Democrats & Liberals Archives

Necessary Conditions

Without a gun, you don’t have a shooting. School District Officials are going to make sure that more than a score of their teachers and staff will have guns. They will claim this will make students safer, but the safety will depend on the judgment of the folks carrying, and the potential attacker not being clever enough to ambush the folks carrying.

Guns aren't magic. They're brute force physics. They're tools. People's decisions matter more, in the end.

Certain decisions, though, can be made but not followed through on. If I decide I want to go somewhere and shoot everybody there, I still need a gun to carry through my decision to its conclusion.

The easy way to deal with this is to ban guns. Sorry, guys, but I've got to say it, just to get that simple solution out of the way.

Of course, we have a Second Amendment, a right to keep and bear arms. So, a ban is out of the question.

Even so, we can make them harder to get, and make the deliberate decision to keep them out of certain places. For example, in many prisons, the correctional officers who are in there with the inmates don't carry guns. Why? because guards might get captured by inmates, and the inmates will now have a gun. The necessary condition for a shooting by an inmate has then been reached.

Let's imagine, then, that one or more of the students manages to identify a teacher with a gun. That student then sneaks up on that teacher, tackles them, and manages to pry the gun away from the teacher.

The necessary condition for a hostage situation or mass shooting has been achieved.

Or, lets imagine that a student gets out of control for some reason. Could be he's severely autistic, or just had a bad day. There are any number of reasons. What if a teacher pulls the gun and fires it?

The necessary condition was there for something to escalate was already there.

Or maybe the teacher, depressed or angry, just deliberately uses the gun on the students, or on themselves.

Needless to say, this necessary condition could be fulfilled in any and all cases by a private citizen bringing a weapon from home. But here we have some folks, likely deluded by some fantasy of deterrence, believing that kids can be made safer from gun violence simply by putting these guns in the hands of teachers and staff.

A school district making the decision to put guns in our classrooms, though, makes the school district the author of this necessary condition. Any shooting that results will be the consequence of what the school district made possible, not what some employee or student or outsider brought in.

What the NRA and other groups hope will keep bad things from happening is the fear or calculation of those who would engage in these shootings. My experience, though, is that if somebody really wants to do something like this, they'll do it. They already have to screw up the courage, if you can call it that, to break some of the most cardinal rules we live by. If they're the more cold and calculating sort, they'll figure out how to do what they want in spite of whoever might be armed. Or, they'll be able to achieve it precisely because there's someone armed in the room with them. Or, they'll be able to achieve precisely because they are the someone armed to begin with.

All because, in essence, the School District was worried about others bringing guns into classrooms. They create the necessary conditions for this kind of violence as a means to prevent this kind of violence. Kind of turns logic on its head, doesn't it?

There's another set of issues, and in essence it boils down to the fact that these students are the responsibility of the school district. They act in place of the parents, or in loco parentis as the legal latin goes.

That's somebody's son or daughter in every seat, and if they get shot for one reason or another, that will open up a debate right then and there, as to why the gun was allowed in the first place. The Teacher's judgment with those guns, or school district's judgment in allowing them in there will be put to the test. If and when it fails, the lives that will be lost because of this government policy will be held against the district.

Imagine those headlines.

If there's anything that's made me lose respect for the gun lobby, it's the lack of imagination for consequences beyond those they want to perceive. They don't want to be bothered with the notion that their read on what works and what doesn't is wrong. So, they'll take risks the rest of us, who haven't let go of our common sense, won't. Risks that bring on the necessary conditions of disaster.

Guns don't belong in the classroom. The potential for that kind of violence doesn't belong in our classrooms. If you want to go for real armed guards, people whose job it is to remain vigilant, and be capable of defending themselves, fine. But if your idea is to place the very weapons you're hoping somebody won't bring into your classroom in your school, among your kids, then you have badly misanalysed the pattern of risk, and undermined your own peace.


Posted by Stephen Daugherty at July 30, 2013 3:57 PM
Comments
Comment #369045

Sitting in his little black box being directly wired to liberal central control Daugherty has conjured up all kinds of fantasy situations to promote gun control.

We have gun control now and have had for years. Yet, mass murders still occur in our schools. Armed aggression in our schools is a fact and all the laws on the books, or likely to ever be on the books, will not thwart those focused on killing the innocent in our schools by whatever deadly means available to them.

Profiling for potential school killers is politically incorrect although it might help. Creating limited entry into our schools and enhanced awareness on campuses has most likely helped but is not foolproof and is difficult to measure.

It is accepted as a right in this country to defend yourself and others against unwarranted deadly attack. Any suggestion that this right does not extend to our children while in school, or anywhere else, is a violation of our unalienable rights.

There is absolutely no way of ensuring every child’s safety, every day, in every school across our land. However, that should not mean that we don’t even try.

That guns can be used for aggression or for defense can not be denied. Why do liberals insist upon protecting the aggressors and disarming the defenders?

Posted by: Royal Flush at July 30, 2013 5:28 PM
Comment #369046

“A school district making the decision to put guns in our classrooms, though, makes the school district the author of this necessary condition. Any shooting that results will be the consequence of what the school district made possible, not what some employee or student or outsider brought in.”

From the linked article…

“An Arkansas school district will arm over 20 faculty members and staff with concealed 9 mm handguns under a state law that allows armed security guards on campus, the Associated Press reported Tuesday.”

The school district did NOT make it possible as Daugherty contends. It is a state law.

Posted by: Royal Flush at July 30, 2013 5:47 PM
Comment #369047

Every day, every teacher in every school has the ability to serve their class a Jim Jones type drink. The ingredients are easier to get than a firearm and would likely be much more effective.
We can’t prevent teachers from doing this, but we trust them to not do it.

Wanting to be armed is not about some fantasy, it’s about giving yourself a chance to survive the unthinkable.

Posted by: kctim at July 30, 2013 5:50 PM
Comment #369048

How about we apply the same logic to voting. We should make it harder to vote so that idiots don’t vote for the wrong people.

Posted by: Liberal at July 30, 2013 6:07 PM
Comment #369049

Liberal…how about we put you in charge of that idea?

Posted by: Royal Flush at July 30, 2013 6:12 PM
Comment #369051

Royal Flush-
The gun is a catalyst for the escalation of violence, if it gets into the wrong hands, or is already in the wrong hands starting out.

For the sake of perhaps, on the off-chance, being able to kill a potential school shooter, you have introduced the possibility that

1) The actual gunfire exchange will not be ideal, and students and teachers might get hurt.

2) The Teacher might be attacked for the sake of a weapon by a student to whom it would not necessarily be available otherwise.

3) The Teacher might use the gun on a student attempting to answer some perceived danger from him or her.

4) The Teacher might use that gun on students without good reason, because of emotional or psychological disturbances.

5) The teacher might be careless with the weapon, inviting either something similar to the second scenario, or one of those tragic accidents.

6) The Teacher might have the weapon, but not the inclinations necessary to react in a firefight, resulting in student casualties and perhaps the teacher’s shooting because he or she didn’t react well.

7) Or its possible that the school shooter will simply treat any teacher as potentially armed and pre-emptively kill them by surprise, rather than allow them the chance to pull their weapon.

What you visualize as being a tremendously secure situation in fact is nothing of the sort. In some cases, it’s because most people are not combat veterans, much less the flawless John Woo Balletic superheroes we see in action movies

But in other cases, it’s because bringing that gun into the classroom makes what was otherwise a dim possibility an absolute certainty. Rather than there be the potential that somebody might bring a gun in, there’s an absolute certainty that there’s a gun in the school.

You can talk about inalienable rights (was I discussing banning guns? I explicitly ruled that out!) but what I’m talking about are possibilities that become closer to reality because of what you’ve not only allowed to be brought into the situation, but what you’ve told people to bring into the situation.

There will be a gun in that classroom. Will it be properly used? No guarantees. Will it remain in the possession of the person who should have it? No guarantees. Will the person who’s supposed to have it remain free of any kind of dark intentions? You can’t tell people they necessarily will.

But as long as that gun’s there, and guaranteed to be there, there are guaranteed to be possibilities that would otherwise be very unlikely.

More to the point, policy-wise, the school will be responsible for that gun being in the classroom. It won’t be some nut who brought it in there, it will be the teacher or staff member.

The students will still be at risk, but it will be the school district who put that risk into play!

The minute something goes horribly wrong, guess who gets the blame? The people who thought it would be a good idea to deliberately put a gun in the classroom.

Arm some real guards in the hallways or something like that. I am not, as your chicken****, stupid argument would have it denying that we should defend the lives of our students. I’m saying that when we introduce certain elements into a situation, like teachers with guns on them, we’re providing a pathway for any number of negative outcomes that otherwise would be much, much more unlikely.

This isn’t about not even trying, this is about knowing the difference between productive and counterproductive measures, something conservatives these days don’t seem to make distinctions about.

