school shooting in Nashville at the Covenant School

[Moped]

15 hours ago, gregintenn said:

Are you willing to run for office? Me neither. That’s how we get what we got. The world is ran by those who show up.

Everyone would hate my guts in the first 30 days in office.

[Capbyrd]

I’ve had a long time to mull this over and I believe that my opinions are about to be incredibly unpopular and some of you will likely view me differently, if you had an opinion of me at all. 
 

 

But I’m reminded of the cliche that freedom isn’t free.   I’m heartbroken for the families and friends that lost their loved ones.  I do not view this as anything other than the tragedy that it is.  And I know that cliche isn’t typically used this way but it’s the other side of the coin.  Sometimes bad things are going to happen.  
 

There are precautions we can take to minimize these risks but I’m not sure how I feel about police in schools.  I understand that the world is different than my generation and those older than me grew up.  But we didn’t have that.  Children already think of schools as prison and uniform patrol is going to be the prison guards.  I don’t believe that this is going to be healthy for our youths in the long term. 
 

I’m okay with this strategy if we are using it as a bandaid with a limited life span.  But we must attack the root of the problem and begin to reform our society.  I don’t know what that involves or what it looks like.  I’m not smart enough and haven’t done the required research.  But I know it must happen soon or we already much too late.  I fear the future.  I fear for our children.   
 

The strongest moves anyone could make right now would be to sit down at a bipartisan table and have honest discussions.   Lay out the goals and begin to map a path to achieve those goals.  We aren’t all going to get what we want.  But we must all recognize that concessions we make at that table are for the betterment of our children and ultimately our society’s future.  

[Grayfox54]

I see your point. But school ain't what it used to be. Schools have their own criminals that need to be watched. Gangs, drugs, assaults and theft are sadly all too common in today's schools. The cops aren't there just in case of an attack. They are there to maintain order in a sadly dangerous environment. 

[deerslayer]

8 hours ago, Capbyrd said:

There are precautions we can take to minimize these risks but I’m not sure how I feel about police in schools.  I understand that the world is different than my generation and those older than me grew up.  But we didn’t have that.  Children already think of schools as prison and uniform patrol is going to be the prison guards.  I don’t believe that this is going to be healthy for our youths in the long term. 

If we put Robocop or Gunnery Sergeant Hartman in schools and they terrorized children, I might agree with your concerns about SROs.  But we don’t, at least not around here.  The admittedly few SROs I know about or have experience with are actually fairly popular among students.  They clown with the kids and get along well with faculty.  Some schools even list their SROs as staff on the websites.  My experience with them is mainly in suburban schools, but it would be a mistake to assume they are merely protectors and not enforcers.  Suburban schools have many of the same problems as inner city schools. 

8 hours ago, Capbyrd said:

The strongest moves anyone could make right now would be to sit down at a bipartisan table and have honest discussions.   Lay out the goals and begin to map a path to achieve those goals.  We aren’t all going to get what we want.  But we must all recognize that concessions we make at that table are for the betterment of our children and ultimately our society’s future.  

If by “concessions” you mean compromises granted to more restrictive gun control proposals, I’ll pass.  I’ll willingly consider any gun control proposal that passes a simple two step litmus test - first, will it actually help solve the issue?  Second, are those proposing the change sincerely trying to solve the issue?  Is their proposal merely one of the prongs in a bigger agenda?  Have they actually educated themselves about what they are proposing?  Do they want to take guns while hamstringing police?  Do they also claim that NRA members are all terrorists?  When politicians propose banning AR-15s because the Nashville shooter was “able to fire 152 rounds in 15 minutes” (something any of us could pull off with a single action revolver), I can’t take them very seriously.  It’s a rare day when the latest proposed gun control laws pass my sniff test. 

Edited April 12, 2023 by deerslayer

[peejman]

13 minutes ago, Grayfox54 said:

I see your point. But school ain't what it used to be. Schools have their own criminals that need to be watched. Gangs, drugs, assaults and theft are sadly all too common in today's schools. The cops aren't there just in case of an attack. They are there to maintain order in a sadly dangerous environment. 

Gangs, drugs, and assaults are symptoms.  They won't go away until we understand the problem(s). Understanding won't be easy and fixing will be even harder.  Coming to the table unwilling to compromise accomplishes nothing. 

[BigK]

8 hours ago, Capbyrd said:

The strongest moves anyone could make right now would be to sit down at a bipartisan table and have honest discussions.   Lay out the goals and begin to map a path to achieve those goals.  We aren’t all going to get what we want.  But we must all recognize that concessions we make at that table are for the betterment of our children and ultimately our society’s future.  

