issue solution ,  Any low IQ person with any grey matter at all knows that one issue solutions are generally a media ploy ie. the easy answer , turn your head the other way ,  turn the page , move on ,  not my child , not in my house ,  NIMBY.

              2. Credence2 profile image80
                Credence2posted 11 months agoin reply to this

                Thats fine, but parents and legal guardians are still responsible if the weapons are misused by their children, only adults can legally be the owner of a firearm in my opinion. Kids can deal with all the snakes and coyotes they want, but if they screw up, daddy and mommy pays.

                1. profile image0
                  ahorsebackposted 11 months agoin reply to this

                  This entitlement  infested culture doesn't hold young adults responsible for life in general , Why do that only with firearms ?     What about phone distracted youth drivers ,  What about mass child obesity ,  spring break alcohol drug abuses ,well hidden  campus sexual assaults ,  drug addled gangs and after hours street violence ?

                  KInd of picking on the coyote hunters ?

                  1. Credence2 profile image80
                    Credence2posted 11 months agoin reply to this

                    Let me make this clear, if you are the legal guardian of someone under the age of 18, you should bear some contributory responsibility for his or her behavior, since society does not hold minors to the level responsibility as adults. The portion that society does not hold against the minor is properly allotted to the parent or legalguardian. That applies to everything. You are not off the hook until the kid turns 18.

                    Does not matter whether whether you are hunting coyotes or snipes.

                2. GA Anderson profile image91
                  GA Andersonposted 11 months agoin reply to this

                  Oh geez Cred, you can buy straws by the hundreds at the Dollar store. With comments like this one, you need to buy in bulk. That is a far-side Progressive thought - even for you.

                  GA

                  1. mrpopo profile image73
                    mrpopoposted 11 months agoin reply to this

                    lol  I'm going to use that one in the future.

                  2. Credence2 profile image80
                    Credence2posted 11 months agoin reply to this

                    You're showing your red.

                    We got gun homicide problems with these kids and I am still hearing from conservatives all this "boys will be boys" stuff as an excuse. But, suggest anything about controlling the proliferation of firearms we get into all of this 2nd amendment issues, coronaries everywhere, akin to touching God's eyeball. Why should I take into consideration the one sided solution of the Rightwinger in regard to this issue? So what is wrong with my stance?

                    As I say, NEVER let the rightwinger have their cake and eat it too.

        3. GA Anderson profile image91
          GA Andersonposted 11 months agoin reply to this

          You are forgiven bud, I know the Dark Side pulls at you :-)

          Generally speaking, I agree with you that if circumstances warrant it. parents should be responsible, (in some way), for the consequences of their negligence - in all areas, not just gun-related ones.

          Let's look at the apparent circumstances of this particular incidence to see if it fits your general declaration of parental culpability.

          The "kid" hardly qualifies to be called "kid," he was 17. In most states, for certain crimes, he would be judged as an adult. Although all guns, can be called dangerous, I don't think these these two in particular - a revolver and a shotgun, seem to be of the category that would immediately elicit the concerns for caution that an "assault rifle" or Glock 9 would.

          If the circumstances are that there are no young children, or obviously deranged folks in the house, and, (being in a gun crazy state), the family is a gun-friendly and experienced one, I can see the reasonableness of storing these guns in a drawer or closet shelf, (the revolver), and the shotgun in a closet corner, (or something similar). If the first couple conditions prove true, then I don't see any negligence on the father's part.

          Hells bells, what if, as a "young adult man," in this gun crazy state of Texas, his father had taught him the proper safe handling and usage of these two weapons - and how to access them quickly in case of a family defensive need? Do you see that as a negligent fault of the father?

          As for the "kid's" behavior ... Most reports I have seen indicate that up until the last few months, this kid was a typically "good" all-American boy. But the trench coat? Yes, that could be seen as weird, but ask any parent that has raised kids through their teens and pre-teens about innocent phases and fads. Should a teen that wears cowboy boots and black cowboy hats in hot flip-flop and shorts weather also raise parental concern?

