Newsthump which talked about the NRA insisting that schools, not guns, are clearly the problem here and should all be banned.
I was watching Melissa Harris-Perry this morning and she had on one of the survivors of the VT shooting and he was talking about the group he's a part of tries to talk to politicians to address gun control and gun violence and the common answer is "I support you, but I can't do so publicly"
Support your local roller derby league
Charlotte Bacon, age 6.
Daniel Barden, Age 7.
Rachel Davino, Age 29.
Olivia Engel, Age 6.
Josephine Gay, Age 7.
Ana Marquez-Greene, Age 6.
Dylan Hockley, Age 6.
Dawn Hockstrung, Age 47.
Madeleine F. Hsu, Age 6.
Catherine V. Hubbard, Age 6.
Chase Kowalski, Age 7.
Jesse Lewis, Age 6.
James Mattioli, Age 6.
Grace McDonnell, Age 7.
Anne Marie Murphy, Age 52.
Emilie Parker, Age 6.
Jack Pinto, Age 6.
Noah Pozner, Age 6.
Caroline Previdi, Age 6.
Jessica Rekos, Age 6.
Avielle Richman, Age 6.
Lauren Russeau, Age 30.
Mary Sherlach, Age 56.
Victoria Soto, Age 27.
Benjamin Wheeler, Age 6.
Allison N. Wyatt, Age 6.
Christ, do I have to do all the thinking for the entire fucking Internet? - Michael P
Victoria Soto hid her kids in the closet and the bathroom, when the murderer came in, she said they were in the gym and none of the kids were harmed
Support your local roller derby league
I refuse to believe 'gun control' or better put: 'guns out of control' would merely be a matter of democracy or constitution.
Since the 'gun lobby' or 'the American steel lobby' wishes to be about selling guns. Selling guns to the military or anyone anywhere. All over the globe regardless. For better or for worse, be it enemy or 'ally'. Guns plus bullets plus even matching vests. In order to create an ever ongoing demand as long as guns would retalliate other guns. With bullets and matching vests.
To me any such would seem a problem, continuously until restrictions would come to be made. Restrictions would seem the only answer really. I'd think.
Chillingly good stuff besides Mignola, Slint, M, Knut and really big chunks of tinfoil?Been called a 'good egg'. Been told to rock, been told to steady myself. Been told to (please) be goin' places.
Half sunk in the mud, with one eye showing / a cracked smile and hair still growing /
your hands miles apart, as if they'd never met / you were the happiest I'd seen you yet. ~ (full) lyrics to 'Exhume' by Bedhead.
I was shaken up by this yesterday and asked the security at my school what they would do in this situation. They told me they have guns they use only in that situation. They are fully trained in how to use them and many are gun owners in their personal lives and know vast details about guns. Many have come up with scenarios on their own about how to deal with this should it happen and after discussing it with others some of them were put in place. They made me feel a lot safer knowing they were there.
My amazon reviews, check them out sometime!
a thought experiment along those lines:
Imagine that you ran a school district, and some rich foundation, worried about school shootings, gave you the following offer: We’ll hire armed security guards for you, who could try to do something about the school shooter. These aren’t going to be highly trained police officers, just typical security guards, given some modest training and subjected to basic background checks. It’s not like they’re highly skilled; security guards rarely are. But they have a basic understanding of how to shoot, and when to shoot.
They wouldn’t deal with ordinary trespassing, vandalism, and the like, nor would they be at all guaranteed to be effective in the event of a school shooting (who can offer such a guarantee?). But they’d provide someone on the ground who could try to interrupt a killing spree. And the foundation is paying, so it’s virtually no cost to the district. Would you say yes?
But wait! The foundation has just learned that its investment portfolio has done very badly, and the grant doesn’t go through. But someone else suggests: Instead of hiring special-purpose security guards, why not take some of your existing employees — teachers, administrators, and the like — and offer them a deal: They’d go through some modest training and subjected to basic background checks, and in exchange they’d be given the right to carry the same guns that the security guards would have had.
Indeed, this way you could have not just one security guard but several (if several staff members sign up). And you might get people to do this even without paying them, since they might value the ability to defend themselves and to not be sitting ducks should the worst happen...
What’s your answer to that? Is there some reason why the armed security guard is safe and helpful, but the armed teacher, administrator, or staffer — er, the teacher with a volunteer security guard license — would be useless and a menace?