• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

What we learned from Parkland-it's not good.

Mach said:
Obviously he was cowardly and will be scorned, and will have to live with his failure, and it was a tragedy beyond words for those kids and their families, I didn't mean to leave that part hanging as though he's not a problem. My point is that he's just a tiny symptom of the root cause. People are acting like having more guns in more security people's hands, for more money, making the gun lobby even more successful, is somehow the best solution...it's absurd.
Click to expand...

His actions or inactions aren't really part of the equation as to whether or not more armed guards are needed. You could point out that his being there certainly didn't help anything, but his having a gun certainly didn't hurt either. He was a non factor.
 
apdst said:
Make a statement? No, they weren't making a statement. This could possibly be the result of the anti-cop faction that demands that cops be less aggressive.
Click to expand...

No. That is absolutely 100% not the case. You should be ashamed to be suggesting that cops would let children die to prove a point.
 
eohrnberger said:
So far the 'literally every major news outlet and the majority of minor ones every single day' have been calling for gun bans, and haven't even prevented detailed proposals for consideration, just a 'blank check' gun ban, which, if you consider the stringent gun regulations in Chicago, have already proven themselves as ineffective.

The one thing the media could actually do to reduce lone mental rampage shootings is to stop giving these individuals notoriety by showing their faces and names.

It was reported that a study of what drives these mental rampage shooters was the notoriety. Because of the Parkland shooting, numbers of schools have been on partial or full lock down this week due to similar threats, copy cats.

Do you think that every major news outlet and the majority of minor ones would consider reporting the incident without giving these individuals notoriety?
Click to expand...

It doesn't matter if you agree with their solutions. He is saying liberals are not trying to do anything when clearly they are.
 
Kreton said:
No. That is absolutely 100% not the case. You should be ashamed to be suggesting that cops would let children die to prove a point.
Click to expand...

You should be ashamed for putting words in my mouth. ;)
 
Kreton said:
It doesn't matter if you agree with their solutions. He is saying liberals are not trying to do anything when clearly they are.
Click to expand...

Liberals are trying to ban guns and nothing else.
 
apdst said:
You should be ashamed for putting words in my mouth. ;)
Click to expand...

It's like the "very good people" remark made by Trump. People will hear what they want to hear.
 
Acadia said:
It's like the "very good people" remark made by Trump. People will hear what they want to hear.
Click to expand...

Yup. And that most especially includes the media and those who parrot everything a corrupt and irresponsible and dishonest media puts out.
 
Kreton said:
It doesn't matter if you agree with their solutions. He is saying liberals are not trying to do anything when clearly they are.
Click to expand...

Yes, liberals are clearly trying to rachet up gun control as the solution for the problem. And that's it. They are not at all interested in even considering some solutions that would make a real difference:

--Promoting two parent families. Kids that grow up with a responsible mom and dad in the home extremely rarely commit any kind of serious crime let alone shoot up a school.

--Promoting religious faith--not any specific faith--but faith that creates community, responsibility, a sense of purpose and belonging. Children who embrace such faith extremely rarely commit any kind of serious crime let alone shoot up a school.

--Promoting personal responsibility and accountability as the duty of citizens from the earliest time the child can understand and that educating oneself, staying away from illegal substances and activities, getting a job, getting married before having kids are the way to achieve respect and success.

--Making socially unacceptable those video games, television programming, movies, civil disobedience etc. that make doing bad things necessary to win and/or that glamorize or inspire violence as the proper response to perceived wrong doing or that give notoriety and even make sympathetic characters out of those doing bad things.

--Given that almost all senseless mass murders are planned for gun free zones, hardening the school sites so that those who intend violence know that they will likely be shot or killed before they can accomplish their purpose. I think there will be far fewer attempts and what attempts there are will accomplish much less damage.

When the liberals are ready to have that conversation, I think they'll find the conservatives and libertarians much more amenable to have a conversation about what gun control/restrictions are advisable for a safer society.
 
mike2810 said:
I have to disagree with you at this point in time. Until the investigation is completed and hopefully made available to the public I will withhold judgement. I can agree that it "looks like" the Officer should have taken more action than he did. However, the LEO's safety is first priority.

I think it is wrong to compare LEO's to people in the military. For me its an apple/orange comparison. There are many good people in law enforcement who do risk their lives to protect and serve. News likes to grab headlines. Hopefully the investigation will shed some light.
Click to expand...

My opinion...

LEOs safety vs 17 dead children....

Which is more important?

I vote the 17 children.
 
AlbqOwl said:
Yes, liberals are clearly trying to rachet up gun control as the solution for the problem. And that's it. They are not at all interested in even considering some solutions that would make a real difference:

--Promoting two parent families. Kids that grow up with a responsible mom and dad in the home extremely rarely commit any kind of serious crime let alone shoot up a school.

--Promoting religious faith--not any specific faith--but faith that creates community, responsibility, a sense of purpose and belonging. Children who embrace such faith extremely rarely commit any kind of serious crime let alone shoot up a school.

--Promoting personal responsibility and accountability as the duty of citizens from the earliest time the child can understand and that educating oneself, staying away from illegal substances and activities, getting a job, getting married before having kids are the way to achieve respect and success.

--Making socially unacceptable those video games, television programming, movies, civil disobedience etc. that make doing bad things necessary to win and/or that glamorize or inspire violence as the proper response to perceived wrong doing or that give notoriety and even make sympathetic characters out of those doing bad things.

--Given that almost all senseless mass murders are planned for gun free zones, hardening the school sites so that those who intend violence know that they will likely be shot or killed before they can accomplish their purpose. I think there will be far fewer attempts and what attempts there are will accomplish much less damage.