          Do you think parents have the responsibility - with no other indicting behaviors, to monitor their young adult's social media accounts - like they would a 9-13 year-old's?

          My point is that I think your generalizations fail in this incidence, and by such failure prove the error of making them, and the error of your instinctive reaction.

          But there is hope, admitting you have a problem is the first step, now to take the next one ... Most good-American Conservatives are not Right-wingers. Come on, you can say it. :-)

          GA

          1. Credence2 profile image80
            Credence2posted 11 months agoin reply to this

            You are forgiven bud, I know the Dark Side pulls at you :-)

            Generally speaking, I agree with you that if circumstances warrant it. parents should be responsible, (in some way), for the consequences of their negligence - in all areas, not just gun-related ones.
            ----
            (Agreed, thanks)
            -----
            Let's look at the apparent circumstances of this particular incidence to see if it fits your general declaration of parental culpability.

            The "kid" hardly qualifies to be called "kid," he was 17. In most states, for certain crimes, he would be judged as an adult. Although all guns, can be called dangerous, I don't think these these two in particular - a revolver and a shotgun, seem to be of the category that would immediately elicit the concerns for caution that an "assault rifle" or Glock 9 would.
            ---
            ( interesting debate, but I consider anyone under the age of 18 a minor. The Supreme Court said as much where it considered the death penalty cruel and unusual punishment when applied to normally capital crimes when committed by a minor.)

            (I think any firearm should elicit concern for caution as they all have one single purpose)
            ------
            If the circumstances are that there are no young children, or obviously deranged folks in the house, and, (being in a gun crazy state), the family is a gun-friendly and experienced one, I can see the reasonableness of storing these guns in a drawer or closet shelf, (the revolver), and the shotgun in a closet corner, (or something similar). If the first couple conditions prove true, then I don't see any negligence on the father's part.
            --------
            ( Don't get me wrong GA, it may well be that the parents were not directly at fault for the massacre in Texas. But the fact that there is any lethal weapon in the house and there are minor children, their charges, in the house, that makes them responsible, nonetheless. It might be just me, GA, but we all know what adolescence means. A 17 year old boy takes on the form and shape of a grown man, but with all the raging hormones he is lacking in emotional maturity and good judgement. That takes time and experience, and we have all been there once. I don't think that it all can be taught. That is why they cannot legally use alcoholic beverages, and insuring them to drive the car is so expensive. I would be concerned about having weapon in the house under such conditions, but again that just me)
            ---------
            As for the "kid's" behavior ... Most reports I have seen indicate that up until the last few months, this kid was a typically "good" all-American boy. But the trench coat? Yes, that could be seen as weird, but ask any parent that has raised kids through their teens and pre-teens about innocent phases and fads. Should a teen that wears cowboy boots and black cowboy hats in hot flip-flop and shorts weather also raise parental concern?
            --------------
            ( who says the kid was a good all American boy? Just like parents missed red flags about Klebold and Harris, I think that this kid had his own demons that he could not handle. Attentive and discerning parents should have been paying attention. The gun in the dresser drawer would be my first thought if there were any thought or observation of aberrant behavior from the boy. Pay careful attention to discern the different between following a fad and signals of a troubled personality)
            ------------
            Do you think parents have the responsibility - with no other indicting behaviors, to monitor their young adult's social media accounts - like they would a 9-13 year-old's?
            ------------
            (interesting question. I give older children greater autonomy and more responsibility than younger children. But, I am not really free to abdicate in regards to responsibility and supervision, not really, until they reach the age of majority.)
            ----------

            But there is hope, admitting you have a problem is the first step, now to take the next one ... Most good-American Conservatives are not Right-wingers. Come on, you can say it. :-)
            ------------
            (Sorry, for this I will have to keep up the suspense for just a bit longer)

            As always, nice chatting with you.....

            GA

            1. GA Anderson profile image91
              GA Andersonposted 11 months agoin reply to this

              Hey, we made progress Cred. That's always a positive thing.

