visionary Posted May 22, 2018 Share Posted May 22, 2018 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted May 22, 2018 Share Posted May 22, 2018 one of the students has spoken about what occurred when the first school police officer arrived. I'll let ya'll find it if you wish Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corcaigh Posted May 22, 2018 Share Posted May 22, 2018 3 hours ago, Dont Taze Me Bro said: My plan is to get a biometric safe that is made to hold only one handgun with a few clips that will be kept in the bedroom with easy access in case someone invades our home. So, that will be the only one with ammo ready to go. The remaining firearms I'll continue to keep trigger locked individually and locked up separately from their ammo. Personal choices ... the odds are 200:1 that a gun in the home will be used for a suicide than to defend against a home invasion. The idea of a home invasion is horrible, but the chances are extremely rare. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dont Taze Me Bro Posted May 22, 2018 Share Posted May 22, 2018 22 minutes ago, Corcaigh said: Personal choices ... the odds are 200:1 that a gun in the home will be used for a suicide than to defend against a home invasion. The idea of a home invasion is horrible, but the chances are extremely rare. To each their own. It’s cool if you don’t like guns or want to own one, etc. But I do. And I like target shooting and being able to defend my family against home invasion if needed. And I’m a responsible gun owner that takes everything going on very seriously along with making sure my firearms are secure at all times from everyone that does not need access (which is three people- myself,wife and dad). I’m also pro gun control and implementing common sense laws at a minimum. I’m not one of the bad guys on this topic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Llevron Posted May 22, 2018 Share Posted May 22, 2018 3 hours ago, No Excuses said: Wow Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGreatBuzz Posted May 22, 2018 Share Posted May 22, 2018 19 hours ago, Lombardi's_kid_brother said: 2. Any gun owner whose firearm is used in a crime is civilly liable to all victims of said crime. I'd be cool with this as long as there was a caveat that you arent responsible if you took resonable measures to secure your weapon. Some kid drills out a trigger lock or something, I think you should be in the clear. Im sure it wouldnt be to hard to come up with a definition of reasonable measures. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted May 22, 2018 Share Posted May 22, 2018 16 minutes ago, TheGreatBuzz said: I'd be cool with this as long as there was a caveat that you arent responsible if you took resonable measures to secure your weapon. Some kid drills out a trigger lock or something, I think you should be in the clear. Im sure it wouldnt be to hard to come up with a definition of reasonable measures. would locked in a room or car be reasonable measures? added are you required to secure your keys/combination to the locks? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bang Posted May 22, 2018 Share Posted May 22, 2018 11 hours ago, visionary said: This is one of the more aggravating things about debates such as this after a tragedy. There is absolutely no purpose with this dumb**** article except to stir anti-police sentiment, except maybe to say "I have absolutely no idea what happens when police confront an armed attacker". I guess they should have just rushed him. Exposed themselves to unnecessary risk and fire. Apparently they had drawn his fire away from everyone else.. which is what they should do, isn't it? I know it's fun to think otherwise, but most police try to take suspects alive.. it is what they are trained to do. They are also trained to minimize risk to others, including themselves once the standoff is established. Dip****s like this demand Hollywood "action" that will potentially result in even more destruction. Unethical, unprofessional, and a completely unnecessary line of "questioning". "Reporting" like this is deplorable, irresponsible, and exacerbating very serious and real problems. Nothing but propaganda and rabble rousing. ~Bang Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zguy28 Posted May 22, 2018 Share Posted May 22, 2018 I came across a reference to this study in a parenting resource and decided to look it up. The article is from 2011, but looks at what popular TV shows primarily teach children by decade and the values they reflect and promote in our culture. In 2007, the #1 value promoted to children was fame. I wonder what it was in 2017? I also wonder if this is related to the rise in mass shootings, especially among students? Popular TV shows teach children fame is most important value, UCLA psychologists report Being kind to others fell dramatically in importance over 10 years http://newsroom.ucla.edu/releases/popular-tv-shows-teach-children-210119 Quote Fame is the No. 1 value emphasized by television shows popular with 9- to 11-year-olds, a dramatic change over the past 10 years, UCLA