Parents in red-leaning suburbs outside NYC green-lighting armed security at public schools

[JoeB131]

how you stop armed shooters is simple.

Metal detectors and searches at the door to get into the school.

Notice how few mass shootings there are in federal courthouses and penitentiaries? People are searched when they go in.

Shouldn't America value its school children as much as we do our bureaucrats and child molesters? Having the kids , particularly those in urban hell hole schools, learn how to submit to body cavity searches and metal detectors will also help them as adults, as it will help them adjust when they are in the prison system themselves.

Actually, it's not the urban schools that have issues with mass shooters, because those kids know how to duck.

It's the suburban schools like Parkland and Sandy Hook and Columbine and Ulvalde.

 

[JoeB131]

Joe wants the minimum wage clerk at the gun store to be able to deny Jerome a firearm because "He looks crazy".

works for me. Of course, he can totally sell Jerome a weapon. Just realize he, his boss, and the gun maker will all be held liable when Jerome does shoot someone.

You'd be amazed how hard it will be for Jerome to get a gun after that.

 

[hadit]

works for me. Of course, he can totally sell Jerome a weapon. Just realize he, his boss, and the gun maker will all be held liable when Jerome does shoot someone.

You'd be amazed how hard it will be for Jerome to get a gun after that.

That's my point, you would be weaponizing racist clerks, because all they'd have to do say Jerome looks crazy and both the store and the manufacturer would back them up. Of course, then we would need legislation that makes discriminating against black gun purchasers illegal, and there we'd be, loopholes already.

 

[JoeB131]

That's my point, you would be weaponizing racist clerks, because all they'd have to do say Jerome looks crazy and both the store and the manufacturer would back them up. Of course, then we would need legislation that makes discriminating against black gun purchasers illegal, and there we'd be, loopholes already.

Or not. Most black people don't want more guns in the hood, so I doubt anyone will be clamoring for that.

 

[LibertyKid]

The government has tanks and A-bombs. You aren't taking anything back with your little pee-shooter.

I've told you before, that this argument is false based on the assumption that the military will blindly follow orders of a tyrannical gov't. If you think for one second that the military will just shoot at its own civilians and use A-Bombs, you've lost all sensibility and logic. And if any president, tries to invoke the insurrection act, when the gov't or the POTUS is tyrannical, instant civil war. So you better have your .22 pee shooter dusted off and lubed up.

 

[JoeB131]

I've told you before, that this argument is false based on the assumption that the military will blindly follow orders of a tyrannical gov't. If you think for one second that the military will just shoot at its own civilians and use A-Bombs, you've lost all sensibility and logic. And if any president, tries to invoke the insurrection act, when the gov't or the POTUS is tyrannical, instant civil war. So you better have your .22 pee shooter dusted off and lubed up.

Again, it's amusing to read your gun fetishist wank fantasies.

The military would have no problem shooting at civilians. Just look at Waco. Or Kent State.

 

[AZrailwhale]

Uh, guy, our prisons are already hell and we put more people there than any other country in the world.

We have 2 million people in prison. We have another 7 million on probation or parole, and we have 70 million Americans with criminal records of some sort.

Locking them up isn't an answer, especially when many of these mass shooters have no prior criminal records.

Our prisons are Club Meds compared to many other countries. Locking criminals up IS the answer. They can't commit crimes when they are locked behind bars. The shooters are mostly bug nuts and should have been locked up in mental institutions. This all drops on you and your liberal friend for subverting the justice system from one of punishment to one of rehabilitation. When we actually punished criminals the crime rates were low, now they are sky-high.

 

[JoeB131]

Our prisons are Club Meds compared to many other countries. Locking criminals up IS the answer. They can't commit crimes when they are locked behind bars. The shooters are mostly bug nuts and should have been locked up in mental institutions. This all drops on you and your liberal friend for subverting the justice system from one of punishment to one of rehabilitation. When we actually punished criminals the crime rates were low, now they are sky-high.

Hey, stupid.

We lock up 2 million people at a cost of 150 Billion a year.

Let's just say lock up the people on parole and probation... that jacks it up to half a trillion or so.

Do you have the extra tax money? I know I don't.

The foolishness of locking up someone at a cost of $50,000 a year for a theft of $900 of merch (if they are POC, white people get let off.)

Germany only locks up 78,000 people.

They have nowhere near our crime rates.

Because they don't let any fool have a gun who wants one.
They have programs to treat the mentally ill and addicts.
They have extensive social programs.

 

[LibertyKid]

Again, it's amusing to read your gun fetishist wank fantasies.

The military would have no problem shooting at civilians. Just look at Waco. Or Kent State.

