• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Ongoing gun violence/injury thread

In order to eliminate guns, the anti-gunners need to create the right mindset. This is part of the program.

http://radio.foxnews.com/toddstarne...tes-cupcakes-decorated-with-toy-soldiers.html


A Michigan elementary school is defending its decision to confiscate a third-graders batch of homemade cupcakes because the birthday treats were decorated with plastic green Army soldiers.

Casey Fountain told Fox News that the principal of his son’s elementary school called the cupcakes “insensitive” — in light of the shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Connecticut.

“It disgusted me,” he said. “It’s vile they lump true American heroes with psychopathic killers.”

Fountain’s wife made a batch of 30 chocolate cupcakes for their son Hunter’s classmates at Schall Elementary School in the town of Caro. The 9-year-old helped decorate the treats with plastic figurines representing World War Two soldiers.

The following morning Fountain said his wife delivered the cupcakes to the front office. The secretary complimented her on the decorations and then took the cakes to Hunter’s class.

“About 15 minutes later the school called my wife and told her the couldn’t serve the cupcakes because the soldiers had guns,” Fountain told Fox News. “My wife told them to remove the soldiers and serve the cupcakes anyway — and I believe she may have used more colorful language.”

The school complied and confiscated the soldiers — sending them home with Hunter in a bag.

“I was offended,” Fountain said. “I support our soldiers and what they stand for. These (plastic soldiers) are representations of World War Two soldiers – our greatest generation. If they aren’t allowed in our schools — who is?”

Principal Susan Wright released a statement to local media defending the decision.

“These are toys that were commonplace in the past,” she wrote. “However, some parents prohibit all guns as toys. In light of that difference, the school offered to replace the soldiers with another item and the soldiers were returned home with the student.”

“Living in a democratic society entails respect for opposing opinions,” she stated. “In the climate of recent events in schools we walk a delicate balance in teaching non-violence in our buildings and trying to ensure a safe, peaceful atmosphere.”
 
South Dakota governor signed a bill into law that allows teachers to bring guns to schools.

NPR - http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way...a-governor-signs-law-allowing-guns-in-schools
NYTimes - http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/09/us/south-dakota-gun-law-classrooms.html?_r=0


South Dakota on Friday became what's "believed to be the first state to pass a law that specifically allows teachers to carry firearms," as The New York Times writes.

Gov. Dennis Daugaard (R) signed the "school sentinels" bill that gives districts the right to "create, establish, and supervise the arming of school employees, hired security personnel, or volunteers." In some other states, less specific provisions in current laws could give school employees the right to carry arms. As NBC News has reported, 18 states "allow adults to have a loaded gun on school grounds, usually as long as they have written permission."

Enlarge image
After training, teachers and other staffers in South Dakota could choose to bring guns with them to school if their districts want to set up "sentinel" programs.

Jim Urquhart /Reuters /Landov
South Dakota's Argus Leader writes the the law signed today was "hotly debated this legislative session ... it was pitched as a way for small schools without nearby law enforcement to protect themselves against shooters or other dangers."

The Rapid City Journal says the law has been enacted "despite opposition from the education community." Don Kirkegaard, superintendent of the Meade School District, tells the Journal that "I just wish ... everybody would have talked a little bit together before we started passing legislation."

The law's passage and signing follows, of course, the Dec. 14 school shooting in Newtown, Conn., that left 20 students and six educators dead.

Under the new law, before creating a sentinel program a school district must "obtain the approval of the law enforcement official who has jurisdiction over the school premises."

The law goes on to state that:

— "Any person who acts as a school sentinel ... shall first successfully complete a school sentinel training course as defined by the Law Enforcement Officers Standards Commission."

— Districts may not require any teacher or school employee to arm themselves, and "no individual teacher or other school employee may be censured, criticized, or discriminated against for unwillingness or refusal to carry firearms pursuant to this Act."

— "The failure or refusal of any school board to implement a school sentinel program does not constitute a cause of action against the board, the school district, or any of its employees."

— "A decision by a school board to implement a school sentinel program pursuant to section 1 of this Act may be referred to a vote of the qualified voters of the school district by the filing of a petition signed by five percent of the registered voters in the school district."

— "Any person, other than a law enforcement officer or school sentinel acting pursuant to section 1 of this Act, who intentionally carries, has in his possession, stores, keeps, leaves, places, or puts into the possession of another person, any firearm, or air gun, whether or not the firearm or air gun is designed, adapted, used, or intended primarily for imitative or noisemaking purposes, or any dangerous weapon, on or in any elementary or secondary school premises, vehicle, or building or any premises, vehicle, or building used or leased for elementary or secondary school functions, whether or not any person is endangered by such actions, is guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor.