As for that second comment? Did you read closely enough to realize that the School Districts bending the law to make this happen? They’re essentially making these teachers nominal guards, putting them through training in order to claim that they can carry the guns.

The state law didn’t mandate it, and even if it did, it would just mean the same thing: that the reason that gun is there is due to a government policy. It just kicks the decision higher up the food chain. However, with all the hoops these people went through, its absurd to believe they didn’t go out of their way to make sure somebody could carry that gun into that classroom. The school district, in this case, is what’s making it possible that teachers are carrying guns into the classroom. If they didn’t make the choices they did, it wouldn’t be happening.

kctim-
The gun has the merit of not requiring the consent or cooperation of the victim to be deadly. Jones could make people drink the Kool-Aid because he was a cult leader who ruled with guns and an iron fist. A teacher could poison a student, and I wouldn’t imagine it’s never happened. However, it’s much quicker and much deadlier to use a gun. As for surviving the unthinkable?

Guns are no guarantee of that, and in fact bringing one into the classroom actually brings that unthinkable outcome, a shot student, a much easier scenario to realize. Much easier than if nobody brought a gun. There are tens of thousands of classrooms across America where nobody brings a gun, and nobody shoots anybody, and we go hundreds of days in virtually every one without somebody getting shot.

But you’re going to not only make that gun’s presence more likely, but a certainty.

The unthinkable is unthinkable mostly because the general lack of weapons around our schools, and the fact most people are not that disturbed or sociopathic to want to do it. The fantasy is, teachers getting armed will make our classrooms safer. I would argue that they make those classrooms more dangerous than they otherwise would tend to be.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at July 30, 2013 7:04 PM
Comment #369052

“What you visualize as being a tremendously secure situation in fact is nothing of the sort. In some cases, it’s because most people are not combat veterans, much less the flawless John Woo Balletic superheroes we see in action movies”

I am probably the only one reading this who doesn’t have a clue who John Woo is. I suspect it is from watching and wallowing in such “action movies” that gives Daugherty his wacky ideas.

I will sum up his screed simply. Our children don’t deserve our proactive protection.

Posted by: Royal Flush at July 30, 2013 7:25 PM
Comment #369054

Mr. Daugherty has lied to us several times by saying he fully supports the 2nd Amendment. It is evident from the beginning of his anti-gun gruel that he supports banning all guns in America.

Perhaps Mr. Daugherty is unaware of the mountain of evidence that an armed society is a safe society. Perhaps he is also unaware of the statistics that the liberal Democrat run cities with the strictest gun ban laws have the highest gun murder rates. Tell me Mr. Daugherty, in who’s hands are the guns in those cities? The law abiding citizens, or the criminal element?

Once again, we hear the shrill cries of gloom and doom from the left. Each and every state that passed conceal carry laws had an uphill fight with he left who claimed it would become the wild west with shootouts on every street corner. Zilch…nothing happened. In fact people became more courteous, carjacking’s that used to commonly take place, are very seldom heard of. Why? Because, if the bad guy jerks open a door, he may be looking down the barrel of a gun. So now we have the shrill cries from Mr. Daugherty of the gloom and doom needless deaths of the children. Time will once again prove Mr. Daugherty and the left to be full of crap.

An article just came out showing; as firearms sales increase in Hawaii (of all states), the crime rate has gone down.

I will conclude with this thought; I am familiar enough with Mr. Daugherty’s thinking to know, he doesn’t care how many children are killed in schools by the criminal element. He acts concerned, but he’s not. The agenda always trumps reality. You would think, if Mr. Daugherty were concerned about the school children, he would support any means of protecting them.

This post is a carryover of the left’s rage that George Zimmerman was not found guilty. So as Obama shifts his attention once again to gun control, so also does Mr. Daugherty’s attention shift to gun control.

Posted by: Political Hostage at July 30, 2013 9:51 PM
Comment #369060

Obama made another speech? I missed it after turning the channel on the TV along with the rest of America. All he’s good for is making speeches.

Obama’s presidency in a nutshell:

Made a lot of speeches complaining about Republicans, got elected.
Reid and Pelosi shove Obamacare down everyone’s throats with no bipartisan support whatsoever.
Lost the House in the mid terms.
Made a lot of speeches complaining about Republicans, pass no legislation for 2 years.
Made a lot of speeches complaining about Republicans, got reelected.
Make a lot of speeches, pass no legislation for two years.
Lose the Senate in the mid terms.
Make a lot of speeches complaining about Republicans, pass no legislation for 2 years.

He’s the most ineffective President in history. 2012 was the election to win for Republicans, but you nominated Romney. Find a candidate that doesn’t suck and you’ll easily win in 2014 and 2016.

Posted by: Liberal at July 30, 2013 11:33 PM
Comment #369061

The NRA has gained 1 million new members since Obama’s reelection. The AR-15 is the most popular rifle in America. Every state now has some form of concealed carry. A lot has changed since Clinton signed the now expired Assault Weapons Ban in the early 1990s.

The Assault Weapons Ban was to Clinton what Obamacare is to Obama. Legislation that’s only good for losing your majority in the mid terms.

If Democrats want to find an issue that they will lose on every time, gun control is that issue.

Posted by: Liberal at July 30, 2013 11:38 PM
Comment #369064

Liberal, you are correct; but Mr. Daugherty can’t seem to learn can he?

The courts even forced Illinois, Obama’s home state, to adapt a conceal carry law, or it would be court imposed.

Then, that asinine Obama went after SYG laws, which are part and parcel to conceal carry, by interjecting himself into a state killing through the DOJ and racism.

Posted by: Political Hostage at July 31, 2013 12:24 AM
Comment #369075

Stephen

My point is about the trust we put in our teachers every single day despite the dangers they are capable of. If we are going to trust them to not poison our children, why should we not trust them to not shoot our children? Especially when poison is easier to get than a gun is, and easier to use.

I understand that guns are no guarantee of surviving the unthinkable, that is why I said “…giving yourself a chance.”

For some reason, you guys on the far-left have this irrational fear of guns that causes you to make outlandish claims in an effort to turn a possibility into a probability.
The fact is that every single day most of us walk, sit or work by someone carrying and nothing happens.

“I would argue that they make those classrooms more dangerous than they otherwise would tend to be”

But your argument is based on ‘what ifs,’ not facts.
“Gun-free” signs, regulations and laws do not deter people from carrying. They do not prevent people from bringing a weapon into the area. Everything you fear is already possible.

Is it possible something bad may happen? Of course. Would I want my kids teacher carrying? Some already do. Do I worry about them being shot? No more than I worry about them being poisoned.

Posted by: kctim at July 31, 2013 10:41 AM
Comment #369076

Royal Flush-
If I needed somebody to sum up my thoughts, I would ask, and certainly not ask somebody who got it so wrong.

I don’t just watch action movies like John Woo’s films, both in the sense that I’ve watched many others besides, and the fact that I haven’t just watch the finished product. I’ve learned what’s behind it, and what the reality is. I had a morbid phase a while back, after the death and destruction in New Orleans, so I also know what a gunshot victim looks like after the fact.

I’ve learned to distinguish the fantasy, which I enjoy indulging, from the reality, which I don’t go out of my way to personally experience

Our children deserve our protection. But they deserve our wisdom, too, so the means we employ to protect them don’t end up a danger to them. There’s no such thing as a safe gun. Accidents happen. Not every person who carries a gun can carry themselves in a real world firefight. Not every potential killer will be stopped by having guns there, for some it might even provide an opportunity they didn’t otherwise have.

Political Hostage-

Mr. Daugherty has lied to us several times by saying he fully supports the 2nd Amendment. It is evident from the beginning of his anti-gun gruel that he supports banning all guns in America.

The easy way to deal with this is to ban guns. Sorry, guys, but I’ve got to say it, just to get that simple solution out of the way.

Of course, we have a Second Amendment, a right to keep and bear arms. So, a ban is out of the question.

Personally, I don’t favor banning guns outright, nor have I expressed the opinion that we should take everybody’s guns. I presented the idea in the abstract, and then flatly dismissed it. Do I have to absolutely agree with all your reckless gun advocacy in order to prove that I affirm the right to bear arms in general?

I guess so. Your movement doesn’t allow people the free thought necessary to decide for themselves what degree of regulation gun sales and guns have on them. There’s no notion of moderation. You fear, erroneously, that liberals like me want to take all the guns and leave us vulnerable to all the threats, foreign and domestic. In response to that fear, you deny even reasonable, common sense gun regulations, and regulations on the sale of guns. You push forward with a fervent belief that nothing could go wrong, and then when it does, you find every reason in the world to believe that somehow, the solution to the problem is to bring more guns into the situation.

Perhaps Mr. Daugherty is unaware of the mountain of evidence that an armed society is a safe society. Perhaps he is also unaware of the statistics that the liberal Democrat run cities with the strictest gun ban laws have the highest gun murder rates. Tell me Mr. Daugherty, in who’s hands are the guns in those cities? The law abiding citizens, or the criminal element?

