Newtown
Display Avatars Sort By:
jeffrey armbruster
(book) - M

Locale: Northern California
"Newtown" on 12/25/2012 11:26:43 MST Print View

Once again I went over the top on my last post. I've gotta let this go.

Buck Nelson
(Colter) - MLife

Locale: Alaska
"Lost our moral compasses?" on 12/25/2012 11:33:36 MST Print View

We have lost our way and misplaced our moral compasses.

Presumably "we" are the people of the United States. Have we really lost our moral compasses? Is there a single person here that doesn't agree that this was a terrible act? Wasn't there an outpouring of grief in this nation?

People who commit these acts haven't "lost their moral compasses" they have lost their MINDS.

Homicide rates are about half of what they were in the early 90's. They are lower than in 1960.

Should we try to prevent further tragedies like this? Sure. But we need to look at things factually and not just emotionally or we run the risk of making some bad decisions based on inaccurate perceptions.

jerry adams
(retiredjerry) - MLife

Locale: Oregon and Washington
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Newtown on 12/25/2012 11:34:43 MST Print View

Ahhhh... it's good to have Nick back

We are in a period with gradually less socialism - Clinton ended "welfare as we know it", Medicade is less and less over time, there is Obama care but it says you have to get insurance from a company so that's hardly socialism

On the other hand, Medicare is increasing, but that's because the medical care providers have bought off the government. If we paid the same as other countries we'de be much better off.

I disagree about our forefather envisioning a minimal government. Like, Jefferson started the University of Virginia that provides free education and Washington advocated welfare for poor people.

Our forefathers rebelled against big corporations, for example the British East India Company which was selling cheap tea and otherwise undermining small businesses. I think that's what we have in common with the forefathers - corporation have/had too much power over the government.

Craig W.
(xnomanx) - F - M
Newtown on 12/25/2012 12:17:20 MST Print View

Odd that collectivism/socialism would be what people identify as the source of our social ills.

I look around and see a dominant culture that relentlessly pushes the exact opposite; self-aggrandizement, self-promotion, and self-absorption above all other values.

Personal-responsibility is a moot point when your sphere of concern doesn't extend more than a meter.

Ben Crocker
(alexdrewreed) - M

Locale: Kentucky
From the battleground to the schools on 12/25/2012 12:56:11 MST Print View

Do we really want to put, in our schools, men we trained to kill? Men who we put in situations to kill other people? Men who just went though the psychological stress of wartime? In our schools? With guns? I think I was lucky my principal in school didn't have a gun. I had enough imagination to give him plenty of reasons. There's no reason to do something this drastic.
Oh, and Happy Holidays everyone.

Edited by alexdrewreed on 12/25/2012 12:58:01 MST.

Ben Crocker
(alexdrewreed) - M

Locale: Kentucky
Forced medical treatment on 12/25/2012 13:02:33 MST Print View

There is not a ban on forced medical treatment as someone mentioned above. We do it regularly in our court system, both for physical and psychological problems. I'm not sure we need more of it, nut its factually wrong to suggest that it is prohibited.

Edited by alexdrewreed on 12/25/2012 22:08:15 MST.

Nick Gatel
(ngatel) - MLife

Locale: Southern California
Re: Newtown on 12/25/2012 13:11:59 MST Print View

"Odd that collectivism/socialism would be what people identify as the source of our social ills.

I look around and see a dominant culture that relentlessly pushes the exact opposite; self-aggrandizement, self-promotion, and self-absorption above all other values."

Perhaps one might consider that collectivism/socialism doesn't work and people feel entitled without effort because someone will provide for them?

Brad Fisher
(wufpackfn)

Locale: NC/TN/VA Mountains
Re: From the battleground to the schools on 12/25/2012 18:32:03 MST Print View

"Do we really want to put, in our schools, men we trained to kill? Men who we put in situations to kill other people? Men who just went though the psychological stress of wartime? In our schools? With guns? "

I couldn't more strongly disagree with you. Luckily we have laws in the US that prevent discriminating views against a group of people. Every group has a few bad apples, but you can't define a whole group on those. if that is the case then we have more than a few male teachers who have had inappropriate behavior with females students, so maybe we should just say no more male teachers.

Geez. I hate when people disrespect military personnel.

Ben Crocker
(alexdrewreed) - M

Locale: Kentucky
military in our schools on 12/25/2012 22:23:44 MST Print View

OK, so I'm unpatriotic because I don't think we should enlist our troops to guard our schools? Pull the 9-11 card next. Its hard to have a discussion whenbeing accused of not supporting our troops.
I don't have the delusion that our soldiers are perfect and can fix anything I do think they should be supported better upon return from war. And I think we should have far fewer veterans of war than we have. Accusing me.of.being unpatriotic because I don't think we should bring armed returning veterĂ ns to ourclassrooms does not make me unpatriotic.