              As a sidebar, I have another good read for you. I seemed to have picked up duplicate hardcover copies of Stanley Kutler's 'The Wars of Watergate'  An excellent read that is well-documented and sourced.

              GA

              1. Credence2 profile image80
                Credence2posted 11 months agoin reply to this

                Watergate? Sounds like fun. let me do a synopsis and get with you thru e-mail....

                1. GA Anderson profile image91
                  GA Andersonposted 11 months agoin reply to this

                  Sure thing Cred. The clue is the plural "wars." It covers other aspects besides just Nixon. Kutler is well-credentialed for the job.

                  GA

  10. profile image0
    ahorsebackposted 11 months ago

    As  common people , one might think that the repeating of these killings over and over and over MIGHT result in a people who stop the partisan  attitudes and seriously look to a real solution other than another law that never amounts to a thing .     What does it take to  look to the innocents ? Not putting them on the moral pedestals like parkland but considering their basic safety , and then DOING something !

    1. PrettyPanther profile image85
      PrettyPantherposted 11 months agoin reply to this

      Okay, let's do something. What should we do?

      1. profile image0
        ahorsebackposted 11 months agoin reply to this

        -Prioritize system-wide armed / trained protections
        -Panels of student disciplinarians each school
        -Armed resource officer every school
        -Mandatory Communication between law enforcement / education system
        -One metal detecting entrance per school
        -No backpacks , large bags
        -Repeal Obama crime forgiveness
        -No cell phones in schools
        -Arm  teachers / voluntary
        -Upgrade shooting situation / fire alarms
        -Cameras installed int. exterior
        -Mandatory juvenile violent crime recording /reporting
          no more protections for juvi's
        - Mandate Social media involvement
        - Fire teachers , admin opposing armed guards
        - Higher ed.Campus CCTV

        1. PrettyPanther profile image85
          PrettyPantherposted 11 months agoin reply to this

          I'm glad my kids are out of school.

          Firing teachers for having a different opinion? Authoritarian and unconstitutional.

          1. Credence2 profile image80
            Credence2posted 11 months agoin reply to this

            Banning cell phones is a non-starter. Communication is more than a just matter of convenience, but one of safety.

            How do you control social media involvement?

            1. profile image0
              ahorsebackposted 11 months agoin reply to this

              -Banning phones in classes ? We never had them and survived and tested higher too . Social media could notify of obvious criminal or threatening behaviors .

              1. Credence2 profile image80
                Credence2posted 11 months agoin reply to this

                I can see banning their use in class as naturally disruptive, but banning from school entirely. This isn't the same world you and I grew up in, Ahorseback.

          2. profile image0
            ahorsebackposted 11 months agoin reply to this

            Teachers and admin opposing change will obstruct necessary improvements ,  obviously the same people causing much discourse .

      2. Credence2 profile image80
        Credence2posted 11 months agoin reply to this

        Here is a crazy idea, perhaps those more familiar with firearms can speak to its viability?

        Why not design firearms with an electronic thumb print identification check where the safety feature on any weapon cannot be activated without the "chip" acknowledging the thumb print as that of the owner or some other person who would be authorized to use the weapon? I know the technology exists, but would it make your standard pistol excessively expensive?

        Without interfering with gun ownership, it could eliminate firearm use by those not authorized and could save lives in advance?

        1. PrettyPanther profile image85
          PrettyPantherposted 11 months agoin reply to this

          I think it's a great idea.

        2. profile image0
          ahorsebackposted 11 months agoin reply to this

          Mandatory locking gun safes would do the same thing .

          1. Randy Godwin profile image92
            Randy Godwinposted 11 months agoin reply to this

            Yes, as long as members of the family don't have access to the combination. Unfortunately, a hunting family may share the safe or the combination. So this wouldn't stop all guns from being used only by the owner.