"Concessions for the kids" is right out of the socialist/communist textbook. That's how they disarm society. Our Constitutional rights have been conceded repeatedl: 

1. National Firearms Act (1934)
2. Federal Firearms Act (1938)
3. Gun Control Act (1968)
4. Firearm Owner Protection Act (1986)
5. Gun-Free School Zones Act (1990)
6. Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act (1993)
7. Federal Assault Weapons Ban (1994)

Have the anti-gun side given any concessions? Even one?

[Capbyrd]

1 hour ago, BigK said:

"Concessions for the kids" is right out of the socialist/communist textbook. That's how they disarm society. Our Constitutional rights have been conceded repeatedl: 

1. National Firearms Act (1934)
2. Federal Firearms Act (1938)
3. Gun Control Act (1968)
4. Firearm Owner Protection Act (1986)
5. Gun-Free School Zones Act (1990)
6. Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act (1993)
7. Federal Assault Weapons Ban (1994)

Have the anti-gun side given any concessions? Even one?

You misunderstand my point.   I can see why it was taken that way.   Both sides MUST agree to honest and open discussion. Not debate.  Discussion.   Progress towards a common goal cannot happen without that.  And currently, no one is willing to have a discussion.  Politicians are more interested in remaining in office, while their constituents are too busy demonizing one another.  

[BigK]

4 minutes ago, Capbyrd said:

You misunderstand my point.   I can see why it was taken that way.   Both sides MUST agree to honest and open discussion. Not debate.  Discussion.   Progress towards a common goal cannot happen without that.  And currently, no one is willing to have a discussion.  Politicians are more interested in remaining in office, while their constituents are too busy demonizing one another.  

Fair enough, but I think you eluded to the unavoidable impediment. One side wants to solve the problem and the other side only wants to confiscate gun from law-abiding citizens. All they bring to the table is "get rid of guns" that's why there can't be a reasonable discussion. They bring bullhorns, mindless chanting, and signs, not reason, logic, or practicality.

[btq96r]

1 hour ago, BigK said:

"Concessions for the kids" is right out of the socialist/communist textbook. That's how they disarm society. Our Constitutional rights have been conceded repeatedl: 

1. National Firearms Act (1934)
2. Federal Firearms Act (1938)
3. Gun Control Act (1968)
4. Firearm Owner Protection Act (1986)
5. Gun-Free School Zones Act (1990)
6. Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act (1993)
7. Federal Assault Weapons Ban (1994)

Have the anti-gun side given any concessions? Even one?

Not by choice, but everything you listed is by and large overwhelmed by Heller and McDonald, the adoption of Constitutional Carry in a lot of states, and the Bruen decision (which will be more important as time goes on).

Legally, we're in far less danger of being disarmed than at any time since the post revolutionary war period.  These are salad days for gun owners unless you're fixated on full auto. 

[Capbyrd]

8 minutes ago, BigK said:

Fair enough, but I think you eluded to the unavoidable impediment. One side wants to solve the problem and the other side only wants to confiscate gun from law-abiding citizens. All they bring to the table is "get rid of guns" that's why there can't be a reasonable discussion. They bring bullhorns, mindless chanting, and signs, not reason, logic, or practicality.

You are wrong.   Have you ever had a real discussion with someone from “the other side?”   They want to solve the same problem but they view the path to get there differently.   Im talking about the average democrat here.  Not the ones in DC and not the talking heads on TV.    

[Omega]

I'm afraid we are at a point in our society where there is no "fixing" this, only minimizing the damage done in each instance.  We have to realize that Freedom is dangerous, and the more freedom we want, the more dangerous it may become. I will not trade Freedom for Safety.

As to guns, I for one will not abide with any more gun-control concessions, for the simple fact that pro-gun side are the only ones giving any.  If they feel gun-free zones work, great, start with government offices and government officials.  You think talking is better than armed security? Great, again start with the above.  No, the fact that every attack stops when the good guys arrive with guns should be acknowledged and be made easier and faster to get to that point.  

[Capbyrd]

2 minutes ago, btq96r said:

These are salad days for gun owners unless you're fixated on full auto. 

And I’m is!!!!  Until we can buy sheen guns, there is still work to do.  

[BigK]

6 minutes ago, btq96r said:

Not by choice, but everything you listed is by and large overwhelmed by Heller and McDonald, the adoption of Constitutional Carry in a lot of states, and the Bruen decision (which will be more important as time goes on).

Legally, we're in far less danger of being disarmed than at any time since the post revolutionary war period.  These are salad days for gun owners unless you're fixated on full auto. 

