Totally Stupid Liberals

[woodchip]

I thought the whole gun fear syndrome exhibited by the loony left has finally reached the ultimate level:

"A police officer who dropped off his daughter at her Phoenix elementary school was asked by the school’s principal not to wear his uniform to the school because other parents were concerned that he was carrying a gun."

[Will Robinson]

I thought the whole gun fear syndrome exhibited by the loony left has finally reached the ultimate level:

"A police officer who dropped off his daughter at her Phoenix elementary school was asked by the school’s principal not to wear his uniform to the school because other parents were concerned that he was carrying a gun."

Please tell me this is a joke!

[woodchip]

I wish it were:

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/10/03/ar ... rs-school/

[Will Robinson]

It says a lot about the mindset of the scared parents if their children see a uniformed policeman primarily as "a man with a gun".

It also says a lot about a principal of a public school who would take that bizarre perception as cause to instruct the policeman to hide his uniform/weapon instead of reason to counsel the alarmed parents to teach their children to see a policeman as something different than just a 'man with a gun'. If...

She determined 'something was wrong' and decided the problem is solved by making the policeman 'go away'! How many ways can she get one thing wrong!

Are these concerned parents a bunch of criminals or something?!? My instincts tell me the kids aren't scared of the policeman and know exactly what he represents but someone, either the principal and/or the parents has decided to take their personal anti-gun stance and force it on others to an extreme that borders on reckless self indulgence.

[CUDA]

cant post that here is a Fox new link. it gets the Libs all foaming at the mouth and causes them to go blind to what they dont like to hear

[vision]

Click-bait. You just got an advertiser paid. You guys are amazing. You are totally helping the economy with the news article circle-jerking. Keep up the good work!

Also, Arizona is a red state.

[woodchip]

Click bait? WTF are you going on about. And what does Az being a red state have to do with a schools policy? Is this the best you can do to protect the actions of the school?

[Tunnelcat]

Funny. Almost every search on this subject comes up with right wing sites trying to whip up some type of liberal bashing. Heck, the school's not even in a liberal state. So, why are these right wing sites so worried that teachers don't want any guns in schools, even if it's carried by a policeman? I'd say the Newtown effect has created a lasting fear in most schools by now. It took quite a few school shootings for the protect-my-child-no-matter-what psychosis to finally set in, but it's here now and I don't blame them. Fear is fear. It's not a "liberal" thing, but a "parent" thing.

[woodchip]

Who said the parents were behind this? It was the school principle. What you are saying TC is, the liberals have so opened up schools to be totally defenseless that they no longer want even the very people they pay taxes for to be able to defend them. The fear mongering is so great now that the next logical step is to take guns away from police because obviously if absolutely no one carries a gun we will all be safe Wouldn't want the little kiddies to be upset if they see a police officer carrying a gun anywhere.

[Tunnelcat]

I'm quite sure parents want their little kiddies protected at all costs, so the principle's are reacting the only way they can, keep all guns out of school. But the real question is, why the hell do schools NEED to be turned into armed camps in the first place? That's certainly not a "liberal" idea, it's been a "right wing" idea pushed lately. Is it because guns have become so pervasive that we now have to put armed guards in our schools just to protect the children from the nutcases? What a sad commentary on the state of our society.

When I went to school, there was absolutely no reason for an armed guard and no one at shot and killed others either. Is that the solution for all the school violence now, armed guards and lockdowns? Creepy. I guess it's the new normal when no one wants to pay for the mental health care to help the deranged people doing the shooting now. So now I guess the solution is that we have to lock them out. That doesn't help OFF campus though.

[woodchip]

Back when I was in college I kept my shotgun and archery gear right in the dorm room. No one batted a eye. My, how times have changed.

[Will Robinson]

I'm quite sure parents want their little kiddies protected at all costs, so the principle's are reacting the only way they can, ..

No, there is a much better way. Tell the parents the man little Johnny saw with a gun was a POLICEMAN. Tell them as long as the POLICEMAN is there little Johnny is safer than when the POLICEMAN is gone.