psychologists report in a new study. On a list of 16 values, fame jumped from the 15th spot, where it was in both 1987 and 1997, to the first spot in 2007. From 1997 to 2007, benevolence (being kind and helping others) fell from second to 13th, and tradition dropped from fourth to 15th. The study assessed the values of characters in popular television shows in each decade from 1967 to 2007, with two shows per decade evaluated, including "Andy Griffith" and "The Lucy Show" in 1967, "Laverne & Shirley" and "Happy Days" in 1977, and "American Idol" and "Hannah Montana" in 2007. "I was shocked, especially by the dramatic changes in the last 10 years," said Yalda T. Uhls, a UCLA doctoral student in developmental psychology and the lead author of the study. "I thought fame would be important but did not expect this drastic an increase or such a dramatic decrease in other values, such as community feeling. If you believe that television reflects the culture, as I do, then American culture has changed drastically." Community feeling (being part of a group) was the No. 1 value in 1967, 1977 and 1997, and it was the No. 2 value in 1987, the study found. By 2007, however, it had fallen out of the top 10, to 11th. Rest at link Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted May 22, 2018 Share Posted May 22, 2018 Yeah, @Bang, I seem to remember similar claims about ominous-sounding delays from the Las Vegas shooter. Turns out that, once the cops approached his room, he stopped shooting. (They later discover that it was because he killed himself). And, if the shooter isn't shooting, then their policy is not to storm the place right away. A policy that I can't argue with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TradeTheBeal! Posted May 22, 2018 Share Posted May 22, 2018 The guys that keep pumping the “fame” angle are the same guys that voted for a reality TV star for president. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zguy28 Posted May 22, 2018 Share Posted May 22, 2018 6 minutes ago, TryTheBeal! said: The guys that keep pumping the “fame” angle are the same guys that voted for a reality TV star for president. Not I. I'm on the record for some form of gun control enhancement and I am still #nevertrump. But God forbid we try to diagnose what could possibly be the motivators in these events and change our culture for the better. No, that would require acknowledging that things we hold dear are actually bad for us, whether that's TV or guns. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TradeTheBeal! Posted May 22, 2018 Share Posted May 22, 2018 7 minutes ago, Zguy28 said: Not I. I'm on the record for some form of gun control enhancement. But God forbid we try to diagnose what could possibly be the motivators in these events and change our culture for the better. No, that would require acknowledging that things we hold dear are actually bad for us, whether that's TV or guns. Youre also on the record as ghoulishly crowing about the first Australian mass shooting SINCE 1996 as a means to obscure and marginalize the obvious gun violence problem in your own backyard. And I’m absolutely certain that you didn’t acquire that unfortunate viewpoint from a Hannah Montana episode. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zguy28 Posted May 22, 2018 Share Posted May 22, 2018 8 minutes ago, TryTheBeal! said: Youre also on the record as ghoulishly crowing about the first Australian mass shooting SINCE 1996 as a means to obscure and marginalize the obvious gun violence problem in your own backyard. And I’m absolutely certain that you didn’t acquire that unfortunate viewpoint from a Hannah Montana episode. No crowing at all, merely a fact. But keep letting your dogmatic adherence to your political views endanger children, just like the gun nuts and NRA on the right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGreatBuzz Posted May 22, 2018 Share Posted May 22, 2018 51 minutes ago, twa said: would locked in a room or car be reasonable measures? added are you required to secure your keys/combination to the locks? Possibly to both. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TradeTheBeal! Posted May 22, 2018 Share Posted May 22, 2018 1 minute ago, Zguy28 said: No crowing at all, merely a fact. But keep letting your dogmatic adherence to your political views endanger children, just like the gun nuts and NRA on the right. Thoughts and prayers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zguy28 Posted May 22, 2018 Share Posted May 22, 2018 Just now, TryTheBeal! said: Thoughts and prayers. We can find solutions that deal with too much accessibility to guns AND motives if we try to work together instead of tearing down. If we look past our our own cherished idols and play the long game, not just the short. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