Those two events are not even close to comparing to a hypothetical civil war against a tyrannical gov't. Because that's what would happen, a full out Civil war. And I would wager, that the majority of military personnel probably lean right. I have no numbers, but I can't think of any friends or family that I have that are ex-military and are dems.

 

[JoeB131]

Those two events are not even close to comparing to a hypothetical civil war against a tyrannical gov't. Because that's what would happen, a full out Civil war. And I would wager, that the majority of military personnel probably lean right. I have no numbers, but I can't think of any friends or family that I have that are ex-military and are dems.

Really? When I was in, most of the people I served with were people of color. I don't think that has changed much.

But what they were all really, really, good at? FOLLOWING ORDERS!

 

[San Souci]

Uh, guy, our prisons are already hell and we put more people there than any other country in the world.

We have 2 million people in prison. We have another 7 million on probation or parole, and we have 70 million Americans with criminal records of some sort.

Locking them up isn't an answer, especially when many of these mass shooters have no prior criminal records.

Did you forget Capital Punishment? Besides ,we could just move all the people off on one of the Hawiian Islands and turn it into a Prison. Food drop once a day.

 

[JoeB131]

Did you forget Capital Punishment? Besides ,we could just move all the people off on one of the Hawiian Islands and turn it into a Prison. Food drop once a day.

Capital Punishment is more expensive than imprisoning someone for life because of the endless appeals. It's why we only execute 20 people a year now.

Putting people on an island would just open up opportunities for them to escape.

 

[AZrailwhale]

Hey, stupid.

We lock up 2 million people at a cost of 150 Billion a year.

Let's just say lock up the people on parole and probation... that jacks it up to half a trillion or so.

Do you have the extra tax money? I know I don't.

The foolishness of locking up someone at a cost of $50,000 a year for a theft of $900 of merch (if they are POC, white people get let off.)

Germany only locks up 78,000 people.

They have nowhere near our crime rates.

Because they don't let any fool have a gun who wants one.
They have programs to treat the mentally ill and addicts.
They have extensive social programs.

Locking up criminals SAVES money. Theft and violence losses are tax deductions, so the amount of tax money the government can keep will increase far more than housing the criminals' costs. But I agree with you on one thing. It costs far too much to warehouse criminals. The ones who commit violent crimes should be executed and the prisons the rest are held in should be made far less comfortable. Make the prisoners hot bunk like the crews on some navy ships, turn down all the air conditioning and heating systems to barely survival levels, make the prisoners farm their own food, make them produce furniture for the government like in the past to earn their keep. Make prisons places where inmates are punished instead of places where futile efforts at rehabilitation at made. Alcatraz would be a good example of a prison like that. Total silence, no privileges, hard work and unpleasant conditions.

 

[AZrailwhale]

Capital Punishment is more expensive than imprisoning someone for life because of the endless appeals. It's why we only execute 20 people a year now.

Putting people on an island would just open up opportunities for them to escape.

You don't allow the endless appeals. ONE appeal within thirty days of conviction, then execution. hanging is cheap it reuses the rope, shooting is nearly as cheap, 9mm rounds cost $210.00 for a case of 1,000 rounds twelve rounds for a firing squad per inmate would be a negligible expense. People like you are the ones who have made execution so costly.

 

[AZrailwhale]

Capital Punishment is more expensive than imprisoning someone for life because of the endless appeals. It's why we only execute 20 people a year now.

Putting people on an island would just open up opportunities for them to escape.

Funny in all the years Alcatraz operated only five inmates out of 1,576 made it off the island in the twenty-nine years Alcatraz operated as a federal prison. Of those five only three are now believed to have survived the swim. Santa Barbara and San Nicolas Islands in the Channel Islands would be two good choices. Both have natural water sources, both are far offshore (SB 38 miles, SN 61 miles). Prisoners could be held in concrete "tilt-up" buildings, allowed to run free and the only guards would be needed for the few places boats could land. Or you could use the Farralones off San Francisco which are defended by large numbers of hungry Great White sharks.

 

[JoeB131]

Locking up criminals SAVES money. Theft and violence losses are tax deductions, so the amount of tax money the government can keep will increase far more than housing the criminals' costs. But I agree with you on one thing. It costs far too much to warehouse criminals. The ones who commit violent crimes should be executed and the prisons the rest are held in should be made far less comfortable. Make the prisoners hot bunk like the crews on some navy ships, turn down all the air conditioning and heating systems to barely survival levels, make the prisoners farm their own food, make them produce furniture for the government like in the past to earn their keep. Make prisons places where inmates are punished instead of places where futile efforts at rehabilitation at made. Alcatraz would be a good example of a prison like that. Total silence, no privileges, hard work and unpleasant conditions.

Actually, guy, Alcatraz was a ridiculously expensive publicity stunt, which is why it only operated as a prison for a few decades before the feds realized it was too wasteful to maintain.

Same thing with Capital Punishment. It costs far more to execute a prisoner than it does to lock him up for the rest of his life, it's why we only do 20 executions a year now.

Again, it really doesn't make a lot of sense to lock up as many people as we do, which is why most other industrial democracies reserve prison for only the truly dangerous.

And that is AFTER they do all the sensible things - Poverty Relief, gun control, addiction treatment, mental health care. This is why they only lock up less than 100,000 while we lock up 2 million.

But we know you have a bigger torture boner than Mel Gibson, and enjoy the thought of punishing big sweaty men.

 

[AZrailwhale]

Actually, guy, Alcatraz was a ridiculously expensive publicity stunt, which is why it only operated as a prison for a few decades before the feds realized it was too wasteful to maintain.

Same thing with Capital Punishment. It costs far more to execute a prisoner than it does to lock him up for the rest of his life, it's why we only do 20 executions a year now.

Again, it really doesn't make a lot of sense to lock up as many people as we do, which is why most other industrial democracies reserve prison for only the truly dangerous.

And that is AFTER they do all the sensible things - Poverty Relief, gun control, addiction treatment, mental health care. This is why they only lock up less than 100,000 while we lock up 2 million.

But we know you have a bigger torture boner than Mel Gibson, and enjoy the thought of punishing big sweaty men.

View attachment 958288

Alcatraz was the Supermax of its day. It was so expensive to operate because all water had to barged in. Criminals went far out of their way to avoid being sent there. As is posted capital punishment is very cheap when actually done. It's people like you who deliberately make it expensive with endless appeals that make it expensive, then you argue that it's too expensive to keep on the books. Gun control will do nothing to control crime because criminal already ignore the laws. If anything, gun possession reduces crime because criminals don't want to get shot by their victims. Look at the rates of home invasions in places where civilian firearms possession is banned or severely controlled. They are much higher than in the USA. But as usual there is a tiny grain of truth in your litany of lies and half-truths. Drug users shouldn't be in prison for simple drug use. Dealers should be in prison and never released because the profit off the misery of their victims. Drug users who commit crimes to feed their habits should be imprisoned for the crimes they commit. And I still believe that prisons should be very unpleasant places where convicted criminals suffer for their crimes, not the relatively benign warehouses that they are now.

 

[JoeB131]

Alcatraz was the Supermax of its day. It was so expensive to operate because all water had to barged in. Criminals went far out of their way to avoid being sent there.

Um, no, they really didn't. What reduced crime was 1) They had the good sense to end Prohibition, and 2) The economic boom that followed WWII provided everyone with good jobs that paid well, even if you had no education or skills.

As is posted capital punishment is very cheap when actually done. It's people like you who deliberately make it expensive with endless appeals that make it expensive, then you argue that it's too expensive to keep on the books.

The reason why those "endless appeals" are needed is that we don't want to accidentally execute innocent people. We have released 197 people from death rows who were found to be innocent, usually in the course of these appeals.

Gun control will do nothing to control crime because criminal already ignore the laws.

Yet countries with gun control laws have NOWHERE NEAR our murder rates.

If anything, gun possession reduces crime because criminals don't want to get shot by their victims. Look at the rates of home invasions in places where civilian firearms possession is banned or severely controlled. They are much higher than in the USA.

Yet their murder rate is lower. "I'm just here to steal a few things" isn't that big of a deal.

That all said, the problem with home invasions is that most burglars have the good sense to break in when no one is home. Understandably, home invasion carries higher penalties than burglary. Cops are also more motivated to solve them.

But as usual there is a tiny grain of truth in your litany of lies and half-truths. Drug users shouldn't be in prison for simple drug use. Dealers should be in prison and never released because the profit off the misery of their victims. Drug users who commit crimes to feed their habits should be imprisoned for the crimes they commit.

Or we can start treating addiction as a medical issue and not a criminal one.

And I still believe that prisons should be very unpleasant places where convicted criminals suffer for their crimes, not the relatively benign warehouses that they are now.

Actually, what we need to do is stop making it profitable to run a prison.

 

[San Souci]

Capital Punishment is more expensive than imprisoning someone for life because of the endless appeals. It's why we only execute 20 people a year now.

Putting people on an island would just open up opportunities for them to escape.

Who said anything about giving them any TOOLS? And the Capital sentence would be without appeal and immediate. Gavel falls , then the injection. Same day. No muss. No fuss.

 

[JoeB131]

Who said anything about giving them any TOOLS? And the Capital sentence would be without appeal and immediate. Gavel falls , then the injection. Same day. No muss. No fuss.

Okay, some cop decides to frame you for murder.

You were totally innocent, but your defense lawyer dun fucked up.

You still good with being executed that day?