You're right, we do have the most defensible position we've ever had. It was worth fighting for too!

[BigK]

5 minutes ago, Capbyrd said:

You are wrong.   Have you ever had a real discussion with someone from “the other side?”   They want to solve the same problem but they view the path to get there differently.   Im talking about the average democrat here.  Not the ones in DC and not the talking heads on TV.    

To be fair, I have no clue what an average democrat is, but I don't associate with radically left people. I presume that means the only peopel from "the other side" that I interact with are the more moderate ones. If they are average, I find most to be Fudd democrats that only want to allow hunting weapons. They don't believe mass shooters use hunting weapons, so they seem to have similar goals as the radically left, they just have a stopping point for their confiscation plans.

[bersaguy]

I have noticed several people here talking about the SRO officers being in full uniform. Making them more like prison guards in locked down schools. Why does and SRO need to be in uniform. That would make him/her the first target. 

Why not put them in plain clothes and give them titles. How about a Dean of Boys and if a boy needs to talk to someone because he is in trouble let him talk to the dean. Have a Dean for girls also a female police officer. We had them in school back when I was in school but they were not police officers. How about a custodian or two of them instead of Deans but trained officers.  There are many ways to place SRO's in schools without putting them in uniform like prison guards. They could mingle with the kids and fit in. The Custodian was killed in the school shooting and it was said he was loved by the students......just an idea!!!

[Capbyrd]

33 minutes ago, BigK said:

To be fair, I have no clue what an average democrat is, but I don't associate with radically left people. I presume that means the only peopel from "the other side" that I interact with are the more moderate ones. If they are average, I find most to be Fudd democrats that only want to allow hunting weapons. They don't believe mass shooters use hunting weapons, so they seem to have similar goals as the radically left, they just have a stopping point for their confiscation plans.

The average democrat is the one that isn’t shoving their opinions down your throat. They are the ones that quietly vote for Obama and Hillary and Biden.   They are the average American.   Much the same way that there is an average republican doing the same.  

[Capbyrd]

3 hours ago, deerslayer said:

If we put Robocop or Gunnery Sergeant Hartman in schools and they terrorized children, I might agree with your concerns about SROs.  But we don’t, at least not around here.  The admittedly few SROs I know about or have experience with are actually fairly popular among students.  They clown with the kids and get along well with faculty.  Some schools even list their SROs as staff on the websites.  My experience with them is mainly in suburban schools, but it would be a mistake to assume they are merely protectors and not enforcers.  Suburban schools have many of the same problems as inner city schools. 

If by “concessions” you mean compromises granted to more restrictive gun control proposals, I’ll pass.  I’ll willingly consider any gun control proposal that passes a simple two step litmus test - first, will it actually help solve the issue?  Second, are those proposing the change sincerely trying to solve the issue?  Is their proposal merely one of the prongs in a bigger agenda?  Have they actually educated themselves about what they are proposing?  Do they want to take guns while hamstringing police?  Do they also claim that NRA members are all terrorists?  When politicians propose banning AR-15s because the Nashville shooter was “able to fire 152 rounds in 15 minutes” (something any of us could pull off with a single action revolver), I can’t take them very seriously.  It’s a rare day when the latest proposed gun control laws pass my sniff test. 

I didn’t say let’s not put cops in schools.  I said that should be nothing more than a stop gap or bandaid.   Actually, let’s do it today and call it a tourniquet.   It’s the best solution right now but will cause a different harm if left too long.   
 

 

[OldIronFan]

SRO's are not new by any stretch of the imagination. My public suburban high school had one 40+ years ago. He was a county sheriff deputy assigned to the school. Of course we were a fairly large school and were not without our problems but other area schools in neighboring suburbs had them as well. 

He was first on scene when a female student stabbed a male student with a steak knife in science class. She accused him of sexually assaulting her the weekend prior. He was first on scene when a small race riot broke out in the courtyard. We did have a heavy mix of urban kids bussed in from the south and some country folk bussed in from the north, it did not always go well. Race was a frequent issue in that school. He even responded to a student killed off campus. The student was beaten to death and left on the rail tracks by a couple other students over an argument that apparently started on campus. He also meet personally with any parent of a student who had died. We lost several to car accidents and a couple to suicide the years I was there. He was a part of the community as much as a part of the school.  

The rest of the time he kept a close eye on the comings and goings of the visitors and students around campus. He monitored our senior pranks and had to crack down a bit when they spilled out into the parking lots and pubic road that split the grounds. He did not directly handle discipline but he was treated and acted as a part of the staff. I never felt like it was any sort of prison or police state. I never felt like he was out of place or unnecessary. I just tried to avoid him, especially when I had a little weed on me or was trying to ditch the rest of the afternoons classes after lunch. 