That is a much more sensible reaction to the supposed parents complaint.

[woodchip]

Will, they might not want to do that because in essence the school would be saying that schools are not safe without armed police around....Oh Wait!

[Tunnelcat]

I'm quite sure parents want their little kiddies protected at all costs, so the principle's are reacting the only way they can, ..

No, there is a much better way. Tell the parents the man little Johnny saw with a gun was a POLICEMAN. Tell them as long as the POLICEMAN is there little Johnny is safer than when the POLICEMAN is gone.

That is a much more sensible reaction to the supposed parents complaint.

Until, that is, said policeman just happens to get his gun taken away from him by a determined, crazy person at an inopportune moment, who then proceeds to shoot up kids in the school. If you don't think that happens in real life, you're living a in fantasy.

Back when I was in college I kept my shotgun and archery gear right in the dorm room. No one batted a eye. My, how times have changed.

That's something I could have never done, even in the 1970's. For one, those items probably would have been stolen as soon as I'd left for class, because by roomie tended to leave the door unlocked. I'd already had much lesser value things disappear as it was. I even had to lock up my bike in my room for fear of theft.

[Will Robinson]

I'm quite sure parents want their little kiddies protected at all costs, so the principle's are reacting the only way they can, ..

No, there is a much better way. Tell the parents the man little Johnny saw with a gun was a POLICEMAN. Tell them as long as the POLICEMAN is there little Johnny is safer than when the POLICEMAN is gone.

That is a much more sensible reaction to the supposed parents complaint.

Until, that is, said policeman just happens to get his gun taken away from him by a determined, crazy person at an inopportune moment, who then proceeds to shoot up kids in the school. If you don't think that happens in real life, you're living a in fantasy. ..

No comment needed, other than to say the naming of this thread has proven to be the epitome of prescient.

[Tunnelcat]

http://kfor.com/2013/07/22/suspect-stea ... ff-ensues/

[Will Robinson]

TC, what exactly do you think that article proves in regard to your assertion that a policeman's presence makes children unsafe?

Have you considered the ratio of police successfully using weapons to stop criminals compared to your fantasy that a policeman's presence in a school will result in a deranged shooter taking the policeman's weapon and shooting the students?

You are the most illogical person over 5 years old that I've ever dealt with!

[woodchip]

Tell me TC, If you don't want armed police at a school and you don't want the teachers to be armed....it kinda sounds like what you do want is another deranged gunman to come to a school and shoot the place up. I mean, whats to stop him?

[callmeslick]

Tell me TC, If you don't want armed police at a school and you don't want the teachers to be armed....it kinda sounds like what you do want is another deranged gunman to come to a school and shoot the place up. I mean, whats to stop him?

odd logic......perhaps TC wants a society with a markedly lower chance that deranged people get their hands on firearms. Seems to work pretty well elsewhere. Say, Canada, for a nearby example.

[woodchip]

Tell me TC, If you don't want armed police at a school and you don't want the teachers to be armed....it kinda sounds like what you do want is another deranged gunman to come to a school and shoot the place up. I mean, whats to stop him?

odd logic......perhaps TC wants a society with a markedly lower chance that deranged people get their hands on firearms. Seems to work pretty well elsewhere. Say, Canada, for a nearby example.

And until that magic day comes when all firearms magically disappear, what are you going to do when the deranged gunman shows up at school.

[woodchip]

Seems to work pretty well elsewhere. Say, Canada, for a nearby example.

You mean like what happened in Montreal in 2006:

"25-year-old Kimveer Gill began shooting outside the de Maisonneuve Boulevard entrance to the school, hitting several students and visitors, and moved towards the atrium by the cafeteria on the main floor, where he shot dozens of additional victims. The shooter later committed suicide by shooting himself in the head after being shot in the arm by police.[21] One victim died at the scene, while another 19 were injured, eight of whom were listed in critical condition with six requiring surgery."

