Political Correctness thread

[irish1958]

Why stop at 16? Don't toddlers have constitutional rights?

With the number of mothers shot and killed by their toddlers recently, and not counting the number of siblings they have gunned down, they are apparently goods shots already.

 

[Legacy]

Obviously more gun presence = less gun violences. duh!

We should lower the age to own guns to 16, we are denying our youth of their constitutional rights.

Absolutely.

Despite the U.S. ranking (by far) the highest gun ownership in the world (88.8 guns per 100 people) with total civilian guns of 270 million, we can do more by lowering the age limit. The U.S. has 5% of the world's population but 35-50% of world's civilian-owned guns. Not high enough for our safety and independence.

Do away with those gun-free zones. Those 270 million guns can't legally be carried in our schools and universities.

We need to defend ourselves from worsening violence by arming all our law-abiding citizens.

 

[EddytoNow]

I'm NOT making a case to do nothing about bullying. Nor am I putting my head in the sand and pretending it doesn't exist, but..........

Bullying exists not because kids are different, but because kids are immature and cruel. Obviously not all of them are, but in general...... You could send every transgendered kid to their own special school, and the kids at the local High School who participate in bullying will just find someone else to bully. So let's say that you "save" the transgendered kids from bullying? What's next? Are you going to have special gym classes for weak kids, to protect them? Are you going to have special sports programs for awkward kids? If you want to change bullying, you have to change the attitudes of kids. You have to provide the "regular" kids with an outlet for their angst and insecurity, that doesn't involve belittling others. You simply CANNOT legislate bullying out of existence. Maybe a better answer is to not lump schools in with grocery stores, in regards to issues like this?

Schools need to be more pro-active in punishing those who bully. Don't send the victims to different schools. Expel or suspend the bullies. The policy of most schools is to pretend the problem doesn't exist until forced to face the issue by a lawsuit. In the meantime, how do we protect transgenders from the beatings they will be subjected to in unsupervised public restrooms? I say we protect the victims first and deal with reforming the bullies second. The victims rights should take precedence over those of the bullies.

 

[GoIrish41]

Absolutely.

Despite the U.S. ranking (by far) the highest gun ownership in the world (88.8 guns per people) with total civilian guns of 270 million, we can do more by lowering the age limit. The U.S. has 5% of the world's population but 35-50% of world's civilian-owned guns. Not high enough for our safety and independence.

Do away with those gun-free zones. Those 270 million guns can't legally be carried in our schools and universities.

We need to defend ourselves from worsening violence by arming all our law-abiding citizens.

If this logic is applied around the world, we will soon be hearing arguments that all countries having nukes will make the world a safer place. Anybody want to go all in on Libya having a nuke arsenal? It is just an absurd idea to fix a problem with more of the problem. We have more guns per person than about any country on earth. If what you are saying is true, we would be the safest country in the world. We're not. We have mass shootings, and other gun violence at a higher rate than most, too. On the other hand countries with the strictest gun laws are generally safer from gun violence. It's almost like you have to ignore facts to come to the conclusion that more guns = more safety.

 

[kmoose]

Schools need to be more pro-active in punishing those who bully. Don't send the victims to different schools. Expel or suspend the bullies. The policy of most schools is to pretend the problem doesn't exist until forced to face the issue by a lawsuit. In the meantime, how do we protect transgenders from the beatings they will be subjected to in unsupervised public restrooms? I say we protect the victims first and deal with reforming the bullies second. The victims rights should take precedence over those of the bullies.

Has there been some rash of transgenders getting beat up in bathrooms? You liberals are all saying that Conservatives are worried about a problem that isn't common, in predators using lax laws to hang around bathrooms. Aren't you doing the same thing here? I never said that we should not protect victims of bullying. What I said was that maybe we shouldn't treat schools as the same kind of public place as a grocery store? Maybe there are "classes" of public areas, and not all laws are applied to each and every class, depending on their needs?

 

[Legacy]

If this logic is applied around the world, we will soon be hearing arguments that all countries having nukes will make the world a safer place. Anybody want to go all in on Libya having a nuke arsenal? It is just an absurd idea to fix a problem with more of the problem. We have more guns per person than about any country on earth. If what you are saying is true, we would be the safest country in the world. We're not. We have mass shootings, and other gun violence at a higher rate than most, too. On the other hand countries with the strictest gun laws are generally safer from gun violence. It's almost like you have to ignore facts to come to the conclusion that more guns = more safety.

