The VENT Thread

User avatar
Ballerina
Posts: 3055
Joined: Thu Sep 12, 2013 6:22 pm
Location: Chesapeake, VA & Saratoga, NY

Sun Feb 18, 2018 3:16 pm

stark wrote:A Teacher of the Year at a Florida middle school posted a Facebook message that has since gone viral saying parents need to “step up” when it comes to their kids’ behavior.

“Okay, I’ll be the bad guy and say what no one else is brave enough to say, but wants to say,” Kelly Guthrie Raley, who was named Eustis Middle School Teacher of the Year 2017-2018 last month, said in a now-viral Facebook post following the mass shooting that killed 17 at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School.

Raley said she’ll “take all the criticism and attacks” for her opinion because, as a teacher with two decades of experience, she has to worry about an active-shooter situation on a daily basis.

The middle school teacher said over her almost two decades as an educator that she’s seen an increase in violence and a lack of compassion among students.

“Until we, as a country, are willing to get serious and talk about mental health issues, lack of available care for the mental health issues, lack of discipline in the home, horrendous lack of parental support when the schools are trying to control horrible behavior at school (oh no! Not MY KID. What did YOU do to cause my kid to react that way?), lack of moral values, and yes, I’ll say it – violent video games that take away all sensitivity to ANY compassion for others’ lives – as well as reality TV that makes it commonplace for people to constantly scream up in each others’ faces and not value any other person but themselves, we will have a gun problem in school,” the sixth-grade language arts teacher wrote.

Raley, who loves hunting and four-wheeling in her spare time, added that she grew up with guns in her home.

“But you know what? My parents NEVER supported any bad behavior from me,” Raley said.

She said when she began teaching 20 years ago, she never had to worry about calling a student’s parents and getting cussed out, told to go to hell, or threatened with a public shaming all because she was calling out their child’s behavior. Something, she said, has got to change.

“Parents, it’s time to step up!” Raley urges. “Be the parent that actually gives a crap! Be the annoying mom that pries and knows what your kid is doing. STOP being their friend. They have enough ‘friends’ at school. Be their parent. Being the ‘cool mom’ means not a damn thing when either your kid is dead or your kid kills other people because they were allowed to have their space and privacy in YOUR HOME.”

She doubles down that she had guns in her home.

“But you know what? I never dreamed of shooting anyone with his guns. I never dreamed of taking one! I was taught respect for human life, compassion, rules, common decency, and most of all, I was taught that until I moved out, my life and bedroom wasn’t mine...it was theirs. And they were going to know what was happening because they loved me and wanted the best for me.”
Again, singing to the choir stark. As has already been stated "pathetic excuse making."
User avatar
Sparrow Castle
Posts: 4959
Joined: Wed Sep 18, 2013 6:44 pm

Sun Feb 18, 2018 7:10 pm

Saintly wrote:
Ballerina wrote:Australia didn't institute gun control. They instituted gun confiscation. It's not going to happen in the USA.
So, so wrong. In amongst a raft of gun control laws adopted by the states, the National Firearms Agreement of 1996 categorised firearms and assigned differing levels of control per category. Auto & semi auto weapons fell into a category which banned private citizens from owning them. Given that under the Australian Constitution "just compensation" must be provided where the government seizes the assets of its citizens, a buyback scheme was instituted, funded by us taxpayers. From memory owners of these weapons had a 12 month period to hand them in and receive compensation. Anyone stupid enough to not take advantage of this amnesty & buyback were then in possession on an illegal firearm.

I realise this doesn't suit your argument but I'd prefer you didn't quote NRA adverts to falsify what happened in my country.

Where you tripped over being correct was "It's not gonna happen in the USA" Yep. I believe you are correct in that Australian gun control measures are not gonna happen in the USA. Tragically, the genie is too far out of the bottle there and there's no stuffing it back in
Thanks for your contribution, Saintly. If I understand you and your laws correctly, citizens can still own certain types of guns but must pass strict background checks and have to state a justifiable reason for owning a gun beyond personal protection; and that "assault weapons" (auto and semi-auto) are banned except for police and military. Is this correct?

