Sheila Jackson Lee with a good idea???

[petegz28]

So this morning on the way to work I am listening to the local talking head sorta making fun of Lee for an idea she had for safety in schools. Truth be told she wasn't far off from what I think is a great idea.

Her idea:

Door to buzz into the school with bulletproof glass. = very acceptable
Steel doors on classrooms that drop down when an alarm goes off. = I have a slight variation on that.

My suggestion is replace classroom doors with steel doors. You can put wood veneer on it or whatever to make it appealing to the eye but nonetheless a steeldoor with a bulletproof glass window.

Then you install locks that are remotely activated. These are not uncommon. If an alarm is triggered the locks automatically engage thus securing the kids behind a locked steel door with bulletproof glass.

I think this is a very good idea and have to commend her for at least mentioning solutions and not saying "take guns away" in the same sentence.

[alnorth]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

The fact that you'd choose turning every American school into Fort Knox rather than give up assault weapons (while childishly fearing they're going to take your guns away) shows exactly where your priorities lie.

Obviously you are implying that assault weapons are more dangerous than high-caliber handguns, and that if only those could be made illegal, none of this would be necessary. They aren't You are completely 100% wrong on this. They are actually LESS dangerous, at close range, than handguns, and we're lucky these psychos are being drawn to these scary-looking guns.

An AWB would, oddly, increase the danger, not reduce it, because they'd start using the weapons which are deadlier and more effective and which they would be using in the first place if they knew what they were doing.

[alnorth]

Barbara Boxer of all people came up with a good idea regarding gun violence, that I agree with.

Give money to states to help pay for using national guard troops in schools. When not deployed overseas, and national emergencies and disasters aside, the national guard isn't really being used for much anyway. The national guard is apparently receptive to the idea too, claiming they are ready for it if called on.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/on-con...rd-152409.html

edit: Boxer also has a bill to increase funding for school security (Cameras and metal detectors)

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics...,7530900.story

The politicians are not stupid, well not most of them. They know that the assault weapons ban is a stupid, idiotic, useless law. The only reason why there's any movement in that direction is because the uninformed left keeps crying about them, somehow believing they are deadlier than any other legal gun, and the politicians are just responding to voters.

The AWB probably wont pass though, and most of the politicians are genuinely interested in doing something that might actually work, like this.

[HolyHandgernade]

Originally Posted by alnorth

Barbara Boxer of all people came up with a good idea regarding gun violence, that I agree with.

Give money to states to help pay for using national guard troops in schools. When not deployed overseas, and national emergencies and disasters aside, the national guard isn't really being used for much anyway. The national guard is apparently receptive to the idea too, claiming they are ready for it if called on.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/on-con...rd-152409.html

edit: Boxer also has a bill to increase funding for school security (Cameras and metal detectors)

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics...,7530900.story

The politicians are not stupid, well not most of them. They know that the assault weapons ban is a stupid, idiotic, useless law. The only reason why there's any movement in that direction is because the uninformed left keeps crying about them, somehow believing they are deadlier than any other legal gun, and the politicians are just responding to voters.

The AWB probably wont pass though, and most of the politicians are genuinely interested in doing something that might actually work, like this.

Movie theaters too?

[HolyHandgernade]

I'm sorry that was an unnecessary and curt response. That can be part of the solution, and it is a good idea. But it does not address the deadly gun culture in this society. Until we start moving away from this romantic love affair with arms way beyond what are necessary for hunting and home defense, we're not really addressing the problem. And, I am all for increased mental health care in this country as well, it has to be multi pronged, but one of those main prongs is the prevalence and easy accessability to these weapons.

[alnorth]

Originally Posted by HolyHandgernade

I'm sorry that was an unnecessary and curt response. That can be part of the solution, and it is a good idea. But it does not address the deadly gun culture in this society. Until we start moving away from this romantic love affair with arms way beyond what are necessary for hunting and home defense, we're not really addressing the problem. And, I am all for increased mental health care in this country as well, it has to be multi pronged, but one of those main prongs is the prevalence and easy accessability to these weapons.

Again, you just cant seem to shake the idea that assault weapons are more deadly than guns you seem to view as acceptable. They aren't. Once you accept that, then you begin to realize the impossibility of banning the guns that are ACTUALLY the most powerful and most dangerous: high-caliber handguns often used for home defense.

The only thing a rifle is better than a handgun for, is accuracy from long-range (> 25 yards or so) which is why they (and shotguns) are used for hunting. A handgun sacrifices accuracy for a larger, deadlier round. You don't need a rifle for a movie theater or a school, in fact it would be less effective than a handgun.

Assault rifles do not shoot more rounds per minute than a handgun, and though accurate from long-range, they are actually less dangerous from close range than a handgun. If you want to make a difference with a gun ban, then you need to start by arguing for a ban on .45 handguns.

That is politically impossible.

[BucEyedPea]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

The fact that you'd choose turning every American school into Fort Knox rather than give up assault weapons (while childishly fearing they're going to take your guns away) shows exactly where your priorities lie.

Well, then let's abolish public schools.