My post corrected to "88.8 per 100 persons". Apologies for not including the "100".

Do you really think that 89% of the population owning 270 million guns is too much? You're not being politically correct.

The second highest is Yemen (54.8%) then Switzerland (45.7%)) Of course, the Swiss for a long time required gun ownership to defend their country.
The next highest Total Civilian Guns is India at 46 million and China at 40 million. But they rank 110th and 101st in rate of gun ownership.

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

If this logic is applied around the world, we will soon be hearing arguments that all countries having nukes will make the world a safer place. Anybody want to go all in on Libya having a nuke arsenal? It is just an absurd idea to fix a problem with more of the problem. We have more guns per person than about any country on earth. If what you are saying is true, we would be the safest country in the world. We're not. We have mass shootings, and other gun violence at a higher rate than most, too. On the other hand countries with the strictest gun laws are generally safer from gun violence. It's almost like you have to ignore facts to come to the conclusion that more guns = more safety.

Wanna take a field trip to Chicago?

 

[GoIrish41]

Wanna take a field trip to Chicago?

Let's go to London instead. Much safer.

 

[Legacy]

The CDC had been doing research on gun violence under their Division of Injury Prevention and Control, but Congress in 1996 in a budget amendment passed a moratorium on that research. Obama proposed to fund that research again in 2014 & 2015 but Congress would have none of that. The CDC - probably due to 10,000 deaths per year in ages 13 to 30 - thought that gun violence may be an appropriate research topic. Why research it when it is not politically correct?

The Harvard School of Public Health does. (Firearms Research)

Harvard Injury Control Research Center

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

Let's go to London instead. Much safer.

So you'd rather brush off the facts of life in Chicago because it doesn't fit with how you see the world.

Meanwhile, our friends in the UK are coming to grips with their own realities:

In The UK, Guns Aren't The Problem, It's Knives. And The Number Of Attacks Are Surging - Matt Vespa

"The rise in knife attacks has been in the UK press since 2008–and they’ve increased by 13 percent since last year."

Man with machete shouts 'this is for Syria' as stabs London man at Leytonstone station | UK | News | Daily Express

"A 'MACHETE-WIELDING' man who slashed an unassuming passenger's throat at a London station as he shouted 'This is for Syria is being treated as a terror suspect, police have revealed."

While you and I are on our trip to the UK, I'm curious to know your plan of defense if a pissed off Syrian comes at us with a machete aiming for our throats. I sure as hell hope it isn't hiding in the corner in the fetile position.

 

[pkt77242]

So you'd rather brush off the facts of life in Chicago because it doesn't fit with how you see the world.

Meanwhile, our friends in the UK are coming to grips with their own realities:

In The UK, Guns Aren't The Problem, It's Knives. And The Number Of Attacks Are Surging - Matt Vespa

"The rise in knife attacks has been in the UK press since 2008–and they’ve increased by 13 percent since last year."

Man with machete shouts 'this is for Syria' as stabs London man at Leytonstone station | UK | News | Daily Express

"A 'MACHETE-WIELDING' man who slashed an unassuming passenger's throat at a London station as he shouted 'This is for Syria is being treated as a terror suspect, police have revealed."

While you and I are on our trip to the UK, I'm curious to know your plan of defense if a pissed off Syrian comes at us with a machete aiming for our throats. I sure as hell hope it isn't hiding in the corner in the fetile position.

This argument about Chicago again. Yes Chicago has tight gun laws and lots of gun deaths but if you conveniently ignore that Indiana and Wisconsin are very short drives from Chicago and have significantly laxer gun laws. Chicago does not exist in a vacuum, it is affected by the gun laws of the areas around it (and the culture within it, it is not all the "guns" fault, there are significant culture issues there as well).

Also you bring up knife attacks in the UK.

Lets look at the numbers of homicides by country.
UK (wales and england)
574 homicides, 56 million residents
574/56,000,000 = .00001 or .001%
US
14,000 homicides, 318 million
14000/318000000 = 00004 or .004%

Both rates are very low but one is definitely higher than the other.
Now there are other things to consider when comparing homicide rates between the UK and the US, but guns are definitely a significant part of that conversation.

Look maybe you can live in fear of a knife attack in the U.K. but if so then what are you doing in the U.S. where you are significantly more likely to die in a homicide?

