Next Assault on 2nd Amendment: Mandatory Liability Insurance

[0121stockpicker]

I see you relate protecting our kids to money..

How about we cut out half the welfare in this country, that is enough to cover it many times over...

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

And yes I believe my kids are far more likely to be hit by lightening than be shot at school. So yes, I would be unwilling to pay for that. May be you could suggest that all kids where helmets in school all the time, mandatory hand washing, etc, etc. just like a liberal to be telling me how to live my life. TH your liberal big government solutions are not the answer and we don't want it.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

A History of Mining on the Kenai Peninsula, Alaska - Grab it through Amazon!

[Native Floridian]

Is it me or is just ironic that the anti big government crowd here is asking for armed guards in schools but doesn't equate creating policy for that, hiring, training, and employing those persons as increasing the size of government?

There is somewhere in the neighborhood of 132,000 public schools in this country. Put one armed guard at each, pay that person what, say $50,000 a year? That's probably under paying some one in that category, but at 50k a year to get this done, that's 6.6 billion dollars. Per year! So, yeah, it is very much about money. And that $6.6 billion doesn't cover benefits, training or equipment.

There will be work arounds like having the local PD cover, but that cost is still the cost. it's just a matter of how it is paid for. Out of which pocket it comes. The PD using their personel to cover schools either will give less protection to the community at large, less protection to the schools, or will have to hire extra officers.

Then there are districts like my home school district which has 19 schools. That's 19 officers! We'll need a chief, support personel and infrastructure. That is gonna cost!!! And, we don't even have anyone in our town to kick off welfare to pay for it!!

This all goes against the smaller government lower taxes ideology pushed by conservatives. Yet you guys want this?

 

[0121stockpicker]

Is it me or is just Ironic that the anti big governement crowd here is asking for armed guards in schools but doesn't equate creating policy for that, hiring, training, and employing those persons as increasing the size of government?

There is somewhere in the neighborhood of 132,000 public schools in this country. Put one armed guard at each, pay that person what, say $50,000 a year? I mean we would want someone at the highest level of security,right? That's probably under paying some one in that category, but at 50k a year to get this done, that's 6.6 billion dollars. Per year! So, yeah, Th, it is very much about money. And that $6.6 billion doesn't cover benefits, training or equipment.

There will be work arounds like having the local PD cover, but that cost is still the cost. it's just a matter of how it is paid for. Out of which pocket it comes. The PD using their personel to cover schools either will give less protection to the community at large or will have to hire extra officers.

This all goes against the smaller governement lower taxes ideaology pushed by conservatives. Yet you guys want this?

Funny we were thinking the same exact thing!! See me post above yours. Yes it is funny how all of a sudden they want big government. As you can see logical arguments is not a strong point of this crowd.

 

[Treasure_Hunter]

Police officers work part time off duty as guards for a lot less than that......


Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

 

[0121stockpicker]

Police officers work part time off duty as guards for a lot less than that......

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

Taking more of my tax dollars for another useless government run program - no thanks. You sure your not an Obama plant as some of the posters here like to say?

 

[Rebel - KGC]

Funny we were thinking the same exact thing!! See me post above yours. Yes it is funny how all of a sudden they want big government. As you can see logical arguments is not a strong point of this crowd.

LOL!

 

[Native Floridian]

Police officers work part time off duty as guards for a lot less than that......


Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

TH, we aren't talking about some half assed sitting on the door at Wal-Mart at Christmas gig. We are talking protecting our children. Full time! That's gonna cost, regardless of how you calculate the numbers.

There will be no inexpensive way to get this done. And, creating a new position will, in effect, create, an entire new bureaucracy. Every municpality in the Country will need a Schools Security department. Fully staffed with everything from paper clips and computers to Secretaries and vehicles. There will be the funding cost as School districts go to the bond market looking for cash. This is good news for me. Because i make my living helping muncipalities, including school districts, raise the money they need by finding buyers for their municipal bonds. It will only help me personally. But, to the point, this will not be a cheap ride.

