With everyone in our world talking about guns and America, I woke up this morning to find an All in the Family clip on YouTube that we produced over 30 years ago that has Archie Bunker on a local news channel doing an editorial on gun control. He finds himself suggesting that the best answer to avoid skyjacking is to "arm every passenger" and the audience erupts in laughter.
You can see the clip:
Can we possibly have any other reaction to Wayne LaPierre's similarly insane idea to provide armed guards for every school but to laugh? Or cry. I find myself doing a lot of both lately.
after 4 decades we are still arguing the same stuff.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laugh_track#Comeback_of_live_television_in_the_U.S.
"Creator Norman Lear's All in the Family (CBS, 1971–1979) followed suit in 1971. Videotaped live, Lear wanted the studio audience to actually like the performer, with hopes of the two developing a rapport with each other. Lear was not a fan of pretaped audiences, resulting in no laugh track being employed, not even during post-production when Lear could have had the luxury of sweetening any failed jokes (Lear relented somewhat in later seasons, and allowed Douglass to insert an occasional laugh).[7] Lear's decision resulted in the show being a huge success, and officially ushered in the return of live audiences to the U.S. sitcom mainstream. To make his point clear, an announcement proclaimed over the closing credits each week that "All in the Family was recorded on tape before a live audience" (or during the show's final seasons where live audiences no longer attended tapings of the show) "All in the Family was played to a studio audience for live responses."[7]"
The fact is that in our country, it once WAS the law that every male between the ages of 18-60 own and maintain a firearm. The definition of "militia" found in the 2nd Amendment is exactly that, every able adult male in the population. See The Militia Act of 1792, and The Militia Act of 1795.
Furthermore, Switzerland currently has that policy, and things are pretty peaceful there.
As a society, we must do more to make sure that boys have fathers in the home, responsible, sober men who will teach their sons the ways of responsibility and the proper tools/use of force.
Economist John Lott has proven in his book of the same title, more guns = less crime.
The attitude toward compensation in Switzerland is the opposite of the USA - they believe in income equality and fair taxation - someone earning taxable income of $40,000 pays 5.41% tax while someone earning $500,000 taxable income pays 22.07% tax. http://www.zugimpex.com/en/Switzerland_taxes.html?gclid=CLerntan07QCFYN_QgodJzQA5Q
If you want an armed society that is also peaceful, then you have to stop spending on enforcement and punishment and start spending on the people, offering support to families so that they can avoid the stresses that promote family dissolution and violence, which leads to societal violence. This is the only way to turn the tide of what ails you (and increasingly, ails us here in Canada as conservative elements try to eat away at our social safety net).
I lived with my wife and two young sons in Canada for 4.5 years. Getting health care without any bills from the doctor or emergency room visits was fantastic. The peace of mind that I felt present among my neighbors was incredible. Americans deserve universal health care, especially now that we've been denied it by our U.S. Congress so long that all other free-market countries have it, even the ones considered to be relatively poor.
Bob the Health and Health Care Advocate
What this has do with guns, I am not sure. But, you do realize that Switzerland's income taxes for those making $40k are probably higher than in the U.S. and the rates for those making $500k are definately lower. In other words, the U.S. is more progressive on taxes and more class warfare oriented. So, if we want to be more like Switzerland, the first thing to do is lower our taxes.
Who's going to pay these guards' salaries? How likely is it that school districts can afford it, when they're already slashing programs and teachers often must buy classroom supplies with their own money because of shrinking budgets? Don't suggest that municipal or county law enforcement agencies assign officers to schools. They're struggling with their own budget shortfalls and often resort to laying off officers to avoid deeper deficits.
I'm anticipating that someone is going to suggest having an all-volunteer force of regular citizens use their personal firearms to stand guard at schools, after the Minuteman model along the Arizona-Mexico border.
LaPierre is a goofball, IMO, and, if I heard correctly, he's already proposed that armed citizens guard schools. No mention of training. Vigilantes, anyone?