Or in Alberta in 1999:

"A 14-year-old student, Todd Cameron Smith, walked into his school and randomly shot at three students, killing one named Jason Lang and injuring another before being arrested.[18] This shooting took place only eight days after the Columbine High School massacre and is widely believed to have been a copycat crime."

Yeah, gun control really works.

[Will Robinson]

Tell me TC, If you don't want armed police at a school and you don't want the teachers to be armed....it kinda sounds like what you do want is another deranged gunman to come to a school and shoot the place up. I mean, whats to stop him?

odd logic......perhaps TC wants a society with a markedly lower chance that deranged people get their hands on firearms. Seems to work pretty well elsewhere. Say, Canada, for a nearby example.

Since guns do exist the only thing keeping guns out of schools are the rules.
The rules are meaningless without enforcement.
Enforcement is implemented by Police.

So TC's advice to a parent who complains that a Policeman is showing up at school everyday with a gun as part of his uniform is to have the Policeman not have his gun because a crazy person might be able to disarm him and shoot up the school.

Every day Police interact with millions of people and how many of those people disarm a policeman and murder someone with his weapon?

TC has illustrated the application of twisted logic to defend the indefensible.

To follow TC's logic, higher on the ban list of potential threats to the welfare of the children, would be parents, teachers and school mates because they can abuse and molest children and do so on a regular basis!

TC's logic for supporting the principals solution is ridiculous, and all too typical of emotionally, irrationally derived motive for creating bad law.
She conjures in the mind the fantasy of a gun free school and then wants to model policy here in the real world after that which could only makes sense in the fantasy world.

[callmeslick]

if it only exists in a 'fantasy' world, how come other nations have the level of gun ownership, yet without the frequency of problems we have? I repeat, merely look at Canada and figure out how they make it work.

[Will Robinson]

if it only exists in a 'fantasy' world, how come other nations have the level of gun ownership, yet without the frequency of problems we have? I repeat, merely look at Canada and figure out how they make it work.

Do Canadians prohibit Policemen from wearing their weapons in the presence of children lest a crazy might disarm him and shoot the children? If not then Canada is not an example of TC's illogic somehow working properly in the real world.

As for our gun problem compared to other cultures gun problems take a close look at the people in the culture to find the source of the disparity...but first be honest about establishing where disparity lies and not simply seek a statistic or two that, when taken out of the whole could support your preconceived notions. Hardware choices or availability of hardware do not create criminal or crazy people.

I wonder how closely our rates of murder would fall in line with other similar nations if you excluded certain groups of murderers from the data pool?

[Spidey]

Screw getting rid of the guns, lets just get rid of the police…problem solved.

Sounds stupid when put that way…right…oh never mind, it sounded stupid the other way.

[callmeslick]

if it only exists in a 'fantasy' world, how come other nations have the level of gun ownership, yet without the frequency of problems we have? I repeat, merely look at Canada and figure out how they make it work.

Do Canadians prohibit Policemen from wearing their weapons in the presence of children lest a crazy might disarm him and shoot the children? If not then Canada is not an example of TC's illogic somehow working properly in the real world.

As for our gun problem compared to other cultures gun problems take a close look at the people in the culture to find the source of the disparity...but first be honest about establishing where disparity lies and not simply seek a statistic or two that, when taken out of the whole could support your preconceived notions. Hardware choices or availability of hardware do not create criminal or crazy people.

I wonder how closely our rates of murder would fall in line with other similar nations if you excluded certain groups of murderers from the data pool?

excluding 'certain groups' merely skews the data, it doesn't alter the overall facts. I will wait for an actual Canadian to chime in about the subject, but I suspect that having armed adults in a school setting is a non-starter. The difference, I think, is that Canadians don't live in a society that exists for ginned-up fear and loathing of fellow citizens. Therefore, they approach both gun ownership and personal responsibility in a more rational fashion than one sees in the US. I think, also, that despite the fact that per capita ownership numbers are similar, Canada is a bit more rigorous in terms of who can and cannot purchase weapons.