"This section does not apply to starting guns while in use at athletic events, firearms, or air guns at firing ranges, gun shows, and supervised schools or sessions for training in the use of firearms. This section does not apply to the ceremonial presence of unloaded weapons at color guard ceremonies."

We asked in December whether teachers who have "concealed weapons" permits should be allowed to have guns in schools. Nearly 58 percent of those who answered said yes; about 42 percent said no.
 
so how long until there is a shooting involving teachers in SD then i wonder?
 
how good or bad this law is all turns on the level of training and ongoing re-qualification the "school sentinels" receive. if its no more than most state's concealed carry laws, then this scares me. if they are actually going to make sure these people have solid skills and they have to re-test frequently, then maybe OK.
 
Yeah. Reading over that, it's not that bad at all. If I'm reading it right, it's optional and must be put to a vote if opposed by a written petition of 5% of the district. Again, if I'm reading it right, that's reasonable.
 
One of the most ridiculous aspects of the entire gun issue is gun manufacturers can largely not be sued for product liability like every other industry in the US can.

In 2005, the bought and paid for GOP Congress and W colluded with the manufacturers to pass the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCCA). This unprecented law basically put these companies in a unique class which above the law.

http://ideas.time.com/2012/12/24/why-is-congress-protecting-the-gun-industry/
 
One of the most ridiculous aspects of the entire gun issue is gun manufacturers can largely not be sued for product liability like every other industry in the US can.

In 2005, the bought and paid for GOP Congress and W colluded with the manufacturers to pass the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCCA). This unprecented law basically put these companies in a unique class which above the law.


Complete BS. The National Association of Manufacturers supported PLCCA because no manufacturer should be sued for third party misuse of a legal product. Firearms manufacturers are not in a unique class above the law. Can you sue Ford and Budweiser for deaths due to drunk driving?


More sage words from someone who does not want you to have plastic or metal boxes with springs in them, and thinks an AR15 is functionally different than a Mini-14...

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/201...-to-hunt-humans-with-high-capacity-magazines/

If you do not want to click on the link, here is the meat...

=================================================================================================================================

During a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on gun control Thursday, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) shot down a proposed amendment to her “assault weapons” ban that would exempt military veterans from the gun ban. She also made some questionable claims.

Pushing a ban on high-capacity magazines, Feinstein argued that it is “legal to hunt humans with 15-round, 30-round, even 150-round magazines.”

Here’s her dubious rationale:

“The time has come, America, to step up and ban these weapons. The other very important part of this bill is to ban large capacity ammunition feeding devices, those that hold more than 10 rounds. We have federal regulations and state laws that prohibit hunting ducks with more than three rounds. And yet it’s legal to hunt humans with 15-round, 30-round, even 150-round magazines. Limiting magazine capacity is critical because it is when a criminal, a drug dealer, a deranged individual has to pause to change magazines and reload that the police or brave bystanders have the opportunity to take that individual down.”
http://ideas.time.com/2012/12/24/why-is-congress-protecting-the-gun-industry/

================================================================================================================================

She needs to retire to the lofty pink dome of her fantasyland...
 
Can you point out a time when extended clips, magazines, what have you (not getting into a semantics debate) have proved lifesaving or helpful? All of these home invasion thwarted attempts people post about don't utilize them it seems.
 
"Complete BS. The National Association of Manufacturers supported PLCCA because no manufacturer should be sued for third party misuse of a legal product. Firearms manufacturers are not in a unique class above the law. Can you sue Ford and Budweiser for deaths due to drunk driving?

Also complete BS and oversimplification.

"Civil lawsuits do two important things: they compensate people who are injured by the bad acts of others and they penalize people and companies for bad behavior. If a company knows it may have to pay a large amount of money if it poses an unreasonable threat to others, it will have a strong incentive to act better.

Lawsuits prod companies to make their products safer. Years ago, lawsuits over the Ford Pinto’s fuel tank fires led Ford to recall the troubled car and improve the design. Since then, all sorts of consumer products — from aboveground swimming pools to children’s pajamas — have been made safer by litigation or the threat of litigation.



Read more: http://ideas.time.com/2012/12/24/why-is-congress-protecting-the-gun-industry/#ixzz2NA3g9QjP"


"More sage words from someone who does not want you to have plastic or metal boxes with springs in them"

Versus someone who willingly puts the public risk for no reason knowing lives would have been saved in Tuscon and aurora with such laws.
 
Can you point out a time when extended clips, magazines, what have you (not getting into a semantics debate) have proved lifesaving or helpful? All of these home invasion thwarted attempts people post about don't utilize them it seems.

Exactly.
 