When the liberals are ready to have that conversation, I think they'll find the conservatives and libertarians much more amenable to have a conversation about what gun control/restrictions are advisable for a safer society.
Click to expand...

I hear all the time about how "liberals" want the government to run people's lives.

Yet you are are promoting forced religion. Repression of freedom of speech.

Seriously. You want to ban movies that show civil disobedience.

And 2 parent household are going to be forced as well. So long as you single parents out there. Your kids are off to group homes to be molested so they can be safe from your evil 1 parent ideals.

And no sex before marriage. The government decides when, how and who you can use your genitals with.

Try North Korea. I hear they have all of those things.
 
Last edited:
Fledermaus said:
All true.

The only question is whether they are doing the right thing.
Click to expand...

Neither side is trying to do the right thing. Both sides are trying to use tragedies to prey on people in an emotional state to try to achieve a political agenda. It is pathetic. Just look at the nutjob I just replied to. She is "willing" to discuss things with liberals if they agree to censored tv, movies, video games, forced religion, no sex before marriage, and apparently forcing people into 2 parent households. She doesn't give a **** about schools. Just a way to promote her government run agenda.
 
Last edited:
Kreton said:
Neither side is trying to do the right thing. Both sides are trying to use tragedies to prey on people in an emotional state to try to achieve a political agenda. It is pathetic.
Click to expand...

There ARE those one both sides trying to do the right thing. This gets overshadowed by the people using the tragedy for their own goals.
 
Fledermaus said:
My opinion...

LEOs safety vs 17 dead children....

Which is more important?

I vote the 17 children.
Click to expand...

Then I hope you are in law enforcement.

We have agreed on many things in the past. imo, the LEO should have entered the building and looked for the shooter. What we don't know is what he was instructed to do at the time. Yes, the Sheriff has stated the Officer should have entered, and engaged the shooter. Is that the policy?

Glad to know you would give your life for the kids.
 
mike2810 said:
Then I hope you are in law enforcement.

We have agreed on many things in the past. imo, the LEO should have entered the building and looked for the shooter. What we don't know is what he was instructed to do at the time. Yes, the Sheriff has stated the Officer should have entered, and engaged the shooter. Is that the policy?

Glad to know you would give your life for the kids.
Click to expand...

I would like to believe anyone would have taken action... This one didn't.

There comes a time where orders should be disobeyed. A point where SOP should go out the window. Many battles and lives have been lost because someone failed to act when action was demanded.

This I fervently believe was one of the most those cases.
 
AlbqOwl said:
--Promoting two parent families. Kids that grow up with a responsible mom and dad in the home extremely rarely commit any kind of serious crime let alone shoot up a school.

--Promoting religious faith--not any specific faith--but faith that creates community, responsibility, a sense of purpose and belonging. Children who embrace such faith extremely rarely commit any kind of serious crime let alone shoot up a school.
Click to expand...

You don't get to talk about faith or family after voting for Trump. Trump is on wife #3 and porn start #2. He claims he has never asked God for forgiveness. He curses publically and boasted about molesting women. So, please give it a rest. You gave up the moral high ground when you made a deal with the devil by voting for Trump.

You want a great example of man a family man of faith? Barack Obama.
 
Kreton said:
It doesn't matter if you agree with their solutions. He is saying liberals are not trying to do anything when clearly they are.
Click to expand...

Liberals are doing what they always do post shootings like this, demand that other's rights are curtailed, with the dubious belief that the curtailing of those rights will have the desired effect that everyone wants.

All we have to do is look at Chicago to see exactly how gun bans and even more unreasonable gun regulations actually work in real life, which is to say, not at all.

So in a sense, he's correct, in the sense that liberals are doing nothing, at least nothing that will contribute to desired end or curtailment of these types of shootings.
 
mike2810 said:
Then I hope you are in law enforcement.

We have agreed on many things in the past. imo, the LEO should have entered the building and looked for the shooter.
Click to expand...

You don't understand. LEO are trained to look out for themselves first and foremost. If you make a sudden move they'll shoot you even before seeing a weapon. They are trained to put their own safety above civilians.
 
eohrnberger said:
Liberals are doing what they always do post shootings like this, demand that other's rights are curtailed, with the dubious belief that the curtailing of those rights will have the desired effect that everyone wants.

All we have to do is look at Chicago to see exactly how gun bans and even more unreasonable gun regulations actually work in real life, which is to say, not at all.

So in a sense, he's correct, in the sense that liberals are doing nothing, at least nothing that will contribute to desired end or curtailment of these types of shootings.
Click to expand...

They say the same about your solutions.
 
Kreton said:
They say the same about your solutions.
Click to expand...

True. They do. So polarized has the public policy discussion (screaming, accusing and insulting each other shouting match) become.

But I think that it is a legitimate topic to bring the human factor into the discussion. It may even lead to a solution which would include that which everyone wants, namely keeping guns from those that are a danger to themselves or others. Isn't this what the desired end goal should be?

Why are some ignoring this factor, and instead just demanding gun bans and confiscations?
 
eohrnberger said:
True. They do. So polarized has the public policy discussion (screaming, accusing and insulting each other shouting match) become.

But I think that it is a legitimate topic to bring the human factor into the discussion. It may even lead to a solution which would include that which everyone wants, namely keeping guns from those that are a danger to themselves or others. Isn't this what the desired end goal should be?

Why are some ignoring this factor, and instead just demanding gun bans and confiscations?
Click to expand...

I'm grateful we don't have a President who focuses only on the gun component. We've badly needed to have the whole conversation and with
Trump, we are finally getting to it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom