Yet another school shooting in the US

[papafarang]

spot on tinpeeba, the NRA supports and fights for gun ownership so yes they are a huge part of the problem , in fact stick your head in the sand and say "no no no" that will make it right won't it. fake news from LS. you can't polish a turd, but he does roll it in glitter. I do think there is a cultural divide ,NRA members think they are protecting rights, the rest of the world sees them as ultra nationalistic right wing KKK members at best, or worse . part of the child killing machine

[Lone Star]

NRA members are to blame for supporting the NRA lobbying that blocks eminently sensible forms of gun control despite the majority of the US population being in favour of them.

It's time for you to back it up. What gun control measures that had support of more than half of Americans was not passed solely because of the NRA?

First, the NRA has no authority to "block" anything in Congress.

Second, every organization in the US has the right to voice an opinion. All Americans have a right to lobby for causes. They all have a right to petition Congress.

Third, the NRA's membership is less than 2% of the entire US population, but even if that number is wrong and it is much higher, why do Americans tolerate it if these issues are so important to them -- as you claim?

Fourth, why don't Americans vote out those members of Congress for allegedly following the NRA if so many Americans want these controls?

Fifth, Americans have proven throughout their history that if the majority seeks political and legal change, they make it happen. Why hasn't it happened in this case?

If all you can point to is an organization exercising their right to petition the Congress, then you're arguing against their freedom of speech and only repeating the hollow claims made by others.

[tinpeeba]

NRA members are to blame for supporting the NRA lobbying that blocks eminently sensible forms of gun control despite the majority of the US population being in favour of them.

"It's time for you to back it up. What gun control measures that had support of more than half of Americans was not passed solely because of the NRA?"

In 2013 a Gallop poll found that 65% of Americans favoured expanding background checks for gun purchases. The NRA's fierce opposition and lobbying led to the defeat of such measures.

"First, the NRA has no authority to "block" anything in Congress."

Agreed, I didn't say they had.

"Second, every organization in the US has the right to voice an opinion. All Americans have a right to lobby for causes. They all have a right to petition Congress."

Agreed.

"Third, the NRA's membership is less than 2% of the entire US population, but even if that number is wrong and it is much higher, why do Americans tolerate it if these issues are so important to them -- as you claim?"

These articles provide reasonable explanations for this phenonemon:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-41489552

http://www.newsweek.com/nra-gun-control ... ons-813940

"Fourth, why don't Americans vote out those members of Congress for allegedly following the NRA if so many Americans want these controls? "

Gun control isn't the only issue people have to take into consideration when deciding who to vote for.

"Fifth, Americans have proven throughout their history that if the majority seeks political and legal change, they make it happen. Why hasn't it happened in this case?"

Too many Senators in the pocket of the NRA.

"If all you can point to is an organization exercising their right to petition the Congress, then you're arguing against their freedom of speech and only repeating the hollow claims made by others."

I am very much in favour of free speech and organizations' right to petition. However, when their lobbying and propaganda is successful then they must accept responsibility for the consequences.

[Lone Star]

In 2013 a Gallop poll found that 65% of Americans favoured expanding background checks for gun purchases. The NRA's fierce opposition and lobbying led to the defeat of such measures.

. . .

I appreciate your effort to respond, and I congratulate you on providing much more than the typical poster that strolls through here with a one-liner and/or insults. Thanks for that.

I read your two articles that you posted. If their data is true, they both prove one thing. The NRA spends a lot of money protecting the rights of gun owners, and their lobbying efforts are extremely active. There was no evidence that the NRA bears the blame for new gun-control laws not being enacted. The claims are repeatedly made in both articles, but the evidence isn't there.

Members of Congress losing elections because they are on the other side of an issue as the NRA only shows what I have said all along: Overall, citizens don't want to give up their guns, and they're only interested in legislation that punishes criminals, not punishing law-abiding citizens. The NRA doesn't go to the ballot box and vote out elected officials, the People do.

There were two points made in your BBC article that back my position. There was discussion about congressional districts being "more responsive to their primary voters" and the legislators' realization of "the price for crossing these voters." The BBC article also claims that the rural areas outweigh the pro-gun majorities in urban areas that favor gun control.

In these congressional districts, the politicians are more responsive to their primary voters, who tend to be motivated by hot-button issues like gun rights. The price for crossing these voters is much higher than alienating those who, while perhaps more in favour of gun control, do not vote in Republican primaries.

Demographics also play a part in the pro-gun sentiment in the House, as there are more rural districts with higher levels of gun ownership than there are urban ones. Racking up big pro-gun-control majorities in urban areas does little to change this political reality in the House.

These two paragraphs help to make my point. It's the People who ultimately decide.