            1. profile image0
              ahorsebackposted 11 months agoin reply to this

              Only the owner of the safe , father ?  would have access to locks .
              pretty simple,   Given that the real problem is human and not an object . The real solution is humanity and not a padlock.

          2. Credence2 profile image80
            Credence2posted 11 months agoin reply to this

            I don't think so, Ahorseback, the whole idea of having a gun is to be able to get to it quickly at the time of emergency, having it all locked up prevents you from being quick on the draw. If the only one under my proposal, electronic safety, that can use the gun is me, then it can't be used against me. Doens't my approach take the best of dealing with the human element by making the weapon more difficult to operate by unauthorized hands?

            So, what practical way is there to deal with humanity, short of serious violations of individual prerogatives and rights?

      3. MizBejabbers profile image92
        MizBejabbersposted 11 months agoin reply to this

        PrettyPanther asks what we should do. I know I'm gonna get brickbats for this nonpartisan answer. Start testing the kids for psychological problems. We test, test, and overtest these poor souls to death by the time they graduate. Add one more standardized test (make this for personality disorders) in the 4th grade and repeat upgraded versions of it as the kids get older, like in 6th, 8th, and 10th grades.
        Will this accomplish anything? Maybe, maybe not, but it will at least give society a false sense of security that their kids are being monitored and get the heat off guns. It might weed out a few budding psychopaths, a narcissist or two, and even a mama's crybaby. And that's it if the test functions at minimal efficiency. A few parents who are truly concerned about their children could have them professionally evaluated if they don't meet the norm. Any parent not wanting the child tested could opt out if he or she agreed to home school the kid under state laws and regulations.
        At best it really might catch a serious problem and get the child some help. One more test might not help, but it can't hurt as long as the results are not made public.

        1. wilderness profile image97
          wildernessposted 11 months agoin reply to this

          Just watched a show on mental illness.  One of the things the researchers did was check into a mental health hospital with the complaint that they heard voices - three innocent words repeated over and over, though I don't recall the words.

          They then immediately reverted to acting "normal".  When they were discharged, it was with the diagnosis of "schizophrenia in remission".  Not "sane" - mentally ill with it in remission, maybe for a day, maybe forever.

          The point is that we simply do not know enough about mental illness to make projections on future actions, and the medical profession agrees with that.  We already label our kids as ADD, etc. far too often with the intent to drug them into docility - lets not make it worse.

          Mental illness and guns are obviously intertwined, but the answer isn't an Orwellian knee jerk reaction to give Big Daddy in DC to authority to declare us insane and dangerous at their discretion.  We've been down that road with Communism and Hoover!

          1. Credence2 profile image80
            Credence2posted 11 months agoin reply to this

            Mental illness and guns are obviously intertwined,

            Not always, that Roof fellow that killed all these people in the church was following a playbook and knew exactly what he was doing.
            -----------

            but the answer isn't an Orwellian knee jerk reaction to give Big Daddy in DC to authority to declare us insane and dangerous at their discretion.  We've been down that road with Communism and Hoover!

            On that point we can agree.

            ------------------

            1. wilderness profile image97
              wildernessposted 11 months agoin reply to this

              "Not always, that Roof fellow that killed all these people in the church was following a playbook and knew exactly what he was doing."

              Disagree.  Anyone that goes out to murder people innocent of any wrongdoing is mentally ill.  It doesn't matter if they know what they are doing or not; they are mentally ill.  Call it the "Wilderness definition" - no sane person does that kind of thing.

              1. Credence2 profile image80
                Credence2posted 11 months agoin reply to this

                I don't agree with the "wilderness Corollary" history can show that not all mass murderers are inherently mentally ill. Heinrich Himmler, Joseph Mengele, Joseph Stalin, to just name a couple. These people knew what they were doing and why. Pure evil does exist, and cannot be excused.

                Interesting topic and lines or reasoning. I wonder what others think?