Edited April 12, 2023 by OldIronFan

[RED333]

1 hour ago, Capbyrd said:

You are wrong.   Have you ever had a real discussion with someone from “the other side?”   They want to solve the same problem but they view the path to get there differently.   Im talking about the average democrat here.  Not the ones in DC and not the talking heads on TV.    

Yes, I have, I have a nephew that is left leaning too far. Every time we get around each other I bring up the second amendment and try to educate him on it. At the beginning, he did not understand the gun show loophole. When I educated him on it, I could see the lightbulb go off go off on top of his head. However, his wife wants nothing to do with it. She is from the north I won’t say what state but, But she will not even talk to me about anything at all. I have talked to other left-leaning individuals. And like both sides we are stuck in our heads, that we’re right and they’re wrong. They issue with the left is they can’t leave well enough alone. I see the left is being miserable and wants everybody else miserable as well.

[deerslayer]

1 hour ago, Capbyrd said:

I didn’t say let’s not put cops in schools.  I said that should be nothing more than a stop gap or bandaid.   Actually, let’s do it today and call it a tourniquet.   It’s the best solution right now but will cause a different harm if left too long.   
 

 

I don’t see what harm they are doing, but I haven’t witnessed the “prison guard” analogy in action.  

[deerslayer]

48 minutes ago, RED333 said:

Yes, I have, I have a nephew that is left leaning too far. Every time we get around each other I bring up the second amendment and try to educate him on it. At the beginning, he did not understand the gun show loophole. When I educated him on it, I could see the lightbulb go off go off on top of his head. However, his wife wants nothing to do with it. She is from the north I won’t say what state but, But she will not even talk to me about anything at all. I have talked to other left-leaning individuals. And like both sides we are stuck in our heads, that we’re right and they’re wrong. They issue with the left is they can’t leave well enough alone. I see the left is being miserable and wants everybody else miserable as well.

I’ve had numerous polite discussions with Democrats over the years about why I oppose something as harmless as universal background checks.  It usually goes something like this:

them:  Why are you against universal background check laws?
me:  Because they are unenforceable.  If I sell you a gun and we don’t tell anybody, how will that law be enforced?  The only way to enforce it is by mandating universal gun registration.  
them:  why are you against that?     
me:  Because then the government will have a list of everybody’s guns   
them:  Why is that bad?  
me:  Because what I have is none of the government’s business.  We have politicians who have said “we should do what New Zealand or Australia or whoever has done” and would use this new list to confiscate guns tomorrow if they could.  Or establish some Red Flag law targets.  Some are bloviating, but some are serious.   
them:  Come on, that’s crazy talk.  Like that could really happen    
me:  It already has happened and is sometimes followed by mass murder.  Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia, Cuba, Cambodia, take your pick   
them:  Man I don’t think that sort of thing can happen here. 
me:  Neither did they.

I don’t think I’ve converted any gun-grabbers, but I have gotten a couple Democrats to at least understand how one step hinges on the next   There are a few open minded Democrats, but I don’t think the “average Democrat” is willing to listen to reasonable 2A supporters.  

 

 

 

Edited April 12, 2023 by deerslayer

[Capbyrd]

31 minutes ago, deerslayer said:

I don’t see what harm they are doing, but I haven’t witnessed the “prison guard” analogy in action.  

Your relationship with police is very different from kids growing up in the poorer parts of town.   He’s officer friendly to those growing up in the suburbs.   He’s the enemy to the boys in the hood.  That’s another issue, well collection of issues, entirely.  But it’s the way it is.  
 

 

[deerslayer]

1 minute ago, Capbyrd said:

Your relationship with police is very different from kids growing up in the poorer parts of town.   He’s officer friendly to those growing up in the suburbs.   He’s the enemy to the boys in the hood.  That’s another issue, well collection of issues, entirely.  But it’s the way it is.  
 

 

There are a few suburban kids who don’t consider him officer friendly.  

[bersaguy]

I don't guess anyone liked the plain clothes cops in schools idea huh?

[TGO David]

14 minutes ago, Capbyrd said:

Your relationship with police is very different from kids growing up in the poorer parts of town.   He’s officer friendly to those growing up in the suburbs.   He’s the enemy to the boys in the hood.  That’s another issue, well collection of issues, entirely.  But it’s the way it is.  

It's almost like a person's upbringing factors into how they perceive the police.