In addition, when Obama had Democrat majorities in Congress between 2008 and 2010, the pro gun-control Dems didn't attempt to ram through gun controls like they did with the ODontCare bill. As a result of that health care ram-down, the People blew out the Democrats in Congress in 2010 elections. Republicans had the largest gain in seats in 50 years and regained a huge majority in the House. Why does that matter? Because it shows that the People respond when they want something -- and there was no group like the NRA influencing them.

But the gun control bill referenced so often from 2013 didn't even originate in the House. The bill in 2013 originated in the Democrat controlled Senate and FAILED. It only received 40 votes in the 100 seat body controlled by Democrats.

The biggest objection that the NRA (and The People) had with the bill was regulations on family and friends making private sales to each other -- which in most states already requires a bill of sale showing the transfer of the firearm. Keep in mind that it is LAW-ABIDING CITIZENS who usually follow the law and create these bills of sale.

As a Washington Post article pointed out, the bill "would have criminalized certain private transfers of firearms between honest citizens. It would have required lifelong friends, neighbors and some family members to get federal government permission to exercise a fundamental right or face prosecution." There was an additional objection to this procedure in that the People believed that the federal government could have used the information to create a gun registry database, which Americans vehemently oppose.

The bill in 2013 was a knee-jerk response to the Sandy Hook school shooting, but there was NOTHING in the bill that would have prevented what happened at Sandy Hook. The firearms used in that shooting were STOLEN. Events leading up the shooting had nothing to do with expanding background checks that are already the law.

“My biggest concern with the legislation, the Democrat legislation on the floor, is it doesn’t address the problem,” said Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.). “It doesn’t target violent criminals. Instead, what it does is, it targets law-abiding citizens.”

Historically, recent attempts at gun legislation in the US targets law-abiding citizens, not criminals or those who make firearms purchases for offensive and/or criminal actions. The vast majority of American gun owners are law-abiding and purchase firearms for self defense and the defense of their families. That's only one reason why most gun control legislation fails.

The other reason that much of the legislation fails is that it is all lumped together. Rather than attempt to pass one portion at a time, which would make it likely that some of the legislation would be supported by the public and pass, lawmakers put it all into one bill. If there's one area of the bill that the People and legislators don't like, the entire bill fails. That's what happened in the Democrat-controlled Senate in the 2013 effort after the Sandy Hook shooting. There were too many things in it that either penalized law-abiding citizens or didn't address anything that could have prevented another shooting like Sandy Hook.

All of this being said, the fact of the matter is that members of both parties do not dare attempt to infringe on the gun rights of citizens -- and it's not because of the NRA. Members of both parties fear being voted out of office because the majority of their constituents want gun rights preserved. The NRA simply gives the gun-owner citizen a voice. As I have stated above, it won't be the NRA that votes, and it won't be the NRA voting them out. It will be the People -- just as they did when ODontCare was shoved down their throats. Again, there was no lobbying group like the NRA mobilizing the People against that horrid health care legislation and voting out all those Democrats from the House in 2010. It was a landslide defeat nationwide for Democrats. Again, when the People are on a mission, they promote their cause, and they vote.

You can certainly continue to blame the NRA for everything bad with guns in America, but bad people with guns are the problem -- not the law-abiding gun owners or the members of the NRA.

[newtovillagelife]

I think every US citizen should be issued a gun at birth. Keep your guns, your culture and your president. Arming all teachers and students should be mandatory. Long live the NRA!!!!

[tinpeeba]

Interesting article about gun control in Iceland:

Gun-loving Iceland hasn't had a shooting murder in more than a decade

http://www.euronews.com/2018/05/28/icel ... -n872726?u

[bumper]

Truthfully this is what confuses me about this issue. I'm 71 now there were guns all around as I grew up like most from the US in that generation. The only campus shooting I remember is the one from the tower in Texas, correct me if I'm wrong I'm working with just memory.

My generation did not go to school and shoot our fellow students or teachers.

So I don't see guns as the problem we had just as much access as they have today. So what is Different ?

To me that is the real question

[pal52]

I think you are correct Bumper.
I would put it down to Social Media & the ease of access to the Internet which we did not have years ago.
It would be interesting to see how much violent crime has risen since the introduction of social media etc.

[Lone Star]

Truthfully this is what confuses me about this issue. I'm 71 now there were guns all around as I grew up like most from the US in that generation. The only campus shooting I remember is the one from the tower in Texas, correct me if I'm wrong I'm working with just memory.

My generation did not go to school and shoot our fellow students or teachers.

So I don't see guns as the problem we had just as much access as they have today. So what is Different ?

To me that is the real question

Yes, I remember those days well, bumper. We're from that same generation. I remember the school parking lot full of pickup trucks and shotgun racks with the shotguns in them.

I attribute much of it to multiple breakdowns in US society -- divided family unit, justice system coddling criminals, bad behavior rewarded, breakdown of values and norms, blame game, inability to separate business from personal, compartmentalized cultures, lack of respect, population density, et al.

I read that article about Iceland that was provided above and then watched a video about Iceland and read another article. Several things jumped out that make Iceland much safer and more unified than many societies in the world -- including safer than the US.

- Low population density
- Unified in values and culture
- 95% Icelandic population
- natural border that is difficult to breach

https://guidetoiceland.is/history-cultu ... ut-iceland
A few of the things in this article that are characterized at bad are actually things that keep people honest and safe. You'll be able to pick them out easily when you see them.

[Giggle]

Diversity breeds victims. Iceland has neither.

[skinner]

Diversity breeds victims. Iceland has neither.

What a load of horse sh"t.. Reykjavik ( where 2 thirds of people live ) is quite multicultural .
As usual people who do not know about the place believe everything they see ( choose to see ) on the internet

Our resident extremist states that Iceland has a population that is 95 % Icelandic . NOT TRUE. Iceland is part of the Schengen area so its borders are Very open. Anybody can board a flight from other Schengen countries and enter Iceland with NO passport checks.

[Giggle]

[Lone Star]

Diversity breeds victims. Iceland has neither.

That appears to be true.

The video stated that 95% of the population is Icelandic. Wikipedia says it's 93%. Very close. Prior to doing that personal research, I had no idea about those numbers. I don't know when the video was made, and I don't pretend to know anything about Iceland other than what I read and through general geography courses.

According to Wikipedia, what diversity Iceland has currently -- no more than 10% of their population -- comes from Europe. The largest group from within Europe that immigrates to Iceland is from Poland. Even though Poland is by far the largest group, it comprises only a little bit more than 3% of all of the immigrants. Lithuania is .05% (half of 1%) and all of the other immigrants from other countries (the vast majority from Europe) are less than .033% (1/3 of 1% each).

It's easy to see that the immigrants are very close in their societal and cultural norms and values, which contributes to a very harmonious way of life and continues the unity within the society "in values and culture" that I mentioned in a previous post and was outlined in the video.

[skinner]

Diversity breeds victims. Iceland has neither.

That appears to be true.

The video stated that 95% of the population is Icelandic. Wikipedia says it's 93%. Very close. Prior to doing that personal research, I had no idea about those numbers. I don't know when the video was made, and I don't pretend to know anything about Iceland other than what I read and through general geography courses.

According to Wikipedia, what diversity Iceland has currently -- no more than 10% of their population -- comes from Europe. The largest group from within Europe that immigrates to Iceland is from Poland. Even though Poland is by far the largest group, it comprises only a little bit more than 3% of all of the immigrants. Lithuania is .05% (half of 1%) and all of the other immigrants from other countries (the vast majority from Europe) are less than .033% (1/3 of 1% each).

It's easy to see that the immigrants are very close in their societal and cultural norms and values, which contributes to a very harmonious way of life and continues the unity within the society "in values and culture" that I mentioned in a previous post and was outlined in the video.

You have never been to Iceland. I can see that.
Its easy to see what ?? I think its easy for YOU to see what YOU want. Icelanders are very far from from Poles and Lithuanians in their culture. I presume you think white Europeans are all the same ? Do you think white Europeans are like you , and think like you ?
Other cultures ( yes including muslims ) have no problems in Iceland because it is a LIBERAL DEMOCRACY. People are more OPEN MINDED than somebody as extreme as you

[papafarang]

Hey skinner... you can't argue with ultra right wing ..or... Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest you be like him yourself Proverbs 26:4

[bumper]

Actually mine is not a position on gun rights. A simple questions what makes people believe mass murder of innocents is acceptable in any form. More then guns have changed.

There is one simple fact you will never take all the guns away from people in America. You may get them from honest people the most you could hope for. You won't get them from criminals. I vase that on the time I worked in L.A. never took one gun from someone who was not a criminal. Living here now I can't have one and I seldom even think about it.

From what I can see these kids are using their parents guns. Requiring gun safes with a punishment attached proof that you have one for every gun you own. That might be possible and provide an added measure of protection.

There is no simple answer. But goes much further then guns. This last kid no one picked up the problems he had. He wanted to shoot the kids who had been mean to him. Sad very Sad

[Lone Star]

Actually mine is not a position on gun rights. A simple questions what makes people believe mass murder of innocents is acceptable in any form. More then guns have changed.

There is one simple fact you will never take all the guns away from people in America. You may get them from honest people the most you could hope for. You won't get them from criminals. I vase that on the time I worked in L.A. never took one gun from someone who was not a criminal. Living here now I can't have one and I seldom even think about it.

From what I can see these kids are using their parents guns. Requiring gun safes with a punishment attached proof that you have one for every gun you own. That might be possible and provide an added measure of protection.

There is no simple answer. But goes much further then guns. This last kid no one picked up the problems he had. He wanted to shoot the kids who had been mean to him. Sad very Sad

I agree with all of that, bumper.