                1. GA Anderson profile image91
                  GA Andersonposted 11 months agoin reply to this

                  I think you are right Cred, pure evil - in the form of bad people does exist. There are bad people among us. And I agree with you that they are not mentally ill - in a strict sense. I can see Wilderness' point that they must be mentally ill to deviate from societal norms in such a way, but I think yours is the correct perspective.

                  GA

                  1. wilderness profile image97
                    wildernessposted 11 months agoin reply to this

                    Guess I have to backtrack a little here, for I do agree with the both of you.  But that nearly pure evil is rare, and these kids shooting up schools don't, I think, qualify.  Could be wrong - I certainly haven't met any of them - but I don't think so.

  11. profile image0
    ahorsebackposted 11 months ago

    Considering that everyone of these shooting has a history of lousy human behavior ignored by the education / law enforcement system . Let's treat the human element.

  12. profile image0
    ahorsebackposted 11 months ago

    https://usercontent2.hubstatic.com/14047055.jpg

    What new law , what federal  regulation , what congressional act or executive order can cure the American society of THIS ?   Millions of more than likely spoiled ,  bullied , emotionally entitled , video eductated , textually socialized , morally bankrupt offspring of totally  unknowing parenting ?

    When everything has been tried already , special juvenile laws and courts ,  early education , gun bans , assault weapons bans ,age restrictions , gun free zones ,  student counselling , guidance counselling  ,   mental health evaluations , educational  interventions at all levels ,   family counselling  ,  .....................?

    Why does this keep happening ? And what serious changes will end these tragedies ? Obviously  nothing?

    1. wilderness profile image97
      wildernessposted 11 months agoin reply to this

      If we can just take the guns away it will all stop - we won't mention the bombs he had already constructed and spread through the school and neighborhood.

  13. profile image0
    ahorsebackposted 11 months ago

    It's basically as simple as needing a cure all for insanity ,   Why doesn't the left get that ?  I say the left because who else is calling for more laws , restrictions and ultimately  sacrifices of liberty to be burned at the altar of reality . Those who repeatedly scream at these incidences for someone else to cure the insanity before them , in fact created by them ,  who else demands over and over and over for all sacrifice by others .

    1. wilderness profile image97
      wildernessposted 11 months agoin reply to this

      You're assuming the goal is to prevent violent deaths.  It isn't - the goal is to reduce/eliminate gun ownership.

      1. Randy Godwin profile image92
        Randy Godwinposted 11 months agoin reply to this

        Are you speaking for everyone, Dan? Or is this simply more opining from the right? I'm a gun owner and I don't wish to eliminate ownership of all firearms. I know many firearm owners from the left who feel the same way. It sounds good as more propaganda from the right though.tongue

        1. wilderness profile image97
          wildernessposted 11 months agoin reply to this

          Yes, I know that's the claim.  As ever more restrictions are added onto an already onerous collection - restrictions that a reasoning person understands will do nothing to prevent violence.

          You make your claim, I'll draw my conclusions.

        2. profile image0
          ahorsebackposted 11 months agoin reply to this

          Adam Lanza ,who  chose to kill the Sandy Hook kids  however first thought for whatever reason to kill his mother .  explain how another gun law or any law for that matter  would have prevented him from killing his mother before all the other victims? 
          A few facts for anti  assault weapons people to consider;
          --criminals aquiring a gun won't do background checks
          --Won't care if there is even a serial number to register
          --Won't care how many rounds the mag holds
          --Won't  be concerned about bump stock laws
          --Won't check to see if it's a gun free zone
          --Won't care if hot-wiring a electronic trigger is illegal when it becomes another law
          --Won't care  if Daddy or Mommy won't open the gun-safe so will probably use a molotov  cocktail instead .

          Criminal minds couldn't care less about a hundred new laws or restrictions.
          But someone here explain to us all please how it matters to you and why you think it will .

          1. Randy Godwin profile image92
            Randy Godwinposted 11 months agoin reply to this

            I'd rather have a chance with the kid carrying a smoldering Molotov cocktail than a kid carrying  an assault rifle with numerous 30 round clips on his person. But hey, that's just me.....