Clayton Black
(Jivaro) - MLife
Re: Re: From the battleground to the schools on 12/26/2012 07:21:35 MST Print View

The military. Believe me most of us who have served are not trained as first responders and most of us are not heroes. But most of us have been happy to serve our time and have the honor of being called dutiful. Dutiful was enough to make us feel complete.

And yes we can spot slogan shouters, arm chair warriors and can tell when we've been used properly or not but still we continue to be dutiful. Ours is not to question why.

We soon find out that little of our training interprets well into the real world. We find out quickly those that shout the loudest quickly forget us upon our return from being dutiful.

We don't need cheap accolades and believe me we can tell the difference between the deadly force of a knife, a ping pong paddle, etc, etc ad nauseam and an assault weapon. We dislike and detest those cheap arguments. We don't like to have our rights cheapened by asinine arguments.

These same asinine arguments go into the heads of unprepared individuals that end up having little respect for the awesome force in their hands. Believe me when you pick up a finally tuned killing machine you feel more powerful and you need to be completely aware of that and anybody who says things or treats it differently needs to be ostracized and have their gun rights taking away from them. They are not needed.

People that are not accustomed to guns or have been close to something bad that has happened with guns have the right to be scared and worried that guns are making their way into the hands of unprepared individuals. The powers that be and I'm talking political and economical forces that we all know should publicly ostracize imbeciles that claim stupidities like ping pong paddles are more dangerous, etc etc.

Winding up and pushing buttons of people that are scared of guns and gun owners is ridiculous and counter productive. If gun owners really consider themselves the constitutional last line of defense then they should be giving comfort to their fellow citizens and showing themselves as serious stable individuals. Not loonies.

Not sure if I'm going to post this or not since I'm basically an agnostic and private person in most aspects of my life. So don't expect counter arguments. This post is what it is and will probably stand alone from my perspective. Nuff said.

Brad Fisher
(wufpackfn)

Locale: NC/TN/VA Mountains
Re: military in our schools on 12/26/2012 07:42:13 MST Print View

Ben,

Didn't say you were unpatriotic, just scared of what an ex military person. These individuals return ever day and look for new jobs in the US. Some become police officers, first responders, teachers, work in business world. I have several ex military personnel that work for my company and they are great employees.

Just because an ex military person is hired by a local law enforcement group and part of his job is to walk the school grounds doesn't make him a danger. This logic just doesn't make any sense to me. Many of the returning soldiers have kids in school and are on school campus a few times a year like many other parents. How are they more of a danger because they have a gun on campus. Really they could just bring a gun with them and walk into the school and cause carnage it they like. What is stopping them today.

You looked at a group of people and said they are trained to kill in the military, so they shouldn't have a particular job. Yet we have no problem in society with the returning military. Sure some of them have effects from the war and they wouldn't qualify for this type of job anyway. Has nothing to do with patriotism, but everything to do with discrimination.

You criticized the gun owner for being scared of a home intruder and having a gun for protection. Yet residential burglary is the only violent crime increasing of the last 20 years. I ask why are you scared of a police officer in a school? They are in our schools on a daily basis.

Ben Smith
(bsmith_90) - F - M

Locale: Epping Forest
Re: military in your schools on 01/28/2013 03:26:27 MST Print View

Having a man with a gun the other side of a school won't stop somebody walking into a classroom and killing all 20 (?) people in the room within a matter of seconds.

Why try to solve a problem whilst it's happening? It's totally illogical to wait until there is someone about to kill a child to stop them. This is an issue that needs to be dealt with at the source.

Brad Fisher
(wufpackfn)

Locale: NC/TN/VA Mountains
Re: Re: military in your schools on 01/28/2013 05:55:33 MST Print View

"Why try to solve a problem whilst it's happening? It's totally illogical to wait until there is someone about to kill a child to stop them. This is an issue that needs to be dealt with at the source."

I agree. So how do we deal with the source=individuals in society who want to commit crimes?

Ben Crocker
(alexdrewreed) - M

Locale: Kentucky
Make it less easy on 01/28/2013 06:16:47 MST Print View

We make it less convenient for them.

Brad Fisher
(wufpackfn)

Locale: NC/TN/VA Mountains
Re: Make it less easy on 01/28/2013 08:25:23 MST Print View

Agree deterrents work very well.