Voluntary gun buyback programs have been implemented in various U.S. cities, at least since Sandy Hook. I think they have been more symbolic than effective here for various reasons, and I don't see it as a major component of what could be accomplished here.

But there are many strategies that may be effective in reducing gun violence. For example, some states and cities have passed laws banning sale and possession of certain kinds of assault weapons; some have or are banning bump stocks.

I'd like to see the issue of gun violence stay in the context of public health rather than politics, but I realize that pretty much everything here is political right now. Some of us will push on regardless.

Various strategies have been proposed and I realize the "devil is in the details" and these need more flesh. I think we can learn from countries such as yours, and I'm interested in knowing if any of the below are included in your laws and if there's anything you can say about their effectiveness. Also, please if you can let me know if there is anything significant that I've left out.

- Strict background checks for all gun purchasers with disqualifying factors (add those subject to domestic violence protection orders, on the no-fly list, certain mental health issues)

- Must be over 21 to purchase a firearm

- Training and safe storage (gun safes, trigger locks, guns and ammo stored separately)

- Tighter enforcement of laws on straw purchases of weapons, and some limits on how many guns can be purchased in a month

- Define and ban assault weapons

- Ban bump stocks

- End immunity for firearm companies (a subsidy to a particular industry)

- Continue funding CDC research on gun violence

- Research ‘Smart Guns’ (“smart guns” fire only after a fingerprint or PIN is entered, or if used near a particular bracelet)
User avatar
Ballerina
Posts: 3055
Joined: Thu Sep 12, 2013 6:22 pm
Location: Chesapeake, VA & Saratoga, NY

Sun Feb 18, 2018 10:19 pm

It started out a voluntary buy back campaign, but when the government didn't get the number of guns they were after, the buy back became MANDATORY. The Australian government had the names of everyone who owned a gun and what guns they owned. It was like taking candy away from a baby. Perfectly innocent and law abiding and legal gun owners suffered the ramifications of this sweeping agenda. I know from several friends who live in Australia, and this is how they explained it to me.
User avatar
Saintly
Posts: 22
Joined: Thu Sep 26, 2013 10:39 pm

Sun Feb 18, 2018 10:54 pm

Sparrow Castle wrote:
Saintly wrote:
Ballerina wrote:Australia didn't institute gun control. They instituted gun confiscation. It's not going to happen in the USA.
So, so wrong. In amongst a raft of gun control laws adopted by the states, the National Firearms Agreement of 1996 categorised firearms and assigned differing levels of control per category. Auto & semi auto weapons fell into a category which banned private citizens from owning them. Given that under the Australian Constitution "just compensation" must be provided where the government seizes the assets of its citizens, a buyback scheme was instituted, funded by us taxpayers. From memory owners of these weapons had a 12 month period to hand them in and receive compensation. Anyone stupid enough to not take advantage of this amnesty & buyback were then in possession on an illegal firearm.

I realise this doesn't suit your argument but I'd prefer you didn't quote NRA adverts to falsify what happened in my country.

Where you tripped over being correct was "It's not gonna happen in the USA" Yep. I believe you are correct in that Australian gun control measures are not gonna happen in the USA. Tragically, the genie is too far out of the bottle there and there's no stuffing it back in
Sparrow Castle wrote:Thanks for your contribution, Saintly. If I understand you and your laws correctly, citizens can still own certain types of guns but must pass strict background checks and have to state a justifiable reason for owning a gun beyond personal protection; and that "assault weapons" (auto and semi-auto) are banned except for police and military. Is this correct? .......................
/quote]

Hi Sparrow - that's a pretty good summary. With regard to your other questions, some of them are addressed in the article here https://www.sbs.com.au/news/how-easy-is ... -australia

Now, I am Joe Average, living in the suburbs of Melbourne and have no current criminal record. So should I want a gun, I tick most of the boxes. Where I fall short is being able to demonstrate a requirement for a gun. However I reckon I could get around that by declaring I was taking up hunting as a hobby and joining a registered Sporting Shooters Association or gun club. So I get my licence, my permit and of I go and buy a legal gun which is registered to me. A problem with that is that once I have my licence, I can keep buying as many legal guns as I like - there is no limit. So the issue of private citizens holding arsenals has got a little bit of media attention in recent times.