Protective steps should be proportionate to the risk or threat presented. The Sandy Hook shootings were obviously horrific, but there's no evidence to support the idea that mass shootings are a common or likely threat at schools generally.
As we have seen, the potential for mass shootings exists any place where the public can come and go freely: supermarkets, banks, shopping malls, museums, libraries, etc. You and others have made it abundantly clear that you agree with Archie Bunker's and Wayne LaPierre's support for the citizenry to arm itself for the remote chance that they may encounter an armed criminal.
I'm not trying to change your thinking. But consider the possible, unintended consequences of what you're proposing. Suppose a patron at a tavern accidentally spills a drink on another customer -- an innocuous, harmless event that probably occurs hundreds of times a day in this country. Suppose further that this incident escalates to the point where guns are fired and people are killed.
This is not a hypothetical scenario. It happened on New Year's Eve in Sacramento.
Were you laughing at this guy when he not only suggested we do what LaPierre has stated but actually implemented and funded it?
http://articles.latimes.com/2000/apr/16/news/mn-20323
Clinton Pledges Funds to Add Police to Schools
WASHINGTON — Marking the first anniversary of the shooting deaths at Columbine High School, President Clinton announced $120 million in new federal grants Saturday to place more police officers in schools and help even the youngest kids cope with their problems.
.
Clinton also unveiled the $60-million fifth round of funding for "COPS in School," a Justice Department program that helps pay the costs of placing police officers in schools to help make them safer for students and teachers. The money will be used to provide 452 officers in schools in more than 220 communities.
"Already, it has placed 2,200 officers in more than 1,000 communities across our nation, where they are heightening school safety as well as coaching sports and acting as mentors and mediators for kids in need," Clinton said.
No one is laughing at the absence of armed personnel at any of the shootings which have occurred at these free-fire zones which the government has set up.
Is this writer aware that three school shootings -- Pearl, MS, High School, Appalachian School of Law, and Edinboro, PA -- were all stopped by armed citizens with firearms?
Is he aware that in NONE of those cases was the shooter harmed? In ALL of those cases the shooter was taken into custody.
Is he aware that the Trolley Square Mall shooting in UT was stopped by an off duty police officer who used his concealed carry weapon to engage the shooter and pin him down until backup could arrive and kill the shooter?
Is he aware that in the Clackamas, OR, mall shooting a concealed carry licensee drew his weapon and pointed his firearm at the shooter who then took his own life?
See here: http://minutemennews.com/2012/12/oregon-mall-shooting-brave-citizen-with-concealed-carry-may-have-saved-lives/
All we want is parity. We want the victims to start with 50-50 odds. When the odds start at 0-100, and those odds only improve at the benevolence of the perpetrator, that is not a good thing especially when we have all seen just how benevolent these shooters have been in the past.
Officers who've viewed security tapes said Roberts moved "pretty swiftly and deliberately." Eyewitnesses saw him move to reload the rifle at least once, but it apparently jammed. Roberts had stolen the weapon that morning and might not have been familiar with how to use it. He dropped a fully loaded magazine on the mall floor outside Macy's Home Store and pushed through a set of doors marked "Emergency Exit, mall employees only," into a back storage corridor between the interiors store and Forever 21.
Mall worker Rok Sang Kim encountered Roberts there. He later told a TV crew that he was coming back from recycling some boxes and hadn't heard the gunshots. His first thought when he spotted the shooter was how strange it was to see someone dressed in a costume weeks after Halloween. He thought the gun was a toy, until Roberts pointed it at him.
"No," Kim said. "Don't do that."
Roberts didn't. Instead, he turned away from Kim and hustled down a flight of stairs to the first floor. Exactly why he stopped shooting and retreated to a back hallway is unclear. That will likely remain a mystery as big as why he ever started.
http://www.oregonlive.com/clackamascounty/index.ssf/2012/12/clackamas_town_center_shooting_61.html
Archie says that wouldn't have happened if he'd had a gun on him. Truth be told Archie as well as everyone else is the bar was scared chitless when the guys pulled out their guns.