 

[IrishSteelhead]

This argument about Chicago again. Yes Chicago has tight gun laws and lots of gun deaths but if you conveniently ignore that Indiana and Wisconsin are very short drives from Chicago and have significantly laxer gun laws. Chicago does not exist in a vacuum, it is affected by the gun laws of the areas around it (and the culture within it, it is not all the "guns" fault, there are significant culture issues there as well).



Also you bring up knife attacks in the UK.



Lets look at the numbers of homicides by country.

UK (wales and england)

574 homicides, 56 million residents

574/56,000,000 = .00001 or .001%

US

14,000 homicides, 318 million

14000/318000000 = 00004 or .004%



Both rates are very low but one is definitely higher than the other.

Now there are other things to consider when comparing homicide rates between the UK and the US, but guns are definitely a significant part of that conversation.



Look maybe you can live in fear of a knife attack in the U.K. but if so then what are you doing in the U.S. where you are significantly more likely to die in a homicide?

It goes way beyond border states. I used to go to gun shows in AZ, which is a complete cowboy state (hand the guy money and take your gun, transaction over), and the parking lot would be filled with cars that had Illinois and New York plates.

 

[zelezo vlk]

This argument about Chicago again. Yes Chicago has tight gun laws and lots of gun deaths but if you conveniently ignore that Indiana and Wisconsin are very short drives from Chicago and have significantly laxer gun laws. Chicago does not exist in a vacuum, it is affected by the gun laws of the areas around it (and the culture within it, it is not all the "guns" fault, there are significant culture issues there as well).

I'm actually pretty sure that if you're an Illinois Resident, you need an FOID card to still buy out of state. I'm not exactly sure what restrictions would be lifted simply by going over the border into Indiana.

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

This argument about Chicago again. Yes Chicago has tight gun laws and lots of gun deaths but if you conveniently ignore that Indiana and Wisconsin are very short drives from Chicago and have significantly laxer gun laws. Chicago does not exist in a vacuum, it is affected by the gun laws of the areas around it (and the culture within it, it is not all the "guns" fault, there are significant culture issues there as well).

Also you bring up knife attacks in the UK.

Lets look at the numbers of homicides by country.
UK (wales and england)
574 homicides, 56 million residents
574/56,000,000 = .00001 or .001%
US
14,000 homicides, 318 million
14000/318000000 = 00004 or .004%

Both rates are very low but one is definitely higher than the other.
Now there are other things to consider when comparing homicide rates between the UK and the US, but guns are definitely a significant part of that conversation.

Look maybe you can live in fear of a knife attack in the U.K. but if so then what are you doing in the U.S. where you are significantly more likely to die in a homicide?

Yeah, and those cultural issues have a helluva lot more to do with the problems than friggin Wisconsin and Indiana.

I don't live in fear of a knife attack, mainly because I live on 6 acres in the country and legally own a firearm. The point was that even in the UK where guns hardly exist, murder and violent crime exist. People just find alternate means.

 

[pkt77242]

I'm actually pretty sure that if you're an Illinois Resident, you need an FOID card to still buy out of state. I'm not exactly sure what restrictions would be lifted simply by going over the border into Indiana.

I believe that you are right about the FOID card, but does that really apply to private party sales?

For example, Mexican cartels get many of their guns in AZ (straw buyers, etc) because AZ has lax gun laws, I was thinking of a similar type of set-up for the gangs in Chicago.

 

[zelezo vlk]

I believe that you are right about the FOID card, but does that really apply to private party sales?

For example, Mexican cartels get many of their guns in AZ (straw buyers, etc) because AZ has lax gun laws, I was thinking of a similar type of set-up for the gangs in Chicago.

Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence – Gun Law Information Experts

Looks like it might.

 

[pkt77242]

Yeah, and those cultural issues have a helluva lot more to do with the problems than friggin Wisconsin and Indiana.

I don't live in fear of a knife attack, mainly because I live on 6 acres in the country and legally own a firearm. The point was that even in the UK where guns hardly exist, murder and violent crime exist. People just find alternate means.

You are still significantly more likely to die from a homicide in the US in comparison to the UK. So while murder does exist, it is significantly less likely to happen there then here.

*I am not for banning guns, partly because it is logistically impossible to do so (even if the Constitution could be amended), the proverbial cat is out of the bag. I am for studying what gun laws work and which don't but it is very difficult to do that due the pro-gun lobby.

To me it needs to be a two prong approach, 1. looking at the root cause of gun violence and how we can change society to prevent most (you can never prevent all) of it. 2. intelligent, well-crafted gun laws that don't have more holes than swiss cheese.