In 1996, perhaps the federal government's finest achievement was to get all of the states singing from the same hymn book (the states being responsible for gun laws). It had to be an all or nothing approach or it wouldn't work.

I'm not trying to paint a picture of some sort of nirvana here. We still have bad guys. We still have armed robberies. We still have murders by guns. But since Port Arthur and the gun law changes in 1996 we've not had another massacre. In the meantime, hunters have gone on hunting, farmers have continued to use guns to control vermin and put down sick / injured stock, target shooters have gone on shooting targets and clay pigeons have the same short lifespan they've always had. Here we can have gun control without impacting those who wish to legitimately use them
User avatar
Saintly
Posts: 22
Joined: Thu Sep 26, 2013 10:39 pm

Sun Feb 18, 2018 11:16 pm

Ballerina wrote:It started out a voluntary buy back campaign, but when the government didn't get the number of guns they were after, the buy back became MANDATORY. The Australian government had the names of everyone who owned a gun and what guns they owned. It was like taking candy away from a baby. Perfectly innocent and law abiding and legal gun owners suffered the ramifications of this sweeping agenda. I know from several friends who live in Australia, and this is how they explained it to me.
Wrong again mate. There was no quota. The government had no idea how many guns were out there because registration requirements varied from state to state and some were shoddy at best. And it was mandatory for guns which fell into the prohibited category from the time the legislation came into effect. The buy-back period was in place for 12 months. Other guns merely had to be registered and held in compliance with the legislation. The owners had to be licenced. No "perfectly innocent and law abiding and legal gun owners" suffered. Some were perhaps inconvenienced as they now had to be accountable for the weapons they owned and could no longer leave them lying around. Owners of guns which were prohibited by the legislation "suffered" the loss of those particular weapons but they were compensated if they participated in the buy back scheme. Although I'm sure some would argue that the level of compensation was insufficient.
User avatar
Ballerina
Posts: 3055
Joined: Thu Sep 12, 2013 6:22 pm
Location: Chesapeake, VA & Saratoga, NY

Mon Feb 19, 2018 12:20 am

Saintly wrote:
Ballerina wrote:It started out a voluntary buy back campaign, but when the government didn't get the number of guns they were after, the buy back became MANDATORY. The Australian government had the names of everyone who owned a gun and what guns they owned. It was like taking candy away from a baby. Perfectly innocent and law abiding and legal gun owners suffered the ramifications of this sweeping agenda. I know from several friends who live in Australia, and this is how they explained it to me.
Wrong again mate. There was no quota. The government had no idea how many guns were out there because registration requirements varied from state to state and some were shoddy at best. And it was mandatory for guns which fell into the prohibited category from the time the legislation came into effect. The buy-back period was in place for 12 months. Other guns merely had to be registered and held in compliance with the legislation. The owners had to be licenced. No "perfectly innocent and law abiding and legal gun owners" suffered. Some were perhaps inconvenienced as they now had to be accountable for the weapons they owned and could no longer leave them lying around. Owners of guns which were prohibited by the legislation "suffered" the loss of those particular weapons but they were compensated if they participated in the buy back scheme. Although I'm sure some would argue that the level of compensation was insufficient.
Ill be sure to pass this info along to MY Australian friends who so far disagree with you.
User avatar
Saintly
Posts: 22
Joined: Thu Sep 26, 2013 10:39 pm

Mon Feb 19, 2018 12:42 am

Ballerina wrote:
Saintly wrote:
Ballerina wrote:It started out a voluntary buy back campaign, but when the government didn't get the number of guns they were after, the buy back became MANDATORY. The Australian government had the names of everyone who owned a gun and what guns they owned. It was like taking candy away from a baby. Perfectly innocent and law abiding and legal gun owners suffered the ramifications of this sweeping agenda. I know from several friends who live in Australia, and this is how they explained it to me.
Wrong again mate. There was no quota. The government had no idea how many guns were out there because registration requirements varied from state to state and some were shoddy at best. And it was mandatory for guns which fell into the prohibited category from the time the legislation came into effect. The buy-back period was in place for 12 months. Other guns merely had to be registered and held in compliance with the legislation. The owners had to be licenced. No "perfectly innocent and law abiding and legal gun owners" suffered. Some were perhaps inconvenienced as they now had to be accountable for the weapons they owned and could no longer leave them lying around. Owners of guns which were prohibited by the legislation "suffered" the loss of those particular weapons but they were compensated if they participated in the buy back scheme. Although I'm sure some would argue that the level of compensation was insufficient.
Ill be sure to pass this info along to MY Australian friends who so far disagree with you.
Knock yourself out mate. But I'd suggest your time might be better spent pondering the issue of American children being slaughtered by fellow Americans and what might be done to prevent recurrences.
User avatar
Ballerina
Posts: 3055
Joined: Thu Sep 12, 2013 6:22 pm
Location: Chesapeake, VA & Saratoga, NY

Mon Feb 19, 2018 1:03 am

Saintly wrote: Knock yourself out mate. But I'd suggest your time might be better spent pondering the issue of American children being slaughtered by fellow Americans and what might be done to prevent recurrences.
Hey, sport, you might want to read some of my posts on this issue if you think for even so much as one minute that I'm not concerned and have not expressed as much. The issue is not about guns. It's about WHY unbalanced young men resort to violence. If one so much as dares to stray from the gun control issue bringing up reasons that cause the effect, they're labeled a gun nut and any other reasoning is labeled "pathetic excuse making". There is no détente on this issue.

http://thefederalist.com/2015/06/25/the ... l-fallacy/
User avatar
Sparrow Castle
Posts: 4959
Joined: Wed Sep 18, 2013 6:44 pm

Mon Feb 19, 2018 2:12 am

Saintly wrote:Hi Sparrow - that's a pretty good summary. With regard to your other questions, some of them are addressed in the article here https://www.sbs.com.au/news/how-easy-is ... -australia

Now, I am Joe Average, living in the suburbs of Melbourne and have no current criminal record. So should I want a gun, I tick most of the boxes. Where I fall short is being able to demonstrate a requirement for a gun. However I reckon I could get around that by declaring I was taking up hunting as a hobby and joining a registered Sporting Shooters Association or gun club. So I get my licence, my permit and of I go and buy a legal gun which is registered to me. A problem with that is that once I have my licence, I can keep buying as many legal guns as I like - there is no limit. So the issue of private citizens holding arsenals has got a little bit of media attention in recent times.

In 1996, perhaps the federal government's finest achievement was to get all of the states singing from the same hymn book (the states being responsible for gun laws). It had to be an all or nothing approach or it wouldn't work.

I'm not trying to paint a picture of some sort of nirvana here. We still have bad guys. We still have armed robberies. We still have murders by guns. But since Port Arthur and the gun law changes in 1996 we've not had another massacre. In the meantime, hunters have gone on hunting, farmers have continued to use guns to control vermin and put down sick / injured stock, target shooters have gone on shooting targets and clay pigeons have the same short lifespan they've always had. Here we can have gun control without impacting those who wish to legitimately use them
Oh thank you, Saintly. That's exactly the information I've been trying to find. I've added to my list of strategies "There's a 28-day mandatory waiting period for a first-time application. If the Permit to Acquire is granted, it is valid for 90 days.". That very well could impact the number of gun suicides, which can be somewhat impulsive, and buy time for others to recognize signs and intervene when someone is contemplating or planning gun violence.

Yes, I know we can't eliminate all gun violence but I do think we can do much better to make an impact on it if we approach this as a public health problem (similar to how we've decreased deaths by automobile accidents). I think it will take a variety of strategies (as was done in Australia) and, short of requiring gun registration and mandatory buyback which this country isn't ready for yet, I don't know how much these strategies will help. But I do know not doing anything sure isn't helping. It's a given that the mental health system needs more funding as well, but there doesn't seem to be much will to improve that either.
User avatar
Saintly
Posts: 22
Joined: Thu Sep 26, 2013 10:39 pm

Mon Feb 19, 2018 2:40 am

Ballerina wrote:
Saintly wrote: Knock yourself out mate. But I'd suggest your time might be better spent pondering the issue of American children being slaughtered by fellow Americans and what might be done to prevent recurrences.
Hey, sport, you might want to read some of my posts on this issue if you think for even so much as one minute that I'm not concerned and have not expressed as much. The issue is not about guns. It's about WHY unbalanced young men resort to violence. If one so much as dares to stray from the gun control issue bringing up reasons that cause the effect, they're labeled a gun nut and any other reasoning is labeled "pathetic excuse making". There is no détente on this issue.

http://thefederalist.com/2015/06/25/the ... l-fallacy/
That's not what I said but it doesn't matter. My issue was with your statement "Australia didn't institute gun control" when clearly it did. That was an inaccuracy I couldn't let pass.

Hopefully you've noted that I haven't entered the"gun control in the US" debate except to opine that Australian gun control laws wouldn't work in the US. The article you provided reinforces that belief and I think you and I both know that the rationale offered in the article is a mere tip of the iceberg as to why our approach wouldn't work in the US.

I've also kept out of the US gun control debate because I wouldn't presume to come onto a US forum (of which I've been a member since 2001) and tell you folk how to run your railroads. Be that guns, pre-race medications or whether the NE Patriots are an evil empire

You are so, so right about the labelling but with the advantage of distance and having no skin in the game, I see the same faults on both side of the argument. Extremism, rhetoric and hysteria seem to be roadblocks to any reasoned debate.
User avatar
Saintly
Posts: 22
Joined: Thu Sep 26, 2013 10:39 pm

Mon Feb 19, 2018 2:43 am

Sparrow Castle wrote:
Saintly wrote:Hi Sparrow - that's a pretty good summary. With regard to your other questions, some of them are addressed in the article here https://www.sbs.com.au/news/how-easy-is ... -australia

Now, I am Joe Average, living in the suburbs of Melbourne and have no current criminal record. So should I want a gun, I tick most of the boxes. Where I fall short is being able to demonstrate a requirement for a gun. However I reckon I could get around that by declaring I was taking up hunting as a hobby and joining a registered Sporting Shooters Association or gun club. So I get my licence, my permit and of I go and buy a legal gun which is registered to me. A problem with that is that once I have my licence, I can keep buying as many legal guns as I like - there is no limit. So the issue of private citizens holding arsenals has got a little bit of media attention in recent times.

In 1996, perhaps the federal government's finest achievement was to get all of the states singing from the same hymn book (the states being responsible for gun laws). It had to be an all or nothing approach or it wouldn't work.

I'm not trying to paint a picture of some sort of nirvana here. We still have bad guys. We still have armed robberies. We still have murders by guns. But since Port Arthur and the gun law changes in 1996 we've not had another massacre. In the meantime, hunters have gone on hunting, farmers have continued to use guns to control vermin and put down sick / injured stock, target shooters have gone on shooting targets and clay pigeons have the same short lifespan they've always had. Here we can have gun control without impacting those who wish to legitimately use them
Oh thank you, Saintly. That's exactly the information I've been trying to find. I've added to my list of strategies "There's a 28-day mandatory waiting period for a first-time application. If the Permit to Acquire is granted, it is valid for 90 days.". That very well could impact the number of gun suicides, which can be somewhat impulsive, and buy time for others to recognize signs and intervene when someone is contemplating or planning gun violence.

Yes, I know we can't eliminate all gun violence but I do think we can do much better to make an impact on it if we approach this as a public health problem (similar to how we've decreased deaths by automobile accidents). I think it will take a variety of strategies (as was done in Australia) and, short of requiring gun registration and mandatory buyback which this country isn't ready for yet, I don't know how much these strategies will help. But I do know not doing anything sure isn't helping. It's a given that the mental health system needs more funding as well, but there doesn't seem to be much will to improve that either.
The mental health system is woefully underfunded here as well Sparrow. Unfortunately I've seen this first hand through my own daughters' illness. It's a silent epidemic
User avatar
Sparrow Castle
Posts: 4959
Joined: Wed Sep 18, 2013 6:44 pm

Mon Feb 19, 2018 3:13 am

Saintly wrote:
Sparrow Castle wrote:
Saintly wrote:Hi Sparrow - that's a pretty good summary. With regard to your other questions, some of them are addressed in the article here https://www.sbs.com.au/news/how-easy-is ... -australia

Now, I am Joe Average, living in the suburbs of Melbourne and have no current criminal record. So should I want a gun, I tick most of the boxes. Where I fall short is being able to demonstrate a requirement for a gun. However I reckon I could get around that by declaring I was taking up hunting as a hobby and joining a registered Sporting Shooters Association or gun club. So I get my licence, my permit and of I go and buy a legal gun which is registered to me. A problem with that is that once I have my licence, I can keep buying as many legal guns as I like - there is no limit. So the issue of private citizens holding arsenals has got a little bit of media attention in recent times.

In 1996, perhaps the federal government's finest achievement was to get all of the states singing from the same hymn book (the states being responsible for gun laws). It had to be an all or nothing approach or it wouldn't work.

I'm not trying to paint a picture of some sort of nirvana here. We still have bad guys. We still have armed robberies. We still have murders by guns. But since Port Arthur and the gun law changes in 1996 we've not had another massacre. In the meantime, hunters have gone on hunting, farmers have continued to use guns to control vermin and put down sick / injured stock, target shooters have gone on shooting targets and clay pigeons have the same short lifespan they've always had. Here we can have gun control without impacting those who wish to legitimately use them
Oh thank you, Saintly. That's exactly the information I've been trying to find. I've added to my list of strategies "There's a 28-day mandatory waiting period for a first-time application. If the Permit to Acquire is granted, it is valid for 90 days.". That very well could impact the number of gun suicides, which can be somewhat impulsive, and buy time for others to recognize signs and intervene when someone is contemplating or planning gun violence.

Yes, I know we can't eliminate all gun violence but I do think we can do much better to make an impact on it if we approach this as a public health problem (similar to how we've decreased deaths by automobile accidents). I think it will take a variety of strategies (as was done in Australia) and, short of requiring gun registration and mandatory buyback which this country isn't ready for yet, I don't know how much these strategies will help. But I do know not doing anything sure isn't helping. It's a given that the mental health system needs more funding as well, but there doesn't seem to be much will to improve that either.
The mental health system is woefully underfunded here as well Sparrow. Unfortunately I've seen this first hand through my own daughters' illness. It's a silent epidemic
Sorry to hear that. My son also. Take care and, again, thank you for your help. I hope you keep posting on TBC. I love Australian racing and a Melbourne Cup visit is on my bucket list!
User avatar
Ballerina
Posts: 3055
Joined: Thu Sep 12, 2013 6:22 pm
Location: Chesapeake, VA & Saratoga, NY

Mon Feb 19, 2018 12:23 pm

[quote="Saintly]That's not what I said but it doesn't matter. My issue was with your statement "Australia didn't institute gun control" when clearly it did. That was an inaccuracy I couldn't let pass.[/quote]

That, too, is not what I said. You've taken what I wrote out of context. This is what I wrote -

Australia didn't institute gun control. They instituted gun confiscation. It's not going to happen in the USA.

As mentioned previously, Australia has 25 million population; USA has 330 million. Major, major difference.
User avatar
Saintly
Posts: 22
Joined: Thu Sep 26, 2013 10:39 pm

Mon Feb 19, 2018 6:57 pm

Sparrow Castle wrote:
Saintly wrote:
Sparrow Castle wrote: Oh thank you, Saintly. That's exactly the information I've been trying to find. I've added to my list of strategies "There's a 28-day mandatory waiting period for a first-time application. If the Permit to Acquire is granted, it is valid for 90 days.". That very well could impact the number of gun suicides, which can be somewhat impulsive, and buy time for others to recognize signs and intervene when someone is contemplating or planning gun violence.

Yes, I know we can't eliminate all gun violence but I do think we can do much better to make an impact on it if we approach this as a public health problem (similar to how we've decreased deaths by automobile accidents). I think it will take a variety of strategies (as was done in Australia) and, short of requiring gun registration and mandatory buyback which this country isn't ready for yet, I don't know how much these strategies will help. But I do know not doing anything sure isn't helping. It's a given that the mental health system needs more funding as well, but there doesn't seem to be much will to improve that either.
The mental health system is woefully underfunded here as well Sparrow. Unfortunately I've seen this first hand through my own daughters' illness. It's a silent epidemic
Sorry to hear that. My son also. Take care and, again, thank you for your help. I hope you keep posting on TBC. I love Australian racing and a Melbourne Cup visit is on my bucket list!
Unlikely mate. Even back in the day when I was here on TBC pretty much every day, I wasn't a prolific poster. These days I just swing past about this time of year to get a feel for which horses to look out for in the leadup to the Triple Crown. Any thoughts on that ?