First, Mr. Daugherty is very aware of the crime statistics, which say that the vast majority of murders in this armed society come from the guns with which most people are armed. I can concede that they save some lives, but can you concede that many more people are killed by their own hand, by accidents, and by criminals, than are killed by people defending themselves?

As for the cities liberal Democrats run? I did some research on crime rates. Of the ten cities with the least violent crime, most of them are run by Democrats. Of the ten cities with the lowest murder rate, most of them are run by Democrats. You’re making generalizations, probably based on what cities like Los Angeles and New York have done, or rust-belt cities.

As for your last question, I hate to be rude and answer it with another question, but do you know what one of the biggest sources of guns for criminals is?

Law abiding citizens! As in, they steal the guns from them! Restricting guns may not necessarily stop criminals from getting them, but just letting them flow freely out into the communities, without any attempt to keep them out of the hands of the criminals or the criminally insane will certainly not stop them either. We can at least deprive them of the cheaper, more legitimate means of gaining weapons, so it isn’t society putting the gun to its own head.

By the way, do you have actual statistics to back your conclusions on carjacking? Really? And do you think most carjackers ask nicely, or get their gun out first, in which case they have the drop on anybody who has a concealed gun, in its holster?

You can talk about shrill cries of doom and gloom, but what I’m offering here isn’t doom and gloom, it’s simple facts and definite possibilities.

You would think, if Mr. Daugherty were concerned about the school children, he would support any means of protecting them.

Do you have to make it this easy for me? Your logic is truly ****ed. You want to know how ****ed it is?

Try this on for size. You say, if I support protecting our children, I should support any means of protecting them.

Well, let’s apply that logic to the economy. Should I tell you, by that logic, that you must support stimulus, Keynesian spending, expansion of big government? If you’re talking any means of growing he economy, that means any. Even the ones you know or believe are stupid.

I’ve conceded that armed guards might be helpful. You know, people who can specialize in being protectors. But having the teachers carry concealed, having them bring a gun into the classroom where odds are none were, and none had been? that strikes me as foolish. That strikes me as bad judgment.

There are means that just cost too much, that defeat the other purposes of having kids in school. There are means that pose just as much a danger to students as the folks we would defend them against. There are means just as likely to cause pain and suffering to our children as any school shooter showing up.

Those means I will reject, so I can’t honestly say that I would support any means to protect our children. Just the ones I consider productive, truly protective, which let our children be children rather than inmates in a prison for their own protection. If we make a point of turning our society into a police state in order to protect ourselves from its evils, we’ve only built the walls of our own imprisionment, and not likely made ourselves safer in the full sense.

Oh, and you mentioned that fellows name, not me. That’s the second post you’ve tried to extend discussion to.

Liberal-
Don’t count the chickens before they hatch. Republicans have a talent these days for losing the Senate races they should, by demographic logic, be winning. Perhaps it’s because, however obstructive they can succeed in being, when they open their big mouths and actually tell people what they’re for, folks think they’re nuts.

They just don’t show good judgment these days, and the only thing they can do to hide this fact is keep on acting like liberals and liberalism are the problems. But you know why our Majority is stronger than it was in the Senate, why the President won? Because people see Obama actually trying to do something. All they see Republicans doing is playing boat anchor, and using the positions they were given in order to create more jobs in order to selfishly promote their agenda.

I’ve seen people like you, Royal Flush, and Political Hostage make these predictions before. I’ve been right three out of the four last times. Know why? Because without some kind of panic to stampede people, Republicans have less and less appeal to the growing parts of the American population. They’re already badly out of sync, socially speaking. Even younger Republicans and younger evangelicals are becoming less opposed to gays and lesbians. Economically speaking? Obama used the rhetoric of the Occupy Wall Street crowd, and for some odd reason, he got re-elected, restored his standing from his lowest polling.

Politically speaking, the more you ask people about the Tea Party, the less they like them, but despite that, this is who the Republicans are letting run the Party.

Long story short, You might have some advantages going into the Senate side of the election, but people are getting tired of things being stuck. They’re tired of a Washington where things don’t move. They’re tired of a Wall Street that takes and takes and takes without returning much value to the economy.

But most importantly, people like you have no real give, no real willingness to negotiate with others, settle differences. You selfishly demand that everything runs your way, but then you don’t even wonder why things fail. Instead, you blame it on the fact that people aren’t quite as intellectually or morally advanced as you!

You won’t admit the problem could be that you’ve gone too far. How many Republicans now say what Reagan said, that the Democratic Party left them behind, but now in reverse? How many moderates and independents who once voted for Republicans find themselves increasingly lacking in reasons to vote for them?

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at July 31, 2013 11:17 AM
Comment #369104

Seriously, why should we listen to anything you say Stephen Daugherty? You’re in a bubble and live with your parents. What qualifications do you have to speak about whether or not teachers conceal carry has a positive or negative affect on the safety of children. By continuing to live with your parents, no woman in here right mind would ever have kids with you, so you don’t have to worry about the safety of your children. Those of us who have moved out of our mom’s basement years ago, went out and found a job, got married, and had kids want armed teachers in our schools.

You don’t know responsibility because you have no responsibilities. Stop lecturing us from your bubble. You are not capable of understanding the realities of life when you don’t have a life outside the bubble created for you by the parents who spoil you.

In other words, get off your lazy ass and get a job. Typical liberal.

Posted by: Another at August 1, 2013 1:07 AM
Comment #369105
How many moderates and independents who once voted for Republicans find themselves increasingly lacking in reasons to vote for them?

You should check your numbers. Obama’s approval rating is tanking among moderates and independents. Democerats are become increasing worried about their majority in the Senate because Obama is sending moderates and independents running away. Imagine what Republicans can do once they’re the majority of both the House and Senate. The possibility of Republicans regaining the majority in the Senate is becoming more likely each day that Obama’s approval rating continues to decrease. The possibility of Democrats having a net gain in the 2014 mid terms is nonexistent. Every political “expert” is saying Democrats are going to have a net loss. The only question is how much?

Obama is the face and “leader” of the Democratic party. Once he’s gone, there isn’t a viable Democrat to replace him. Not only his Obama very weak, Biden is even weaker. The Democratic party will soon collapse under the weight of poor to non existent leadership.

There is yet to be a viable replacement for Obama. 2016 will be like 2008, but in reverse. No Republican wanted to run in 2008 because of the unpopularity of Bush, so Republicans went with McCain. Likewise, no Democrat will want to tun in 2016 because of the unpopularity of Obama, so they’ll probably go with Biden. Regardless, it’s almost guaranteed that Democrats will run a very weak candidate.

The chances of Republicans having a net gain of seats in 2014 is 75%. The chances of Republicans taking control of the Senate in 2014 is 50/50. After 2014, with expanded Republican power, Obama’s approval rating will continue to decrease. Going to the polls in 2016, the unpopular face of the Democratic party will drive Americans to vote for the Republican candidate. If Republicans nominate Rand Paul or Ted Cruz, it’s game over for Democrats in 2016.

The next two elections are very predictable. Democrats aren’t going to have a net gain in national election until 2018 at the earliest.

Posted by: Another at August 1, 2013 3:13 AM
Comment #369109

Another-
When the first kid gets shot by a gun a teacher brought into the classroom, I will wave your credentials in your face and tell you that simple logic means that even somebody like myself, who stayed to help out my family, can figure out its a bad idea. It’s expedient if you hope the shooter doesn’t kill the teacher first, and the teacher has the opportunity to fire, and the teacher doesn’t accidentally hit anybody… Or if the teacher isn’t the one who decides to shoot the kids, or leave that gun unattended.

Or, you could leave the gun out of the classroom, and there will be little chance of the events I described happening anyways.

As for your claims, there’s not much evidence in the Gallup polls to back it. You’re just trash talking, and that seems to be what you’re best at, considering your opening salvo.

2016 has Republics defending several seats in territory Obama won in. Demographics for Republicans are not getting better, especially over time. I might not be married or have children anytime soon, but a number of my peers probably will, and as time goes on, my parent’s generation and that before it are going to decline. Those people were the core of the Republican rise, and they are fading away.

As for it being over if you nominate Rand Paul or Ted Cruz, you’re damn right. Except for the fact that it will be your party that loses as those two compete to put their foot deepest in their own mouths.

I think if most Republican politicians have your attitudes, I have less to worry about in the coming elections. Republicans were predicted to have a chance to get the Senate in 2010, predicted to gain seats in 2012, and both times they seriously underperformed. If they recruit people like you to run, I have no doubt that they will fall short of reclaiming the Senate.

The Tea Party is what the Republican Party dreamed of being, but never was for practical reasons, and the Tea Partiers are going to learn just how practical those reasons were in an environment that’s been less friendly to Republicans than it’s been in decades. The GOP, by obsessing over Obama and opposing him, have blinded themselves to their desynchronization from America’s mainstream.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at August 1, 2013 8:37 AM
Comment #369111

I will try to keep this short, because you are incapable of understanding what is said:

blockquote>As for the cities liberal Democrats run? I did some research on crime rates. Of the ten cities with the least violent crime, most of them are run by Democrats. Of the ten cities with the lowest murder rate, most of them are run by Democrats. You’re making generalizations, probably based on what cities like Los Angeles and New York have done, or rust-belt cities.

As for your last question, I hate to be rude and answer it with another question, but do you know what one of the biggest sources of guns for criminals is?

First of all, almost all large cities in America are controlled by Democrats; why…because the Democrats have managed over the decades to bunch minorities into housing projects with government handouts.

So why don’t you give us the top ten cities for violent crime and murder and tell us who runs these cities…or wait…you were trying to trick me. Yes, they are run by liberal democrats.

As for the biggest source of guns to criminals; well except for the ones given to the bad guys by Holder, I would guess theft and black market. So I guess our current gun control laws and background checks are working…right Stephen?

So your answer to the problem is to not allow anyone to own a gun? Stephen, isn’t this what DC, Chicago, and other Democrat cities have already tried and were found unconstitutional? You know Mr. Daugherty, those LAWS that guarantee American’s the right to own guns.

Regarding the TP; so Mr. Daugherty is warning the Republicans, if we continue to support TP politicians, we will lose the Congress and the Presidency. Thank you Mr. Daugherty for telling us how to win elections. I’m glad you are concerned about us winning.


Posted by: Political Hostage at August 1, 2013 9:09 AM
Comment #369112

Stephen

Talk about knowing what talking points someone is going to say next.

“Your movement doesn’t allow people the free thought necessary to decide for themselves what degree of regulation gun sales and guns have on them.”

People who support the 2nd Amendment know the effect of gun regulation better than anyone else. And you sitting there trying to tell us what further erosion of the right would be reasonable and “common sense,” is laughable.

“There’s no notion of moderation.”

BS and you know it. To help you ‘fix’ your cities, we gave up part of our right and gave you background checks, bans and zones.

“You fear, erroneously, that liberals like me want to take all the guns and leave us vulnerable to all the threats, foreign and domestic.”

Erroneously? That fear is based on past and present speeches and legislation that actually does it.
Oh, but you don’t want “ALL” the guns, you just want the ones that scare you the most. For now.

“In response to that fear, you deny even reasonable, common sense gun regulations, and regulations on the sale of guns.”

Did they give you examples to use when spouting this talking point?
Can you give an example of a “common sense” regulation that would be effective, is Constitutional and not already on the books?

The problem isn’t with those who support the 2nd Amendment, it’s with those of you who know nothing about firearms reacting on emotion and demanding one size fits all legislation.

Posted by: kctim at August 1, 2013 9:48 AM
Comment #369113

Political Hostage-
And minorities were already bunched into ghettos by both racist private practices like redlining and racist public policies like Jim Crow and their northern counterparts.

So why don’t you give us the top ten cities for violent crime and murder and tell us who runs these cities…or wait…you were trying to trick me. Yes, they are run by liberal democrats.

I was trying to make a point: if the ten most peaceful major cities in America were all controlled by Republicans, you could say, “Republican political control leads to lower violent crime” But if they were mostly controlled by Democrats?

If they were mostly controlled by Democrats, then your argument loses it’s correlative relationship, much less it’s causal one. If keeping the political leadership of a city Democratic doesn’t affect whether it’s violent or not, then logically, a city being run by Democrats with presumably tougher gun laws doesn’t necessary make it more violent.

As for the biggest source of guns to criminals; well except for the ones given to the bad guys by Holder, I would guess theft and black market. So I guess our current gun control laws and background checks are working…right Stephen?

Theft and the black market. Where do you think they get most of their guns? From Law Abiding gun owners. If that’s the case, doesn’t maximizing the market in legitimate guns do nothing to change the relative level of criminal gun possession? It does, though, make it more difficult for violent criminals and folks who are mentally unbalanced to get weapons, and that can reduce the chances that we see the kind of violence we’re seeing right now.

As for the ones you say Holder gave them? God. You know, you’ve never traced the decision up to him, so you haven’t earned that particular accusation. More to the point, the biggest reason the guns weren’t intercepted by the ATF wasn’t that they were deliberately walked. According to records, only your Whistleblower was actually doing that.

No, the reason was, gun laws are so damn weak, concerning straw-buying and the passing of information on such purchases to federal authorities, that by the time the ATF agents show up, two things are true: the guns were already moved, by buyers who were not yet identified as straw-buyers, and the US attorneys were telling them that either the case wasn’t solid enough to arrest them, or that the sentence they could get wouldn’t encourage anybody to rat on the Cartel, exposing the other elements of the gunrunning operation.

You cannot have lax gun laws, and the lax enforcement you so desire, and also stem the tide of guns going over the border. They are mutually exclusive objectives, and its sad you don’t realize this.

So your answer to the problem is to not allow anyone to own a gun?

Haven’t I repeatedly told you that as absolute a solution as that might be, it’s not a solution that can be done in this country?

You should hold off on accusing me of being incapable of understanding what is said, because I have explicitly told you it’s not a solution I feel can be pursued, or should be pursued.

And as for being a concern troll? What I’d like is to have folks on the right who work and play well with others, who let this country function despite the fact it isn’t working according to a fantasy set of requirements. You haven’t stopped change, you’ve at best dammed it up, and what’s going to happen is that the pressure to change Washington and the rest of the country is going to find a weakness in those defenses, and it’s going to come rushing through, perhaps worse than it was going to be.

Not the best recipe for moderate legislation, for cooler heads to prevail. The radicals feed each other outrages, and only strengthen each other. If we want the moderates to rule, negotiation must be on the table.

kctim-
With all due respect, if the constant claims that Democrat X is going to come and take all your guns is any guide, then they don’t know what the real effect is.

Look, if it means you don’t get your gun the day you buy it, well boo-hoo. If it means you have to pass a background check so authorities can be sure that a criminal or a loony isn’t buying a gun, so be it.

If there’s no room for negotiation, that means there’s also no cushion between your gun rights, and public outrage. Do you want to convince people that more has to be done?

You could better negotiation better fitting legislation if things were not built on fear from both sides. If we both acknowledged that we want to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and those whose mental illness makes them dangerous, that we want to keep an eye on things like the gun trade and whatnot, then we could better serve both purposes: keeping guns available for those who should have them, and denying them to those who shouldn’t.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at August 1, 2013 10:48 AM
Comment #369114

Stephen

When “Democrat X” has suggested, introduced or passed legislation that bans a firearm, the “real effect” is that they want to ban firearms.
Of course, you are hiding behind the word “all,” trying to suggest banning the guns you fear does not mean you want to ban “all” guns. No, you will permit people to exercise their right as long as YOU approve of the gun they wish to keep.

A waiting period and background check isn’t really that big of an issue anymore. 2nd Amendment supporters have pretty much already caved on them.

The right has been willing to negotiate on trying to keep guns from the “criminals and loons,” but you guys don’t want to hear it.
No, you demand unenforceable background checks on private sales, family transfers and a list to keep track of it all. You want to ban scary looking guns and limit magazine capacity.
As with every other issue, negotiation to you guys is the right choosing from the options and solutions YOU think is best.

IF you wanted better fitting legislation, you would address the problem, instead of worrying about being PC. And, you wouldn’t be pretending that there aren’t already tens of thousands of gun laws on the books.

Posted by: kctim at August 1, 2013 11:42 AM
Comment #369117

Daugherty, you are so full of crap. You reek with the stench of crap. You sit here for months and base your guilt judgment of George Zimmerman on hypotheticals and not evidence; then you come on here and accuse me of not having evidence to accuse Holder of being involved in Fast and Furious:

As for the ones you say Holder gave them? God. You know, you’ve never traced the decision up to him, so you haven’t earned that particular accusation.

If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it must be a duck. You can honestly sit there and say Holder knew nothing about the largest transfer of illegal guns to drug lords by the ATF and tell us that Holder didn’t know anything about it? You are most stupid and your continued defense of the corrupt administration is quite disgusting. Go tell some other leftist your drivel.

Stephen, you have already stated that you would want to see ALL guns banned, so you don’t even need to explain anything else. The Constitution and Bill of Rights gives us the right to own firearms, the SCOTUS has upheld that right, the American people have continued to work through the NRA and the CCKRBA to maintain that right. The ownership of guns has increased and the ownership of CC permits has and is increasing; which means your side is losing on this one. Give it up, your arguments are weak and a waste of time.

Posted by: Political Hostage at August 1, 2013 3:41 PM
Comment #369122

I don’t believe Daugherty could have said it better.

“”The manipulation of African-Americans [in Florida] is disgraceful … You incentivize killing people,” he declared. “‘Stand your ground’ laws must end.” He went on to assert that a boycott of the “apartheid state” of Florida would be in order if the U.S. Department of Justice failed to file a civil lawsuit against Zimmerman.”