[Heretic]

And again I have to point out that there have been police walking the halls of our schools since 1958. They are called School resource officers. Oh and by the way they are armed. They have been in every school that my son has gone to, each I have met personally.

Edit: Alberta Association of School Resource Officers, seems they are walking the halls in Canada also.,

[callmeslick]

And again I have to point out that there have been police walking the halls of our schools since 1958. They are called School resource officers. Oh and by the way they are armed. They have been in every school that my son has gone to, each I have met personally.

Edit: Alberta Association of School Resource Officers, seems they are walking the halls in Canada also.,

well, here in Delaware, as well as VA and PA, I know of no school outside urban areas that has that distinction. There are, however, such in isolated school systems with a history of student violence. That isn't quite the same as serving as a deterrent to outside attack.

[Will Robinson]

if it only exists in a 'fantasy' world, how come other nations have the level of gun ownership, yet without the frequency of problems we have? I repeat, merely look at Canada and figure out how they make it work.

Do Canadians prohibit Policemen from wearing their weapons in the presence of children lest a crazy might disarm him and shoot the children? If not then Canada is not an example of TC's illogic somehow working properly in the real world.

As for our gun problem compared to other cultures gun problems take a close look at the people in the culture to find the source of the disparity...but first be honest about establishing where disparity lies and not simply seek a statistic or two that, when taken out of the whole could support your preconceived notions. Hardware choices or availability of hardware do not create criminal or crazy people.

I wonder how closely our rates of murder would fall in line with other similar nations if you excluded certain groups of murderers from the data pool?

excluding 'certain groups' merely skews the data, it doesn't alter the overall facts.

Yes, it skews purposefully to illustrate a point!
If certain people with 'unusual' values had their murder rate considered separately from the general population...and you found by excluding their contribution to the murder rate, America's "general population" suddenly fell right in line with other similar countries, you would have to conclude that the excluded groups 'unusual' values are giving America a really bad score in the who-is-most-murderous calculation...


It isn't "ginned-up fear and loathing of fellow citizens." it is dysfunctional sub culture producing amoral offenders and a faction of the political class that thrives off of exploiting the dysfunction and perpetuating the problem. It is 'ginned up' thuggery and class warfare.

[callmeslick]

sorry, Will, the facts are obvious that we have a serious problem outside the 'subclass', with mentally unstable people and angry people using weaponry on their fellow citizens, and, as often as not, family and co-workers. No, we are not at the same rate as other nations. Not even close to those with strict gun control.

[Will Robinson]

sorry, Will, the facts are obvious that we have a serious problem outside the 'subclass', with mentally unstable people and angry people using weaponry on their fellow citizens, and, as often as not, family and co-workers. No, we are not at the same rate as other nations. Not even close to those with strict gun control.

Ok, I guess we were mixing two different facets of the many layered problem. Yes we probably have more crazies that use a gun than the crazies in places that don't have as many guns. Then again as I pointed out before, Russia, where guns are scarce, has similar over all murder rates but they have many more by fists, brick, knife, etc. where we have many more by gun.

I don't know the numbers but I'll concede the proliferation of guns makes an American crazy more efficient at racking up a body count than the average Japanese or Russian crazy. But, assuming your Canadian example is correct, are there fewer dead at the hands of Canadian crazies by virtue of the short supply of hardware, or less Canadian crazies because their culture produces fewer? I'm guessing the culture is at least as responsible for a lower body count as the hardware limitation is.

But, now we are far afield from my original observation which is, policeman possibly being disarmed by school shooting crazies is not a good reason to ask a policeman to stop coming to drop his child off while he is in uniform. And offering that scenario to avoid possible disagreeing with an anti-gun sentiment is borderline crazy in it's own way.

[woodchip]

if it only exists in a 'fantasy' world, how come other nations have the level of gun ownership, yet without the frequency of problems we have? I repeat, merely look at Canada and figure out how they make it work.

I guess you missed my examples of mass shootings in Canada. There are more. Would you like me to post more so you stop using Canada as some sort of Virgin Mary?

[Tunnelcat]

Tell me TC, If you don't want armed police at a school and you don't want the teachers to be armed....it kinda sounds like what you do want is another deranged gunman to come to a school and shoot the place up. I mean, whats to stop him?

odd logic......perhaps TC wants a society with a markedly lower chance that deranged people get their hands on firearms. Seems to work pretty well elsewhere. Say, Canada, for a nearby example.

Since guns do exist the only thing keeping guns out of schools are the rules.
The rules are meaningless without enforcement.
Enforcement is implemented by Police.

So TC's advice to a parent who complains that a Policeman is showing up at school everyday with a gun as part of his uniform is to have the Policeman not have his gun because a crazy person might be able to disarm him and shoot up the school.

Every day Police interact with millions of people and how many of those people disarm a policeman and murder someone with his weapon?

TC has illustrated the application of twisted logic to defend the indefensible.

To follow TC's logic, higher on the ban list of potential threats to the welfare of the children, would be parents, teachers and school mates because they can abuse and molest children and do so on a regular basis!

TC's logic for supporting the principals solution is ridiculous, and all too typical of emotionally, irrationally derived motive for creating bad law.
She conjures in the mind the fantasy of a gun free school and then wants to model policy here in the real world after that which could only makes sense in the fantasy world.

You both are blaming me for what appears to be an illogical decision. I was trying to come up with an "explanation" other than both of your partisan knee jerk BS gripes that only blame what you call "stupid liberals". Overprotective parents can be the main force that the school has to reckon with because of all these recent school shootings. No principal wants to piss off overprotective parents and lose their job. Either the principal made the decision as a blank "no guns" rule, or the parents "told" that principal to make that same decision. Don't blame liberals because this country has become so violent and gun overrun that our schools need armed guards just to protect the kids in school. Conservatives need to bear some of the blame here, with their constant defunding of those socialist county mental health facilities. By the way, you'd better make sure that the armed guards at least have on hand more than a lowly pistol. Most of the nutcases already can get easy access to semi-automatic and automatic weapons, without a background check.

[Will Robinson]

TC that is complete bullcrap.
You said the principal was doing the only thing she could.
I said no, tell the parent the man with a gun is a policeman...that the better reaction for the principal is to correct the irrational request of the parent instead of grant it.

Your response to that was to say the policeman was a problem because he could be disarmed by a shooter.

That was YOUR logic coming up with that...not the stupid parent and/or stupid principal.
You dove head first into lala land in search of a justification that might nullify my assertion that the parents request is a stupid one.

At least have the backbone to stand up for your ideas or recognize it was a dumb one but don't try to blame everyone else for what was obviously your instinctive reaction.

[Tunnelcat]

TC that is complete bullcrap.
You said the principal was doing the only thing she could.
I said no, tell the parent the man with a gun is a policeman...that the better reaction for the principal is to correct the irrational request of the parent instead of grant it.

Your response to that was to say the policeman was a problem because he could be disarmed by a shooter.

That was YOUR logic coming up with that...not the stupid parent and/or stupid principal.
You dove head first into lala land in search of a justification that might nullify my assertion that the parents request is a stupid one.

At least have the backbone to stand up for your ideas or recognize it was a dumb one but don't try to blame everyone else for what was obviously your instinctive reaction.

So why do you blame me, and all liberals for that matter, for trying to come up with some kind of explanation for a policy decision some principal made in the interests of the school? I have no idea what's in the mind of that principal, or why he/she came to the conclusion that even a police officer with a gun is unsafe in their school. You don't even know if this principal talked to any parents first BEFORE making the decision either. This is the ORIGINAL statement from woody's post.

"A police officer who dropped off his daughter at her Phoenix elementary school was asked by the school’s principal not to wear his uniform to the school because other parents were concerned that he was carrying a gun."

You made a kneejerk assumption that some liberal principal was an idiot. Why don't you get off your right wing insult pedestal and go get the answer from the horse's mouth before shooting the horse? My idea was just as valid as any other reason because the situation I suggested CAN happen and HAS happened in the past, even though I agree that it is REMOTE.