Hope you get to tick off your bucket list. Cup Week in particular is a lot of fun and that October / November period is when racing takes centre stage here
stark
Posts: 4150
Joined: Thu Oct 03, 2013 9:55 am
Location: SoCal

Tue Feb 20, 2018 7:25 pm

Two quick questions....

1) What do y'all think about the shooter offering to plead Guilty in exchange for life in prison with no death penalty?

2) Any idea who is funding the kids protests, the buses etc?
https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/19/politics ... index.html
I've found it easier to tear up tickets at 8/1 instead of 8/5.
User avatar
Ballerina
Posts: 3055
Joined: Thu Sep 12, 2013 6:22 pm
Location: Chesapeake, VA & Saratoga, NY

Tue Feb 20, 2018 11:05 pm

stark wrote:Two quick questions....

1) What do y'all think about the shooter offering to plead Guilty in exchange for life in prison with no death penalty?

2) Any idea who is funding the kids protests, the buses etc?
https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/19/politics ... index.html
I'm not for the death penalty - takes way too long to accomplish. Lock this kid up for life, no parole - maybe put him in the general population - that'll take care of the death penalty.

Haven't a clue as to financing - maybe the ACLU
BaroqueAgain1
Posts: 9879
Joined: Sat Sep 14, 2013 6:16 pm

Tue Feb 20, 2018 11:25 pm

Maybe some very involved parents and teachers? Who are terrified that their child or student might be next? :? :(
stark
Posts: 4150
Joined: Thu Oct 03, 2013 9:55 am
Location: SoCal

Wed Feb 21, 2018 12:24 pm

BaroqueAgain1 wrote:Maybe some very involved parents and teachers? Who are terrified that their child or student might be next? :? :(
They seem to me to be too organized for a grass roots effort like what is going on, never even saw mention of a GoFundMe page, somebody is organizing it.

And this just in.....

“Amal and I are so inspired by the courage and eloquence of these young men and women from Stoneman Douglas High School,” George Clooney said in a statement Tuesday. “Our family will be there on March 24 to stand side by side with this incredible generation of young people from all over the country, and in the name of our children Ella and Alexander, we’re donating $500,000 to help pay for this groundbreaking event. Our children’s lives depend on it.”

Hours later, Oprah Winfrey donated half a million dollars herself to the cause, tweeting....
George and Amal, I couldn’t agree with you more. I am joining forces with you and will match your $500,000 donation to ‘March For Our Lives.’ These inspiring young people remind me of the Freedom Riders of the 60s who also said we’ve had ENOUGH and our voices will be heard.
I've found it easier to tear up tickets at 8/1 instead of 8/5.
User avatar
Ballerina
Posts: 3055
Joined: Thu Sep 12, 2013 6:22 pm
Location: Chesapeake, VA & Saratoga, NY

Wed Feb 21, 2018 2:29 pm

Supposedly this kid inherited nearly a million dollars from his late adoptive mother. I'm sure the courts will force him to use that money for a legal defense (should he not plead out) instead of asking for a court appointed attorney.
stark
Posts: 4150
Joined: Thu Oct 03, 2013 9:55 am
Location: SoCal

Wed Feb 21, 2018 3:29 pm

Ballerina wrote:Supposedly this kid inherited nearly a million dollars from his late adoptive mother. I'm sure the courts will force him to use that money for a legal defense (should he not plead out) instead of asking for a court appointed attorney.
Have to wonder just how "nice" the new parents were knowing that he was scheduled for the $800,000 on his 22nd birthday, hmmm!
The day after the shooting they filed papers in court seeking financial control.
I've found it easier to tear up tickets at 8/1 instead of 8/5.
Post Reply