“Florida Gov. Rick Scott (R) demanded an apology from the Rev. Jesse Jackson on Wednesday, in response to Jackson’s recent comments likening Florida to the “Selma of our time” and an “apartheid state.”

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/31/rick-scott-jesse-jackson_n_3683424.html?icid=maing-grid7|main5|dl10|sec1_lnk2%26pLid%3D352560

Posted by: Royal Flush at August 1, 2013 5:37 PM
Comment #369133

kctim-
I really wish people would read what I write instead of reading between what I wrote, and falsely at that.

You’re not looking at the worlds biggest foe of gun rights. I just don’t have a rosy, romanticized view of them in the real world. I love running around with a shotgun in the fantasy world, but I don’t have much of an urge to kill somebody or something in the real world with one.

I would love to collaborate with gun owners and people who know their stuff to deal with the real monstrous weapons, and leave the ones that only look mean behind.

If you want people to look beyond superficial elements, if you want folks to say “gun rights people are not the problem.” then you have to realize that taking an open ended, no constraints sort of attitude just leaves you open for gun control advocates to say, “they won’t meet anybody halfway, they just want whatever guns they can get regardless of who dies or gets wounded in these brutal incidents.”

There is, I think, a way that folks like you could defuse this. You need to be identified, basically, with being a calming influence, sensible people who know the weapons, and who know what limits would be right to place on them. If you don’t like the ideas some people have about limiting a shooter’s ability to lay hold of firepower and wreak destruction with it, well then you come up with the ideas on how to inhibit this. Do it right, and people will stop blaming the broad availability of guns for the violence in our society.

Political Hostage-
Hmm. Insults, insinuations that I oppose the second amendment, the newest mention of the Zimmerman Case, but absolutely nothing to rule out the possibilities that I lay out.

Notice something about the arguments here? They generalized real fast, moving away from the subject at hand, to the more general subject of gun control, where they, despite my explicitly offered denial, state that I simply want to ban all guns, or at least all the ones that matter.

It shows the debate they want to have every time. Run away from the details, from what make sense on a real world detailed level, generalize the strawman argument for the opposition, and then attack that.

Doesn’t change the fact that you’ve put a weapon into a room full of unarmed boys and girls. The real world is complicated, not convenient, and once an outcome is possible, it’s simply a matter of rolling the dice of human behavior. Put enough guns in enough classrooms, and it will happen.

Royal Flush-
Honestly, I’m not sure there’s somebody to root for in a contest between those two blowhards. By the way, I don’t recall making the Zimmerman case part of this discussion, and I wonder why one would want to do that, given the facts. Do you really want to discuss what will happen when it’s a teacher and not a stranger who shoots an unarmed young man because they were threatening?

Nah, I’d keep it simple. It’s really about whether the potential good effect balances well against the potential bad. The last thing you want is the conclusion that the situation would have never been as deadly for the children or the people in the classroom, if it weren’t for the gun the school district brought into it.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at August 1, 2013 10:27 PM
Comment #369136
If you want people to look beyond superficial elements, if you want folks to say “gun rights people are not the problem.” then you have to realize that taking an open ended, no constraints sort of attitude just leaves you open for gun control advocates to say, “they won’t meet anybody halfway, they just want whatever guns they can get regardless of who dies or gets wounded in these brutal incidents.”

As an American who believes the Constitution and the Bill of Rights are the bedrock of this Republic; I can say unequivocally, that I don’t what gun control advocates say, and I don’t have to meet anyone halfway.


Political Hostage-
Hmm. Insults, insinuations that I oppose the second amendment

Okay Mr. Daugherty, here are your words:

The easy way to deal with this is to ban guns. Sorry, guys, but I’ve got to say it, just to get that simple solution out of the way.

Of course, we have a Second Amendment, a right to keep and bear arms. So, a ban is out of the question.

You say what you would like to do is ban all guns in America. You go on to say the Second Amendment prevents that from happening, but it doesn’t change the fact that you would like to ban all guns in America. We can add to that the fact that you believe the Constitution and the Bill of Rights is an evolving document; meaning what the founders meant when they wrote the documents can be changed to meet today’s needs. Correct Stephen?

So, by your own statements, the insults and insinuations are correct.

But Stephen, the subject is not open for debate. Whatever people decide to do in their districts or states is their business and not yours. Your post is imbecilic and flies in the face of people who want to govern themselves without a by your leave from a socialist government.

You can blather on all you want about gun control, gun rights, or the rights of people to protect their own children. As one writer has already stated, if you had children of your own, perhaps you would look at protecting them by any means. But you have none, which makes you unqualified to speak on the subject.

What you say means nothing; people will arm their teachers if they want, conceal carry laws will continue to expand, Stand Your Ground laws are here to stay, and you can thank Obama and leftist lie yourself for the gains of the NRA and gun rights. You have done this Mr. Daugherty. Once people have a taste of freedom, they won’t give it up.

hat I gather from your statements is that you hope for a tragedy to take place involving a teacher’s weapon. I think you are a sick person Daugherty.

Posted by: Political Hostage at August 1, 2013 11:00 PM
Comment #369138

“I would love to collaborate with gun owners and people who know their stuff to deal with the real monstrous weapons, and leave the ones that only look mean behind.”

OK Stephen, I’ll challange you on this.
My credentials are as follows: I am trained by the military, I have been trained and qualified on a 50 caiber machine gn, an m50 machine gun, a Browning Automatic Rifle, a 4.2 inch mortor, an 81mm mortor, a 60mm mortor, an M79 grenade launcher, an AK 47, m16, and m14 among others. I think I “know my stuff.” Now without name calling or any ill feelings, lets have a real discussion about the “real monstrous weapons”

Please tell me what you consider to be a “real monstrous weapon.

Posted by: tdobson at August 2, 2013 3:58 AM
Comment #369139

The above should have said m60 machine gun. either my fingers or my keyboard aren’t working too well this morning.

Posted by: tdobson at August 2, 2013 4:01 AM
Comment #369142

Stephen

Sometimes I’ll use ‘you’ instead of ‘you guys’ or ‘your side’ where I should. My bad.

One thing you always seem to ignore is that your views, fears, urges and desires are not shared by everybody else. And while you may think using rhetoric like “romanticized view” and “urge to kill somebody or something” to define 2nd Amendment supporters helps you gain support for your cause, it really is just bringing more heat on you.

“…then you have to realize that taking an open ended, no constraints sort of attitude just leaves you open for gun control advocates to say, “they won’t meet anybody halfway, they just want whatever guns they can get regardless of who dies or gets wounded in these brutal incidents.”

That’s the thing, Stephen - there are constraints already in place. Anti 2nd Amendment folks have already been met half-way and we should be fine tuning things, not gutting them.
Like everything else, your people want to pretend the compromised position is the new starting point.

“…sensible people who know the weapons, and who know what limits would be right to place on them.”

Um, that would be the people you guys dismiss as “gun nuts.” The people you guys lump in with the rare lone nut job. The people you all label as extremists for holding the belief that the 2nd Amendment is an individual right.

“If you don’t like the ideas some people have about limiting a shooter’s ability to lay hold of firepower and wreak destruction with it, well then you come up with the ideas on how to inhibit this.”

Ideas HAVE been given, you guys just choose to dismiss them because you don’t THINK it is the right or fair way to handle the actual problems. You are tightly locked in on the idea that what YOU think is best for California is what is best for Montana. That what YOU think is best for large urban areas full of gun violence, is what’s best for suburban and rural areas with very little gun violence. That just because some people can’t handle their right, nobody deserves to have that right.

“Do it right, and people will stop blaming the broad availability of guns for the violence in our society.”

Doing it right means we stop blaming the 2nd Amendment and start placing the blame where it belongs.

IF some “broad availability of guns” is to blame for the violence in our society, why are areas with fewer people and alot more guns safer than areas with more people, more gun control laws, and fewer guns?

Posted by: kctim at August 2, 2013 10:42 AM
Comment #369144
During a panel discussion on Thursday’s NBC Today about some school districts arming teachers to defend against mass shootings, fill-in co-host Carson Daly teed up New Jersey American Federation of Teachers president Donna Chiera to slam the idea: “Donna, you’re a teacher. What’s the impact – what do you think the impact would be on a child if they knew their teacher was carrying a gun?”

Here is a perfect example of the shrill “the sky is falling” attitude of the left. This is the left’s latest talking points of anti-gun left, of which we also see Mr. Daugherty more than willing to parrot in his own post. This is the conversation that took place on NBC’s Today Show. It has nothing to do with the safety of children, just as Daugherty’s post has nothing to do with children’s safety. It has everything to do with the left’s hatred toward American’s owning guns and being able to protect themselves, without government’s help.

9:16AM ET

CARSON DALY: Donna Chiera is president of the American Federation of Teachers in New Jersey, and Curt Lavarello is the executive director of the School Safety Advocacy Council, good morning to you both. Donna, you’re a teacher. What’s the impact – what do you think the impact would be on a child if they knew their teacher was carrying a gun?

[ON-SCREEN HEADLINE: School Safety; Should Teachers & Staff Be Armed?]

DONNA CHIERA: In today’s society, where students see television where if someone gets angry, they pull a gun, a classroom, a school is supposed to be a safe haven. A classroom is someplace where magic happens, and it happens when there is a comfortable feeling between teachers and students. I would hate for students to say, “Oh, my goodness, if I answer the wrong question, is my teacher going to shoot me? If I make my teacher angry, is my teacher going to shoot me?”

DALY: Do you think they would they make that connection?

CHIERA: I think, because of the media and everything they’ve been exposed to, where people on a regular basis they see on TV, someone got mad and pulled out a gun. I also think it impacts parents. Parents many times come into classrooms to have uncomfortable conversations with teachers. And I wouldn’t want parents to come in and be hesitant to say something to me with, “Is this the teacher who’s packing the gun and what do I have to be fearful?” I think it would make an environment of fear.

AL ROKER: Well, Curt, as somebody who trains teachers for certain eventualities, what’s your feeling on this? Does it depend on, say, the community, where they have the guns at?

CURT LAVARELLO: Well, quite honestly, we’re having this discussion for the very right reason, which is obviously we want to keep children safe. And I understand the [Clarksville, Arkansas] superintendent’s position here because everybody in school district’s across the country post-Sandy Hook are grappling with what to do to make sure their kids are safe. But to go as far as the extreme of saying we’re going to start arming teachers in schools, there’s a big difference between having an armed teacher and having a well-trained law enforcement officer at a school, a school resource officer. There’s a lot of things we can do in between that, perhaps.

DALY: Maybe there’s a happy medium.

ROKER: You think that’s a last resort?

NATALIE MORALES: Yeah, I was going to say, what do you think teachers think is necessary to ensure the safety of the children?

LAVARELLO: Well, I think they want to see good safety preparedness. They want to make sure there’s training in place. They want to make sure that there’s a good relationship with the local law enforcement agency, whether it’s the sheriff’s department, police department. There are a lot of things we can do to straighten that out on the front end before we go to necessarily the extreme of arming teachers.

DALY: Yeah, like arming every pilot seems crazy, too. But I feel better when I’m on a plane, and I know there’s a federal air marshal on that plane. So maybe there is some sort of happy medium federal program that can make you feel like your kids are safe without there being guns in every teacher’s box.

LAVARELLO: Absolutely. And there are a lot of school districts across the country doing that. In Broward county, for example, they’re using part-time police officers who have gone through all the first-response training, just as that of a school resource officer. There are some happy mediums in between.

DALY: Well, it’s a healthy discussion. Thank you guys both for being here. Curt Lavarello, Donna Chiera, thank you.

What I find interesting is that these people now feel safe when an armed marshal is on a plane; but were the same people who claimed gloom and doom when US marshal’s were first allowed to be armed on planes. This of course in response to pilots being allowed to be armed.

Posted by: Political Hostage at August 2, 2013 11:06 AM
Comment #369145

Everything with the left is a crisis. Sequester is a crisis, government shutdown is a crisis, healthcare is a crisis, global warming is a crisis, amnesty for illegals is a crisis, liberal cities going bankrupt is a crisis, and now arming teachers is a crisis. Can anyone name a single democrat invoked crisis that actually became a crisis? I can’t…

Posted by: Political Hostage at August 2, 2013 11:15 AM
Comment #369148

First things, first. It looks like the AG in Arkansas has nixed the idea. According to him, part of the reason for that is the fact that while armed security guards are allowed, the organizations they belong to have to basically have that as their business purpose. You can’t make teachers into security guards with a few classes.

Political Hostage-
I said it was easiest. I didn’t say it was right. Logically speaking, if you scrubbed guns from Hawaii to Maine, removed them all, you’d get no gun crime, no accidental shootings, no school shootings, etc.

Of course we have an amendment that says we can’t do that. And I never said that I wanted to get rid of all guns anyways. I simply stated it as a hypothetical start. And then I said, as you quoted, a ban is out of the question.

I have since said that I don’t want that anyways, but your logic goes, since I am a liberal, and I don’t support absolute gun rights like some, then I must actually want to ban all guns!

But I don’t. I have never stated that as my opinion ANYWHERE.

If you misdiagnose my position, you fail to respect my true point of view.

You aren’t an island. You don’t live in a country where only you can govern you. And you certainly can’t tell other free people that things aren’t up for debate.

As for what I would say if I had children?

I find it interesting that you say that, given how much criticism has been directed at legislators who decided to do some limited gun control, citing their concerns for their children. Is it on the people who want folks with guns in the same classroom as their children who are qualified to say something? Or do the people who say that any gun in a classroom with their child could be a threat to that child have a point, too?

It seems to me that you suffer from what is admittedly a nonpartisan problem: having come to your view on a subject, you see your own view as inevitable. Now I can understand why it is that this idea of having that person in the classroom ready and able to defend against a shooter is attractive to people. Believe me, I get it!

But you should acknowledge that there’s another side to this, a side that says that most of the time, guns don’t show up in classrooms anyways.

A side that says that this gun you’ve brought into the classroom has the capacity and the potential itself to be used as a weapon against anybody there, or to cause injury by accident.

You might say, “It’s not up for debate.”, but indeed, whether you like it or not, regardless of what you do, it will be. It will especially be up for debate when a policy like this becomes fact, and somebody gets hurt under it just like somebody said they would. Nothing you can do can stop people from thinking, “what were they thinking?”!

And if enough people do start thinking that way, then the interpretation of the Second Amendment will tilt that way, and perhaps we will even seen an amendment going in that direction.

You can lose this debate. In fact, in many ways, you already have. Because the gun rights movement is callous towards events like this, many people see the gun rights movement as that much more dangerous. If they can’t be affected by this, see this as a symptom of a problem, if their only solution is to put more guns into the situation, meaning more bullets are going to be flying around a room with children in it, then something’s wrong, people are going to think.

You say I’m a sick bastard who hopes that something bad will happen. No, I’m just smart enough to understand that in responding to an armed person who might conceivably, as a distant contingency, show up with a gun, you’re having somebody definitely show up with a gun, and you’re counting, counting, on things to go right. No mess ups. No controversies. No students getting a gun pulled on them, or worse. No students taking the gun from the teacher.

Since when does the world allow us that kind of luck?

Tdobson-
I’m afraid you missed my point. The point would be, what would you consider, among all the “M”s you’ve described, weapons unsuitable and/or unnecessary for civilians to own? Tell me, what are the characteristics that you think we could, and should lose for civilian populations without harming their ability to defend themselves or use the guns for target or sporting purposes?

Your people complain about who is coming up with these restrictions. If you helped shape them, then you could say, “listen, we eliminated guns like this, and this and this from the market. In essence, this shooter would have used this weapon otherwise, and the results would have been the same.”

When gun rights people basically spout paranoid conspiracy theory, it guts their credibility. You need sober, serious spokesmen who evoke steady hands and even-keeled minds. You need to reassure people, and part of that reassurance is participation in the process, rather than the aim to destroy and prevent it altogether.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at August 2, 2013 1:28 PM
Comment #369149

The question is Mr. Daugherty; why do so many people have such a low opinion of you and your comments?

The answer is that you play this game of always trying to shift the blame to someone else. Of course, you come by this honestly, since your messiah also spends his whole life blaming others for his own faults.

When I said the subject was not up for debate:

But Stephen, the subject is not open for debate. Whatever people decide to do in their districts or states is their business and not yours. Your post is imbecilic and flies in the face of people who want to govern themselves without a by your leave from a socialist government.

I was referring to your interference into a state or school district in which you do not live. In other words Mr. Daugherty, it’s none of your business and therefore not open for debate, unless you live where it is being discussed. This is called local control; but as I said, your imbecilic comments are based upon the Federal Government being the nanny of all Americans.

Seven states have passed laws allowing school teachers and administrators to be armed; I’m sorry that they did not first get the approval of Mr. Daugherty or Obama in order to protect their children. And it just so happens that a liberal Democrat AG in Arkansas nixed the program. What we have is another bleeding heart liberal who thinks like Stephen. But Stephen, if it’s any consolation to you; this Arkansas AG would have probably voted Zimmerman guilty, based on no evidence and emotion like you.

Regarding gun control; let’s make this real simple Stephen, since you say I am misstating your stand on gun ownership:

1. First you say, your choice would be that ALL guns be banned in America.

2. Then you say that’s not possible due to the 2nd Amendment.

Now I have a question for you Mr. Daugherty; do you believe the 2nd Amendment is referring to private citizens having the right to own guns, or do you believe the 2nd Amendment is referring to a certain group (a standing militia) to own guns?

My guess is that you don’t believe it’s referring to private individuals. And if that is the case, your whole post is moot. It has nothing to do with safety of children or teachers being armed; it has to do with gun control.