And, even if you go with part time Police Officers, they won't work for 9 bucks an hour.

This means bigger government higher taxes for all of us.

 

[-Taz-]

Well that makes a lot of sense, wait for backup to bring you a weapon, what do they do ask the armed criminal for a "timeout" while guns are delivered?

What if the criminal or terrorist doesn't want to wait and starts firing, do they just throw rocks back at them?...:banghead:

That have been a the subject of many of jokes in England where they don´t have guns. What do the police say? STOP!!.....or we will STOP again!! Faced with an armed fellon that doesn´t help a lot. But the funny thing is, that in England, one of the largest countries in Europe, this isn´t a problem, because there is few weapons in circulation. One of the reasons for this is that the police don´t have guns, so the crooks doesn´t need guns either. Of course if you get a band of hard liners from eastern Europe , with AK47´s, they can do a lot of damage. But the chance of that is so slim that its not worth to arm the police.

 

[-Taz-]

TAZ - This isn't O'slow . . . you guys have that gun control thingy, and look at what happened:

80 murdered by single gunman

Again, you foolks don't get it - and I know it is a tired old statement, but:

WHEN GUNS ARE OUTLAWED, ONLY OUTLAWS WILL (DO) HAVE GUNS!

Now, like Danon (just picking Dano - you know my name isn't chad, but it doesn't stop ya so lets have some friendly ribbing), you guys have no dog in this fight aside from testifying how that gun control stuff has negatively affected your countries.

Of those 80, how many would have been armed if it were legal?

How many might still be alive?

Did gun control stop Anders Breivik?

Unless you are ANOTHER OBAMA DISINFORMATION OFFICER, can you honestly answer those questions and still support gun control?

Gun Control Laws Around The World Spurred By Mass Shootings


Disarming your citizens ENABLED Anders to kill 80 people. Don't you feel proud? So again, how's that gun control thingy working out for you?

Sorry, you are most likely totally wrong..

Crazy people can always do crazy things, the problem here was that he wasn´t crazy, he was very smart and picked an extremely soft target with a high political impact.

He did all the right things to get guns legally; joined a shooting club (have to be a member for at least 6 months to be able to buy a handgun). He also took the official hunting license (practical and written exams) which gave him the right to own rifles. These are the only two ways of getting a weapon legaly here (other then being a part of the national guard).

Of those 80 non would be alive with less gun control, most likely we would have more killed in total the last 10 years then we have now. This was a political youth camp, he attacked, on an island where there was a total of 5 adults present, the rest where people of the ages 14-22. If you are even considering arming people of that age out in public then I am sorry to say you should really rethink our perspective on life. They where going there for one week of fun and political discussions, why on earth should any one of them bring a gun??

Disarming citizens had NOTHING to do with letting Breivik kill 80 people, having strict laws on wepons has on the other hand most likely saved a lot of lifes through time. And its not like we don´t have any guns. Today there are about 1,4 million weapons in the hands of civillans (pop.5 mill). That’s one of the highest ratios in Europe. Most of this is however shotguns and hunting rifles, not guns that easily could be use to kill a score of people.

I am also pleased to see that after this event the solution wasn´t to arm the police, but rater invest more in helicopters and other equipment that can get the SWAT team on the spot earlier then they managed in this case, where they really let the ball drop.

 

[Dave44]

Since the DHS is so hopefully inept, and the employees in the airports are just sucking up oxygen, couldn't we fire all of them?

And then this could finally come true- "We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as
strong, just as well-funded." to protect the kids?

 

[-Taz-]

Gun Control Laws Around The World Spurred By Mass Shootings


Disarming your citizens ENABLED Anders to kill 80 people. Don't you feel proud? So again, how's that gun control thingy working out for you?

PS; did you read the link?....

Did it work? In Australia's case, the change appears dramatic. There were a dozen mass shootings with at least five deaths in the country between 1981 and the Tasmania massacre; there have been none in the 16 years since.