            1. profile image0
              ahorsebackposted 11 months agoin reply to this

              How about this kid with a shotgun and a revolver How does that add up to assault rifles ?  Ever watch Ted Nugent display the damage of a shotgun versus a rifle ?    Ever actually shoot a shotgun Randy ?

              1. MizBejabbers profile image92
                MizBejabbersposted 11 months agoin reply to this

                Yeah, really. Ever shoot a shotgun? My father wouldn't let me shoot anything larger than a 410 ga because of the recoil. He said that little ole me was too small to handle even a 16 ga. If the person behind the shotgun is in danger of getting hurt, think about those in front of one.

  14. profile image0
    ahorsebackposted 11 months ago

    https://usercontent2.hubstatic.com/14047685.png

    Sen. Chris Murphy ,Conn.  says."...... the second amendment isn't absolute ............."!  Well , another political genius heard from  , Better go back to school there Chris !

  15. profile image0
    ahorsebackposted 11 months ago

    "We Don't Have a Gun Problem , We Have a Culture of Violence Problem !"
    --Ollie North , Incoming NRA  President  say's it best .  In other words  try to get your kids under control will you ? That is and always has been the problem .


    https://usercontent2.hubstatic.com/14048533.jpg

  16. profile image0
    ahorsebackposted 11 months ago

    It is just  obvious that debating the same ole' same ole'  isn't amounting to what it should amount to.   Bottom line , these mass killings keep happening and are going to continue well into the future .   We can't even reach a consensus about what is wrong with the kids.   
    -Did making dope illegal work ?
    -Prohibition successful ?
    -How about  sex with children?
    -Does the threat of a felony in crime work
    -Embezzling laws working out ?

    Can anyone even begin to get it that laws aren't stopping most crimes , ever ?

    1. Credence2 profile image80
      Credence2posted 11 months agoin reply to this

      Without the laws just how much more prevalent would all these crimes become, to be able to commit them without the fear of prosecution or punishment? That is why you and most others don't exceed the speed limit, because there is always the risk of getting caught and fined.

  17. Kathleen Cochran profile image80
    Kathleen Cochranposted 11 months ago

    Folks: Save your breath.  Nothing will ever change.  If it didn't change after Sandy Hook, it won't ever change.  People are more concerned about their personal rights than about anybody (even their own children) else's life.

    1. wilderness profile image97
      wildernessposted 11 months agoin reply to this

      Pretty nasty statement.  Glad I don't have your outlook on life and my neighbors, friends and family.

 
working

This website uses cookies

As a user in the EEA, your approval is needed on a few things. To provide a better website experience, hubpages.com uses cookies (and other similar technologies) and may collect, process, and share personal data. Please choose which areas of our service you consent to our doing so.

For more information on managing or withdrawing consents and how we handle data, visit our Privacy Policy at: https://hubpages.com/privacy-policy#gdpr

Show Details
Necessary
HubPages Device IDThis is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.
LoginThis is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
Google RecaptchaThis is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
AkismetThis is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Traffic PixelThis is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.
Amazon Web ServicesThis is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
CloudflareThis is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy)
Google Hosted LibrariesJavascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the googleapis.com or gstatic.com domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy)
Features
Google Custom SearchThis is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
Google MapsSome articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Google ChartsThis is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
Google AdSense Host APIThis service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Google YouTubeSome articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
VimeoSome articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
PaypalThis is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook LoginYou can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
MavenThis supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)
Marketing
Google AdSenseThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Google DoubleClickGoogle provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Index ExchangeThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
SovrnThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook AdsThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Unified Ad MarketplaceThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
AppNexusThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
OpenxThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Rubicon ProjectThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
TripleLiftThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Say MediaWe partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
Remarketing PixelsWe may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.
Conversion Tracking PixelsWe may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.
Statistics
Author Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
ComscoreComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Tracking PixelSome articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)