Tell me Mr. Daugherty, how are we supposed to have a “common ground” discussion with the left on gun safety, when the left’s core belief is that American’s do not have the right to own guns.

Regarding the abolishment of all guns would create a gun crime free society: England is a gun free country, do they still have gun crimes? There was a time when English cops did not carry a weapon; since England is a gun free country, why are their cops now armed?

Posted by: Political Hostage at August 2, 2013 2:11 PM
Comment #369150
When gun rights people basically spout paranoid conspiracy theory, it guts their credibility. You need sober, serious spokesmen who evoke steady hands and even-keeled minds. You need to reassure people, and part of that reassurance is participation in the process, rather than the aim to destroy and prevent it altogether.

Oh Stephen, I can say the exact same thing about you:

When gun control people basically spout gun bans, it guts their credibility. You have no sober, serious spokesman with even-keeled minds. You can never reassure people because the left’s goal is to always pass more gun control laws, without ever enforcing the current laws. When leftist like yourself open the conversation with “If I had my way, all guns would be banned”, it kind of destroys any opportunity to have an honest discussion.

Posted by: Political Hostage at August 2, 2013 2:21 PM
Comment #369151
Since NBC sportscaster Bob Costas gave us an anti-gun lecture two weeks ago during Sunday Night Football, we’ve heard a lot from progressives like Juan Williams, Bob Beckel and anti-gun advocacy groups about how countries in Europe with strict gun control laws don’t have problems with gun crime. We’ve also heard the reason the United States has a “gun crime problem” is because we allow citizens to own handguns however, the numbers on violent crime committed using a gun tell a different story.

New data out from the UK, where guns are banned, shows gun crime has soared by 35 percent.

The Government’s latest crime figures were condemned as “truly terrible” by the Tories today as it emerged that gun crime in England and Wales soared by 35% last year.

Criminals used handguns in 46% more offences, Home Office statistics revealed.

Firearms were used in 9,974 recorded crimes in the 12 months to last April, up from 7,362.

It was the fourth consecutive year to see a rise and there were more than 2,200 more gun crimes last year than the previous peak in 1993.

Figures showed the number of crimes involving handguns had more than doubled since the post-Dunblane massacre ban on the weapons, from 2,636 in 1997-1998 to 5,871.

Unadjusted figures showed overall recorded crime in the 12 months to last September rose 9.3%, but the Home Office stressed that new procedures had skewed the figures.

Shadow home secretary Oliver Letwin said: “These figures are truly terrible.

“Despite the street crime initiative, robbery is massively up. So are gun-related crimes, domestic burglary, retail burglary, and drug offenses.

“The only word for this is failure: the Government’s response of knee-jerk reactions, gimmicks and initiatives is not working and confused signals on sentences for burglary will not help either.

“The figures will continue to be dreadful until the Government produces a coherent long term strategy to attack crime at its roots and get police visibly back on our streets.”

Gun crime would not be cracked until gangs were broken up and the streets “reclaimed for the honest citizen by proper neighborhood policing”, he added.

At least some in the UK are talking about “attacking crime at its roots” by focusing on criminals, after all, guns are already banned so they can’t blame crime on guns shooting themselves. Meanwhile in the United States, as more and more people own guns, the rate of violent crime has gone down.

Violent crime in the United States fell for the fifth consecutive year in 2011 with murder, rape and robbery all going down, although crime remains a serious problem in many urban areas, the FBI said on Monday.

The report of all crimes reported to police nationwide showed slightly more than 1.2 million violent incidents nationwide, while property crimes hit a nine-year low.

Compared with 2010, the new figures show violent crime down 3.8 percent overall. Property crime was down 0.5 percent.

Among violent incidents reported to police, murders were down about 0.7 percent, robberies dropped 4 percent, aggravated assaults declined 3.9 percent, and forcible rapes were down 2.5 percent.

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2012/12/11/gun-crime-soars-in-england-where-guns-are-banned-n1464528

So once again, we finds the comments of Mr. Daugherty to be completely bogus and devoid of facts. Mr. Daugherty’s comments are the results of a mind that lives in the fantasy world of the socialist. Where the government will create the utopia; where there is no disease, hunger, crime, everyone loves each other, and justice prevails. Wait a minute, isn’t that what Jesus promised…Mr. Daugherty believes the Democrat utopian society is the promise of the Second Coming.

Posted by: Political Hostage at August 2, 2013 2:38 PM
Comment #369152

Knife crimes in England have quadrupled. Since guns are illegal, knives are the preferred weapon. So what is the next step Mr. Daugherty; should the government pass laws banning knives.

And what idiot in England has come up with the idea that, “At least some in the UK are talking about “attacking crime at its roots” by focusing on criminals, after all, guns are already banned so they can’t blame crime on guns shooting themselves”.

Could it be that there are some in England that have come to the conclusion that “guns don’t kill people…people kill people”. Could we also deduct from this comment that mankind is basically evil?

Posted by: Political Hostage at August 2, 2013 2:45 PM
Comment #369153

Stephen thank you for your well thought out discussions. You are wise beyond your years. Some people do seem to become less intelligent as they age as evidenced by comments made by some to attempt to detract from your reasoned responses. You have my sympathy and to those of you who only wish to cast aspersions on any debate you also have my sympathy but for another reason. As you age you appear to lose intelligence and substitute that with rage, resentment and unreasonableness. You truly deserve sympathy but you do not deserve any acknowledgement of your abilities as they bear no resemblance to reasoned debate.

Posted by: Speak4all at August 2, 2013 3:17 PM
Comment #369154

Political Hostage-
I proposed the idea to eliminate it ten seconds later. Why? If my opinion is that guns ought to be banned outright, why didn’t I lead with a thesis that said just that?

Or put another way, have I ever been shy about contradicting you and yours when I felt that way?

You’ve got just one set of arguments, and you have to make them apply for everything on the given subject, because you don’t exercise the intellectual discipline necessary to create the arguments for yourself. I have to be an absolute opponent of the Second Amendment, so you can use arguments that proceed from diametrically opposed direction. It has to be black and white with you.

I honestly am not looking for a total ban. I start with that, saying that if we were looking to keep guns out of schools, that would be the simplest, easiest way. No guns, no guns in schools.

But then I said, as you quoted, that this was out of the question.

I’ve conceded the argument before it even had a chance to be elaborated! Not just conceded it, but conceded the argument absolutely!

Afterwards, in various comments, I’ve said that armed guards within the school are fine with me. Again, you ignore this. Why? It doesn’t fit with your prepared arguments.

The truth is, I can’t even promote a common sense argument with some people these days. They’re so wrapped up in the politics, in trying to prove something, that they don’t even look at things for their own sake.

Or put another way, in regards to this argument, does it occur to you that one reason this is shocking is that people are not used to thinking of guns being traditionally carried in the classroom by teachers or staff?

It really doesn’t occur to you that some might think this a radical departure from how things have traditionally been. It doesn’t occur to you that folks might think that this detracts from the peace they want in the classroom, rather than add to it.

As for Crises?

Hmm. Republicans have justified both the Government Shutdown threats and the showdown over the debt ceiling by claiming that deficits and debt had reached crisis proportion. They are also claiming that if Obamacare becomes law, all sorts of awful things will happen, that the government will step in and take over healthcare everywhere, they’ll kill granny and Trig and the whole economy will fall to socialism.

Your words. :-D

You claim that illegal immigration has become an invasion, that they’re taking all the jobs, voting illegitimately in elections! You might not use the word crisis, but surely that’s the anxiety you wish to evoke, no?

The truth is, Republicans have treated the overcoming of the Republican majority and the rise of the Democrats as an existential crisis for the nation at large.

So, you’re going to come around and say that we’re the ones trying to panic people?

The sequester is a problem. It’s dragging on the economy. Global Warming is a problem, it will upset our entire way of life. Yes, we need to deal with our illegal immigrant problem. But we need to acknowledge that uprooting every person who came into this nation illegally is the wrong way to go, a logistical impossibility. At the same time, these people do not need to be simply given a blanket amnesty. Of course, you like to use that word, no matter how many hoops we have people jump through to give them forgiveness for entering the country illegally, because you have a prepared argument, and aren’t willing to exercise the intellectual muscles necessary to come up with one to suit the actual proposal.

As for liberal cities going bankrupt?

The main reason we’re talking about a bankrupt Detroit, that is one that’s actually applied for it, is because of what some Conservative appointee did. A liberal would try to restructure things, and wouldn’t be seeking to undercut the retirement pensions of a bunch of employees. I seem to recall the Constitution guaranteeing a republican form of government to the people of the states, but it seems it’s alright with folks like yourself to have elected city councils and mayors replaced by appointed officials, who often then proceed to loot the cities in question for their assets.

The real crisis is a constitutional one, both in the sense that employee pensions are guaranteed by the Michigan Constitution, and in the sense that citizens of this country are supposed to be led by elected leaders.

As for arming teachers? I never said it was a crisis. You did. I just said it was a bad idea, and gave out reasonable premises for an argument to that effect.