Studies have tracked a reduction in gun deaths in Australia since the 1996 reforms, particularly in suicides. The journal Injury Prevention reported in 2006 that the risk of dying by gunshot had halved in Australia in a decade.

In 2010 in Australia, there were 0.1 gun murders per 100,000 people, according to the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, less than half the rate of a decade earlier. In the United States the murder rate was more than 30 times higher, at 3.2 per 100,000.

The connection looks simple – countries with tighter gun laws and fewer guns have lower levels of gun crime.

But experts say it is not quite so straightforward.

"The irony in the U.K. is that in the four years from 1998 when handguns were fully banned, gun crime continued to rise," said Peter Squires, a professor of criminology at the University of Brighton. "We were in a phase in the 1990s when street gangs were becoming the new urban disorder ... and we were hit by a whole new problem of converted and replica and reactivated guns."

(BUT!!) In the long run Squire thinks the change in law did make a difference. Gun crime in Britain has been falling since its peak in 2002 – a decline also seen in other Western countries – and there are now only a few dozen firearms homicides each year.

But, he said, "for the first four years it played into the classic NRA script that gun control has failed."

The U.S. gun lobby sometimes cites peaceful, alpine Switzerland as an example of a country that has many privately owned guns and little violent crime.

Like the United States, it has a strong gun culture and with plentiful shooting clubs – but also a mass citizen militia. Members of the part-time militia, in which most men serve, are allowed to keep their weapons at home, and the country of less than 8 million people owns at least 2.3 million weapons, many stashed under beds and in cupboards.

But while Swiss homes contain guns, but little ammunition, which is largely kept under lock and key at local military depots. Most adult gun users have military training.

This link gave A LOT MORE argumentes PRO gun control, then against.

 

[bevo]

Are you insinuating that we should be more like norway? I always wondered why my grandpa left that country, maybe like million of others he wanted more
freedom.

 

[Dave44]

Are you insinuating that we should be more like norway? I always wondered why my grandpa left that country, maybe like million of others he wanted more
freedom.

And it is the reason that we are such a great country. LIBERTY!

The New Colossus ​

Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,​

With conquering limbs astride from land to land;​

Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand​

A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame​

Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name​

Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand​

Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command​

The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.​

"Keep ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she​

With silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor,​

Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,​

The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.​

Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,​

I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

Emma Lazarus

​

 

[0121stockpicker]

PS; did you read the link?....

Did it work? In Australia's case, the change appears dramatic. There were a dozen mass shootings with at least five deaths in the country between 1981 and the Tasmania massacre; there have been none in the 16 years since.

Studies have tracked a reduction in gun deaths in Australia since the 1996 reforms, particularly in suicides. The journal Injury Prevention reported in 2006 that the risk of dying by gunshot had halved in Australia in a decade.

In 2010 in Australia, there were 0.1 gun murders per 100,000 people, according to the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, less than half the rate of a decade earlier. In the United States the murder rate was more than 30 times higher, at 3.2 per 100,000.

The connection looks simple – countries with tighter gun laws and fewer guns have lower levels of gun crime.

But experts say it is not quite so straightforward.

"The irony in the U.K. is that in the four years from 1998 when handguns were fully banned, gun crime continued to rise," said Peter Squires, a professor of criminology at the University of Brighton. "We were in a phase in the 1990s when street gangs were becoming the new urban disorder ... and we were hit by a whole new problem of converted and replica and reactivated guns."

(BUT!!) In the long run Squire thinks the change in law did make a difference. Gun crime in Britain has been falling since its peak in 2002 – a decline also seen in other Western countries – and there are now only a few dozen firearms homicides each year.

But, he said, "for the first four years it played into the classic NRA script that gun control has failed."

The U.S. gun lobby sometimes cites peaceful, alpine Switzerland as an example of a country that has many privately owned guns and little violent crime.

Like the United States, it has a strong gun culture and with plentiful shooting clubs – but also a mass citizen militia. Members of the part-time militia, in which most men serve, are allowed to keep their weapons at home, and the country of less than 8 million people owns at least 2.3 million weapons, many stashed under beds and in cupboards.