- Home security system with sign outside will reduce likelihood of someone breaking in
- Crime watch programs in neighborhoods decrease crime rate
- Visible law enforcement reduces crime (patrolling neighborhoods, on foot, at public events, etc)
- Many companies have some form of security personnel, gates, fencing, etc
- My son's elementary school has doors locked, cameras, buzz in process and resource officers who visit campus daily
- list goes on

Roger Dodger
(RogerDodger) - F

Locale: Wess Siide
[x] on 01/28/2013 12:31:33 MST Print View

[x]

Edited by RogerDodger on 02/07/2013 15:36:38 MST.

Lynn Tramper
(retropump) - F

Locale: The Antipodes of La Coruna
Re: Outsourcing security on 01/28/2013 13:33:37 MST Print View

"Either way, a gun is expected. If a police officer shows up without a gun, he better have Bruce Lee Jackie Chan skills or he's useless."

True in the US, but not where I live (so far). From an article I linked to in the 'other' Newtown thread, I highlight this, mainly because it is a stark perspective on how some of us living outside the US see the issues:

"The debate over arming our (NZ) police officers is once again reignited. Arming our police officers in no sense heads us on a path to becoming to new America. But, all the same, we mustn't forget the deadly force of firearms. An arms race with criminals is the last thing that New Zealand needs, and America has simply proven that is possible. What we must recognise is the importance of the safety of our public defenders, the police force. So we must be cautious with both sides of this coming debate. Firearms are machines, specifically designed to kill. Nevertheless, they also have the capacity to save lives. Firearms in the hands of professionals prevent harm. Firearms in the hands of criminals cause harm. New Zealand does not want the disgusting firearm culture of the States, so if we were to allow our police officers to carry arms, we must do it with caution. Extreme caution.

Thank goodness this is not America. Thank goodness ours is a relatively safe country, not at the mercy of the criminal. Thank goodness our politicians aren't insane, heartless, or at the mercy of equally-insane, and heartless lobby groups."

So in NZ, the majority of police do not carry weapons on their hips, and neither do the criminals. There are exceptions on both sides, such as our 'armed defenders' who are called out on special occasions. The police do not, in general, have super-hero martial arts skills. They mostly rely on their negotiating skills, and the fact that the criminals are usually equally unarmed. The police also now have tasers.

This comes back to what I said in the 'other' thread, that Americans seem to have mostly resigned themselves to internal terrorism. You cannot realise how sad this is if you have never lived somewhere where you don't fear an armed criminal (terrorist) behind every shadow. Maybe this is just the price America has to pay for being so successful, or maybe it is something that can change. But it won't change without a revolutionary change in attitudes and approaches to the problems. I am in no way saying things are perfect here We have very bad problems with domestic violence, child abuse and burglary. But these issues don't involve, on the whole, firearms. And most of the time they don't involve murder. It is so much easier to kill a person (or lots of people) with a firearm than it is with a knife, or cricket bat, or you fists.

Brad Fisher
(wufpackfn)

Locale: NC/TN/VA Mountains
Re: Re: Newtown on 01/28/2013 14:42:57 MST Print View

"This comes back to what I said in the 'other' thread, that Americans seem to have mostly resigned themselves to internal terrorism. You cannot realise how sad this is if you have never lived somewhere where you don't fear an armed criminal (terrorist) behind every shadow."

You have to realize that in the US the media has to make a story out of everything. Most people in the US don't go around worrying about being murdered. Most of the murders occur in the bad sections of large metro areas. Maybe it's hard to imagine but the US is not the old west and every town like Dodge City. However the media and others would like for many to believe that.

Homicide rate in US is 4.8 per 100,000.
2/3 by firearms so Homicide rate by firearms is 3.2 per 100,000
About half the homicides occur between people who are related or know each other

Boil it all down less than 2 per 100,000 are murdered by someone they do not know and by a firearm.

If I lived in a bad section of town then I might worry. However the vast majority of the US really doesn't worry about being murdered. I just don't know where you get the notion that people are walking around in fear.

As always I enjoy reading your perspective Lynn. It's good having others with different experiences interjecting.

jerry adams
(retiredjerry) - MLife

Locale: Oregon and Washington
Re: Re: Outsourcing security on 01/28/2013 14:44:13 MST Print View

no, no, no Lynn

the unsafeness of America is an exhageration perpetrated by the media that wants to sell more advertising, the NRA that wants to scare people into buying more guns, and the politicians that think scaring us will get them re-elected

unless you live in slum area of Detroit or wherever

Brad Fisher
(wufpackfn)

Locale: NC/TN/VA Mountains
Re: Re: Re: Outsourcing security on 01/28/2013 14:45:15 MST Print View

+1 Jerry.