The next time you claim something dire will happen if you don’t get your way, I will point out to you that you are the one who says its a bad thing to say a crisis is going on. Thank you.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at August 2, 2013 3:37 PM
Comment #369161

How many school teachers and administrators would actually want to have a gun in school? Nuns with guns anyone?

As for Stevie Dee Aughtry, he’s not a liberal, he’s an opportunist and Kossacker. He could be from the phownee tribe, remote descendants of Dermot McCarthy.

Posted by: ohrealy at August 2, 2013 5:34 PM
Comment #369166

Mr. Daugherty, are you now also posting under the handle Speak4all?

You once again skirt the question with rhetoric.

DO YOU BELIEVE THE BILL OF RIGHTS IS REFERING TO THE INDIVIDUAL’S RIGHTS TO OWN GUNS UNDER THE 2ND AMENDMENT, OR IS IT TALKING ABOUT A STATE MILITIA?

I was shouting Stephen and I want your answer.

Posted by: Political Hostage at August 2, 2013 6:21 PM
Comment #369167

“The main reason we’re talking about a bankrupt Detroit, that is one that’s actually applied for it, is because of what some Conservative appointee did.”

Just imagine the hypocrisy in that comment. Anyone who has read the history of Detroit’s slow road to insolvency has to laugh out loud at that preposterous belief and feel sorry that the good people of Detroit have for so many years been led by lousy politicians.

Posted by: Royal Flush at August 2, 2013 6:30 PM
Comment #369174

Hostage
You sir or madam are a hostage of your hatred. I have no use for your entries other than they provide a perfect example of the point I made in my previous post. No I am not Stephen, but I am certain that in that fevered mind you inhabit you are unable to discern a writing style that should make that evident. Try regaining some intelligence, we will know if it is working by the amount of rage, resentment and unreasonableness you express.

Ohreally
Come now I am certain that you can craft an entry that might add to the discussion or perhaps you can work on that when the school begins again in Illinois.

Royal
If you keep posting like that last one and your response to Adam in the other thread I may quit scrolling through your entries and read more.

Stephen
Keep up the good work and know that your reasoned arguments are appreciated.

I have viewed this site since it’s inception and enjoy coming here for the diversity in views however sometimes the vitriolic entries are demeaning to the posters credibility.

Posted by: Speak4all at August 2, 2013 7:22 PM
Comment #369176

LOL…I suspect “Speak4all” is one of Doughboy’s avatar’s in a role playing game.

Posted by: Royal Flush at August 2, 2013 8:05 PM
Comment #369178

Someone has resorted to making a puppet out of a sock.

I can’t picture most teachers I know wanting to be armed, except the ones that are nuts.

In other news, homicides in Chicago were 88% black on black in July, including one on the POTUS’s street, 3 miles south. A 4 year old girl, Khalise Witherspoon, has survived her gun shot wound to the stomach. She doesn’t live in a slum, a ghetto, or an “inner city”.

Posted by: ohrealy at August 2, 2013 9:08 PM
Comment #369180

Speak4all, should be Speak4yourself; however, I find your writing style just like Mr. Daugherty’s, except for the length of the comments. You both suffer from a common leftist problem called “Maximus Ignoramus”.

But I am glad you are able to visit this site; come back when you can stay longer. Stephen Daugherty gets depressed when he doesn’t have following. You know, when he doesn’t have someone to tell him how brilliant he is.

Posted by: Political Hostage at August 2, 2013 10:22 PM
Comment #369196

Political Hostage-
I am Stephen Daugherty here, and Stephen Daugherty on DailyKos. I figured that it would be absurd to splash my name all over here, and then go into friendlier territory, and hide behind a pseudonym I didn’t avail myself of on more competitive ground.

I find it a mark of my success that you feel the need to preface everything with the reasons why I shouldn’t be listened to, all reasons having to do with some caricature of what a liberal’s supposed to be like.

I try to keep an even temper about it. Sometimes, my instincts are telling me to say what I’d probably say to somebody who insulted me that badly in real life. “Go **** yourself”.

But If I said that to you, would you go **** yourself? I think not. I think you’d take it for what it was: somebody on the other side of an argument with you getting angry and saying something you don’t feel is justified anyways. You’d either push harder, or you’d just ignore it.

But why would you do it? Because you look at this as war. You actually think that by wounding me as grievously as possible, by trying to trash my credibility, you’re promoting your own cause.

You’re not, really. Most of my memories of conservatives from the past several years have been negative. They’re not people, it seems, who like me, and I don’t feel much like liking them either, given what they’ve said to me.

There’s a whole generation of people just like me, and of minorities and everybody, whose main interaction with you and your party have essentially been offensive to them. So, as you pile on the often silly accusations, and paranoid delusions of conspiracy theory, you simply hammer more nails into the coffin encasing people’s respect for the conservative movement. Your people have forgotten a fundamental rule in social interaction: if you want friends, you’ve got to be a friend. And for the most part, people will listen to their friends.

To keep your party pure, you’ve had to separate it from others. You do this to make it more powerful, so when it votes, they all vote for these hard-right items. No half measures, no compromises. But the separation comes at a price, because when it comes down to it, if the only people you’ll reach out to are like you, the chances are, you’re reaching out mostly to people who have already joined and purified themselves.

I’ve talked about this concept before: the Strength of Weak Ties. Now if you’ve got a large contingent of folks of a different political faction within your party, it can cause trouble. But so can not having them, for various reasons. In my party, few mourn the conservative Democrats who left or were washed away by the 2010 election, but we do mourn the numbers that came with them.

Republicans are no different. The core of the party can only count for so much influence. Force in the real world will push and pull at any party that tries to impose perfect unity, especially in an unproductive direction like your current one. At some point, factions have to develop as local and cultural differences force their way to the surface.

So, in a world where you can’t control everything people think, where the easy solution of just cutting out anybody who doesn’t pass all the litmus tests hasn’t worked, what’s left?

Well, the very RINOs you hate. Your party had more power with them, more ability to elect people. When it shed these outer layers, it gave away some of it pull and influence outside the party membership. More or less, 20% of the American public identifies as Republican. a huge part of both parties’ collection of voters do not strictly consider themselves part of the party.

In the quest to get perfect votes, to get unchallengeable power, conservatives are chipping away at what allows them to maintain majorities. The question you need to be asking, in your zeal to purify the party and defeat those unlike the conservatives you consider superior, is how much support you can afford to lose, and whether or not people see you do with me and others just turns people away from supporting you.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at August 3, 2013 9:38 PM
Comment #369221

Sorry, I wasn’t able to respond over the weekend. I enjoy doting on my grandchildren and because I have 13 of them, there’s a whole lot of doting to do. I also work a full time job so don’t expect much in the way of entries on the blog from me. The only exception will be to attempt to add respect, restraint and reasonableness. May be a lost cause but I feel those here who use valid and reasoned arguments should be supported. You haters, not so much.

Hostage
Not bad but still feel the rage coming from your keyboard.

Royal
Yah, you sure know how to turn a phrase. Into a stupid entry that is.

Ohreally
All my socks are spoken for. While I respect your position on guns in schools, how about you try doing something about the problems in Chicago instead of just pointing out the obvious.

Posted by: Speak4all at August 5, 2013 9:19 AM
Comment #375133

Who will listen to a concert, North Face Jackets Outlet, of Wang Jie, Longchamp Paris, and Yu tears, of nostalgia trip, will be a blessing for, Gucci Outlet, the hot summer and ecstatic, Coach Factory Online, once for friends, Burberry Outlet, and sentimental romance, Ralph Lauren UK, will be for a long-awaited, Coach Outlet, reunion does not drunk return, Polo Outlet Online, how much passion, Michael Kors Outlet, and difficult moments, Canada Goose Outlet, his own covered with mill edges, Coach Purses Outlet Online, lost his best, North Clearance, those who have been ignored, http://www.guccivshoesfactory.com/, by the vulgar, Polo Lauren Ralph, reality of youth ah, MCM リュック, those pure idealism and vision ah, Gucci Shoes Outlet, I do not know, Marc Jacobs Outlet Online, when to actually be, Coach Factory Outlet Online, covered with dust into years, Coach Purses Outlet, of ruthless thin bookmarks, for a long time, Michael Kors Outlet Online, has forgotten to open, Cheap Hollister UK Online, this is a forgotten era, UGG Boots Sale, subject look back, Coach Outlet Online, adrift.

Posted by: coachbag at December 19, 2013 10:36 PM
Comment #378722

Great blog and I love what you have to say and I think I will tweet this out to my friends so they can check it out as well. I like what you have to say Pollen and Bleu | Pollen & Bleu | Rivertrees Residences | Rivertrees | coco palms pasir ris | coco palms | coco palms condo | the rise @ oxley | the rise @ oxley residences | rise @ oxley | handbags | handbags Singapore | ladies bags excellent article.

Posted by: the rise @ oxley residences at May 25, 2014 12:05 AM
Post a comment