"Complete BS. The National Association of Manufacturers supported PLCCA because no manufacturer should be sued for third party misuse of a legal product. Firearms manufacturers are not in a unique class above the law. Can you sue Ford and Budweiser for deaths due to drunk driving?

Also complete BS and oversimplification.

"Civil lawsuits do two important things: they compensate people who are injured by the bad acts of others and they penalize people and companies for bad behavior. If a company knows it may have to pay a large amount of money if it poses an unreasonable threat to others, it will have a strong incentive to act better.

Lawsuits prod companies to make their products safer. Years ago, lawsuits over the Ford Pinto’s fuel tank fires led Ford to recall the troubled car and improve the design. Since then, all sorts of consumer products — from aboveground swimming pools to children’s pajamas — have been made safer by litigation or the threat of litigation.



Read more: http://ideas.time.com/2012/12/24/why-is-congress-protecting-the-gun-industry/#ixzz2NA3g9QjP"


"More sage words from someone who does not want you to have plastic or metal boxes with springs in them"

Versus someone who willingly puts the public risk for no reason knowing lives would have been saved in Tuscon and aurora with such laws.


More BS. If someone beats you over the head with a baseball bat, should you be able to sue Louisville Slugger? Absolutely not. And the National Association of Manufacturers did come out in favor of the firearms manufacturers, and you cannot dispute that. Neither example you gave represents third party criminal misuse of a legal product. If my Beretta 686 Silver Pigeon blows up in my face with factory Winchester AA skeet loads, I have recourse with Beretta and Winchester. Outside of that, I am on my own...
 
More BS. If someone beats you over the head with a baseball bat, should you be able to sue Louisville Slugger? Absolutely not. And the National Association of Manufacturers did come out in favor of the firearms manufacturers, and you cannot dispute that. Neither example you gave represents third party criminal misuse of a legal product. If my Beretta 686 Silver Pigeon blows up in my face with factory Winchester AA skeet loads, I have recourse with Beretta and Winchester. Outside of that, I am on my own...

That's not what the law is about and you know it.
 
If that is intended for me I will give you two examples: post Rodney King riots and post Katrina New Orleans...

I do remember one or two examples of store owners firing shots in defense of their stores during the King riots. As I recall they did so with shotguns or handguns. I don't remember any incidents where a shopkeeper got into a multi-magazine shootout. Maybe you can provide some examples.

As for NO, everybody with anything worth defending got out of New Orleans before the shit hit the fan. I don't remember any stories from NO of home/business owners defending their property with guns, certainly not any multi-magazine shootouts. Again, feel free to provide some examples.

Wayne LaPierre used post-Hurricane Sandy NYC as an example in a recent fundraising letter. There were no reported multi-magazine shootouts there either.

The fact is criminals are greedy cowards. They want loot, not to shoot somebody. 90% (unscientific estimate) are going to split when the homeowner flips on the lights and yells to get out. Another 9.9%(unscientific estimate) will certainly split when the first shot is fired. I suppose there is a 0.1% (unscientific estimate) that are willing to get in a gun battle, but these are the complete psychopath killer types (Christopher Doran comes to mind) - they are bent on killing, and if they want to kill you, they're probably going to plan it ahead of time and you'll be dead before you can get to your AR-15.
 
Double BS and RJ cannot even prove it...

I showed you an article that showed your are simple an extremist in your position. You are out of touch with reality on issues relating to guns.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way...ft-immunity-for-gun-manufacturers-and-dealers

"The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act favors an industry that, at best, turns a blind eye to business practices that place profit over victims. As Forbes admits, the result is that "gun manufacturers have won double-barreled protection from Congress against the type of lawsuits that bedevil the makers of everything from toys to tractor-trailers." Although legal experts like Andrew Cohen, posting in The Atlantic, are starting to highlight this unnecessary and unprecedented immunity for the gun industry, further attention would better inform current calls to hold gun companies accountable in court. As leaders of Congress state that "every idea should be on the table" in attempting to prevent another tragedy like the Newtown massacre, major news outlets should investigate why the gun industry remains shielded by law from the consequences of its irresponsible business practices in a way that other industries are no"

You are so far out of the mainstream mapquest couldn't find you.
 
You just posted the opinion of others just like it is fact...

"As leaders of Congress"

" unprecedented immunity for the gun industry"

"major news outlets should investigate why the gun industry remains shielded by law from the consequences of its irresponsible business practices in a way that other industries are no"


These are statements you just posted as if they are fact, and all they are is opinion. Feel free to post the Protection of Lawful Commecrce Act word by word when you get a chance...

I love the fact that you call me an extremist. Eagle Scout with two palms, WFU grad, US army vet.
 
Back
Top