No Excuses Posted May 22, 2018 Author Share Posted May 22, 2018 This kid bullied and harassed a girl who turned him down, eventually killing her in the classroom along with others. But thanks to Senator John Cornyn for reminding us that the mass murderer was the real victim: Deplorable is too kind a word in hindsight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TradeTheBeal! Posted May 22, 2018 Share Posted May 22, 2018 15 minutes ago, Zguy28 said: We can find solutions that deal with too much accessibility to guns AND motives if we try to work together instead of tearing down. If we look past our our own cherished idols and play the long game, not just the short. There is one solution and it will save the lives of schoolchildren, concert-goers, church-goers and law enforcement officers alike. Summon up your courage and your dignity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zguy28 Posted May 22, 2018 Share Posted May 22, 2018 5 minutes ago, TryTheBeal! said: There is one solution and it will save the lives of schoolchildren, concert-goers, church-goers and law enforcement officers alike. Summon up your courage and your dignity. What is your "one solution"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TradeTheBeal! Posted May 22, 2018 Share Posted May 22, 2018 2 minutes ago, Zguy28 said: What is your "one solution"? You already know. It has been implemented successfully in every corner of the 1st world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dont Taze Me Bro Posted May 22, 2018 Share Posted May 22, 2018 1 hour ago, twa said: would locked in a room or car be reasonable measures? added are you required to secure your keys/combination to the locks? My guess is if they did pass a law on this, they would make it vague like they do most so it can be up to the discretion of law enforcement, judge, jury, etc. to decide if reasonable measures to secure the firearm were met. Which just opens up another can of worms. While one would think this would be as easy as the law stating something like: "Properly securing all firearms (at a minimum) is defined by: 1) storing them in a locked safe inside ones residence -and- 2) securing/storing codes or key to the safe away from children/others. This includes all keys or codes used as a back-up to biometric safes which can override the biometric locking function. But instead of it being clearly defined, it probably will read something like this instead: "Properly securing all firearms is defined by storing them in a lockable storage container in order to keep them away from children/others. " It's like that for transportation of firearms in vehicles for NC. It's written in a way that it obvious on a few things not to do like if you do not have a conceal carry do not store the firearm under your seat, in the middle console or glovebox. The law only states that it is unlawful to transport a weapon (absent a proper permit) that is BOTH concealed and readily accessible to a person. Then actually says that NC Law does not specifically address how to transport a weapon in a vehicle. Really, it's 2018 and there isn't clear cut laws on the proper way to transport both handguns and long rifles in all models of vehicles (cars, trucks, SUVs, those with or without trunks, etc.)? And it opens up even more questions because it applies to all passengers as well as the driver in regards to placement of the weapon. I drive a Sequoia, there is no trunk. When I transport my rifles to the range I place them in the very back as far out of reach as possible. It's just me and my wife, both in the front seat, so they are clearly not readily accessable or concealed. Is it considered to be concealed in a gun case used to carry it? I dunno, nobody can seem to give me a clean cut answer on that. But placement alone saves me from that. Next question, when we do start taking our daughter to the range to be properly trained and to shoot, with her or my wife sitting in the backseat which puts her closer to the rifles (still as far back as they will be from the backseat), does that get considered as "easily accessible"? I would hope not as I wouldn't be able to get them easily if I were in the backseat, but it's up to the officer's discretion if I were ever to get pulled over for anything while driving to or from the range. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Evil Genius Posted May 22, 2018 Share Posted May 22, 2018 A Texas sheriff is now saying that some of the victims (including some of the 10 killed) might have been caught in the crossfire. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted May 22, 2018 Share Posted May 22, 2018 1 minute ago, TheGreatBuzz said: Possibly to both. What would be your opinion? As far as legal liability I think a locked car or room should be sufficient, securing keys a bridge too far. Folk soon move on to must be disassembled and in a safe with ammo locked in another location,trigger locks ect....which I approve of in practice for gun storage, but not for legal liability. Different legal requirements depending on household? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zguy28 Posted May 22, 2018 Share Posted May 22, 2018 18 minutes ago, TryTheBeal! said: You already know. It has been implemented successfully in every corner of the 1st world. No I don't, explain it to me. Seriously. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.