But while Swiss homes contain guns, but little ammunition, which is largely kept under lock and key at local military depots. Most adult gun users have military training.

This link gave A LOT MORE argumentes PRO gun control, then against.

Interesting information. I'm surprised our resident posters aren't rushing to refute??

 

[Native Floridian]

Since the DHS is so hopefully inept, and the employees in the airports are just sucking up oxygen, couldn't we fire all of them?

And then this could finally come true- "We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as
strong, just as well-funded." to protect the kids?

No dave, we can't just fire them! We asked for protection and this is what we got.

For those advocating an in school protection force, be it one officer or a platoon, for the life of me, i can't figure out why any of you would think it would turn out differently than what we have at the airports.

As for a civilian force of volunteers, no way that's gonna fly in anyplace but Podunk.

 

[Dave44]

The "civilian force" seems to work very well in some circles.. some people think it is a GREAT idea.

 

[bevo]

where is podunk located?

 

[kayakpat]

I can see it now, a gunman opens up in a crowded mall or someplace, starts shooting, everybody runs, alot of people have guns, they pull them and start to shoot, people look around and see someone with a gun and shoot. I see a nightmare, in battle they are many killed by friendly fire, with uniforms and clear battle lines, in a crowded place, I see death everywhere, who get shot? anybody with a gun? I think we need to rethink this strategy

 

[Dave44]

I can see it now, a gunman opens up in a crowded mall or someplace, starts shooting, everybody runs, alot of people have guns, they pull them and start to shoot, people look around and see someone with a gun and shoot. I see a nightmare, in battle they are many killed by friendly fire, with uniforms and clear battle lines, in a crowded place, I see death everywhere, who get shot? anybody with a gun? I think we need to rethink this strategy

I see a New York Crime with cops afraid of their guns in your scenario,, OOps it kind of did happen like that, didn't it?

 

[Chadeaux]

Sorry, you are most likely totally wrong..

Crazy people can always do crazy things, the problem here was that he wasn´t crazy, he was very smart and picked an extremely soft target with a high political impact.

He did all the right things to get guns legally; joined a shooting club (have to be a member for at least 6 months to be able to buy a handgun). He also took the official hunting license (practical and written exams) which gave him the right to own rifles. These are the only two ways of getting a weapon legaly here (other then being a part of the national guard).

Of those 80 non would be alive with less gun control, most likely we would have more killed in total the last 10 years then we have now. This was a political youth camp, he attacked, on an island where there was a total of 5 adults present, the rest where people of the ages 14-22. If you are even considering arming people of that age out in public then I am sorry to say you should really rethink our perspective on life. They where going there for one week of fun and political discussions, why on earth should any one of them bring a gun??

Disarming citizens had NOTHING to do with letting Breivik kill 80 people, having strict laws on wepons has on the other hand most likely saved a lot of lifes through time. And its not like we don´t have any guns. Today there are about 1,4 million weapons in the hands of civillans (pop.5 mill). That’s one of the highest ratios in Europe. Most of this is however shotguns and hunting rifles, not guns that easily could be use to kill a score of people.

I am also pleased to see that after this event the solution wasn´t to arm the police, but rater invest more in helicopters and other equipment that can get the SWAT team on the spot earlier then they managed in this case, where they really let the ball drop.

Well, I can see the What's his name Tag Team is here in full force.

Ignorance on parade.

So, if you had a gun and I had a gun and I pull my gun on you are you going to piss yourself and cry or are you going to try to stop me from killing you?

You know the answer, however, as a plant here you are simply trying to confuse the issue.

Your argument is simply without merit. Either you are a plant or a child with no knowledge of life.

If we both were armed and you pull your gun on me you better damned well be fast. And if I'm close enough, it won't be a gun that causes that warm red liquid to leak all over everything. My life is more important to me than that of some jerk I don't even know. Why should I give up my right to see my kids and grandkids grow up?