Time for State Governments to take the lead on School Shootings

That's not true. Increased security at schools can help prevent school shootings. If they weren't soft targets, they wouldn't be picked....and if they were still picked, they wouldn't be as lethal with adequate security. The reason the debate centers around gun bans and gun confiscation is that those have been goals of a certain type of person for a LONG time and they'll use any excuse to advance their agenda, it has nothing to do with addressing the problem.

 

So you're idea of protecting schools with over 1000 students is armed guards? How many? 1 per 200 students? ok that's like 6 guards per high school.

6 guards X 200 schools. That about what Houston has.

That's 1,200 armed guards. GOOD LUCK.

 

Yeah, that could work but it would also require some other changes such as limiting the entries and exits and controlling access to the campus. Do you think it would be unreasonable to hire sufficient security like people would for literally any other large gathering of people? Also when it comes to the exact number of guards per student, I think that number can be worked out, but no sensible person thinks that 1 person can adequately guard 3000 students and when it comes to the school that got shot up recently, that's what we had.

When it comes to paying for it, if school districts can afford to pump countless millions into football stadiums and other BS like that they can afford to hire adequate security to keep their students safe.

Point is those are things that would actually help solve the problem, which is why it's what we should be focusing on.

 

[/quote][/QUOTE]

That's a wordier way of saying 'do nothing.' It's fine; we aren't going to begin to start to commence to agree about guns. I'm not a gun control proponent so much as an anti-second-amendment extremist. I want a total abolition of the right. So I don't think we'll find much common ground. On the functioning of government, however, everything done regarding guns by the states will ultimately get vetted in federal court, with anything substantial going to the USSC, likely to be defeated by the very open-ended Second Amendment. Don't hide behind states rights on this issue. The states do not have free will when it comes to legislating guns. Only the US Congress has any hope of passing meaningful legislation that could be respected by the courts. Saying the responsibility should lay only with the states is a bit of political sleight of hand to do nothing at all, but deny responsibility for doing nothing and letting more kids die. If the price is worth it, just own it and say your Second Amendment is worth more than people's lives.

People focus on the AR-15 because banning pistols too is politically infeasible. Then you turn around and say this smaller goal isn't worth pursuing because it is too small? We both know the game. It's the same thing with abortion on the other end. You can't get your real policy preference, so you try to kill it with a thousand paper cuts. Banning the AR-15 is like banning abortions in the third trimester -- not what you really want, but better than nothing.

Your school population estimate is too low. Elementary schools in Houston probably average 800. Middle schools twice that. High schools probably twice that again.

 

Gun regulation at the state level is the most asinine thing with no logic and reason behind it.

Do people not realize that there aren't custom agents at state borders? State regulation is useless.

 

No, it's not worth pursuing because it was proven ineffective when tried in this country already. So when you say it's "better than nothing", that's only true in relation to advancing a political goal of banning all guns, it's exactly like nothing when it comes to preventing school shootings or making school shootings less lethal.

 

You know what came before the second amendment... the second commandment -- this is an issue that needs to be handled at the GOD level not by bureaucrats in Washington or state governments.

 

Florida lawmakers talking about age restrictions on purchasing. I like that, as a baby step. (And I do mean baby step. Most of these young killers seem to get family guns or similar.)

 

we can barely fund schools as it is, and now you want armed guards at every school in America? Good luck LOL

 

It's a gun problem and should be funded by gun consumers and producers.

 

Just replace all teachers with armed guards: no teachers' unions. No summer vacations. Boom! No whiny liberal indoctrination of the nation's youth. No pollution from the largely liberal literary cannon. No brainwashing with so-called "science" and "math."

Just rooms full of kids protected by half-articulate armed guards, while learning nothing. But at least it's kind of daycare, and when they "graduate" with no job prospects, they will be angry and keep pulling that R lever with a vengeance.

 

You shall not make for yourself an image in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below?

 

Thou shall not 3D print gun parts.

 

And yet we have no problem building multi-million dollar football stadiums for high schools.....I think the funding argument is very much overblown by those who don't actually want to do something about the problem and instead focus on gun bans and other ineffectual BS.

 

You are actually dumb. I always thought maybe you are just playing an elaborate shitck, but no, you are legitimately dumb.

So you think every school district received the same funding? Then issue isn't that we don't have some amazingly well funded public schools out there.

The problem is that our school funding is tied to local property tax because we can't at a federal level find enough funding which leads to a situation where schools in poor neighborhoods get **** funding and schools in wealthy neighborhoods get amazing funding...


Which defeats the entire purpose of public education .

 

REPUBLICANS ARE COWARDS. They have ALWAYS been Cowards.

 

Yes, a state is not a country. There is no a border between two states, unless all states have the same regulations, then it becomes one country regulation.

 

How about back when they were pushing for the Civil Rights Act during the 50's and 60's? How about when they freed the slaves?

You sure they were "ALWAYS COWARDS!!!!!1111!!!!ONEONEONE" or if you are just really triggered right now due to being faced with political opinions you don't agree with and not thinking clearly as a result?

Take a minute and calm yourself and see if you don't come up with different opinions.

 

Southern conservatives who overwhelmingly vote GOP today were the ones vehemently against racial integration .

Same people, different labels. No doubt those same people would be GOP voters today .