 

[pkt77242]

Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence – Gun Law Information Experts

Looks like it might.

That seems to apply in Illinois. I don't see why a private seller in Indiana would have to abide by that law (I get why a gun shop would have to though), how could Illinois enforce that?

 

[GoIrish41]

So you'd rather brush off the facts of life in Chicago because it doesn't fit with how you see the world.

Meanwhile, our friends in the UK are coming to grips with their own realities:

In The UK, Guns Aren't The Problem, It's Knives. And The Number Of Attacks Are Surging - Matt Vespa

"The rise in knife attacks has been in the UK press since 2008–and they’ve increased by 13 percent since last year."

Man with machete shouts 'this is for Syria' as stabs London man at Leytonstone station | UK | News | Daily Express

"A 'MACHETE-WIELDING' man who slashed an unassuming passenger's throat at a London station as he shouted 'This is for Syria is being treated as a terror suspect, police have revealed."

While you and I are on our trip to the UK, I'm curious to know your plan of defense if a pissed off Syrian comes at us with a machete aiming for our throats. I sure as hell hope it isn't hiding in the corner in the fetile position.

Just think how much damage that guy could have done with an AR15 with a drum magazine. Are they having a problem with mass stabbing in England, red wedding style? There are millions of guns in the US that cross borders. If I can by a machine gun in Arkansas, there is nothing keeping me from going to Chicago to use it. So, your example is not very good. And the knife as a replacement for guns argument is weak because of the amount of carnage one can do with a knife does not compare to a semi-automatic weapon.

 

[zelezo vlk]

That seems to apply in Illinois. I don't see why a private seller in Indiana would have to abide by that law (I get why a gun shop would have to though), how could Illinois enforce that?

How legal is that for residents for any state? I'm really struggling to find sources that say whether it's legal or illegal (source is usually ATF). At the very least, I think that the sale must be through somebody who is licensed, but I'm not an expert on gun laws.

I'm not trying to be a dick, but do you have experience with this? Because I was always told by my gun owning friends back in Illinois that everything would be through sellers and private parties were complicated.

 

[IrishJayhawk]

Just think how much damage that guy could have done with an AR15 with a drum magazine. Are they having a problem with mass stabbing in England, red wedding style? There are millions of guns in the US that cross borders. If I can by a machine gun in Arkansas, there is nothing keeping me from going to Chicago to use it. So, your example is not very good. And the knife as a replacement for guns argument is week because of the amount of carnage one can do with a knife does not compare to a semi-automatic weapon.

The same day as Sandy Hook, there was a knife attack at a primary school in China. 24 wounded, no deaths.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chenpeng_Village_Primary_School_stabbing

 

[Legacy]

Lets look at the numbers of homicides by country.
UK (wales and england)
574 homicides, 56 million residents
574/56,000,000 = .00001 or .001%

US
14,000 homicides, 318 million
14000/318000000 = 00004 or .004%

Here's Gun homicides and gun ownership by country (click on column header to arrange by "homicides by gun per 100,000").

U.S. ranks 27th (3.2 per 100,000). Of the top eighteen, seventeen are in Latin America - Central, South America and the Caribbean. Of the top twenty-six, only three are not Latin America countries (South Africa, Phillipines, and Zimbabwe). Honderas ranks the highest at 68.43 per 100k. El Salvador ranks second and Guatemala is fifth. (England and Wales have 0.07 homicides per 100,000.)

Some would argue that we need a wall to separate ourselves from all this violence. But almost all these LA countries rank low in gun ownership per person (most 50-110th). Current political gun theory indicate that more guns per person should increase safety.

We should then export guns to Latin America to increase their gun ownership to lower their homicide rates, right? We could send some handguns back with the women and their children being deported back to Central America.

 

[Legacy]

FBI’s Violent Crime Statistics For Every City In America

 

[phgreek]

The transgender bathroom issue is a matter of protecting transgenders from excessive bullying (physical, mental, and emotional). Adding a few private bathrooms would not be a major expense. I've witnessed schools spend multiple thousands of dollars remodeling the principal's office or the superintendent's office every time someone new is hired for the position. They also spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on new technology annually. Technology that is outdated in 3-5 years. Our district recently spent a million dollars upgrading the football field and a couple hundred thousand dollars upgrading the soccer field. The football field is used 4-5 times per year. The soccer field is used 8-10 times per year. Our district also provides buses for every child in school. About 1/3 of the students live within one-half mile of school. Another 1/3 lives within a mile of school. All of those students could walk to school on paved sidewalks. We also pay aides to supervise the playground, positions that could be filled by volunteer parents. So the money to construct private restroom facilities is already available. School administrators just have higher priorities than the safety of a few transgenders or other groups that may be singled out for bullying.

School officials like to pretend they don't have a problem with bullying. They tend to ignore the issue until confronted with a suicide, a videotaped and publicized beat down, or a lawsuit.

The solution is simple. Several private bathrooms available to students who are uncomfortable or feel unsafe using a public bathroom. In the long run, it's less expensive than paying the lawyers and the settlement awarded by a jury when the school has failed to provide a safe environment for the students. It's also cheaper than putting a security guard in every restroom.

The updating of technology has a specific educational mission, and measurable result. The superintendent's office update sounds like a district problem, not generally applicable to many schools who can't buy supplies enough to prevent teachers from having to go out of pocket. If your district has teachers going out of pocket AND the superintendent wastes money...someone needs to get run out of dodge.

I don't doubt there is bullying...tell me how allowing anyone to use any restroom helps that again? It seems to me the presence of male genitalia in a women's room might come off threatening to everyone who is biologically and emotionally female.

Providing a safety valve in private restrooms might be ok. It costs money. I took you to say the capital expenditures for a new/upgraded football field were funded by education dollars? Assuming there wasn't a safety issue involved, usually that happens through outside sources who've raised funds for that purpose... If you say it happened I believe you, but that wouldn't fly here. So if this initiative is critical enough to require immediate infrastructure changes, folks who are on board should be doing some fund raising. Also, who defines what is "good enough"? If you do not have guidelines to follow, how would those poor fund raisers even know what the goal was? This is poorly done, and as offered won't help truly transgender kids...it will cause them to be more isolated because even people that carried no animus on the subject of gender dysphoria will be angry based on having this foisted upon them...with nothing but DOJ waiting to make some examples out of people...NICE.

 

[IrishSteelhead]

I believe that you are right about the FOID card, but does that really apply to criminals that don't follow the letter of the law anyways?.

FIFY

 

[EddytoNow]

The updating of technology has a specific educational mission, and measurable result. The superintendent's office update sounds like a district problem, not generally applicable to many schools who can't buy supplies enough to prevent teachers from having to go out of pocket. If your district has teachers going out of pocket AND the superintendent wastes money...someone needs to get run out of dodge.

I don't doubt there is bullying...tell me how allowing anyone to use any restroom helps that again? It seems to me the presence of male genitalia in a women's room might come off threatening to everyone who is biologically and emotionally female.

Providing a safety valve in private restrooms might be ok. It costs money. I took you to say the capital expenditures for a new/upgraded football field were funded by education dollars? Assuming there wasn't a safety issue involved, usually that happens through outside sources who've raised funds for that purpose... If you say it happened I believe you, but that wouldn't fly here. So if this initiative is critical enough to require immediate infrastructure changes, folks who are on board should be doing some fund raising. Also, who defines what is "good enough"? If you do not have guidelines to follow, how would those poor fund raisers even know what the goal was? This is poorly done, and as offered won't help truly transgender kids...it will cause them to be more isolated because even people that carried no animus on the subject of gender dysphoria will be angry based on having this foisted upon them...with nothing but DOJ waiting to make some examples out of people...NICE.

My suggestion was to construct a few private bathrooms. The funding could be obtained by purchasing new technology every other year instead of every year. Or perhaps by playing on athletic fields that are not the equivalent of minor league ballparks. Or maybe by having students living within a half mile of school walk to school instead of riding the bus. Or eliminate the air conditioning that cools only the offices of administrators. You are correct in stating that these things shouldn't be happening in schools where teachers are using their personal income to purchase necessities for their classrooms, but money is being misspent in nearly all schools. For example, the Detroit Public Schools may run out of money and not be able to pay its teachers for days already worked. Many buildings are infested with rodents and physically unfit to be used. Those same schools have had several administrators indicted for accepting kickbacks, signing invoices and pocketing money for materials that were paid for but never delivered, etc. The current governor rushed through legislation that lowered taxes on the wealthy while gutting funding for education. He installed his own, hand-picked emergency managers, and things have gotten worse for Detroit Public School students. The money is (or was) there. Priorities for spending it need to change.