[Will Robinson]

TC that is complete bullcrap.
You said the principal was doing the only thing she could.
I said no, tell the parent the man with a gun is a policeman...that the better reaction for the principal is to correct the irrational request of the parent instead of grant it.

Your response to that was to say the policeman was a problem because he could be disarmed by a shooter.

That was YOUR logic coming up with that...not the stupid parent and/or stupid principal.
You dove head first into lala land in search of a justification that might nullify my assertion that the parents request is a stupid one.

At least have the backbone to stand up for your ideas or recognize it was a dumb one but don't try to blame everyone else for what was obviously your instinctive reaction.

So why do you blame me, and all liberals for that matter, for trying to come up with some kind of explanation for a policy decision some principal made in the interests of the school? I have no idea what's in the mind of that principal, or why he/she came to the conclusion that even a police officer with a gun is unsafe in their school. You don't even know if this principal talked to any parents first BEFORE making the decision either. This is the ORIGINAL statement from woody's post.

"A police officer who dropped off his daughter at her Phoenix elementary school was asked by the school’s principal not to wear his uniform to the school because other parents were concerned that he was carrying a gun."

You made a kneejerk assumption that some liberal principal was an idiot. Why don't you get off your right wing insult pedestal and go get the answer from the horse's mouth before shooting the horse? My idea was just as valid as any other reason because the situation I suggested CAN happen and HAS happened in the past, even though I agree that it is REMOTE.

Why try to explain it in a fashion that justifies it? Even now at the end of your rant you are still trying to suggest the extremely infinitesimally remote chance that a school shooter would disarm the policeman and kill students with the stolen pistol is enough of a threat to ask the police unilaterally disarm! Yes it is possible....but some things are so remotely possible that making policy based on any slight possibility is ridiculous. Ridiculous!

Why do you not challenge the ridiculous instead of turn logic upside down to propose a scenario that could justify ridiculous? Do you support ridiculous policy as a rule or just selectively try to prop it up?

It was when you suggested 'the principal had no choice but to make the ridiculous request' that you lost any chance of spectator status simply wondering as to her motives. You declared the condition of "no choice" based on what? It sounds like you were looking for an excuse, not examining her motive. You had to fabricate some condition that prevented her from doing the right thing.

She is the administrator, she is entrusted with safety along with all other aspects of the schools environment. The parents request (assuming there really was one) was NOT in the best interest of the students. She DID have a choice, she made a terrible one and you want to prop it up.

[Tunnelcat]

Open your eyeballs. I'm not the principal. I did not make the decision. I don't gave a damn because I don't have kids in that school. But I'm not going to second guess that principal's reasons either. I can only theorize. The principal "stated" the parents were the reason and no one has countered it. If you don't like it, hop on over and take it up with the school district like a good red-blooded American.

[Will Robinson]

Open your eyeballs. I'm not the principal. I did not make the decision. I don't gave a damn because I don't have kids in that school. But I'm not going to second guess that principal's reasons either. I can only theorize. The principal "stated" the parents were the reason and no one has countered it. If you don't like it, hop on over and take it up with the school district like a good red-blooded American.

It is your theory I have taken issue with. The principal didn't claim to have no choice in the decision...you invented that condition.

And since when do you not second guess other people's motives?!?

You are constantly second guessing, and 'revealing' the real motives of conservatives and Christians and men and anyone who opposes Obama.....

[callmeslick]

You are constantly second guessing, and 'revealing' the real motives of conservatives and Christians and men and anyone who opposes Obama.....

sort of like how you and Woody and CUDA constantly tell us how 'liberals' think, as if you had the first clue?

[woodchip]

You are constantly second guessing, and 'revealing' the real motives of conservatives and Christians and men and anyone who opposes Obama.....

sort of like how you and Woody and CUDA constantly tell us how 'liberals' think, as if you had the first clue?

Well when I see a inept liberal running the country and approves of not paying death benefits to our military's war dead, what else is there to see?