[BucEyedPea]

Originally Posted by HolyHandgernade

I'm sorry that was an unnecessary and curt response. That can be part of the solution, and it is a good idea. But it does not address the deadly gun culture in this society. Until we start moving away from this romantic love affair with arms way beyond what are necessary for hunting and home defense, we're not really addressing the problem. And, I am all for increased mental health care in this country as well, it has to be multi pronged, but one of those main prongs is the prevalence and easy accessability to these weapons.

If you want to end the deadly gun culture you claim we have, then start with the US govt ceasing it's own violence which adults condone and call the death of children collateral damage.

[HolyHandgernade]

Originally Posted by alnorth

Again, you just cant seem to shake the idea that assault weapons are more deadly than guns you seem to view as acceptable. They aren't. Once you accept that, then you begin to realize the impossibility of banning the guns that are ACTUALLY the most powerful and most dangerous: high-caliber handguns often used for home defense.

The only thing a rifle is better than a handgun for, is accuracy from long-range (> 25 yards or so) which is why they (and shotguns) are used for hunting. A handgun sacrifices accuracy for a larger, deadlier round. You don't need a rifle for a movie theater or a school, in fact it would be less effective than a handgun.

Assault rifles do not shoot more rounds per minute than a handgun, and though accurate from long-range, they are actually less dangerous from close range than a handgun. If you want to make a difference with a gun ban, then you need to start by arguing for a ban on .45 handguns.

That is politically impossible.

OK, I didn't say anything about any specific kind of gun, now did I? But, if limiting guns sold to the general public means no more than six shots before a reload, then let's talk about it. Screw politically impossible. If you mean the NRA finding every way they can to get around a gun law, then the NRA needs to start taking some heat. They should be partners not opponents. The problem is they represent gun manufacturers so they can make bigger profits off of a gun obsessed culture. There is no rational reason the U.S. should be responsible for up to 80% of gun sales in the world. Its a bullshit paranoid culture that you just want to say, "Nothing we can do about it." How about promoting actions that begin to move away from it? Guns don't need to fire 30 clips before reloading, hand gun, rifle or whatever for the general public consumption. It is a pathological trait.

[RNR]

Originally Posted by alnorth

Again, you just cant seem to shake the idea that assault weapons are more deadly than guns you seem to view as acceptable. They aren't. Once you accept that, then you begin to realize the impossibility of banning the guns that are ACTUALLY the most powerful and most dangerous: high-caliber handguns often used for home defense.

The only thing a rifle is better than a handgun for, is accuracy from long-range (> 25 yards or so) which is why they (and shotguns) are used for hunting. A handgun sacrifices accuracy for a larger, deadlier round. You don't need a rifle for a movie theater or a school, in fact it would be less effective than a handgun.

Assault rifles do not shoot more rounds per minute than a handgun, and though accurate from long-range, they are actually less dangerous from close range than a handgun. If you want to make a difference with a gun ban, then you need to start by arguing for a ban on .45 handguns.

That is politically impossible.

It hopefully is politically impossible. Stick your new rules for people who already follow the rules up your ass. Those who do this do not follow rules. If you ban every goddamn gun those who do not follow your mindless rules will still have them or access to them~

[A Salt Weapon]

Originally Posted by HolyHandgernade

Guns don't need to fire 30 clips before reloading,

That would be awesome, please show me any gun that can fire 30 clips before reloading, I want one.
Posted via Mobile Device

[alnorth]

Originally Posted by HolyHandgernade

OK, I didn't say anything about any specific kind of gun, now did I? But, if limiting guns sold to the general public means no more than six shots before a reload, then let's talk about it. Screw politically impossible. If you mean the NRA finding every way they can to get around a gun law, then the NRA needs to start taking some heat. They should be partners not opponents. The problem is they represent gun manufacturers so they can make bigger profits off of a gun obsessed culture. There is no rational reason the U.S. should be responsible for up to 80% of gun sales in the world. Its a bullshit paranoid culture that you just want to say, "Nothing we can do about it." How about promoting actions that begin to move away from it? Guns don't need to fire 30 clips before reloading, hand gun, rifle or whatever for the general public consumption. It is a pathological trait.

If you want to limit the sizes of magazines, fine. Lets talk about the magazines, the guns have nothing to do with it.

I'm actually open-minded about magazine size, I dont think I'd complain if we capped it at 15 or 20. (personally, I'd never use a magazine larger than 20, those huge magazines jam too often, I'd rather have a bunch of smaller, more reliable ones)

[frazod]

Originally Posted by A Salt Weapon

That would be awesome, please show me any gun that can fire 30 clips before reloading, I want one.
Posted via Mobile Device

I guess you could duct tape 30 Garands together, but goddamn, that would really be cumbersome. And sort of heavy.

[Otter]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

The fact that you'd choose turning every American school into Fort Knox rather than give up assault weapons (while childishly fearing they're going to take your guns away) shows exactly where your priorities lie.

When some over medicated nut job walks into a school with two revolvers and kills 10 people are you and your lefty **** friends gonna find that "ok" or will the be next to have to go?

Don't have to Nancy, I already know the answer.

[A Salt Weapon]

Originally Posted by frazod

I guess you could duct tape 30 Garands together, but goddamn, that would really be cumbersome. And sort of heavy.

No shit. Can you imagine welding 30 clips together and trying to load that monstrosity.
Posted via Mobile Device

[KCWolfman]

What about an alarm triggering with a fire inside?