 

[phgreek]

My suggestion was to construct a few private bathrooms. The funding could be obtained by purchasing new technology every other year instead of every year. Or perhaps by playing on athletic fields that are not the equivalent of minor league ballparks. Or maybe by having students living within a half mile of school walk to school instead of riding the bus. Or eliminate the air conditioning that cools only the offices of administrators. You are correct in stating that these things shouldn't be happening in schools where teachers are using their personal income to purchase necessities for their classrooms, but money is being misspent in nearly all schools. For example, the Detroit Public Schools may run out of money and not be able to pay its teachers for days already worked. Many buildings are infested with rodents and physically unfit to be used. Those same schools have had several administrators indicted for accepting kickbacks, signing invoices and pocketing money for materials that were paid for but never delivered, etc. The current governor rushed through legislation that lowered taxes on the wealthy while gutting funding for education. He installed his own, hand-picked emergency managers, and things have gotten worse for Detroit Public School students. The money is (or was) there. Priorities for spending it need to change.

...lets look at places not crawling with people ranging between incompetent and criminal...just the normal school district.

I guess I'm unclear where the money comes from to do that out of the short or long range budget cycle to coincide with the administration and DOJ's urgency on this issue?

While your solution may seem logical at the jump...is it enough/correct when it is up to Civil Liberties advocates and the DOJ?

Again, with no guidance, no realistic deadlines, and no money...you seriously think this is going to HELP anyone? Yes this is a serious issue...RARE but serious. Is the way this was handled insightful at all? With none of specifications, budget, and timelines, the political and government-weaponizing nature of the Obama Administration is transparent. Look at it this way...I believe ADA, provided specifications, budget, and compliance deadlines...or was at least implemented with a DOJ trying not to use the issue to kill opponents to their political view.

 

[dshans]

Let's go to London instead. Much safer.

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/4ykpfMXOoeE" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

[Legacy]

My suggestion was to construct a few private bathrooms. The funding could be obtained by purchasing new technology every other year instead of every year. Or perhaps by playing on athletic fields that are not the equivalent of minor league ballparks. Or maybe by having students living within a half mile of school walk to school instead of riding the bus. Or eliminate the air conditioning that cools only the offices of administrators. You are correct in stating that these things shouldn't be happening in schools where teachers are using their personal income to purchase necessities for their classrooms, but money is being misspent in nearly all schools. For example, the Detroit Public Schools may run out of money and not be able to pay its teachers for days already worked. Many buildings are infested with rodents and physically unfit to be used. Those same schools have had several administrators indicted for accepting kickbacks, signing invoices and pocketing money for materials that were paid for but never delivered, etc. The current governor rushed through legislation that lowered taxes on the wealthy while gutting funding for education. He installed his own, hand-picked emergency managers, and things have gotten worse for Detroit Public School students. The money is (or was) there. Priorities for spending it need to change.

It’s Time To Stop Spending Tens of Millions of Dollars On High School Football Stadiums (Texas Monthly)

It’s no revelation to say that in this state of ours, football is the second most cherished religion we’ve got—right after Christianity and just before complaining about the heat. But the trend of high school football stadiums that cost tens of millions of dollars has got to stop. All high school football stadiums need are bleachers, grass, lights, and a concession stand that sells Frito Pie.

As a part of a $220 million bond package, McKinney ISD is adding an opulent events center and 12,000-seat high school football stadium that will cost a total of $62.8 million. According to the Dallas Morning News, the stadium, set to open in 2017, will cost $50.3 million itself with $12.5 million used from a previous bond package passed in 2000 that will go towards stadium infrastructure: roads, water, sewer, electricity. Manhattan Construction has been hired to build the stadium, and if that name rings a bell, it’s because they were behind Houston’s NRG Stadium, Globe Life Park, and AT&T Stadium—home of the Dallas Cowboys of Arlington. The bond package also includes $62.5 million for upgrades throughout the district, with $51.4 million allocated toward additions and renovations to six of the schools in the district.

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

Just think how much damage that guy could have done with an AR15 with a drum magazine. Are they having a problem with mass stabbing in England, red wedding style? There are millions of guns in the US that cross borders. If I can by a machine gun in Arkansas, there is nothing keeping me from going to Chicago to use it. So, your example is not very good. And the knife as a replacement for guns argument is weak because of the amount of carnage one can do with a knife does not compare to a semi-automatic weapon.

Comparing guns to knives is silly and that's not what I was doing. That's what you did to ignore the fact that if people want to kill they're going to, even without guns. That tells me your fantasy land of "no homicide" because "no guns" looks a little more like a scene from Braveheart.