The same LIBs/PROGs who claim that all illegal aliens can't be rounded up and deported are the ones who think they can remove all guns from law-abiding Americans. There may even be a new viewpoint on what you said about law-abiding Americans turning in their guns. In the present political climate, I don't see even half of law-abiding gun owners turning them in or self-registering.

Gun laws in California change every day. A gun owner found out that a firearm he owns, that was legal at the time he acquired it, is now illegal. Jeffrey Scott Kirschenmann, CEO of Kirschenmann Farms, LLC — a chief supplier of the potatoes used by FritoLay to make potato chips — found out the hard way that it doesn't pay to be honest and comply with the law.

Kirschenmann attempted to register what the state has deemed an “illegally modified firearm” through the state’s online self-registration website, which was required by the end of June or face charges if caught. Not long after he registered the firearm online, California law enforcement raided his home in April, and he was hit with a dozen felony gun charges on May 17. Kirschenmann was arrested and later released on $150,000 bail.

This story will serve as a warning to any other law-abiding gun owners nationwide who think the government will treat them fairly when making a good faith effort to follow the law. It's just another example of how "registration leads to confiscation."

[Lone Star]

Well, Giggle, that map pretty much backs up all the sources that I found online as to why Iceland's society is so harmonious.

Immigration has a pull factor and push factor. There are things that cause people to want to leave where they are (push factor) -- sometimes with no particular destination in mind. Just to get the hell out of where they are currently living. Sometimes that pull factor is greater and more specific, but doesn't have to be. People rarely choose to immigrate where they don't think they will fit in, and it's probably also true with Iceland.

Many expats here in Thailand had either a push factor or pull factor working -- or both.

In Iceland, the huge number of Europeans compared to Filipinos, other Asians and Indians, is probably why there are more Europeans than from other areas of the world. European societies are at least similar, and the Europeans who DO immigrate to Iceland don't go there to be adverse and not get along. They probably immigrate because they consider themselves to be a good fit and desire a change from their current lifestyle.

Giggle, I also did some further reading/research on Iceland's immigration laws. It's not easy to immigrate there. While European countries get a visa-free 90-day visit every 180 days, all people who wish to make Iceland their home -- immigrants -- need to meet Iceland's standards for personal income, have a job or be there for education. Many of the articles said it's not easy to have a job there unless it is in an IT field where there are shortages in Iceland. That's just a basic summary. There are more details that anyone can research on their own about it -- but Iceland appears to be very protective when it comes to immigration. I saw some similarities to Thailand's protective immigration laws. In one article I read, it stated that they only accepted about 25 or 30 refugees and that annually, Iceland's number of refugees is always very low.

[skinner]

Eastern Europeans go to Iceland to work for much higher wages than they can make in their home countries. Just like Mexicans in America. Most do not integrate , their culture is VERY different. Read as much BS as you want online and post links to articles you believe. AS YOU ALWAYS DO.
Have you been to Iceland ???
Work is readily available in Iceland to all , including unskilled workers .Your post is BS ( AS USUAL ) I BELIEVE YOU CALL IT FAKE NEWS .

[Lone Star]

The Great State of Texas is taking the lead on hardening the soft targets created by gun-free zones at schools.

The School and Firearm Safety Action Plan will allow armed military veterans in Texas schools for defense of students and teachers.

https://gov.texas.gov/uploads/files/pre ... 302018.pdf

The plan calls for a greater law enforcement presence throughout Texas schools by all means necessary. This includes having officers use schools as a stop for “breaks, lunch, or to file reports.”

Governor Abbott is asking the state to consider grants to help school’s offset the cost of providing such space and accommodating a great law enforcement presence.

Abbott’s plan also focuses on the use of retired police officers and employing veterans to serve as armed patrols in Texas schools:

Texas public schools are permitted to hire any person who is a licensed peace officer to provide campus security. Texas retired and off-duty peace officers already have extensive firearms and emergency response training, and many would be willing and able to protect Texas campuses. Texas should authorize schools to prioritize recruitment and hiring of such personnel to protect their campuses and their student bodies, faculty, employees, and guests. Hiring should prioritize individuals with the most applicable skill sets (i.e., former police, sheriffs, and constables).

In addition, the state should create a pathway for our veterans – many of whom have extensive firearm training – to help protect our schools through a modified school marshal program that ensures they have the appropriate training to transition their expertise into the campus environment. Veterans who complete tailored training and background checks should have the ability to once again serve their communities in times of need.

Abbott is also focused on arming more teachers. Of the 1,000 school districts in Texas, about 170 of them allow teachers and school staff to be armed on campus for self-defense. Abbott’s plan would increase the number of armed teachers and staff so that individuals intent on harming innocents will have to deal with the fact that good guys with guns are on the campus.